To the best of our knowledge, energy can neither be created or destroyed.
To the best of our knowledge, light can act like a wave or like a particle.
To the best of our knowledge, the most distant galaxies are billions of light years away.
To the best of our knowledge, DNA contains the information required to make a new living being.
edit
Our knowledge of the greenhouse effect predates our knowledge of the structure of DNA, which was not known until 1953.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Watson-C...
It seems science explores the reasoning of "cause and effect" and happens to fall on possible truths about how the climate works by chance and reasoning and not "Luck". The whole problem with relying on "a preponderance of the evidence" is that there are many variables that constitute warming and cooling of the planet, and CO2 (along with other anthropogenic sources) is not the main driver of temperatures. We know that it is not a linear equation and therefore there is no conclusive evidence that anthropogenic global warming is dominating our climate systems.
It's easy to identify the problem with the theory of AGW when they now consider it to be ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change). Warming now can cause cooling. It's an oxy-moron. A catch-22 phrase. It shows how complex and unreliable the argument is. If it was so simple and conclusive, then there would be no argument.
A theory (in the scientific sense) is a work in progress, all science is a work in progress, scientists don't claim to know everything, but the understanding of the processes grows with research.
Look at fields like astronomy, geology, archeology, marine science, glaciology or medicine all have moved forward over the last 4-5 decades as science has advanced, climate science is no different, we certainly don't know everything but we know far more than we did in the 60's or 70's.
But then those like sage who would rather subscribe to absurd global conspiracy theories than actual science have really shown how uninterested they are in reality.
In the above field so f science there are many theories from relativity to natural selection that stand, that is not to say they have not been tweaked as new science and new technology becomes available or as we build on the knowledge that has gone before.
I've worked in science most of my life and frankly I've never seen such a load of nonsense as the confused mess of conflicting theories and conspiracies deniers try to push, calling it horse manure would be to kind, the only thing I find harder to believe is that anyone with even a low level high school science education is fooled by this denier drivel, with pretty much a new theory every week each as flawed as the last built on a shifting base of blog fiction, old discarded scientific theories and pure conspiracy theory BS.
Take for instance the denier theory of "scientific consensus on cooling in the 70's"
There was no such consensus as any, even basic, reading of the scientific literature of the time shows, even in the 70's a good number of scientists where already pointing to warming caused by Co2. ask denier for their proof and they will offer just one or two media stories (the same two media stories) that's it, that's all their evidence. Point to the scientific literature and they will try to dismiss that with the stock answer of all conspiracy theorist's "that's just part of the conspiracy"
The evidence for AGW now comes from a range of science fields, yet deniers would have us believe amongst (many) other things that Al Gore has bought off all the scientists etc etc, Al Gore doesn't have enough money to get scientists to throw away their scientific principles, for such a theory to work it would have to be most of the scientists in at least half a dozen fields of science around the world that's is 10's of thousands of scientists, that is the stupidity of denier claims.
That you really think deniers (sorry they are not by any stretch realists) will try and answer this is strange, look at your answers so far
Sage - just tries to read in a different meaning to what you said (a common denier ploy)
Pindar - parrots the usual rot and sneaks in a reference to the holocaust (more standard denier fair)
Pat - just tries a variation on the old "they changed the name" ploy, these people are as clueless as they seem, do you really think you will get a rational answer, frankly I don't think they are capable of that.
Look at (any) science site, the science on this this is quite solid, scientists have no real doubt because the science is quite solid, deniers are the one who's excuses, are running out.
statements like this from Pindar
"On a scale of between 1 and 100 I would put science's knowledge of the slim agw possibility at about 1 or 2." show the weakness of this denier house of cards, they have now, over years, tried to blame everything from the Sun to Volcanoes to Al Gore to Scientists to Governments to Communists to Greens to Cosmic Rays to Clouds, or of course the claims we are cooling or it's simply not happening at all, temperature data shows no sign of this cooling they refer to
sea level data (which is a short term proxy for temperature also shows no sign of this cooling they refer to, they tried to use sea level data a couple of years ago when there was indeed a short term drop as part of the cooler 2011 La Nina cycle, now they are back to claiming the data can't be trusted because it's showing a strong rise in the following two years. (this is the nature of denial)
Take away their blog BS and rants of Fox and they pretty much have nothing at all and I think the recent more shrill efforts are an example that even some of them are starting to realize that.
What is a deniers idea of cooling, 2011 was a cooler year, due to an extended La Nina, yet this cool year was warmer than 1995, which back then was the warmest year on record, deniers can huff and puff and misdirect as much as they want, they have no real answer to this simple fact.
Well global climate change is not just a theory, it is a reality
<
Well, we *do* know that you are an idiot.
Relativity
Laws of motion
Acid association and disassociation constants
Cellular respiration
Elemental electronegativity values
On a scale of between 1 and 100 I would put science's knowledge of the slim agw possibility at about 1 or 2.
Antarctic = Green eco religious nut job, chk him out for a giggle lol.
Also, any other thoughts? -- Yes congratulations upon not using the holocaust denier slur, it makes you come across as far more intelligent and reasonable and not just some cultist denier chanting nut job.
I know there would be some major changes as soon as I become supreme dictator of the world.
Do you really expect deniers who cannot exercise basic logic,or write in grammatically correct 8th grade English, or do 6th grade arithmetic, let alone grasp 10th grade science, to meaningfully respond to a question about humanity's existential knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning science in general?
Your statement < we do not actually know anything,> really sums it up nicely.
Listen to us big honest boys and you will learn. I the great Sage, says so.
The other day, someone gave me grief about using the word "know" in a question about AGW. And, it is *technically* the case that, in proper science, we do not actually know anything, we merely have a most probable theory. I have argued much the same in the past, when answering various questions about requests to "prove" something (generally evolution, sometimes AGW).
On the other hand, in casual conversation (and Y!A is much closer to casual conversation than it is to proper science), there are scientific theories that are close enough to being proven that people generally treat them as fact, rather than hedge them with "to the best of our knowledge" or the like. We would probably laugh at someone who says "To the best of our knowledge, the sun rather than the Earth is at the center of our solar system", we simply treat that as a hard fact.
So, what scientific theories would you be adequately comfortable saying that you know, or that scientists know, without hedging? If you know many of them, just list 4 or 5. And, at approximately that level of certainty, what do you know, and/or what do you think scientists know, about AGW?
Also, any other thoughts?
