We are told constantly that the science of climate change is settled and that the consensus requires that we act, and act fast.
Leaving aside the question of why we have to act so quickly to stem a process that has been decades (or millennia) in the making and the issue of implied consensus, this post highlights how far the science is from being settled.
As it states: the separation of cause from effect in the climate system is absolutely critical.
I would agree and you would think that having clarity about cause and effect would be one of those basic things that would be required before anyone claims that the science is "settled".
This thread at Climate Audit discusses Spencer's post and has some pertinent links to other key papers in the area.
This thread highlights how the science is and is not well understood and the extent to which various people are open to new constructs in the way they view data.
