IPCC - Ink Blot or stain on Scientific Method?

My Photo
Roger Pielke, Jr.

is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also has appointments as a Visiting Senior Fellow, Mackinder Programme, London School of Economics and Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. I am also a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.
Today he has written on his blog Science, Policy, Politics and occasionally other stuff
a post titled:

Ink Blots, Ambiguity and Outcomes in the Real World

He discusses how the IPCC (and I might add - all the sycophants and Non-Investigative Main Stream Media) blame any climate event on the planet with the falsified hypothesis of man-made (or Anthropogenic) Global Warming.

The ink blot nature of climate science would be a non-issue if it were a field like philosophy or cosmology in which people were debating non-empirical claims for academic interests. But climate science -- or at least a very visible part of that field -- has set forth on an evangelistic path in trying to convince the unconvinced of their views among politicians and the general public.  But the ink blot nature of climate science leaves climate scientists in a position of arguing from authority or demanding that people need "trust us."

After some argument, Professor Pielke closes:

There are two ways for the climate science community to move beyond an ink blot (if it wishes to do so). One would be to advance predictions that are in fact conventionally falsifiable (or otherwise able to be evaluated) based on experience.  This would mean risking being wrong, like economists do all the time. The second would be to openly admit that uncertainties are so large that such predictions are not in the offing. This would neither diminish the case for action on climate change nor the standing of climate science, in fact it may just have the opposite effect. 

The default will be the status quo, which means climate science as inkblot -- and the associated arguments from authority, "trust us" and politicization that comes along with it.