[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior The problem is, by the time you arrive on proof that satisifes the most skeptical, it could be too late. This is the whole premise of GCC. Not sure what the harm is in awareness. Religion asks for much more of a personal, emotional and spiritual commitment with no proof whatsoever and yet people are acting in its name daily. Some kill because of it. Others hate. Others donate thousands and spring up cults the thing. IDK. Shit, religion seems to be an easier sell even when it has no basis in science at all. Maybe science is going about this the wrong way and should sponsor priests into the fold to spread the "good word". Bottom line is, it really doesn't affect the facts if people still choose to naysay in the face of united science. Unlike religion, it doesn't necessitate that the masses get on board, because it has already concluded that it's happening regardless. Believe it, don't believe it - it makes no difference when you think about it. Anyone can cast doubt on a religious view because by nature religion asks for the participation of your average Joe in order to survive. Unless you're a scientist, with credentials and theories that counter the extensive work of your peers, it is nothing more than opinion and doesn't hold up in the appropriate circles.

In other words: "If we don't do something now, it could be the end of the world!!!" What part of that isn't "Gloom and Doom"? Thank you, however, for documenting what I've been saying all along.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior 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?

I asked you earlier if you had scientific journals showing this full agreement. Surely, if this is the case, you could simply provide the bookmarks. That the entire scientific community is not on the bandwagon is blatantly obvious, and yet, when called on it, you suggest that somebody else do the footwork to prove it. I say, as the prosecutor, since you are trying to sell us that mankind is responsible, burden of proof falls on you.

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

Or, as is more accurate, scientists who want the grant money to keep flowing in. In the end, what's the difference?

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.

In MMO terms, screenshot or it didn't happen. Again, show where the scientific community is in full agreement.

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

The Universal Agreement Church of GCC? The one that can make blanket statements about GCC and be above question because the belief of the members means that no proof is required?

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.

Again, the primary panel that's considered an expert on the topic does none of it's own research. This panel, paid by the UN, exists primarily to study the impact of mankind on GCC. This isn't an agenda? Yet, despite this agenda, everything they say is gospel? They, like the 6,000 year old earth group, start out with a premise, and then set out to prove it. They do this by taking all the published material that supports their premise, combining them into a report, and submitting it to the UN at regular intervals. Any science that is contrary to their views will, of course, be ignored.

This is what they are paid to do. Yet this is also considered acceptable science, and evidence? Why? The first few pages of this topic consist of dismissing the OP article for the very same reasons. The irony is rich indeed. I'm going to assume that the members of the panel are at least scientists, and not just politicians. I didn't see a list of who's on it in the link I provided on the previous page. Surely, however, a political organization like the UN wouldn't appoint non-scientists to this panel, would they?

Some interesting points from the article found at this link:

Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary, said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report".[9] It is not clear, in this case, whether Shine was complaining that the report had been changed to be more skeptical, or less, or something else entirely.[citation needed] Solid-state physicist Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and former health consultant for R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report". He opposed it in the Leipzig Declaration of S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project. In turn, Seitz's comments were vigorously opposed by the presidents of the American Meteorological Society and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who wrote about a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process that has led many scientists working on understanding climate to conclude that there is a very real possibility that humans are modifying Earth's climate on a global scale. Rather than carrying out a legitimate scientific debate... they are waging in the public media a vocal campaign against scientific results with which they disagree".[10] S. Fred Singer disseminated a letter about Chapter 8 of the IPCC Working Group I report, asserting that:[11] Chapter 8 was altered substantially to make it conform to the Summary; Three key clauses — expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers — should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the approved draft chapter; Benjamin D. Santer, Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8 of 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, replied:[12] All revisions were made with the sole purpose of producing the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science, and were under the full scientific control of the Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8. None of the changes were politically motivated. Santer's position was supported by fellow IPCC authors and senior figures of the American Meteorological Society and University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.[10] In 1997, Paul Edwards and IPCC author Stephen Schneider published a paper rebutting criticisms of the IPCC report.[13] [edit]

Ahh, I can't get this to work. The point being, all through the article, you can find that, in fact, not only is the entire scientific community not in agreement, but members of the panel aren't even in agreement with what eventually gets published.