Since this comes up a lot, a quick run though of the testable, falsifiable, science that supports a human cause of recent trends in global mean temperature.pic.twitter.com/VfjAuBgQQt
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
We can also look at the testable, falsifiable, theories that were tested, and failed.
Solar forcing? Fails the strat cooling test.
Ocean circulation change? Fails the OHC increase test
Orbital forcing? Fails on multiple levels 
If you have a theory that you don't think has been falsified, or you think you can falsify the mainstream conclusions, that's great! We can test that too! (But lots of people have tried this already so expect there to be an answer already).
PS. Actually, it's even a bit harder. Not only would you need to find a theory that does as well as the current theory, but you'd also need to show why the current theory isn't operative.
This is not what falsifiable means. An experiment should assert at least one testable conclusion. "Model looks good" can just be overfitting.
citation needed for that requirement, with some examples (prays it's not "but popper")
I don’t think you understand what falsifiable means. If I say rise in CO2 makes the sun come up in the morning. It’s only falsifiable if I can have a reduction of CO2 and then check if the sun comes up or not. Since we don’t have a world with falling CO2 it’s not possible
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.