http://www.livescience.com/health/cancer-media-optimism-100316.html

http://www.livescience.com/animals/etc/100104-treat-dolphins-like-persons-scientists-say.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/running-barefoot-may-be-healthier-say-scientists-1881341.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100406-new-earth-epoch-geologic-age-anthropocene/

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/uom-ssa042110.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/scientists-say-evolution_n_245897.html

Now I grant you that the media is largely responsible for sensationalism, but am I to believe that there was no effort by the scientists to contact the media? What am I to believe about the articles? Running bearfoot might be healthy until I slice my foot open, then I might have a different opinion; and if dolphins are so smart, then why do they live in igloos?

http://www.classictvquotes.com/quotes/if-dolphins-are-so-smart-why-do-they-live-in-igloos-dolphins-do/

Also, and I’m honestly not trying to start a flame war here, but what is it that has Dr. Kaku said to fall from the ranks of respectability? I’m not particularly familiar with his science advocacy work, but the title of intended video would seem to suggest he is a believer in/has promoted some of the end-of-the-world in 2012 nonsense. However, in the “Related Videos” box on the linked page, there is a three minute and sixteen second clip dubbed “Michio Kaku Dismisses 2012 Hysteria” in which he says of the movie, “I give them an A for special effects, but an F for science…” He later goes on to say, “In 2012, I’ll be sleeping just fine…”, and even shares a few knowing laughs with the rather dim-witted hosts. Poor taste in cinema aside, what’s the problem here?

There is a scientific consensus among climatologists, though. Given that this seems to be a non-coerced consensus, and the climatologists can explain the basics of it in ways that make perfect sense to the educated public (and physicists, like myself), I’d say let’s listen to the consensus. Although, as you point out, it’s worth working on alternative energy sources for plenty of other reasons, as well.

This has gone past the “I don’t know” stage, in terms of our certainty. (Although, as always in science, we never leave the “I’m not sure” stage )

What really puzzles and upsets me, though, is how the whole climate change thing is viewed as a political fight. As one can see in Michael’s comment, many conservatives feel that they must say climate change is false, because otherwise they’d be bad conservatives. If they admit AGW is happening, that would be a victory for the Democrats – in the warped minds of these people…

AGW is an interesting subject since it is so incredibly complex and chaotic, omitting something minor in your reasoning can bring you to a completely wrong conclusion.

Personally, with regards to AGW, I’m content with simply saying “I don’t know”. Having small-scale independent energy production is a good idea regardless if AGW holds or not and the most promising technologies for doing that are also “green”. It is a fact that we need to move off fossil fuels, simply because we are running out of them.

I think we need names. of the “pastors” you speak of…willing to give some, and perhaps yours?

Anyway, any true scientist is completely willing to abandon her or his cherished theories or conclusions, but only in the face of evidence, confirmed by other observations. “Overly enamored of the scientific method” you say? You mean because it produces only falsifiable results?

If faith is involved, it’s not in the results of science – quite the contrary. We should always be questioning, always skeptical, always wiling to give up our theoretical inferences when they no longer fit the observations.

Interesting. The answer first hinges on semantics, as science defined as knowledge does not require skepticism. Skepticism leads to the scientific method though, so in the modern sense, science is a codification of skepticism (at least in the context of the scientific method, which for all practical purpose is statistical method). I think the real paradox is that science still requires a degree of faith (not in the religious sense), because the doubt introduced by pure skepticism is irreducible (as the scientific method always leaves an element of uncertainty). In the sense I was using, I think science has well demonstrated that it is prone to overfitting of data when left to the devices of those who are overly enamored of the scientific method. The scientific method is just a tool, it isn’t a religion, and I think that we have many “scientists” who see themselves as pastors to the flocks of layman, and place themselves as ultimate arbiters of truth. My view is that there is a horrible abuse of the power of the scientific method in the hands of those who have allegedly been trained to know its limitations. I think some of the problems in finding funding for the hard sciences is that there are too many people claiming to be “scientists” saying things about the way the world “should” be, and by doing so they have made applying the scientific method contextually equivalent to asking an oracle questions in the minds of the public.

I am not surprised about Kaku doing this sort of thing, but I am somewhat surprised at B. Nye promoting a (supposedly) bogus product.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/03/29/freeman-thinking/

My thoughts have not evolved too much on the GW topic since then despite ClimateGate and all the rest. And I would never deny anyone the right to question scientific claims…but eventually, in the face of overwhelming evidence, it can become irrational to do so.