[robertthebard]

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 kinda curious about what parts people are in agreement with too. The problem here lies in that assuming I did do this footwork, and I don't have a limited minute plan on my cell, nor do I pay for long distance in the continental US, every dissenting opinion would be dismissed by the supporters as "having an agenda". Again with the irony of that statement.

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.

Then why didn't they share that data again? One would think that they would run to all the scientific journals getting it published, instead of locking it in a safe somewhere. Instead, and I've read that somewhere too, they denied access, and publicly stated it was because they just wanted to find something wrong with it. This screams, to me, that there was something wrong to find. Of course, I tend to think for myself. I'm not letting my government do it for me.

Why? I did the research and agree with it. You don't.

The end result of the research that I have done shows me that not only is the scientific community not in full agreement, but the panel that is tasked with accumulating all the data and making reports isn't even if full agreement with how the reports are compiled, how they are edited by people not on the panel, and the final product that gets released. Somebody's agenda is getting in the way of proper science? The funny thing is, I didn't even set out to prove that the scientific community isn't in full agreement; I went to find out what runaway greenhouse gasses were. What I discovered, even on that page of the Wiki, which I linked earlier, btw, is that the scientific community isn't even in complete agreement about what that is, or whether it can happen here or not.

I have looked at exactly 2 "neutral" sources and found dissention, since I have joined in this particular discussion. I have also provided links to both. What research is it that you've done that shows contrary to this? Seriously, in the pursuit of truth, as opposed to truthiness, I'd like to peruse your sources of information. To be quite frank here, however, the fact that this debate continues to surface means that somebody isn't agreeing. One needs only to follow the links in this post to see that.

However, I fully expect this information to be discarded because of an agenda, so I have worked up my own theory:

At one point in the not too distant past, geologically speaking of course, half of North America was under a sheet of ice. We're not talking a few inches of ice, not even a few feet, but several miles of ice. Where did that ice go? What happened to make it go? An even more interesting question; where did it come from in the first place? Did some unseen God say "Let there be Ice, and let it cover most of the world"? So, are we to assume, if we believe this, that later, that same unseen God got bored with the Ice and said "Let the Ice melt"? That's not a very scientific theory is it?

However, paleontologists assure us that Man was here during that period of time, and that Man had fire. At first, Man kept his fires in his caves, minimizing the effects on the planet, but researchers found that smoke inhalation was bad, so man moved his fires first to the doors of his caves, and ultimately outside. The end result was an increase in the ambient temperatures which, at first did minimal damage to the natural order of the planet.

However, as more and more cavemen discovered that they were breathing better, more and more of them moved their fires outside. This had the unforseen consequence of melting more ice, which added more water vapor to the air that Mother Nature couldn't deal with, and so, the ambient temperature of the planet increased, since that heat was now trapped in the atmosphere by the water vapors. As Man continued to burn fires, which continued to melt ice and create more water vapors, this greenhouse effect continued to escalate, until soon, all the ice that was left was at the polar caps. Paleontologists assure us that this is true, and they are all in agreement that this is how it went down. If you need further proof, you can, of course, call them and ask.