I bet most around here don't even know what that quote means.
_______________________________________...
@Baccheus: Later on in the same Feynman lecture:
"...we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant; if we suppress all discussion, all criticism, saying, "This is it, boys, man is saved!" and thus doom man for a long time to the chains of authority..."
Gee, I wonder what that could apply to?
Of course there is more to learn. This does not negate what is already known. Science is continuously questioned, as it should be. As it is constantly questioned here by those that do not even acknowledge the science that is already known. However, when one questions the scientific evidence presented before them then they should have their own scientific evidence that would support their skepticism. Otherwise, all you are doing is denying what is already known. What is already known? There is not ANYTHING within The Laws of Physics, Chemistry or Thermodynamics that prevents rising, anthropogenic greenhouse gas levels from warming our planet beyond the natural variations within the climate. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support a claim that greenhouse gases will not warm the climate beyond the natural variations. None, zero, zilch! Now, if you, or anyone else here, is able to show us scientific evidence to the contrary, We listen to what you have to say. Until then, you only deny what is already known. The AMO? The PDO? The ENSO? All of these are too short in duration to drive the climate. All of these will have an impact on REGIONAL weather patterns over the course of a few months to a few years and not on a global scale at that. Support your skepticism with scientific evidence or state your true intent here.
It is extremely difficult to figure out what the paleo-temperature was. Gazillions of proxies are used, some contradicting others, and in the end it comes down to the choices of the researcher. We don't know what the CO2 concentration would be without human emissions. We don't know the precise effect of CO2 on the temperature. We don't know how much the temperature affects CO2 and vice versa.
I have always had an interest in the science where we had a lot to learn such as paleoanthropology. I remember shortly after Zinjanthropus was discovered and it was assumed to be the maker of Oldowan tools found near it by Louis Leaky who was kind of child hood hero of mine, a real life Indiana Jones. It turned out he was wrong. Interestingly, he found similar Oldowan tools near Barstow in southern California. I have visited the site and I remain unconvinced that they are from ancient humans but I can't say he was wrong. Since then, I have seen numerous theories about origins come and go. We have certainly learned a great deal since then but there is still much to learn.
One thing I have noticed is that scientists often push the importance of their fossil discovery. If possible, it is usually depicted as a human ancestor because that would make it more valuable. They often argue for their case like a trial lawyer and dismiss alternate explanations rather than keeping a proper scientific skepticism. Time and time again these theories would come and go.
IMO, climate science is in its infancy and I think many who pretend to know things they don't are like Leakey when he proposed Zinj as a tool making human ancestor but that might not be fair to Leakey.
Good science is always up to debate. It is not based on consensus. The consensus was the Earth was flat. The consensus was that maggots spontaneously appeared in meat. The consensus was that people would never fly. They were all wrong. Even Newton's laws were shown to not give the whole picture when Einstein came along with his Theory of Relativity. Global warming is still a hypothesis at best, no matter what the "consensus" says.
There is considerable research being conducted.
The leading science journal on climate change alone publishes over 100 studies every year specifically related to climate change.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.htm...
There are 1,000s of papers published every year. Humanity has been making great advances in the understanding of climate since 2001.
How on earth can somebody believe we are not still learning?
The first reports from the international assessment of research published between 2007 and 2012 is due next month. This will draw from from much more advanced research than the previous assessment had available.
"Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions and pass them on.
-- Richard Feynman
we have had accurate worldwide stats for only a a few years,since the 70-'s with weather satellites..to claim to be able to predict the climate on such low information is not science...this global warming theory is not even a theory,it is a political movement....
remember the so called experts say the science is in,so just on that it is highly suspect...
Of course we don't know all there is to know--you will never find a scientist make a statement like that. On the other hand, deniers proclaim that we know NOTHING about the science, as if physics can't explain anything.
depends on what your politics are. if you are Al Gore or the Kool-Aid drinkers that follow him the science was settled more than a decade ago in spite of all the contradictions to AWG we now know.
Climate scientist are learning everyday, they continue to find new ways to describe why what the think should be happening isn't happening.
Yes. I scientist with doubts is a better one than one with a cocksure attitude. Better than scientist with cocksure attitudes, like these ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Mic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://drtimball.com/
I mean surely there are unknown unknowns, isn't science about questioning? isn't a scientist with doubts likely to be better than one with a cocksure attitude, are we really so arrogant that we believe there is nothing else to learn.
