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