I have a question for proponents of climate change:

Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say “Global warming is not taking place” or even “Global warming is not taking place at the rate often asserted”? I therefore put to the proponents of climate change the simple central question, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of global warming?”

Astute readers will recognize this as a (close) paraphrase of the final two sentences of Antony Flew’s famous essay on theology and falsification. The point is this. If nothing counts against global warming, then it’s not really a testable hypothesis, in which case, why are we discussing it, much less proposing to act on it at great cost to other values? It seems as though everything that happens counts in favor of global warming. What counts, or would count, against it?