On The Criteria For Falsifying A Scientific Hypothesis

My September 29 post asked whether we could deem as “definitively falsified” the hypothesis that human-caused global warming was leading to “more and more severe” hurricanes. The cited basis for the question was that, despite the endlessly repeated prediction of “more and more severe” hurricanes, as of that date not a single hurricane had yet formed this season in the North Atlantic basin. This represented a record-low rate of hurricane formation in this region since the satellite era, and comprehensive hurricane data, began in 1966. (Since that post, five more days have passed, and there is still no hurricane in the North Atlantic. With each passing day, the likelihood of a hurricane forming this year decreases.)

In response to that post, I received a comment from a reader that I thought deserved a serious response. The comment came as an email, rather than as a comment on the blog. The commenter gave his name, but since he did not post the comment on the blog I am keeping his name confidential as a courtesy. Here is the text of the comment:

If you expect those on the other side of the global warming debate to be honest, then it behooves you to do the same.

Why did you show only the North Atlantic hurricane basin's Accumulated Cyclonic Energy (ACE), when there are two other major basins in the northern hemisphere (the northeast and northwest Pacific), and both show well-above-average ACE to this point of the hurricane season? The overall northern hemisphere's ACE is also well above its typical average at this point of the season, which contradicts your claims in the article.

That doesn't mean that overall hurricane ACE is increasing with global temperatures: it is not, as the global ACE measures at the same Colorado state University website show.

But to cherry-pick one hurricane basin's figures to emphasize your hypothesis, when the other two basins show the opposite, is what I expect from dishonest climate doomers, not from someone who claims to be open to facts and in pursuit of the truth.

Although this is a serious comment, I stand by my post. Here’s the reason: I think that it is the responsibility of the proponent of a scientific hypothesis to state his hypothesis in a form that can be falsified; and, as a corollary to this, the proponent must also specify the quantitative data which, should they emerge, would be sufficient for him to concede that his hypothesis has been falsified. As I have frequently pointed out, the gaping hole in the entire climate “science” cult is the failure and refusal to state any hypothesis in a falsifiable form, or to state the quantitative criteria for falsification.

The general failure of the climate “science” community to specify a their hypotheses in a falsifiable form applies specifically to the group that claims that human-caused warming leads to “more and more severe storms.” (Indeed, members of this group assert an ability to “attribute” specific storms to human-caused warming.) What are the specific criteria by which such a hypothesis would be falsified? They will never say. However, their “attribution” claims overwhelmingly center on the hurricanes of the North Atlantic. Why is this? Because the North Atlantic hurricanes are the ones that frequently make landfall in populated areas and cause major damage. The Pacific hurricanes, with few exceptions, almost entirely go out into the open ocean and dissipate without causing any major damage or loss of life. In other words, the Pacific hurricanes aren’t any good for scaring people.

The proponents of the “more and more severe hurricanes” scare will never agree to using an ACE index as the criterion to falsify their hypothesis. That is because, in any falsifiable form that they might express the hypothesis, the ACE records would long since have falsified it. During the warming period of the last several decades, the ACE data have failed to show any consistent upward trend at all. Many charts showing this are available. Here is one from the website global-tropical-cyclones.com, which is a project of Ryan Maue and Roger Pielke, Jr. This chart includes cyclones from both the Atlantic and Pacific basins since 1980:

If the ACE data reflected in this chart are the criteria on which the “more and more severe storms” theory can be falsified, then I can’t see how that hypothesis survives.

Instead of using an objective measure like ACE, the proponents of the “more and more severe hurricanes” theory want to use recent severe and damaging storms in the North Atlantic (like Hurricane Beryl in 2024 or Hurricane Melissa in 2025) to try to convince people that their theory is valid. That’s because those hurricanes are widely publicized and frightening. But if those are the data that the proponents choose to rely on, then it is entirely fair to cite as definitive evidence against them a record low hurricane season in the North Atlantic.