Again, I suggest you be careful not to parse what I said into what you think I said. I've made no comment about certainty.
I have said - three times now, I think, that;
1. The range of uncertainty of climate sensitivity is robust. Studies over thirty years or so have not violated that. More, the great majority of the studies have tended to strongly support values in the mid range of that uncertainty.
So, as far as that aspect of the science goes, it is indeed robust, in my view.
2. Whatever value in that range is the actuality, we need to take action. So in a practical sense the findings of the science - that we need to take action to address AGW - is robust. For any of the values in that range we risk severe consequences, and the cost of action is vastly outweighed by the potential huge risks of inaction.
So in at least those two respects I regard the science as robust.
I'll add that the rest of the elements of the science - that it's greenhouse gasses causing warming, that those are human caused, that it's not the sun or volcanos, that it is warming at rates predicted by the science, etc etc, are also robust, based on all the evidence I've read.
