On Friday, Roger Jr. pointed to a recent study in Science observing that climate change is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional problem involving many more pollutants than CO2. He writes the following:
This recent research suggests that we must now be open to the possibility that there will not and cannot be a single policy approach to addressing the full spectrum of human influences on the climate system. The recognition of complexity may present an opportunity to move climate policy forward, by providing a justification for reconsidering the flawed (and some would say doomed) approach.
I think Roger’s point is fairly clear, but others on his comment board make great hay of his claim. Some even take his observations to be a full-blown indictment of climate science altogether. As evidence of this, Marc Morano takes the opportunity to impugn climate science by headlining on his blog with the words “Settled Science?” and then linking to Roger’s post. Missing only is the Drudge-style siren.
I simply fail to see how this [Roger’s post, coupled with the study in Science] is anything like an indictment of climate science. I suspect that the confusion has something to do with a presiding misconception that somehow science, generally speaking, and climate science, narrowly speaking, infallibly uncovers facts about the objective world. It’s hard to say what’s behind this, except that this sort of naïve realism is just exceptionally common. Too bad it’s also deeply flawed.
More after the jump…
I had a nice Halloween. Hope everyone else did too. Nothing extraordinary to report, only that my son’s lips have turned a bright shade of fluorescent blue, thanks to overindulgence in one unmentionable candy. In other news, somehow our little hamlet has caught the eye of the 
Cruel Mistress 