Just yesterday, the science on man-made global warming was settled, a done deal, irrefutable, pristine, absolute, just ask those pushing that particular argument. Yesterdays argument is what my bookmaker would call a "cod-lock".
Now today, we find that those very same individuals pushing that particular argument are a bit more, oh .... how would we put it, nuanced:
But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than M[edieval] W[arm] P[eriod]. ...So, we are to spend/curtail billions and billions based upon, "likely". Does anyone know at what point "likely" becomes a "guess"?
Todays argument is what my bookmaker would call a 50-50, maybe yes - maybe no.