[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek You claim "all scientists are in agreement about GCC and have been for years". You've been making that same claim since before the email scandals broke and revealed the lead group of scientists not only failed to adhere to the accepted scientific method of sharing data to see if their results were accurate, they deliberately conspired and refused to share their data because they stated the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with it". That doesn't sound like universal agreement to me. Even though the debate my be politically driven, the fact that the debate continues also shows that all scientists are not in universal agreement regarding the causes of GCC because both sides are able to produce scientists and scientific reports supporting their cause.

Deja vu?

Science is in full agreement on the issue. You're saying differently - which goes against general concesus on the issue. So the burden of proof here falls on you. I am not sure how serious you are about this, but I would encourage you to follow it through - and all the way this time. If I was in doubt, my advice would be to track down you local academies and press them on this. Then maybe track down not-so-local academies and ask them too. Call colleges, institutes, even large libraries and speak with professors of the sciences. Perhaps email the international ones and then take stock of the results. Voice your opinion and ask them if they agree with their collegues. Correspond and document it. Then come back with the names of the esteemed who represent a significant, conflicted and divisive group. Fair enough?

Even if there is a universal consensus, critics still have to question whether that consensus is driven by any motives other than pure scientific discovery. There is universal consensus among the Big Oil companies that more drilling is necessary to maintain our current lifestyle and support our modern technology (since crude oil is used for many more products than just gasoline), but there are still plenty of critics claiming that universal agreement is not enough to give them carte' blanche..

That's quite a comparison. Oil companies who want more liquid-gold or scientists who want....to be scientists.

I will agree that GCC scientists protect and defend their viewpoint with a religious fervor. I also agree scientists do not need the masses to agree with their findings, they just need their grant writers that provide the funding to agree with them....or is that the other way around?

They don't need to worry about a shortage in grants or funding. Again, all the major science academies around the world have universally agreed on the findings and their governments fund them most of the time because of this. No need to look for third-party unless you're kinda up & coming (They have 3rd party sponsors but they're not absolutely essential for the work). Look at the amount of funding the USA has put into this research, for example. Or, when you talk to them, ask 'em. I bet you will find there is no shortage in funds.

You might dismiss these or make qualifications to state why those environmentalists were actually right, but that doesn't change the fact they grossly exaggerated the effect human actions were having at the time and the effect those actions would have in the future.

Covered in other posts (Chewy, I think?). Not gonna make this more tldr.

BTW, religion doesn't require the masses to be successful. We've also agreed on some universal truths and moved on, despite the continued disagreement (and disbelief) of many among the general population.

Well, yes not the "masses" as in everyone. It needs a mass of people in order to spring up into a cult/church. Religions need a congregation of people, a following to establish themselves. Most of them do their utmost to extract money from their followers too. The other difference is religion wants to assimilate everyone else into it, the real masses. It spends an eternity attempting to "spread the good word" on why their system is better than your system. Science doesn't need such an assimilation which is what I have been saying. It's moved onto bigger things. We may need it, but they don't.

I also like the notion that only scientists are allowed to make any statements about the environment and the impact humans may or may not be having on it. Obviously, somebody forgot to tell Al Gore OR the scientific community about this caveat, since Al was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his film, even though he has NO scientific degree at all. What he DOES have is his own agenda for promoting "Green" technology. Yes, it has been a pet cause of his since college, but he has done his best to turn that pet cause into a revenue generating cause as well. Why does Al Gore promote Green Technology so strongly? Maybe because he has invested heavily in the companies providing the technology he promotes? Remember the carbon footprint and carbon offsets from a few years ago? Everyone should measure their carbon footprint and either reduce it or "buy" carbon offsets to excuse their excessive use. Turns out Al's own "carbon footprint" was about 12 times that of an average household in his TN home (while GWB's personal ranch house had already been converted to "green technology - gotta love the irony of that). But it was OK, because Al bought "carbon offsets" from the company in which he was a 51% owner. In other words, he wrote an excuse for himself for not following his own rules. And yet, he will still be defended despite his obvious hypocrisy.

As you know, covered more than once in previous discussions we've had. While it's good to see you recycling, I don't have the motivation for the amnesia thing lol. Maybe someone else does.