The science is settled insofar as there is a clear consensus on the warming and its cause, as well as its negative effects.
Adding to the list.
A rather poor list.
Not after the various cases of fraud that have came up.
Fraud on the part of those who reject the science doesn't exactly refute the science, I'm afraid.
Not after the hockey stick debacle, where McIntire showed that random data ran through the hockey stick programs would produce....a hockey stick.
The hockey stick has been verified multiple times by independent studies. McIntyre tried to refute it, but failed.
Not after the email releases.
Which ones, and how does it matter?
Not after twenty years of no warming.
This is false. There has indeed been warming in the past 20 years.
Not after the CLOUD experiment series by CERN
They do not refute the consensus. On the contrary. But I know this claim is being pushed by people who either misrepresent or do not understand the experiments.
Not after public warnings by groups of astrophysicists studying the sun on the possible consequences of the current period of low solar sunspots
What public warnings?
Not after several "surveys" using bogus methodology have attempted to "prove" that a scientific consensus exists, and after the errors in methodology of these surveys have been exposed
What does this have to do with the consensus on actual climate science? Never mind the fact that you are wrong. These surveys have not been refuted.
Not after the IPCC's admission of a lower climate sensitivity in their latest report, unless they are also Deniers
There was no admission of a lower climate sensititivty. What they did was to adjust the range back to a previous range.
Not after the change by the propagandists from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", implicitly acknowledging the collapse of the "Global Warming Alarmist Paradigm."
Who made this change, and where? Even the latest report from the IPCC uses the term "Global Warming."
Not after decades of the propagandists pushing a theory of a "global temperature" which is against the laws of thermodynamics, then implicitly acknowledging their error but going to an equally flawed concept that the heat was going into the ocean. (which was part of which skeptics had been telling them all along)
How is an average global temperature against the laws of thermodynamics?
I'm not sure what you are saying about the ocean. Is energy going into the ocean or not? If it is, why is the concept of energy going into the ocean flawed?
Today there are several important contributions to our understanding of climate from skeptics or Deniers if you will.
The fact that the climate sensitivity is considerably lower than the first four IPCC reports indicated.
Actually, the latest report (AR5) adjusted the range back to what it was in previous reports. It was changed in AR4. And the change was far from "considerable."
The fact that there is a big influence on climate from the sun, and variability in excess of the variance in it's direct wattage impacting the surface
Yes, the sun influences the climate. Your point being? Do you even know what the science says about the sun's role?
The fact that solar particles and solar wind influence cloud formation
And?
The fact that the Medieval Warm Period existed
The fact that the Little Ice Age existed
How so?
There are many other demonstrable cases where Alarmists have attempted to cover up, repress or eliminate facts contrary to their vision.
Such as?
You do not have a valid argument in "consensus."
Actually, I do. The scientific consensus is the best way for regular people to know the current status of the science.
But I would argue that hyping the concept of "scientific consensus" is bunko, because it has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of ideas as established by the scientific method, but instead the opinions of a group.
No, it has to do with the combined results of scientific research.