Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very l

Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very little) science involved in forming their conclusions; conclusions which science has now shown to be wrong. Ironically, in doing so, you've highlighted a great example to show why we use the scientific method and how well it works - thereby weakening your own position that the science is not settled. And to that end, I think you should take 15 minutes and read this essay by Isaav Asimov: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm So when you say that climate change isn't settled science, my response is that you may be a little right: there are those who may overstate the science in order to push their own agenda. But you are, without a doubt, very wrong.