As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
Climate “science” is by no means a “settled” science, if there is such a thing as a settled science.
Evidenced by the term “settled”, global warming fanatics, along with pro-murder of unborn children fanatics, are getting wires crossed between scientific terms and corrupt legal system terms imo.
To be more precise, climate “science” meets exactly zero criteria for a Scientific Theory. It doesn’t even meet all the criteria for a Scientific Hypothesis.
If it was a science there would be one model and it would be predictive.
I'm pretty sure most if not everyone here understands that climate "science" is 99% politically-driven one-world global-governance poppycock.
If it were Settled Science they wouldn’t be able to find all these new factors which all seem to play a greater role than previously believed. Not to mention the fact that science is not about what one believes. And another thing, the weasel words may might and could accompanied by if possibly and perhaps make it difficult to argue either side. And all the facts in question are derived from computer models and simulations. The only thing supporting the whole notion of global warming climate change is belief.
One other note: If someone argues that a "consensus" of scientists agree on AGW, they already have lost the argument.
Science does not operate by "consensus." It operates by a rigorous methodology that does not depend on opinions. If a "consensus" of scientists insisted that pi was 3.15 that would not make pi 3.15.