[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek I'm not really sure what you mean by "pretend" mode, because I'm not pretending anything. I will admit it is difficult to prove you wrong when you never really say anything of substance and only speak in vague generalities. It's a good strategy. If you never say anything specific, then it's hard for anyone to pin you down. Still, even with your penchant for generalized statements, there are errors or contradictions that can be found. First and foremost, you continue referring to the GCC scientists as "the best in the world" and "the most brilliant minds of our times". Neither of these can be conclusively proven correct or incorrect, but I and others have given enough examples of other minds that could be considered equally brilliant and perhaps moreso. As for GCC scientists being the best in the world, it's a documented fact that some of the most prominent ones manipulated some of the data and also refused to share their data with other scientists who wished to test the data for themselves. Both of these examples go completely against basic scientific practice, so that certainly calls into question the claim these scientists are the best in the world. The best do not deviate from standard procedures or refuse to share their data because the other scientists "just want to find something wrong with it". Instead, they DO share the data because the only way for research to be given any credibility is by having the data tested by others and reaching the same (or similar) results. When these examples were first mentioned, you didn't deny the refusal to share data occurred, instead you said an investigation had shown nothing wrong with their research methods. That isn't the same thing. Nobody said their research was flawed, they just asked for the chance to test the data themselves to see if the initial results could be reproduced and the GCC scientists refused to comply. If there is nothing wrong with their data or their research, there should be no reason for them to not share the data with other scientist. So, this deviation from the most basic tenet of scientific research does cast a question on the claim these scientists are the "best" in the world. You've also constantly suggested that "we" should listen to the doomsday predictions of the these brilliant scientists just in case they are right. When pressed on this, you temporarily reversed that (in post 174) by saying you shake your head at the 2012 doomsayers. Yet, by post 179, you again state that "we" should listen to them anyway...just in case. Later, you claim that you meant "we" as in "the world", which apparently doesn't include "me" as an individual - even though I am also part of "the world" you feel should listen to them. You didn't deny GCC scientists refused to share their data or that some data was found to be manipulated, but then you imply (again in post 179) that if these incidents had occurred, there would be no general consensus on the issue and, instead, there would be chaos and dissension. Questioning existing data or previous research does arbitrarily lead to chaos and, in fact, is the standard accepted and expected practice in the science community. No research is taken seriously until it has been reproduced and reviewed by peers. While there may be general consensus on the findings, there have still been requests to further test the GCC data and, in at least some cases, those requests have been refused. As for dissension, the fact that any scientists who criticize, question or disagree with GCC research findings are automatically labeled as "quacks" or frauds certainly does suggest at least some dissension is present. And, it was pointed out many pages ago the fact that general consensus exists does NOT necessarily mean the research is accurate. In the past, there was general consensus among the "best scientists" at that time that the Earth was flat and was also the center of the universe. Those who suggested otherwise were labeled as heretics and frauds as well, only to be proven correct later on. So, even though you do your best to speak in very general terms, it is still possible to find examples of contradiction among your posts and actually doesn't require one to look very far.

While I appreciate you took the time to write all that out in a more rational manner...am I really explaining this?

"Pretend mode"? I think you look too deeply into my posts to the point where paranoia sets in. Let's face it, you have come up with some wild stuff lately. I mean listen, it really doesn't matter if you think that when I said "we" I was secretly talking about you personally, but it doesn't change that fact that it would be kinda ridiculous given your well-documented views on the subject. Why would I want someone who has voiced for years their opposition to the entire concept, with zero research done to back it up? I'm sorry but someone like that would be laughed out of an academic circle.

I suspect you are a bit more taken with trying to "pin me down" than you are about the truth. Chill out, take a breather imo. Look, i'll even help. If excluding you from that incorporation equals me twisting something around, then you have successfully pinned me down. Now it still doesn't change the truth; that I would never expect you personally to believe even the most compelling evidence on GW. It's a no-brainer. You would not be beneficial to the cause but rather, detrimental. The same way I would be if you were making a case against GW.

Fun to watch, hard to understand.