According to the definitions in the article, that would be an “ambiguous record” at best. So at best, we have 6 years without an ambiguous record and 13 years without an unambiguous record. Either way, a new record is overdue.
I disagree. The global warming hypothesis – as commonly understood – rests primarily on computer simulations. If the prominent computer simulations as selected by the IPCC turn out to have been wrong, then where does that leave the hypothesis?
It gets back to Pepper’s point. This isn’t a game where the warmists get to keep moving the goalposts.
I agree, but this is not a situation where the warmists said that there was a 95% chance of X and a 95% chance of Y and a 95% chance of Z. The prediction is confined to temperature records.
Well you have to draw the line somewhere. Where would you draw it? 99%? 99.9%? At some point you are just clinging to a hypothesis.
Waldo’s question seems pretty clear to me. At the end of the day, a scientific hypothesis asserts that something will NOT happen. If the global warming hypothesis doesn’t rule out any possibilities (or at least make those possibilities unlikely), then it’s not a scientific hypothesis.