Other than climate change and evolution, in what fields of science is there no debate among the experts, ...?

Few human beings would disagree that climate substitute does not take place yet maximum would argue that it particularly is guy brought about. Se that are you conversing approximately?! I save listening to this yet have not seen an concrete information that what you're saying is real. Your link is undesirable! Professor Phil Jones who heads the climate analyze Unit says that international warming has surpassed off contained in the previous and it has on no account been brought about by skill of guy, there has been no international warming considering that 1995, and the information for the favourite hockey stick graph, which supposedly proves international warming is conviently lacking! In 2002 while snow ranges have been under universal we've been instructed that grow to be because of the fact of international warming now that snow ranges are above universal we are instructed it rather is by technique of the fact international warming, so it particularly is it?! you are able to no longer have it the two techniques! And yet you declare that deniers are disconnected from fact?!

I think your own question shows why no one wants to debate deniers "Other than climate change and evolution, in what fields of science is there no debate"

I don't know were you have been hiding (a U.S. Baptist state perhaps) but evolution has been debated for 150 years, something deniers continue to fail to understand is science never stops, there is continuing research in all areas of science (including evolution and climate).

Evolution has stood up to sustained attack by both other scientists and church groups, scientists realized fairly quickly it was sound science, even most church groups have come to accept it, some zealots tried to 'invent' some pseudo science called intelligent design, but it lasted a very short time.

Deniers try the same methods they have in excess of 100 different conspiracies/theories to try and explain away climate change to date none of them work many violate basic principles of physics or they conflict with each other.

Deniers refuse to face it, but it's painfully obvious that many of these theories are tailored to gather different groups like those with pet hatreds of communists, government, the rich, scientists, the U.N. or taxes. With theories that range from it's the Sun to a plot to make Al Gore richer or it's not happening at all to it's is happening but it's natural.

I don't know but in reality, there should be ongoing debate and discussion amongst experts in all fields of science. As for the public, there is generally no need for debate until science begins dictating policy.

What makes you think there is no debate in these areas? Modern evolution theory is a rapidly growing area of science, it is constantly evolving (for lack of a better word) and there is considerable debate among evolutionary biologists as to the mechanisms, effects, causes, etc of evolution.

The same goes for climate science. The experts are constantly debating the causes, effects, predictions, etc that the theory suggests.

I think what you are referring to to why there is no apparent debate between evolution / anti evolution experts, and AGW / anti AGW experts. The answer is quite simple, one side has no real experts as they are so clearly demonstrable scientific facts. The debate is their among the experts, they simply dont waste their time debating the ignorant.

in both your cases, there really is debate among the experts, but the nature of that debate is misrepresented, by people with a nonscientific axe to grind, as a non-existent disagreement about fundamentals.

Within evolution, there is healthy and vigorous expert debate about mechanisms, the nature of the first evolving systems, the importance of horizontal gene transfer, the role of "junk DNA", and more. Creationists misrepresent this as disagreement about the fundamentals of common ancestry and natural selection.

Within climate science, there is genuine disagreement about the magnitude of feedback effects, and hence the all-important question of the *extent* of warming that would occur under, say, business as usual, but there is no disagreement (despite what you sometimes see in this section) about the fact that increased CO2 is due to human activity, and that there is warming in the past 50 years for which that increased CO2 is the only plausible explanation.

Within quantum mechanics, there are profound disagreements about the interpretation of "uncertainty", but you won't find Faux News or Sarah the Self-styled Grizzly pretending that there are scientists who *reject* quantum mechanics, because politically speaking nothing is at stake.

If you think that there is no debate among the "experts" in these two areas, than your definition of an "expert" must be someone whose views are exactly the same as yours.

<Other than climate change and evolution, in what fields of science is there no debate among the experts, ...?>>

On many things in physics there is no debate. Of course it is the debated stuff that gets debated, making it appear there is a lot of debate, but quite a bit is not debated.

Of course stuff that is accepted is accepted in the realm of being a good approximattion. For example, when it is said that General Relativity is correct it is implied that General Relativity is a non-quantum approximation of the correct theory, with even a "correct" quantum version possibly being some sort of approximation

No one doubts that atoms exist, that electrons, protons and neutrons exist, that quarks exist, that Special Relativity is correct, that Newtonian mechanics is correct (as an approximation) that Maxwell's equations are correct (as an approximation) that General Relativity is correct (as an approx) that Schrodinger's Equation is correct (as a low energy, no spin approximation) etc.

It depends on what you consider to be "considerable" but a lot of the other environmental issues should fit. Ozone depletion, acid rain, DDT, etc.

Plus any number of conspiracy theories. Chemtrails vs. contrails, that HAARP is some kind of superweapon, controlled demolition on 9/11, etc.

There are also quite a few health-based ones, such as the safety/efficacy of vaccines (e.g., autism claims), the efficacy of 'new age' or unproven health products, fluoridation of water, etc.

Obviously all of these subjects are unique so it's hard to group them all under any single definition, but I'd say with all of them you can find a good number of people with fringe opinions that are stronger than the evidence should allow, and a good number of those people probably believe that the mainstream expert opinion is less certain than it really is.

The fact that life was created by natural means rather than divine.

There are quite a few scientists who debate AGW. The debate is NOT over. (despite some people who think it is)

http://nationscrier.com/index.php?option=com_conte...