The education system in the US is abandoning the scientific method when it comes to 'climate change'

Power Line:

If you dispute the inflated and inconsistent claims of global warming alarmists, you are denounced as anti-science. You may even find yourself under investigation. But is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming actually a scientific theory at all?

A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable. Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies. Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory’s implications do, in fact, obtain. They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn’t work to say: If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue. Voila! Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong. Period.

Also: a model is not evidence. A model is a theory. Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.

This is so elementary that it shouldn’t need to be explained. But apparently, America’s public schools are not teaching the scientific method. Otherwise, how to explain the Green New Deal?

The alarmists’ predictions of rapidly rising global temperatures have repeatedly failed to come true, which is why the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dramatically scaled back its predictions of future temperature increases a few years ago. Thus, the alarmists shifted to “climate change,” a hopelessly flexible concept that can be assigned to any untoward weather event.
...

I have pointed out in the past that models used by the climate change crowd are in fact projections based on certain assumptions.  When those projections are not met it is always because one or more of the assumptions made for the model were invalid.  The alleged scientist can't seem to figure out which of their assumptions was invalid but I suspect they are overstating the impact of increased CO2.   If they were serious scientists they would admit this reality.