The key feature of science is that all theories are open to further scrutiny and falsification. To say “the science is settled” is probably the least scientific statement you could possibly make. A deeply ironic position to take for people who’s key complaint about their detractors is that they don’t appreciate science.
When comparing two alternatives, we can most definitely conclude that the science is settled, at least until actual evidence to the contrary shows up. Being open to accepting new evidence in the future in no way means we can't act confidently on what we know now, taking into account our state of knowledge/uncertainty.
The science on a heliocentric solar system is settled. The science establishing a link between anthropogenic carbon emissions and average global temperatures is also settled - built on foundational chemistry and physics, supplemented with observational evidence here on Earth, and validated by the planetary science done to understand Venus's temperature.
Sure, there's a lot of remaining uncertainty about short term effects, but mostly in the category of "just how bad is it likely to get?"
Science as a search for truth cares deeply about accuracy, engineering doesn’t. Discovering say F=MA was wrong was a huge deal, but existing results still apply. New models fill in gaps, but the improved models needed to account for everything the old one correctly predicted.
So while science moves on, engineering does not care about the 15th decimal place. Which is why we keep getting value from approximations.
