[NeilBlanchard]

Science is all about the unknown. We ask questions, find some answers, and more questions are raised. There is always more unknowns.

But that doesn't invalidate the answers. The new questions will either confirm, adjust, or completely overturn the earlier answers. But, as we have gone along, reality has been worse than predicted by the models, and new data narrows the uncertainty.

We certainly do not know everything about DNA and genes, but that doesn't make our knowledge invalid! We don't know everything about Relativity, but it is certainly correct. We only confirmed the existence of Pangaea about 45 years ago, and we certainly have a lot left to learn about it, but it did really exist.

And you completely ducked the fact that anthropogenic global climate change is the scientific conclusion.

[Edit: show me where the 19th century is missing from the models, please?]

[Edit 2: that is how models work -- if they are all wrong, they chuck 'em and try again. The results have to fit the data, so that you can know they are working properly!]

[Edit 3: The BIG PICTURE is clear. All the uncertainties are small and fine tuning and help understand all the details about how it works.

Any scientist will tell you about uncertainties -- they live and breath uncertainties. The IPCC report states the uncertainties.

But the uncertainties do not negate the main conclusion!]