Climate science is entirely falsifiable - it just hasn't been falsified despite all the fortunes spent on trying to do so. Nobody has yet managed to do a real experiment that showed CO2 NOT acting as a greenhouse gas (that would falsify it). Nobody has yet found a single shred of evidence that disproves the theory - while there are thousands of independent sources of evidence that all support it, and nobody has yet come up with a better explanation for the observations than that offered by climate change theory.
Any of these things would:
1) Falsify the theory
2) Win you a nobel prize
3) Guarantee you tenure and an endless supply of grant money for the rest of your life at any academic institution of your choosing.
Basically EVERY incentive is to disprove climate change.
The failure of those trying to actually falsify something does not imply it is not falsifiable. It implies the theory is almost certainly correct.
At this stage, the most single most tested scientific theory in the history of science is so unlikely to be false - that we will almost certainly never see it replaced, modified and gradually improved - yes, replaced probably not. At least not for the next several centuries. Because at this point the only thing that could do so is an observation that actually does not fit the theory. It took 500 years for technology to give us a measuring device that could pick up the things that didn't quite follow Newton, and I'd say it will take about twice that long before something fundamentally alters climate science.
If you set the bar at CO2 causing warming, humans raising CO2 levels and things getting warmer, you are right about those being well established. We aren't gonna upset or falsify that anytime soon.
News flash, policy and behaviour changes aren't really driven by any of those points. What's the severity of the future we face is the question. On that we have two examples below:
1.The IPCC worst case scenario, with 95% confidence levels cited sea level rise relative to today of no more than 3ft by 2100
2.Adam Fenech, a Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and the director of the Climate Research Lab at the University of Prince Edward Island:"A lot of the most recent science is telling us it could rise as much as three metres during that time," says Fenech. "Probably in about 50 years, with a three-metre increase, we'd probably lose about half the island under water completely."
So we have a Nobel winning committee declaring no more than 3 feet in 100 years, and a Nodel winning research director predicting 3 metres in 50 years. One of these are gonna be falsified, and the scope of difference in their predictions makes an outrageous difference to what our responses should be.
downvoted as over rated, with zero votes with a post that consists virtually nothing more than 2 statements of fact backed with a link to an external quote of a highly credentialed scientist. Thanks for the reminder why I so rarely bother posting anything here anymore.