> The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed. [CNN link]
> In the 1990s, some climate model predicted the eponymous glacier would be gone by 2020. Signs around the parks' entrances were erected boldly stating this claim. In January of 2020, the signs were removed because the glaciers hadn't even shrunk. [GP]
No, the source backed up the GP, because the prediction was that the glacier would be gone. Whether or not it shrank is secondary.
A theory was posited, and a testable prediction was made. Since the prediction was false, the theory should be critically examined. That's the scientific method.
A critical examination of the theory which produced the incorrect prediction seems to be missing. That's the point.
It's not reasonable to point to partial fulfillment of the claim; if that was the standard of evidence, a perpetual motion enthusiast could reasonably point out that they almost broke even.
From what I've understood, the reasonable arguments on either side boil down (heh) to the rate of change, because climate varies so much naturally and we seem to be accelerating it. If the rate is not what was predicted, that's a big deal and makes this failed prediction all the more relevant.
> In the 1990s, some climate model predicted the eponymous glacier would be gone by 2020. Signs around the parks' entrances were erected boldly stating this claim. In January of 2020, the signs were removed because the glaciers hadn't even shrunk. [GP]
No, the source backed up the GP, because the prediction was that the glacier would be gone. Whether or not it shrank is secondary.