There is something incongruous when someone says "I have an open mind" and back it up with an NPC like statement such as "the science is robust".
Some science is more robust than other science. Too many unknowns means guessing is required and data adjustment to force the data to fit the guessing often follows. If the science is robust I guess we can axe most climate research funding- after all there is nothing more we can really learn is there - the science is robust.
Is the science truly robust when the IPCC puts out a range of possible values between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2 for climate sensitivity to CO2 in AR5? More research required because it lacks certainty. It could be a lot more robust IMO because they are still not absolutely certain that sensitivity could be less than 1 degrees C per doubling of CO2 concentration.
QUOTE from AR5 WG1 Chapter 10
Estimates of theEquilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partlyindependent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicatethat there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be lessthan 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.
ENDQUOTE
If you call this robust then you are an acolyte not a scientist IMO.
