You have no problem there 👍
I understand why you might think this, but the truth is that science doesn't always have a "natural conclusion" - theories evolve and change as more facts are discovered, but there is always room to ask more questions, and while new facts are waiting to be discovered all the time, theories are, by definition, never going to be "complete". It sounds almost defeatist to say that, but that's not what I mean - the alternative, total ignorance, is considerably worse. Most published science is merely a single piece of a much larger jigsaw, and rarely (if ever) is a paper published that is the definitive "final word" on an issue - the upside is that this means that the scientific literature is always bang up to date - the flipside is that it leaves science open to criticism that it is "incomplete" or "not settled". However, this criticism is not particularly justified since although a theory may never be "complete", the facts can be just as useful/informative as they stand...
In the case of climate science, the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is well supported by the facts, but yet other observable facts (like growing Antarctic ice) seem contrary to what one might expect from a planet that is supposed to be getting warmer... despite the presence of seemingly contradictory facts, however, AGW theory still predicts that Antarctica will soon begin to lose ice. One new explanation (to be published later this month) for growing Antarctic ice is the change in weather/wind patterns over the continent attributable to changes in stratospheric ozone layer thickness, specific to the continent of Antarctica. The authors of this new paper also point out that Antarctic ice growth is still within the bounds of natural variability, but that this is unlikely to last much longer as the ozone layer is gradually replenishing, while GHG concentrations continue to rise unabated. (from
here).
Science is an industry much like any other - competition is fierce, and yes, it is driven by money - but for some reason, when a climate scientist attempts to publicise their work, a common reaction from the general public is that they must be crooked. The irony is, when many of the top climate scientists say that "more research needs to be done", they aren't scouting for cash at all - somehow I don't think James Hansen would be working in WalMart next month if he failed to get another grant. But it is not an unfair question to ask "why?" is there such suspicion and mistrust of climate scientists? The answer, in my opinion anyway, lies in establishing who the most vocal critics are and what their agenda is. Much in the same way that Evolution is attacked by religious groups, climate science finds its most vocal critics in the oil industry or from the ranks of free market economy think-tanks for obvious reasons...
... that said, I do not deny that there are plenty of reputable scientists with legitimate reasons to question the views of the IPCC (like
Roger Pielke Sr.), but it would be naive to say that the global warming debate was simply a "scientific" controversy.... Climate science increasingly encroaches into political and economic territory, and as a result, the political opposition is arguably far more responsible for the public misunderstanding of climate science than the actual scientific critics. I don't think that it is legitimate or fair to brand a skeptic as being an oil industry lackie, but by the same token, they do exist (
Steve Milloy for example).
The scientific community does not possess a monopoly on the public understanding of science, and well-funded front groups and politically motivated spin doctors are just as able to influence the public as scientists are these days. Although I accept that AGW theory really is more of a real scientific controversy than the phony "debate" about evolution, the evolution debate has opened my eyes to the reality of just how far some people will go in using disinformation in order to foment doubt and further their own political agenda.
