There is some ‘settled science’. Like the spectrum of hydrogen for instance. The red shift of distant galaxies, the speed of like in a vacuum..
But climate ‘science’ is far from settled because it can be used to justify anything. There’s no ‘observation’, it’s all prediction. And worse, anything that is observed ‘fits’ with the predictions as they are always in flux. We’ve had only a few hundred years of solid weather reports, it leaves out the influence of the sun, and it has other issues.
If a climate scientist said the sea will rise by 5 inches in the next 5 years and it does, then that’s at least something. Right now it’s ‘it may go up or down or neither, but it all fits the model’.
>> There is some ‘settled science’. Like the spectrum of hydrogen for instance
No. ‘settled science’ is a pejorative.
I postulate that red shift has more to do with gravitational field than Doppler effect, so there goes red Shift. A issue is not settled if two people disagree.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, what is the speed of like in a vacuum? Is it higher than the speed of dislike in a windstorm?
Even that's not settled. See Halton Arp's book Seeing Red.
He shows that there are astronomical objects that are obviously physically connected but which have radically different "red shifts."