As always on eevblog, we have a factual debate on an emotional subject, which is fought near-religiously, especially in Germany.
I'm also an experimental physicist and natural-scientist. In physics, we have a clear view how to validate new theories.
I recommend the old 1964 video from Feynman, On scientific methods:
It's a three step process, in brief:
1) Observe the phenomenon, i.e. make precise measurements on the observable parameters
2) Guess a theory, best in form of closed equations, which combines the parameters from 1), and try to identify possible correlations amongst them.
As Weather and Climate are like Thermodynamics non-deterministic, you have to use statistical methods and numerical simulation instead.
Both methods have to describe exactly the known, historic data. The theory will allow extrapolation in e.g. geometrical or timely manner.
Usually there are several different theories, either contradicting each other (which is good), or giving different predictions.
3) The theories/simulations have to be validated, again by experimental methods, by checking their predictions
The theories, which fail versus experiment, are definitely false.
Those which agree with experiment are "not wrong" only.
Climate Research is therefore not yet a "complete" science, as the final experimental proof will be available in 30, 50, 100 years from now.
To my knowledge, there do not exist (yet) accelerated life methods or short termed monitoring which would correlate well with the Climate models.
The Climate simulations probably use strong averaging statistics with a time-constant of about 30 years.
The mean global temperature trend itself is such a prediction which arises from a strong averaging statistics.
Therefore, they can't make any prediction about Weather events, or similar events on a short termed basis any more. They only provide long termed trends.
That's similar to the Allan Deviation (statistics) for clocks.. you can't correlate short term noise with long term stability, e.g. on Cs clocks vs. MASER clocks, also due to different time constants.
The IPCC AR6 results therefore deliver ideas about long term evolution of temperature, glacier melting, sea level rise, but barely any advice, how weather events will develop. There's a weak indication that Strong Rain events might happen more often.
And I'm not sure, whether Geologists or Biologists are able to identify early signs of changes.
One of my former school mates is a prof for Geology, and works on Climate Change by using satellite measurements. I have to ask him.
This obvious gap in perception is politically used in Germany and EU to justify painful changes of our economy and Power supply with recent catastrophic events like flooding of a narrow valley and those many forest fire events in Southern Europe and in Germany.
But there exists no real scientific correlation, only religious like apocalypse visions. People are gluing themselves to the soil for that reason.
The root cause of the flooding is: long time settling in a danger zone, that's historically proven. Identical floods occurred in 1808 and 1910.
Wild fires are near 100% caused by arson.
In Engineering (my company) we use e.g. "A3 problem solving" for investigation on the REAL root causes and problem management, mostly (99%) by risk mitigation. In rare cases only, the problem itself can be solved. That's my daily experience as well, as I'm dealing with hundreds of terminations and changes on components (PCN / PTN) every year. You always have to find work arounds like re-engineering or long term storage, but only rarely you are able to convince the supplier to withdraw the PCN or PTN.
Probably the Global Warming can not be stopped (so fast), so we have to mitigate the consequences.
It would be better, if experience from "complete" fields of science AND the experience of engineers-in-industry would be consulted to make problem and risk analysis, technology assessments on these more technical oriented subjects.
Here in Germany we have the most dumb Climate politics and Energy change.
The politics and so called "experts" cut down our working, reliable energy system, formerly based on nuclear power and fossile energy, before the "renewable" energies can safely and completely take over. There are still several important technologies for energy buffering missing, do not have the necessary maturity level, or are too expensive, like battery storage or hydrogen conversion.
Me and my colleagues in Automotive Electronics company developed many new automotive compliant components and technologies, like SMD, Blue LED, LCDs, 25 years ago.
This now allows to terminate old analog instruments with dials, pointers, stepper motors, which were produced up to now, for over 40 years.
The new devices are already working and running in mass production for many years.
That's the way to bring innovations into life, but definitely not the other (German) way round.
Frank
PS: Phrases like "denial" ,"believing", "disbelieving", ""blame" "original sin" are often used in the daily discussion about Climate and COVID alike on TV, journals, by environmental activists and medical "scientists".
Those terms are all originating from the religions.
I have big problems with these terms, as I guess i never simply "believed" in something, but I always wanted to know how technical things worked in its core.
I always was questing for the root cause, and disassembled each and every device I could access.
What could not be proven, is not existing.
That's the materialistic view of a typical scientist.
So I have my big doubts on politics, religion, fanatic, any doctrine, medical "science", latter from personal experience.
Peter Higgs suggested "his" particle in 1964, and the whole physical community was fully convinced of his theory over all the years.
But only about 50 years later in 2012, the experimental proof was achieved with 5-sigma uncertainty @ CERN.
Only then he was granted the Nobel Prize. That's how Physics / Science works.