Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

<font color=plum>First of all, I would ask exactly what parts of the issue science is in full agreement on? That the Earth is in a warming cycle? That this cycle is abnormal or excessive based on historical cycles of warming and cooling? If so, that mankind is directly (and solely) responsible for the abnormality of the warming cycle? That there are no other possible natural explanations for the warming cycle, if we are, in fact, in a warming cycle? That C02 levels are the primary cause of the warming trend?

Until you clarify exactly what points of the issue science is in full agreement on (all of them, some of them, etc), the statement that "science is in full agreement" is simply too generic.

IF you are stating that science is in full agreement that GCC is being directly and adversely affected by current CO2 levels AND is also in agreement that those C02 levels are directly attributable only to the actions of mankind, then I don't need to call every scientist at every academy to prove the statement is incorrect. The fact that other scientists requested the data from the GCC council in order to conduct their own experiments indicates there is not "full agreement" on the issue (at least not yet - otherwise, there would be no reason to test the data again). The fact that the GCC council members refused to share their data (which goes against the very basics of scientific method and research) and justified their refusal on the premise the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with the data" indicates the general consensus you claim also does not exist.

Your claims that science is in full agreement and this is the general consensus are both unsubstantiated and, in fact, are contra-indicated by the examples above. Ergo, the burden of proof that this full agreement and general consensus does, indeed, exist would fall to you.

I would encourage you to follow it through all the way this time. Call the colleges, institutes and libraries and speak with their professors of the science, then come back with the significant number of the esteemed who full agreement on the issue and exactly which points they agree upon. Then we can determine if they represent the general consensus. Fair enough?</font>

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Heh, baiting me into doing half the work for you is cheating. Are you really that against researching this by yourself? Think about it, you could answer all these specifics without my help. And let's be honest Cerek, let's say I caved and did the work for you, you'd forget it a few months later and hit your reset button. I think an active investigation on your part might ensure the longevity of information for you, is all. And please, don't get all huffy, you know you repeat stuff alot. Just for me personally it's a waste of time and text as covering the same ground every few months with you does not allow the conversation to evolve ever. Maybe someone else will be happy to indulge you, idk.

Lol@ because the data was requested they disagree. C'mon dude. Let me tell you, if I was a British scientist and the USA came to these conclusions by themselves, i'd be the first one to request the data so I can take a look at it myself. Because I am a scientist. This is called communication...not disagreement. Data is being traded between scientific communities as we speak.

Why? I did the research and agree with it. You don't.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I'm kinda curious about what parts people are in agreement with too. The problem here lies in that assuming I did do this footwork, and I don't have a limited minute plan on my cell, nor do I pay for long distance in the continental US, every dissenting opinion would be dismissed by the supporters as "having an agenda". Again with the irony of that statement.

Then why didn't they share that data again? One would think that they would run to all the scientific journals getting it published, instead of locking it in a safe somewhere. Instead, and I've read that somewhere too, they denied access, and publicly stated it was because they just wanted to find something wrong with it. This screams, to me, that there was something wrong to find. Of course, I tend to think for myself. I'm not letting my government do it for me.

The end result of the research that I have done shows me that not only is the scientific community not in full agreement, but the panel that is tasked with accumulating all the data and making reports isn't even if full agreement with how the reports are compiled, how they are edited by people not on the panel, and the final product that gets released. Somebody's agenda is getting in the way of proper science? The funny thing is, I didn't even set out to prove that the scientific community isn't in full agreement; I went to find out what runaway greenhouse gasses were. What I discovered, even on that page of the Wiki, which I linked earlier, btw, is that the scientific community isn't even in complete agreement about what that is, or whether it can happen here or not.

I have looked at exactly 2 "neutral" sources and found dissention, since I have joined in this particular discussion. I have also provided links to both. What research is it that you've done that shows contrary to this? Seriously, in the pursuit of truth, as opposed to truthiness, I'd like to peruse your sources of information. To be quite frank here, however, the fact that this debate continues to surface means that somebody isn't agreeing. One needs only to follow the links in this post to see that.

However, I fully expect this information to be discarded because of an agenda, so I have worked up my own theory:

At one point in the not too distant past, geologically speaking of course, half of North America was under a sheet of ice. We're not talking a few inches of ice, not even a few feet, but several miles of ice. Where did that ice go? What happened to make it go? An even more interesting question; where did it come from in the first place? Did some unseen God say "Let there be Ice, and let it cover most of the world"? So, are we to assume, if we believe this, that later, that same unseen God got bored with the Ice and said "Let the Ice melt"? That's not a very scientific theory is it?

However, paleontologists assure us that Man was here during that period of time, and that Man had fire. At first, Man kept his fires in his caves, minimizing the effects on the planet, but researchers found that smoke inhalation was bad, so man moved his fires first to the doors of his caves, and ultimately outside. The end result was an increase in the ambient temperatures which, at first did minimal damage to the natural order of the planet.

However, as more and more cavemen discovered that they were breathing better, more and more of them moved their fires outside. This had the unforseen consequence of melting more ice, which added more water vapor to the air that Mother Nature couldn't deal with, and so, the ambient temperature of the planet increased, since that heat was now trapped in the atmosphere by the water vapors. As Man continued to burn fires, which continued to melt ice and create more water vapors, this greenhouse effect continued to escalate, until soon, all the ice that was left was at the polar caps. Paleontologists assure us that this is true, and they are all in agreement that this is how it went down. If you need further proof, you can, of course, call them and ask.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I accept that you're curious. Which is why I think you should channel that curiousity to a purpose and investigate this. Finding out an answer to your new query, as to what exactly science is uniformly in agreement with, should be relatively easy. By some quick perusing of official scientific websites or encylopedias in your local library should yield the answers. You could even call an environmental agency and ask.

Once that's out of the way, you can then delve deeper and poll the opinions of the experts for yourself on whether or not they are all in agreement. Limited long-distance plans are not an issue, as almost all of these organizations have email contacts. Email correspondance also gives time for a more in-depth and specific response, leaving no question marks for you along with the chance to follow up with more. It's actually ideal. Personally, I'd do a combo of phone and email stuff if it was me. Some people won't take calls, others prefer to. Some only deal in answering machine messages and return your call when free.

And, I don't think anyone would dismiss a majority of dissenting opinions by known accredited experts in the field. Especially if you came back with names and positions as well as contact info. In fact, you could become quite famous for breaking this story to the public and throwing the scientific community into chaos, if it is indeed the case! At the very least you will have your firsthand answers.

Not sure exactly what this means. The information is public access. Also not sure what you mean by not letting the government doing it for you. Do what for you?

Then you clearly have not even scratched the surface. Opinion is fine when discussing religion, spirituality or existentialism. But this is science. What's the harm in educating ourselves on the subject?

I helped you with that in my last response while visiting your link. Did you miss it?

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Ahhh now we get to the meat of the matter INTENT.... Some how you think humans intend to polute and that anyone who polutes does so with intent. So it's the fact that man can think and have intention that bothers you? Well I can see that, coming from you.

You say excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere has been shown to be harmful... where how much is excess? by what authroity do they have to declare how much is escess. Excess oxygen would also fall under any standards you can give, as would excess cold, heat, iron, copper, salt, buggers... you name it... now show where the amount is in excess and can't be handled by nature? I await the experiments of the two greehouses...

oh 'careful about declaring your won the saving thouw TL gets upset... it bugs him... oh wait not when it is somebody on his side I forgot..... never mind :P

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

Blows kisses as TL whines :P

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I'm not whining, you idiot. Quit projecting.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

May I suggest some practice at reading comprehension? Although it won't help if your intention is to put meaning into posts that doesn't exist.

If you got a problem with science, take it up with the scientists.

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

I ain't got a problem with science, I await the presentation of some. ;)

Re: New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming
 

That's the best you can do????? You might want to look into suing and getting you money back for that education.