Science of climate change is ever changing

The often government-funded groups that study global, er, excuse me, that promote global warming/climate change have long used the talking point that there is no debate on the matter and the "science is settled." It is now known that there has not been any warming for over 15 years, Miami isn't under water, polar bears are not extinct and the ice caps are still intact.

I read the other day that global warming/climate change promotional groups have come up with dozens of reasons that there has not been any warming since the 1990s. These range from "it's unexplainable" to "it is somehow hiding under water in the oceans." It is clear that there is very little agreement on what happened and the only explanation I have heard that makes sense to me was one scientist who said that it is cyclical, it warms and then cools and then warms and then cools - aah, yeah, this kind of goes along with the theory that I believe in climate change, I believe it has been going on for about 4 billion years.

The main point, however, is after years of hearing "there is no debate" and the "science is settled" when the major component of the global warming theory reverses itself and there is no consensus on what caused this, don't we have to ask how settled could the science have been?

Marc Thomsen

Elk Grove Village