A good example of modern day 'science' is science failing to answer the following question.

Has AGW, Kyoto, IPCC, CSIRO science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean micro and macro green algae plant matter proliferated by unprecedented sewage and land-use nutrient overload/pollution entering ocean ecosystem waters daily?

I think it's time real scientists spoke up.

A classic case of shooting the messenger Don, simply because you don't like or accept the message? Eliminate science from our history and we'd still be living in caves, running our food down with a stone on a stick!

What is wrong with you or accepting seriously cheaper carbon free or carbon neutral energy?

Perhaps you should have opted for the humanities where it seems it's not always necessary to follow logic's rites!?
"It's the economy stupid". Quote unquote.

JF Aus, you're on to something there my friend, given we simply shouldn't be wasting such a valuable resource as nutrient loaded effluent!

If all our effluent were used to underpin (smell free) biogas production, carbon rich soil soil improver by the shipload; and very local energy provision for quarter of what we are now FORCED to pay!

Followed by very broad scale algae farming reusing the same water/soil conditioner, we could save the Murray/Darling and all who currently rely on it!

And use the oil then recovered to become entirely self sufficient in transport fuel!

It's the economy plus the environment!

We simply can't separate and or isolate either!

Some algae are up to 60% oil; and a couple of types currently being trialed here and in Holland, producing naturally occurring diesel and or, jet fuel/power kero.

Moreover, algae only need 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation! Most of which can be eventually returned to the environment, far cleaner than that which went into the algae farms!

All that is required is the filtration of some of this material, sun drying it and then crushing the oil rich material to extract a resource we current pay an arm and a leg to import.

And the ex-crush material may be suitable as animal fodder, or the basis of a equally sustainable ethanol industry; also needing neither arable land, food production nor any energy imputation to underpin production! Sewerage> Biogas> bio-fuel> ethanol> clean water!

Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2 emission and under optimized conditions can literally double that absorption oil production capacity every 24 hours!
Rhrosty.

JF Aus : How on earth is that a good example of 'modern science'. There are millions of scientists on the planet doing science. Every year researchers are confirming or rejecting hypotheses from many fields in the branches of science. The vast majority of scientists have nothing to do with the question that you asked.
Are you saying that their work amounts to nothing and is of no value nor consequence because they haven't answered your question?

If you answered yes to this question then maybe take a minute to ask yourself how it is that we can grow enough food to feed seven billion, cure disease, construct buildings with our modern materials or even smaller issues- like how is it that you can read this message on a computer? In fact the very existence of just about everything you will physically touch today is a good example of modern science.

These references provide a unique understanding of science as an open-ended method of free enquiry without any presumptions about what is true, real or possible, as distinct from the power-and-control seeking ideology of scientific materialism (scientism).The baneful ideology which now patterns and controls every minute fraction of modern "culture".
1. http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/reductionism.html
2. http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/priesthoodofscience.html
3. http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/falsereligofsciencknwledge.html
4. http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science

thinkabit, thinkalot and you will see I referred to modern day science, not modern science. But I accept your points and agree with you in principle.
However surely you must agree it’s time world science came out of the closet to speak up without fear of research livelihood resources being closed off.

Surely it’s time to differentiate between climate change reality and CO2 trading scheme spin.
It seems there is majority agreement worldwide that humans are causing the climate to change, but only a minority agree in comparison that CO2 is the cause. Why is there not 100 percent agreement one way or the other? Or no agreement at all because of incomplete science?

Climate science is absolutely not complete, especially because warmth of plant matter in oceans of this planet has apparently not been measured and assessed.

Don’t get me wrong, I respect and admire real science but in this day and age the emissions trading BS is bringing science into disrepute.
Real science should speak up.

As for growing enough food, think a lot more.
Seven billion people are not being fed, the total being fed is less because millions of people cannot afford to buy food they need to remain healthy and alive.

Yes there are many scientists worldwide
Could just one real scientist answer whether AGW, Kyoto and IPCC science has measured and assessed warmth in algae plant matter in oceans of the world?

Rhosty,
I cannot accept need for carbon neutral energy because like many other people I do not understand how or why carbon is causing climate change.
Yes carbon is causing air pollution but air pollution is not causing climate change either.

Oceans dominate control of world weather and climate.
Many people depend on oceans for food and/or livelihood.
Can just one of the millions of scientists prove otherwise?

JF Aus: I'll try to better explain what I'm trying to say.

Science is a united standard approach to explore all aspects of physical reality. It is a very, very broad endeavour. The issue of CO2 causing climate change is a very minor area of study when compared to the whole body of science. It has no influence/effect on the work of the vast majority of scientists.

It may surprise you that even though the climate change issue is currently very visible and controversial to the public, it does not concern the majority of scientists.

Also, support and/or approval from the public is inconsequential to science. The majority of the public do not understand science anyway, most people have all sorts of non-scientific world views. Science succeeds regardless of the support from these people. Science is not politics, the opinions of the majority are completely irrelevant to it.

All science needs in the way of to support for it to continue, is the support of the smartest and the wealthiest. It has a lot of support from both of these groups (eg: I once read a few years ago that 3 out of 5 physicists in the USA are directly or indirectly funded by the country's defence bugdet--- the USA defence forces are not short of money).

Science will continue on regardless of how the general public perceives it.

(As-an-aside: you don't seem to appreciate the orders of magnitude difference between billions and millions. Assuming the world has 7 billion people even if 400 million were at death's door from starvation that is still 6.6 billion which are fed enough to survive the next month. So saying science feeds 7 billion is correct when using one significant digit has I did. If you studied science you will know what significant digits are. Also, it is interesting to note that that there is a correlation between societies which least value science and starvation--eg: africa has the least investment in science and has the greatest problems with feeding its population)

thinkabit,
Your effort to explain is appreciated however my question of whether warmth in algae has or has not been measured and assessed in AGW science remains unanswered.

If science is a standard approach to explore all aspects of physical reality as you say, surely exploring reality of impact of plant matter in oceans is more important to explore and measure than impact of plant matter being chewed in cud.

I am not seeking an answer from the whole body of science, an answer from say a CSIRO climate scientist of integrity would suffice.

The majority of scientists may not be concerned about AGW as you indicate but that could be because that majority do not consider CO2 is the cause.
Perhaps that majority may be very concerned if knowledge came to hand indicating collapse of affordable world food supply was leading to civil unrest and world war and general malnutrition causing uncontrollable spread of Ebola in their neighbourhood.
Think about already devastated world ocean available fish stocks and supply and previously seafood dependent people keeping undernourished chickens going through immune system dysfunction causing virus mutation and yet another strain of more deadly bird flu.
I suggest think a lot. While flying into Australia last week I had to fill out for the first time, a passenger arrival check list for Ebola.
Disease from poverty stricken Africa can even reach first class passengers.

thinkabit, I appreciate the digits you refer to. However, in Africa the problem is chronic starvation whereas I think also about malnutrition, and more specifically, about protein deficiency malnutrition. Complete protein, essential amino acids, cell building protein, i.e that repairs damage to major organs.
Obviously not everybody would starve but many will likely be malnourished, even in modern cities of Europe and the US, China, Russia, Australia etc.
Cont’d next post…..………

……….cont’d.
Never in known history have oceans and rivers been so devastated of food.
Immune system dysfunction and associated disease is already increasing due to malnutrition.
How can individuals and family members be sure they will escape a seriously contagious disease, in this crowded world?
What about drinking water making your children mentally ill or making your parents absent minded. The following report came today, no mention of dumped city sewage nutrient pollution. LOL. Blame farmers, ‘ignore’ the exponential growth of the human population and the nutrient loaded waste.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-12/toxic-algal-blooms-are-rise-now-scientists-want-know-if-theyre-connected

There is health of the water ecosystem and atmosphere of this planet to now think about. Nutrient pollution fed algae is devastating seagrass food web nurseries. Precipitation can be seen occurring above ocean and lake algae. Increasingly severe weather is impacting food production.

Is it at all possible imminent famine and disease and war might concern more scientists than usual? There is more to science than war mongering.

Finding solutions to prevent catastrophe can be funded. Existing economies and pockets and purses can be stimulated worldwide. It is not impossible.
There is need for new business and employment generating industry to engineer infrastructure and rehabilitation of the water and land environment of this planet.
It can be done and it will be done, under the circumstance involved it is inevitable.
But reality has to be faced and addressed by real science and politicians of integrity

JF and others, this isn't a discussion of AGW. If you'd like to discuss that, perhaps you could write an article?

Don, a very thoughtful article, thank you.

It seems to me that the future is a little more hopeful than perhaps it was when you wrote that piece, although in some ways the present situation is actually worse.

Science has succeeded in gaining political influence to the extent it has enabled technologies. Ask most people including, as you point out, many politicians, what they associate with science and the list will not include the wonderfully powerful metaphysical schema of knowledge as a holistic system that evolved into what we know as science today.

It has failed to the extent that as the scope of knowledge has broadened it has become fragmented and to some extent divorced not just from the humanities, but from itself. Humans are a social species; we identify within groups and we have always closely guarded our groups' specialties from outsiders. This has lead to the somewhat isolated power hierarchies you describe so well. It has also left it vulnerable to having to always be able to produce "the next big thing" to retain public support.

The humanities have not had the same success in creating obviously useful technologies. Ask the person on the street what they think of the humanities and they won't talk about the wonders of democratic Government or the awesome power of semiotics and economics. They'll scratch their head and maybe mention art or literature or scoff at "pointy-heads" doing philosophy.

The future is hopeful because of two not-unrelated influences. The power of data-mining and of knowledge acquisition generally in a world of electronic data storage is breaking down the barriers between disciplines, across science and the humanities. Further,the rise of systems approaches is leading to a much more integrative approach to knowledge extending what we mean by knowledge in ways not fully understood.

Don't despair overmuch.

JF Aus; I'm gob smacked by your comments on not wanting carbon free or carbon neutral energy, because you don't believe carbon is producing climate change!

Well how about because it costs far less and as such, will completely resuscitate our manufacturing base!

Cheaper than coal thorium, i.e., coupled to micro-grids, which halve energy costs and even less than hydro, connected to a national grid.

Moreover thorium is far safer than uranium, given there's so much less waste, and that which is made, eminently suitable as long life space batteries!

And you reject carbon neutral boigas product in on the same fatuous grounds, even though it reduces the average household energy bill by at least 75%, if used in individual ceramic fuel cells; which by the way, provide endless free hot water. [WTF? You'd rather pay through the neck for it?]

And as an aside, produces a carbon rich soil improver, which enables natural carbon sequestration in much more fertile soil!

Everything I've suggested has only positive and economic benefits, yet you reject them because they don't increase our combined carbon output!?

Of all the fatuous grounds for automatically rejecting good money saving ideas; these are not only the most fatuous puerile moribund ideological imperatives ever put, but arguably the most obtuse as well!?

We can only be extremely grateful you're not involved in any way with running the country or the energy sector!
Rhrosty.

With the huge savings able to become new discretionary spending, the very lifeblood of the domestic econmy!

Apologies; I forgot the P.S.

Interesting material Don.

Science is an inquiry system, that is it provides tools that we humans can use to inquire into, and attempt to understand our world.

Science has limitations, for example its usual methods of reduction, replicability and predictive testing are of very limited, or no, value when applied to complex adaptive systems.

Furthermore as we progress, science appears to becoming politicised, and the scientists are behaving like courtiers or priests dispensing prognostications to the 'masses'. Obvious non-sciences like 'economics' are now described as science in order that they gain some credibility. If we described economics as educated guesswork that only considers what is convenient (economists select out inconvenient 'externalities'), we'd be a lot closer and 'economists' might end up with less sway.

Science has too often been structured into narrow disciplines (reductionism) that create their own languages and that frequently use machines and other technologies to view the world.

I argue that we need to expand our knowledge of our world by using inquiry systems specifically designed to be valid in that world. For that purpose, science is only a small contributor.

In all of this one serious problem is that when complex systems are reduced to components, the system has disappeared and whatever 'tests' are carried out are not applicable to the wider system

Think, Craig.

I am not engaging in actual AGW debate.
My view and comments are from real life experience involving collapse of SW Pacific Islands culture and ocean ecosystems that is in turn causing economic and political turmoil that science should be addressing.

I am endeavouring to involve science in the humanities.
Don Aitkin’s article is inspiring debate here on OLO and I am responding with a single straight forward question. That question provides practical example that shows present day science and debate apparently does not include ocean algae plant matter, and that AGW science is therefore very incomplete.

Science should be leading society toward prosperity and peace instead of higher carbon trading associated electricity, fuel and food bills.
Science should be welcoming problems that can be solved while generating resources for science and new productivity and business and employment.

Instead criticism arises, yours Craig, without any evidence as to why discussion on this thread should not include AGW and incomplete science that should be completed.

The future is not hopeful from my point of view because breaking down the barriers across science and the humanities is going nowhere, maybe backwards.
Present human behaviour objecting to AGW comment on this thread about science could prevent interaction.
To interact, why not try and answer my question and see if the answer leads to major resources for science, leading to new productivity and business and employment and a healthier environment and people as well?
Science should be helping to create success for humanity, instead making comment that may stifle debate and knowledge.

Science could be very special and very important to humanity in many ways

Rhosty,
I do not disagree with your ideas. It's that I am not qualified or experienced or have knowledge in the areas you speak of.

I am aware of the critically urgent need to reduce air pollution and I think clean energy is obviously a solution.

Solutions to devastation in the oceans and the impac have to involve reduction of the nutrient loading. CO2 emissions are not the problem.

JF, this is a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of science. Whether AGW is a real problem or not is a discussion for another time and place. At best it is tangential to the discussion at hand.

Part of the reason that the discussion of AGW has become so pointless is that it is so easily turned into a political (group psychology) debate and because humans are a group species, the emotional response to such a formulation of the problem tends to gazump a genuinely scientific one.

As a result, trying to discuss the problem in any other terms is very difficult and the science gets forgotten in the rush to be "right".

Mikester, science isn't becoming politicised but the administration of funding for science, along with the replacement of journalism with advocacy has lead to the discussion of the implications of scientific findings becoming subject to a political "debate" paradigm, in which "winning" an argument is more important than advancing understanding of a topic.

We can and we will do better.

Chris and others,

My question at the beginning of this thread provides a real life example seeking to understand whether 'science' or science is special.
Besides, I am not discussing whether AGW is real or not.

I think AGW 'science' is not special at present because it is incomplete and seems to be riddled with spin.
I think real science is very special and that the answer to the question I ask should lead to advancement in real science, even in technology involving remote sensing, not on other planets but within the whole world ocean. Presently, real science barely knows the basic biology of life in the oceans, and a professor has let me know science knows even less than that.

Perhaps science should show patience and have more focus on reality not yet explored and understood, instead of focussing too much on philosophy.

You, Chris, seem to have considerable experience in science whereas I am a student.

Please answer my question that could be answered yes or no.
Or at least, what do you think the answer might be?

Hi JF, I'm going to assume that by "Chris" you mean Craig :). Buggered if I know why, but for some reason I often get called Chris by new acquaintances, although I've never had it happen in writing before, IIRC.

It's the philosophy of science that has made it special and allowed it to become so effective. It is the philosophy of science that allows that focus on things not yet explored. Without that, you don't have science!

As Don points out, to the extent that science has become politicised it has become to some extent less effective. By its nature it is about looking for ways to be wrong and so it fits very uncomfortably into a political model in which being seen to not be wrong is regarded as fundamentally important.

In other words, what we need to be doing is to promote more of the philosophy of science and try to expand it, especially to further embrace uncertainty, since it is the nature of the humanities to be uncertain that has prevented them from taking up the philosophical underpinnings of science. We need to be teaching our science and technology students more about the philosophy of science and the Theory of Knowledge, including metaphysics (no, that doesn't mean astrology and ghosts, look it up).

Don't be concerned if a scientist tells you he doesn't know much. All that he means is that he has no idea how much more there is to know, but that he can make a pretty good stab at a guess that it's a lot more than he knows already. Or at least, he hopes so, because a scientist with all the answers is not a scientist at all. In such a world view, it is only honest to admit we know very little. "The more you know, the more you know you don't know", as Aristotle put it.

Hi Craig,

Yes, my error with your name, Chris.

I hear you but surely in all the world and among all the scientists there is someone who can answer the question that reality of devastation in the oceans has led me to be asking.

I wonder, would nutrient pollution trading inspire the answer?

Thank you for your response. But can you advise who could answer the question?

JF; protecting the oceans from algae bloom, could be very profitably done.

First we replace the open sewers and antiquated treatment plants with much smaller Aussie invented two tank systems that treat the raw sewerage (soluble solids only) in house, so to speak.

Tanks the approximate size of shipping containers large enough to treat all the waste from high rise buildings or small suburbs.

And located at the lowest possible point to remove the necessity, to waste energy on unnecessary pumps.

This is a closed cycle system, which therefore presents no smell problem, even where located in the basement.

There are two separate systems, one aerobic the other anaerobic.

Due entirely to the system and the bacteria allowed to survive, the first one operates in an oxygen rich environment, the second an oxygen free one.

The first tank is maintained at around 31C, the second 55C.

This duel process thoroughly sanitizes all the end products; which include biogas (methane) reusable water, and a carbon rich soil improver loaded with expensive nitrates and phosphates.

The average family produces enough waste to completely power their domiciles 24/7; and even produce a large salable surplus, if they include a methane consuming ceramic fuel cell, to provide whisper quiet power/endless free hot water.

The still nutrient loaded water can then be endlessly recycled as billions of litres through algae farms, which produces endlessly sustainable diesel or jet fuel.

Some algae are up to 60% oil. And farming it only uses around 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation!

Under optimized conditions algae can be made to double their bodyweight/oil production capacity every 24 hours!

And the "clean" water can then be returned to the environment, free of the nutrients that create the wild algae blooms in the first place!

Extracting the oil is child's play.

Some of the filtered material is sun-dried then crushed to remove most of the virtually ready to use oil; with the ex-crush material more than suitable to underpin a food and arable land free; endlessly sustainable, energy input free, ethanol industry.
Rhrosty.

JF, I can't answer your questions, I'm sorry, it's simply not my field. On the topic of nutrients though, especially phosphorus, we have very compelling reasons to reduce the loss to oceanic dilution quite apart from the damage to the oceans. Rhrosty has given what seems to be a fairly comprehensive engineering scheme for recovery of some nutrient waste, but once again, it's not my field, so I can't really make a useful comment on how effective it might be. There is still the large problem of nutrient run-off from agriculture and urban areas that isn't so easy. Capturing and treating large quantities of storm water, for example is very expensive and hard to do; even harder if you want to do it close to the outfall in the ocean. Still, like Rhrosty's proposal it's engineering rather than science, I suspect and there are probably no theoretical reasons it couldn't be done if enough resources were put into it.

What is so special about ‘science’ is that you have to present evidence for claims made. What has happened with the global warming debate is that those who did not like what the scientists were saying decided to undermine their credibility. This was easy to do as generally scientists are not trained to speak to non-scientists, or to formulate public policy advice, or to speak to the media. But we can be as certain as we can be of anything that global warming is caused by human activity. The question now is what we do about it.

as with many disciplines much of what passes as science is pig headed dogma. The evolution fantasy followed by the gw myth are two clear examples of pseudo science. When this idiotic nonsense becomes mainstream you know something is drastically wrong.

Don, A useful discussion. However as a professional scientist for many years I would like to remind readers that science is a process for gaining knowledge. Genuine scientists support views for which there is good evidence, especially if it is confirmed and if it expands genuine understanding of the field of endeavour. Real scientists should not allow emotions or political views to distort their views. There is no doubt that global warming fanatics have highjacked both the science and the politics. This is not to say that some evidence for environmental warming should be ignored. There is however a price for crying wolf. Other areas where science has been seriously highjacked include the use of GMO foodstuffs and associated fields and the use of vaccines for disease prevention. The abuse of science in these latter two instances is mind boggling. Unfortunately the global warming fanatics, and especially the Greens, have done enormous economic damage to the nation (and the world) with their simplistic abuse of science and have made efforts by rational governments etc who wish to manage climate change much more difficult. It is not science that is at fault - it is the abuse of science, sometimes by persons who regards themselves as scientists. It's very dangerous to fall in love with your preconceptions or even hypothesis.

“ we can be as certain as we can be of anything that global warming is caused by human activity.”

What is your basis for this unsupportable statement, tomw ?

Refer us to the science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

Since 1982, politicians have been claiming need for scientific evidence of fish depletion before any action can be taken, so surely consequences and solutions are matters for science.
Rhosty is onto it.
There is need to develop viable bio reactors to transform nutrients into algae and then bio fuel. But first politicians must see there never will be scientific evidence of fish depletion, because no scientists counted fish in the beginning and no one can count fish that remain.

There is empirical evidence.
Fresh local flathead at 50 dollars for one kilo, plus 70 percent of fish in Australia being imported annually, plus malnutrition among seafood dependent island people, plus sea animals dying due to starvation, etc, should be enough evidence to engage real science.

Green-chlorophyll micro algae is almost everywhere, plus algae blooms, plus algae on seagrass leaf shutting down photosynthesis and killing seagrass food web nurseries.

Real science must speak up louder than pseudo 'science'.

Farm and stormwater runoff only occurs when it rains, whereas sewage nutrient matter is dumped daily. The overload would not be occurring every day if real science was applied to bioreactor infrastructure development.
People would support scientific management of ocean ecosystem rehabilitation to feed animals and islanders and pro and amateur fishing industries.

Real science could generate prosperity and a healthy sustainable environment, and respect.

The concept and control of the word 'science' comes no more clearly into play as within creation/evolution debates. It's especially here where the legislators of correct thinking are beholden to keep the definition on their side of the court. It's very important that Darwin be categorised and portrayed as having great 'scientific' insight rather than merely being a great philosopher or thinker.

So it's made clear that when examining fossil evidence, anyone seeing descent from a common ancestor is having 'scientific' thoughts. Whereas anyone seeing the same evidence but disputing descent from a common ancestor is having 'religious' thoughts.

Finding evidence of design within living structures is deemed scientific anathema, while pointing out poor design, lack of design, or explaining away the appearance of design is commended as scientifically progressive. It's playing with a two headed coin.

Did life arise by purely undirected processes, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? The question is not one that a 'science' student is allowed to ask.

The editors of "accredited scientific journals", the signals of scientific progress, guard well the evolutionary paradigm. They've declared what is correct. If your view isn’t published in their journals, your view must not be scientific. And since your view is not scientific, it won’t be published in their journals. It's like a series of boxing matches continually won on a technicality, with never a knock-out punch. But the victory is hollow. In the public’s perception there is no greater scientific theory championed more by academics while appearing more doubtful to everyone else.

Leo, the reason I can be certain that global warming is caused by human activity is that credible scientists said so. I am a skeptical person and don't believe everything anyone tells me. But I am not an expert in every possible field and so have to trust to the judgment of other people. If I need medical advice I consult a qualified doctor, if I need my car fixed I consult a qualified mechanic, and if I want to know what is happening with the climate I ask a scientist.

There is a risk that the scientists are wrong, in which case we will have wasted a small amount of resources making the atmosphere less polluted that was needed, which is not so bad a result. But if they are right then we are wasting time arguing while things get worse, or to quote Star Trek: "...only a fool fights in a burning house".

Tomw, you can refer to science which shows a measurable effect of human emissions, if such science exists, otherwise your reply is nonsense.
Huge amounts have been expended, in efforts to produce such science.
All that has been ascertained is that the human effect on climate is trivial, and of no consequence. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically noticed. This is the reason for the nonsense statements of the IPCC, that it is “94% certain”. There is no science to back this, so it is a fraudulent statement. Your reply can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty, tomw.

Empirical evidence of substance indicates human induced change to climate is occurring.
The evidence indicates photosynthesis-linked warmth in algae plant matter in areas of oceans and lakes is for example causing increase in precipitation and increase in cloud resulting in change to climate in some regions.

Focus of 'science' has been on emissions and emissions trading.
Empirical evidence indicates that yes, the climate is changing, but no, the cause is not due to CO2.

Ocean controls weather above. How could CO2 be warming just some areas of ocean?

I think it's not what has been expended on the emissions angle to date, it's that the real likely cause of unprecedented ocean and lake algae is continuing and worsening and is not being properly or at all addressed.

The humans on watch at this time in History are changing the life support ecosystem on this planet.
The damage to property and economic impact and loss of life from increasingly severe weather is just the beginning if real science does not speak out.

Here is an on the spot example of 'science' in action.
http://www.3aw.com.au/news/stinking-seaweed-piling-up-at-altona-st-kilda-brighton-and-other-melbourne-beaches-20150316-1m0qzc.html

Seaweed is the colloquial term for algae.
This is macro algae being washed up and in unprecedented amount and there is no scientific evidence such amount is natural.

Also, there is no scientific evidence of "no cause for alarm".
Indeed there should be real concern, and solutions.
Algae is waters of Victoria is linked to mass mortality of the regions fairy penguins and mutton birds, plus Melbourne people eating imported fish instead of local fish.

Money is increasingly draining out of Australia to now import fish.

Loss of seagrass from Western Port Bay is known.
A study to find how many pro and amateur tourism fishing industry people have lost their livelihood would indicate more reason for concern.

JF, "there is no scientific evidence that such an amount is natural" is a failure to understand the nature of science.

I realise you're passionate about the problem and that's great, but let me ask you what you think "real" science might be? What differentiates it from what you obviously think is some form of "fake" science?

Craig,

I think real science is about fact and 'science' involves spin.

Which of these are facts; which of these are scientific facts?

Australia was federated in 2001;
Hannibal crossed the Alps on elephants;
Tasmania was once connected to the mainland by a land bridge;
All mammals share a common ancestor?

None, because none can be tested in a laboratory. But nutrient over-loading proliferating excessive algae can be scientifically tested and measured.

So what you're saying, JF, is that real science is about things that you feel you can understand. The problem with this form of "intuitive" definition is that oftentimes things are quite counter-intuitive: what seems to be a reasonable view of a situation is simply wrong.

There are many thousands of examples and I won't bother giving any, because I'm sure you can think of plenty for yourself.

One problem with a reliance on intuitively satisfying results is that they are often very limited or lead to a conclusion which is not complete. If used to drive policies, they may cause more harm than good - the law of unforeseen consequences. The issue of nutrient runoff arose because the obvious benefits to agriculture of having massively enhanced crop performance were obvious; the benefits to humanity of having much better food supply were obvious; the ocean's limitless extent was obvious...

And except for the last part, they're still obvious: damage to the oceans was an unforeseen consequence of an intuitively satisfying reasoning process.

The problem we face now is to work out how to fix it without causing other unforeseen consequences.

That's what real science and engineering does.

Craig,
What I am saying is that I can believe real science but not pseudo 'science'.

Can I suggest you just find the answer to the simple basic question I have asked?
Evidence of substance indicates that question should be urgently answered.

JF, I'm sure that I can't answer your "basic question" to your satisfaction.

Apart from not being sufficiently expert in the field to do so, I suspect that there is no answer which does not align with your own preference that you might find satisfactory.

If you feel sufficiently strongly, then perhaps you might consider doing the "real" science yourself and then you might look to engineering a solution that you can convince others is worth supporting.

You might be surprised at how much "real" science has already been done on the subject if you take the trouble to look. That makes your job much easier - all you have to do is the engineering...

Craig,

What evidence do you have to establish you cannot answer the question to my satisfaction? I will be satisfied with an honest answer. Are you dishonest?

I feel I have done enough basic science and extensive research on relevant subjects sufficient to ask the question I wrote at the head of page one of this OLO thread.

The question has of course been addressed but is not answered.

Some OLO writers have already seen the following but maybe you have not.

Research shows precipitation occurring in association with ocean algae, such as pinpoints of cloud forming parallel to algae in the Bering Sea, here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phytoplankton_Bloom_in_the_Bering_Sea_amo_2009281_lrg.jpg

Also, algae has been scientifically discovered well after AGW Kyoto and IPCC made statement about climate that subsequently changed taxation laws and economies causing loss of business and hardship. Note the time and date well after Kyoto, here:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

I am coming to understand nothing is special about 'science' or real science, because that obviously important and however basic and inconvenient question, is not being answered.
What is going on, Craig?

Right now science should be reporting to government and media there is need to attend to ocean seafood devastation linked to algae that is now impacting people of Vanuatu.
News media should be investigating outer communities and loss of garden food due to cyclone Nathan, PLUS loss of essential protein (amino acid) supply that once sustained good health.
Vanuatu has recently had and may still have a problem with small babies talking up ward space needed for normal births.
Evidence indicates malnutrition and anaemia is causing stunting and/or early deliveries and also maternal mortality among Pacific Islands people.

I wonder if Vanuatu and other islands will get real aid needed to sustain health and life.
But who knows about those things, media is not telling news truthfully as it should be told.
Media fobs off seriousness of fish devastation and shortage of food by blaming science for lack of scientific evidence.

Lack of expertise in specific field’s should not delay finding an answer to a serious question, or two.

JF, I've already given you an honest answer and you're not satisfied.

Sorry, that's all I can do.

Cyclone Pam I should have said in my previous post. My error but now corrected.

As for that question, insight to the situation shows the answer points to exceptional business and employment and more sustainable prosperity, so it is inevitable it will be answered and addressed.

Delay in answering is holding science back in more ways than one, especially because prosperity opens the door to resources for science.

JF, you're continuing to confuse politics with science.

No matter how clear the scientific evidence for any given problematical situation being real, whether it is prioritised by decision-makers is a matter for politics.

Science can only inform, it cannot decide and if it claims to do so, it is not science.

Craig,

Science can do more than just inform.
Science can lead the way.
Science could be very special.

The CSIRO should answer that question, then science could help lead the way to productively and viably rehabilitating the whole of the water ecosystem of this planet.

Google: water shortage and find for example,
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/world/UN-warns-of-water-crisis-by-year-2030/shdaily.shtml

Science is inextricably linked to politics, especially via economics and the world ocean and AFFORDABLE world protein supply sustainability.

Present policy makers seem oblivious to the real state of world ocean water ecosystem. There is aquaculture policy but no water ecosystem policy. And development of aquaculture is being increased in contained conditions that generate nutrient overload that adds to the sewage nutrient loading and unprecedented proliferation of algae and consequent impact on climate.

The following URL provides further example, of precipitation occurring over the exact area in the Gulf of Mexico where the world's biggest ocean dead zone is located. Too much algae consumes available oxygen at night and under heavy cloud, resulting in anoxia and that dead zone.

http://microcosmnews-earthwatch-report.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/deadly-monster-winter-storm-batters-us.html

Is there any science paper that informs policy makers about nutrient pollution proliferating algae in that dead zone being linked to that precipitation and severe weather?
Does anyone know if marine biology is included in meteorology?

Does anyone know if science is informing politicians and policy makers about the oceans already being in such a critical state of devastation that weather is being changed?

Do politicians and policy makers comprehend innovation and new productivity could eventuate from scientifically engineered solutions that could stimulate the world economy and prove science to be very special?
Most countries have water issues that require solutions.

JF, see my response at the top of page 7 of this thread.

And that's it for me on this thread unless something new comes up.

P.S.
March 15th 2015 is the date on evidence algae has not been measured and assessed, NASA is just now setting out to do the quantifying.

But alas, warmth in algae is not mentioned. It appears the science could be somewhat politically pre-determined. LOL

CSIRO would do well to request algae-quantity temperature data from NASA.
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/new-nasa-mission-to-study-ocean-algae/

Well Craig, thanks for your input anyway.

And special thanks to Don Aitkin for the article that has allowed some discussion perhaps toward more respect and a better future for science.
Cheers.