I have been fortunate to learn from a great thinker that science is the “known desire to know,” and that obviously having a conclusion and then fitting the data to support it is diametrically opposed to that.

Corbett’s use of Popper is dishonest because he is using the local variations in climate, and opposing conjectures of the particular effects of climate change to disqualify the larger picture. Particular variations in climate are all over the place in different locales, and different in the same locale, and there are opposing theories as to particular effects in the same locale at the same time. NONE of this refutes the fact that global CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that humanity is contributing to that rise. NOTHING Corbett writes refutes the greenhouse effect itself.

You can TRY and refute global warming by showing that CO2 levels are falling over a long period of years OR by showing the greenhouse effect does not work on a global scale OR by showing that overall GLOBAL temperatures are dropping over a long period of years. It is a global picture not what is happening locally that is of great concern. And dishonest conceited pundits like Corbett should have their names inscribed in stone so that someday we will remember who dishonestly delayed our response to global warming.