Chuck Todd is qualified to make that assessment, of course, based in his extensive study of the climate and his advanced degrees in science that allow him to draw such supportable conclusions. Riiiiggggghhhhhttt.
Here's one of my "idiot pals". Nir J. Shaviv - He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (2014 — 2015). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Check out the results of his research, if you even have an open enough mind to do so:
http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate
Thus, it is no surprise that we find in our GSA Today paper that Cosmic Ray Flux variations appear to be the largest driver of climate change over geological time scales. However, one of the secondary conclusions we reach in the paper is that CO2 had only a secondary climate role over geological time scales, and that Earth's sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget is not as large as most of the climate community believes...
Or, maybe this "idiot": Richard Lindzen. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. The guy has a history of absolutely brilliant work, including solving a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure). He also has provided a theory that competes with the "consensus", and is a critic of the idea that "the science is settled".
There are more. But by simply suggesting that there might be room for continued debate on this idea, those who disagree draw the ire of (ahem) noted intellectual luminaries like (ahem) you, Chuck todd and AOC (how HAS she become the face of the Donkey party anyway???).
Its not "settled science". There's always room for debate. And the lack of willingness to debate and simply demonize those who might not agree that its "settled science", to me, underscores the need for concern and skepticism about those who are willing to push an agenda rather than discuss it.