Science is not always right. That's the bare-faced truth of it. I'm a scientist. I have degrees hanging on my wall and an IQ that means I'm smart enough not to pay MENSA to tell me I'm smart and then sell me an 'I am smart' badge and even I'm not always right. There was that time in 1983... it still hurts to think about it.
I did once get as far as the MENSA home page. In the corner it said "Did you know that only one in fifty people are in the top two percent?" Really. It said that. On the MENSA website. I went no further. Bunch of dolts.
Anyway, science is still not always right. In fact, it's safe to say that most of current science is wrong, we just don't know it's wrong yet. In my own field, the advent of DNA analysis led to an absolute upheaval in bacterial taxonomy. Before that, we classified on the basis of metabolic activity because bacteria aren't much to look at. Round ones, straight ones, bendy ones and twisty ones isn't a useful basis for classifying thousands of species. Some we thought were related turned out not to be. Some we thought were different turned out to be siblings. DNA analysis changed everything and it changed fast. For the better, in this case.
The point is, science changes all the time. New information is absorbed and taken into the whole. As soon as you hear the words 'the science is settled' you can be sure you're not hearing about science. You're hearing the words of a cult.
Apoptosis - where cells self-destruct rather than become cancerous - was resisted for a long time by science but eventually proven right. The aether - the idea that there is no vaccuum and light backstrokes through some mysterious substance - was considered possible by science for a long time but eventually proven to be wrong. Science is not a religion. It does not have a holy book. It does not have immutable laws (although sometimes it pretends to for a while). All science ever has is the current most-likely answer. Real science accepts that the current most-likely answer might not be the absolute, final answer.
There can be no absolute and final answer because if there was, we'd all be out of a job. The scientist who finds that answer is going to get seriously battered. I suspect several have, but were smart enough to shut up about it. Scientists have an enormous array of methods for disposing of the body, you know.
However, we do like those maybe-right answers to at least be internally consistent. Which means that the argument makes sense within the context of what we know, even though we accept that it might not be absolutely correct.
On that basis, climate studies cannot be classified as science. Because...
Exhibit A: China's rapid industrial expansion may have halted global warming for much of the last decade, climate scientists claimed.
They said sulphur pollution from China’s coal-fired power stations helped to keep world temperatures stable despite soaring greenhouse gas emissions.
Exhibit B: Injecting enough sulfur to reduce warming would wipe out the Arctic ozone layer and delay recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole by as much as 70 years, according to an analysis by Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
So China is producing enough sulphur to reduce global warming, but adding enough sulphur to the atmosphere to reduce global warming would destroy the ozone layer, but that hasn't happened because science has not added enough sulphur to the atmosphere to reduce global warming, but China has and it has had no effect on ozone, and round and round we go.
This is not science. This is the desperate scrabblings of the Righteous to justify their existence in the face of evidence that absolutely contradicts the reason they are being paid. The argument is utter rubbish. Yet the drones dive on it and accept it without question, then complain about fundamentalists who accept their masters' doctrines without question... and round and round we go.
Their drones also like to use the term 'The science is settled' which demonstrates that it is a religion, not a science (Leg-iron's law takes shape here. Up your squinty eye, Godwin). Science cannot ever be settled. Its nature does not allow such a thing to happen. We're not stupid, you know. If we told you all the answer to life, the universe and everything we'd all be unemployed.
So let's just reform all the university 'climate' departments into the Church of Climatology and forget about it. A sort of reverse Enlightenment. It's a religion, and one of the nuttier ones at that. It has its End of Days and it has its blind and moronic followers. Soon they'll be tapping on your door and asking in breathless tones if you want to talk about the Green God of Climate.
Whatever you do, don't say "You mean weather?" because that will cause them to clutch at their unmuscled chests and exclaim "Weather? Weather is the devil that besets the god of Climate!"
Science is not, and never can be, settled. Anyone who says it is, is a cretin.
Those scientists who refuse to adapt to new information should re-read Darwin. You guys are screwed. Darwin says so.
As for the Government, well if there was enough grey matter to form a whole brain in there, perhaps we could have a meaningful conversation. As it is... no, never mind. It would be like spending an evening in the monkey house, but without the witty banter.
There'd still be bananas, I suppose.