Very well stated. People should approach all issues with some skepticism until the sources and facts can be proven.

Please note the vigor and enthusiasm with which the scientific community, led by "Science" and "Nature" in this case, pursues and corrects mistakes, errors, and deliberate fraud in published work. If the global warming "skeptics" were to emulate this example, our society would surely benefit.

... how easy is it to create a web site that looks legitimate, include equations and a few obscure references, call it science and fool the public?

It is all TOO easy, and will only get more so.

This is why it is so important that our culture and schools teach our citizenry -- especially our youngest citizens -- the mechanics and processes of science. The scientific community benefits from more than a thousand years of scar tissue acquired while learning specific techniques for validating results, assessing credibility, identifying errors, and similar tools-of-the-trade.

I see, on this and most other blogs, disheartening evidence of the gap that must be closed. The good news is that people seem to care enough to read and respond. The challenge is to help ALL participants learn enough of the methods of science to make reasoned decisions.

The stakes are excrutiatingly high. Stem cell research, economics, global warming, health care -- all these are fields that demand a level of mathematical and scientific rigor that our society must stretch to achieve. Slogans, bumper-stickers, and dogma (no matter how loudly or frequently repeated) not only do not help, but often are exceedingly dangerous.

Our historical bias towards making it as easy as possible for every citizen to vote is premised on an educated citizenry. As we strive to broaden our voter base today, surely we must simultaneously strive to increase the scientific and mathematical literacy of those voters.

Science is edited by people who are all style and no substance, hence "This problem has a significant impact on all of science..." If this person had written, "This problem has a significant effect on all of science.." I might take them more seriously.

BrooklineTom writes, "The challenge is to help ALL participants learn enough of the methods of science to make reasoned decisions." And, "Our historical bias towards making it as easy as possible for every citizen to vote is premised on an educated citizenry."

Sure Tom, were all just a bunch of dumb luddites here. You know, you are as dogmatic as anyone else on this site, and have nothing more to base your opinions on than anyone else. Global warming is an unanswered question, and even if your dream comes true it won't matter because there is nothing we can do about the natural cycles of this planet.

Sure Tom, were all just a bunch of dumb luddites here.

Feeling a bit defensive today, woodNfish?

You quoted me, correctly, as writing:
The challenge is to help ALL participants learn enough of the methods of science to make reasoned decisions. ... Our historical bias towards making it as easy as possible for every citizen to vote is premised on an educated citizenry.

Which part of the quoted text do you disagree with?

Do you claim that reasoned decisions about science are unnecessary? Do you claim that no learning is needed to make those decisions? Do you dispute that the need for an educated citizenry has historically been an important motivator for compulsory public education?

brookline;
like i have posted on one of the articles on this blog, the claim that humans are causing the warming is something that cannot be proven, its like a theory which needs accurate measurements on all points of arguments before it becomes a law. and the claim that its caused by us is immeasurable, why? because our current instruments is not capable of measuring the complexities of the planet. the best that we can do is to predict. and like what you said brookline we have to help ALL participants learn enough of the methods of science to make reasoned decisions. practicaly saying, not all citizens of this world could understand what the method of science is. and some care less about it. we have more problems in life than this global warming issue that we in fact, couldn't accurately measure. and whatever is causing it, you cannot blame it all to humans. there's a lot of other factors that contributes to it (which i know you are aware about), so why do you think we, as mediocre citizens be more concerned on something that:

first, we do not know (or cannot determine)if we really are causing it. because if its something global then that means everybody should feel its effect. and what we have gotten so far about researches done on the matter are samples taken only to areas affected. can something be global if its not affecting the entire planet?

second, whatever method those "intelligent" people are doing to determine the event is something that is very vague and obscure. and we have to face the truth that not everyone knows about what the method is.

third, we have more problems in life than to focus merely on something not accurately proven

fourth, if it is a global phenomenon is there anything big that we could do about it? we are not gods to control the temperature, weather and climactic changes. we know little about how lightning is created, there's a lot of other things that still remains a mystery to us about how this planet works, how much more about a global phenomenon?

fifth, whatever you claim as "your truth" and "your idea" is something that we could refuse to believe.

WoodNfish, instead of constantly bashing people for their ideas on a subject, why not respect what they have to say and give a resolution of your own?

Storm, although I can understand why you have taken your position and agree that humans are no the only cause for global warming, even if humans have part in global warming the technologies we may impliment in trying to stop it can actually benefit the common citizen.

Take solar panels for example, many people want to impliment solar panels for many uses in order to gain reusable energy with little or no input and of course no greenhouse gas emissions. If one was to use solar panels in their own home over time these panels would pay for themselves in lack of electric bills. Some may rebut this idea saying that the panels will not work in cloudy weather and may not give constant power, but if one was to buy solar panels for their home they should also buy batteries to go supplement them. The excess power that the solar panels produce would then be used to charge the batteries and the batteries would be used to power the house in cloudy weather -- all with no electricity bills. And of course you may remain connected to the power grid for backup incase of an emergency. On the other hand I can see why people say no to this due to the high amount of capital required.

Also, I am only a junior in high school and I can understand most of the methods the scientists use in order to prove global warming. Just please look at all sides of an issue before argueing that its false.

Just wanted to say Hello to everyone.
Much to read and learn here, I'm sure I will enjoy !