A study that could show that you know fuck-all? Forget Popper and don't do that study!

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

Now that is quite a bombshell of an email. It is more serious than the ‘hide the decline’ situation because it gets to the heart of all of the paleo-hockeystick plots.  If you consider that they are saying any change in temps greater than 100 years in length are a complete unknown, how is it that we “know” that recent years are the warmest in history?  The very clear answer is – we don’t.

A possible study that might show that climate science might know fuck-all? And they know it before hand?  So they don't do it! There you have Popper's Principle Of Falsifiability! To qualify to be a scientific inquiry, to have a scientific theory (and not something pseudo-scientific), one postulates something that can be falsified, and then tests it (or better has it tested by independent parties). To know of such a test and avoid it, now that is truly unscientific.