Also, when the media can write things that aren't incoherent, that's a win. Sadly, this article is a loss.

The title itself is nonsense. I'm a scientist, and I have no idea what a "science fact" is. I know what data are. And I know how to make reasonable connections between data that appear to have a causal relationship. But, to this point in my career, I've not encountered a science fact.

Climate change is a belief, it just happens to be a well reasoned one. The facts are the data points that show, collectively, that the world is retaining more energy. Climate change, as a predictive theory, is certainly a belief by any reasonable definition of the world belief.

Articles like this do nothing other than to muddle good science and terrible journalism. Somehow, we've decided that belief means things that aren't true and facts are things that are. I think that's a shit way of looking at the world. I think over time that the predictive powers of the various models out there will get better, as more data are gathered and better understanding of various climatic interactions develops. This will make the models more fully believable, but they'll still be beliefs.

The media need to help out, if the unconvinced masses are to ever come on board with science and the scientific method. Writing things like "science fact" represent small setbacks for humanity.