[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior 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.

I'm not baiting you at all, nor asking you to do my work for me. I'm simply asking for clarification and specifics based on the research you've supposedly already done yourself.

As I said before, your constant assurance that "science is in full agreement on this issue" is too generic, since there are several sub-points to the issue. I listed a few such points in my previous post. The environmentalist alarms have changed dramatically over the last quarter century. First, we were headed towards a mini-ice age, then (just 25 years later), the planet was in serious danger of over-heating, now the scientists have adopted the more generic label of "global climate change" after data began countering some of their predictions about he effects of global "warming". Since you have already done the research (supposedly), it shouldn't be difficult to list some exact points on which science expresses this full agreement you claims exists. It's kinda like saying "All the experts agree the Yankee's are the best team in baseball". Ok, exactly what makes them the "best team"? Most wins so far this year? Most wins historically? Best pitching staff?, Best hitters and fielders? Exactly WHAT criteria is being used to determine them to be the "best"? Until the criteria is known, there is no way for someone else to productively investigate the claim, since they may use different criteria.

You've proclaimed for years that science IS in full agreement and that you have verified this for yourself. Fair enough. All I'm asking is a more detailed statement listing exactly what they are in full agreement on. That doesn't require any more research on your part, it is just asking you to share the results of the research you've already done.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior 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.

The fact the data was requested at least indicates other scientists wanted to test the data for themselves to see if they got the same results. That implies there is at least some questions about the results presented. And the fact the GCC refused to share their data shows that communication is not being traded as freely as you suggest.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Why? I did the research and agree with it. You don't.

Since you've done the research, it should be very easy to provide links supporting your conclusions and names of the scientists you have questioned on the issue. I am not asking you to provide any more information than you are requesting from me and since you've done the research, you should have that data readily available. I'm just asking you to share that data so I can look it over myself. It's called communication.