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)