Sobre o outro grande domínio de complacência actual: o que a ciência do aquecimento global sabe e não sabe

What we know and what we don't know

“...The science of global warming is far from settled”
Nigel Lawson, “An appeal to reason: a cool look at global warming”, 2008.

Climate skeptics often claim that although increasing levels of carbon dioxide may be causing global temperatures to rise, there are many uncertainties in climate science - with the implication that it would be unwise to put in place potentially expensive or disruptive measures to reduce emissions. For those not actively working within the field of climate science it can be difficult to determine just how sure scientists are of what they are saying.

In order to do so it is important to understand the method by which science proceeds. Science progresses by testing theories, examining results, repeating the tests and extending the theories. It's this process that allows valid results to be confirmed, and disproven theories to be abandoned. Over time, as a large supporting body of evidence is built and attempts to disprove a theory have failed, that theory can be considered sound. Although we can never be absolutely certain that a theory is true, we can be confident in it given a large volume of supporting evidence and numerous failed attempts to disprove it. (Well, that's the theory. In practice, the process is usually a bit messier). 

So here’s a brief article summarising what bits of climate science we have strong evidence for, and what we are less sure about. [Obviamente, é para continuar a ler.]