Given that the climate changers don’t understand the scientific method, I’ll comment a little more on the philosophy or rationale of the method.
Say we suspect the existence of an iron ore body, of magnetite, some 300 meters below the Earth’s surface, from the interpretation of an airborne geophysical survey. Maps are produced with 3-D imagery showing the trajectory of the proposed drill hole into the interpreted iron ore target.
Everyone would concur that this interpretation, given the regional geology of iron rich rocks, some of which crop out and others hidden underground, is correct.
Correct until a hole is drilled into the target to test it.
This is the mechanism of the scientific method. Something is observed, an explanation offered, and then tested, here by drilling.
Two outcomes are possible, pass or fail.
So the hole is drilled and the interpreted buried orebody not encountered; how do we react to this new data?
(I must stress that the over-riding principle is that the 3-D model is describing an object in the here and now, and that the geophysical anomaly, here a magnetic anomaly, will not disappear over time. The scientific method only works for phenomena in the here and now).
The scientific mind will, on the result of the drilling, conclude the geophysical interpretation failed, implying that the theory has a problem, and hence accepts the modelling is false;
The non-scientific mind will, on the contrary, tentatively accepts the result but will introduce an ad hoc adjustment to reschedule the test into the future for another attempt when it is believed the theory, or modelling, will be verified.
Which put politely implies that the non-scientist expects the non existent magnetite orebody to magically appear in the future.
This approach is simply prophecy, and is used in climate science to assert that in the future catastrophic global warming will occur.
One reason why climate scientists are not employed in the mineral exploration business.