Real science by definition is always open to new evidence. Saying science is "settled", if settled means we're not open to new evidence or we're drawing conclusions BEFORE collecting data, is contradictory.

My understanding is you're not speaking a climate scientist but rather someone following the patronage and politics. Science throughout history has been corrupted by politics, so you're rightly skeptical. But if we're following the political interests, it's not non-sequitur to point out the amount of political interest in various activities. There's a political motivation to fund studies that reach certain conclusions, and there a big chunk of *all economic activity on the planet* that produces CO2. Both can corrupt science.

It seems like you're saying because science can sometimes be corrupted by politics and prejudices, we should simply throw our hands up and select the results we *wish* were true. That's exactly what you're accusing the scientific establishment of-- argument from final consequences. If we're always going to select the outcome we wish were true, we should dispense with creating hypotheses, devising blind tests, and creating models based on results. Unless we can be completely pure, you're saying, we abandon science altogether.

My-oh-my! There has been some irony lost between intention and interpretation.
' "We noticed that as carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right. "
Isn't that the key. '

I agree, it is the key. There are those who want to reduce the population of the earth and to return the remainder to the stone age. They postulate scary scenarios based on biased computer models, they say 'the science is settled'. When actual measurements are found to be different from their simulated numbers (not forecasts) they come up with statements such as the data is wrong (many instances of with-holding and destroying of data, data manipulation by inappropriate statistical techniques, biased data selection). Faking of data has occurred to get it to agree with 'what knew to be right'. They call for more research and more funding (funding= more taxes).
Their intention is wealth redistribution (poor people in rich countries pay to send money to rich people in poor countries), and to support an entire industry of climate change economists, policy activists, consultants, accountants, activist politicians, lawyers, those who call themselves scientists, psychologists, and movie actors (actresses).
Evidence: No global warming for the past ~17 years. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased to 400ppm (with CO2 below about 200ppm, vegetable life on the earth's surface stops). The proposition that more CO2 causes a rise in temperature is falsified.

'ten trillion (as in 10^13) dollars of economic activity associated with CO2 emissions.'
This statement is a 'non-sequitur'. That is, so what? There is no powerful new religion with this as there is with the new environmentalism. The carbon change industry feeds on mis-placed altruism as well as gross self-interest with its hands in the taxpayers pocket.

Who pays for it is another matter. I imagine it would be proportional to how much benefit they get from it.
"We noticed that as carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right. "
Isn't that the key. If we don't take efforts to avoid it, we fall into trap of looking for the answers we want to be true. This is true for the millions of dollars of research into geology and climate and the ten trillion (as in 10^13) dollars of economic activity associated with CO2 emissions.

I do not need more geo-engineering. Nor do I want to pay for it. Those who mistakenly think they need it can pay for it. I need more energy. Some of that could go into exposing the carbon dioxide fraud as Douglas Carswell in the Telegraph has done very well.
Evidence.
I like this, it is probably a spoof but it is what we are told by the 'carbon change' establishment:
--'The current 16 year pause in global warming shows if not for climate change, we would have been able to clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast - not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community. We noticed that as carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right.
It's a very strong positive feedback.--'

I've written this elsewhere, the hard core environmentalists are hell bent on right-sizing the population of the Earth. Hence reducing the human pop. to 500 million to a billion humans for them would be a good thing. Why would anyone support this nonsense?

Great find. I have often thought of myself as an environmentalist. For some reason the green movement has become a red light to progress.