Ruben Z

How can a largely scientifically illiterate country (yes that's us) evaluate what good science is? Isn't it funny how some folks believe in scientific explanations that fit their needs, like solar cycles to explain global warming; yet, those that threaten their version of utopia, like carelessly driving an SUV and economies driven by fossil fuels, is automatically assumed to be junk science? Isn't it possible that several of the responses to this question that refuted an anthropogenic cause for global warming (and resultant climate change) are based on gaps in knowledge (or should I say ignorance) of thermodynamics, climatology, geophysics, astrophysics, and the scientific process in general? Shouldn't we as individuals take a good look at where we get our information from, that is, did you hear that global warming was bogus from people or organizations that have ties to interest groups? Was it from the media, which notoriously misrepresents healthy scientific debate?

What is the absolute change in particle energy associated with a 1 degC rise in average global temperatures? I would like a refresher on how temperature is related to particle energy. Not exactly a direct relationship is it? Please explain how thermal expansion of water is very real, and greater overall thermal energy can lead to more extreme weather phenomena. Explain how statistical correlation does not indicate causation, however evidence (and you mislead in your other response, as the trends have not been observed from just our lif-time) from such comparision has been so strong that most mainstream scientists (these are the ethical ones that report facts and intertpret data without bias of personal gain) agree that anthropogenic global warniming and the resultant climate change is indeed fact, much like evolution and atomic theory. As a scientist, you must surely understand that no one explantion can be proven, but there are some damn good ones w/ great predictive value.