Lets look at the definition of science; Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. [1]
The answer has to be "No" (it is not about trust, it is about knowledge) and if you disagree with the science, you just need to explain WHY it is wrong. For example you would have to show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have an effect on heat retention and/or that we humans are not dumping the waste products into the atmosphere.
Claiming (as Sagebrush did) that a god has his hand on the global thermostat and fries the children of parents (in hell) if those parents don't bow deep enough (worship) and/or give sufficient money (tithe) to the god is not science. Or (yourself) claiming that CO2 is fertilizer is as useful (and tasteless) as claiming that the remains of the people Hitler killed makes good fertilizer. Those might be persuasive arguments to psychopaths, who care more about money and power, but they have nothing to do with the science of AGW.
You're falling into the erroneous assumption of science being black or white. Science is a process of discovery, it's observation, hypothesis, experimentation and supporting or refuting observations. It never says what something is except for observations but what might explain those observations and it's constantly challenging and reviewing itself. There is no need to trust science as there is nothing to trust, it's merely how we can work through possible explanations. One of a scientists primary hope is discovering that what we "know" is wrong, you get prizes for that.
Life magazine of January 30, 1970, stated: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support . . . predictions” such as: “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution,” and “increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will affect earth’s temperature, leading to mass flooding or a new ice age.”
Where did this reporter get this idea? Of course from peer reviewed papers of that era. Notice CO2 was supposed to cause an Ice Age forty years ago.
You can trust scientists as much as anyone else. If they say one thing now and another later, it is not because they are two faced, it is because they did an experiment or took a measurement than gave us new knowledge.
Actually, there's no harm if you do. However, if it tells you to pack your things tomorrow because it's the end of the world, think again.
yes.
the reports are in science publications, not the public media and certainly not in denier blogs.
If you mean the ones you read on your blogs, I would say no--but you don't believe me.
here is good site called: sciencedaily.com
it is all about breaking science news.
Yes we can because it is objective
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/bbc-r4-everything-we-know-is-wrong.html
