Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerek
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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). 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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Why? I did the research and agree with it. You don't.