A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.

Many Democrats have stated that man-made global warming is a fact, that the science is clear. The truth is that it really does not even qualify to be called a hypothesis. It does not meet the observation test, nor does it meet the experimentation tests. In reality the entire “body of science” (I use that term very loosely) is based solely on computer models. Computer models would be acceptable science if they were able to predict weather accurately in back testing simulations. In other words, if you run the model for 1900 through 2013 it should accurately predict global temperatures, hurricanes, and all that is predicted now by the future models. No computer model for global warming has ever successfully done that.

We just experienced the coldest weather in 102 years. If global warming existed as the politicians and scientists on their payroll say the graph would be a steadily increasing trend. It is time to recognize global warming for what it is, a contrived political tool.