One of the lightly whispered themes in my continuing thread about The Broadcast has to do with climate science and the assumption that the consensus is in, the science is settled and there’s no reason for anyone to be skeptical nor “deny” that observed climate variation is caused by human production of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases.
David Segal refutes the the idea of settled climate science in an article in Medium:
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
Climate science, as any science, is never settled. There is no scientific theory that is not subject to new discoveries, new hypothesis modification or even wholesale abandonment. We learn new things all the time in scientific research, even and especially new things about subjects we though we readily understood.
Particle physics is just one example. Not too long ago, all physicists agreed that we pretty much knew everything there was to know about the make up of the atom and it’s sub-atomic particles. We even postulated that if we could determine the exact position and velocity of very particle of the Universe, we could predict the future with great accuracy.
Up pops quantum physics and the whole discipline of particle physics changed, almost over night, and is still changing.
So when you hear someone say, “The science is settled,” crank up your bullshit detector and engage your skepticism generator. They obviously have a reason for attempting to pull the global warming wool over your eyes.