Climate science has falsifiable experiments, predictions it's made and is checking. It also has a historical record. The trouble is that the truly alarming claims are equally disastrous to check. It's frankly astonishing that we, as a species, haven't figured out a better way to deal with dire risks in an unpredictable environment, but science has stepped up to the plate. We can model, in pencil and paper, in bits and bytes, and in neural firings, what might happen in reality, under certain circumstances. We can check these short term predictions against short term reactions (atmospheric scientists do this all the time, for example looking at temperature gradients as a way to show that the increase in temperature is a greenhouse effect, not from the sun brightening), we can check parts of the historical record against one another, and we can drill down into all of our results and strive for a model that encompasses all of it. And when we've run said model and somewhere in the future as a consequence of our actions it predicts a significant likelihood of disaster, it should give you pause. Not unlike how you can model, in your own head, the possible consequences of rush blindfolded across a busy highway, even if you've never actually experienced it.<p>You get one shot. The scientific method is not for matters involving life and death. It is for the models we have of the world, our understanding, our plans. It is for trying, by way of modeling and analogy, what we might see given what we might do. But as for the decision, that requires judgment. Why can't people understand this?