I’m not such a sceptic that I think the severity of our current winter weather disproves the global warming hypothesis, but it doesn’t exactly add to the credibility of the warmist lobby. The standard response to this is to point out that colder winters are compatible with the theory (see George Monbiot’s article entitled “The snow outside it what global warming looks like”). But that suggests something else, namely, that the theory isn’t wrong, but meaningless. If I recall my Karl Popper correctly, one of the conditions that a meaningful scientific theory has to satisfy is that it should be falsifiable. If heavier-than-average snowfall doesn’t constitute disproof of the theory, then it’s hard to imagine what would – and that, in turn, suggests the theory is meaningless.Indeed.
It's a point that's often missed. There's no need to get down in the weeds and start discussing the finer points of satellite data or statistical techniques. Simply from first principles, global warming fails the basic test of a scientific theory - it doesn't make any predictions.
Put it this way, if E = M x (C Squared) and C is a constant, then we can predict exactly how much energy will be produced by a given mass. If it was ever observed that a different amount of energy was produced, then the theory would be DOA. That's because it's real science. Meanwhile, global warming theory is more like claiming that E is kind of related to M, but who can tell, and give us your wallet anyway or the Earth will fall into the Sun.