[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by robertthebard 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.

I accept that you're curious. Which is why I think you should channel that curiousity to a purpose and investigate this. Finding out an answer to your new query, as to what exactly science is uniformly in agreement with, should be relatively easy. By some quick perusing of official scientific websites or encylopedias in your local library should yield the answers. You could even call an environmental agency and ask.

Once that's out of the way, you can then delve deeper and poll the opinions of the experts for yourself on whether or not they are all in agreement. Limited long-distance plans are not an issue, as almost all of these organizations have email contacts. Email correspondance also gives time for a more in-depth and specific response, leaving no question marks for you along with the chance to follow up with more. It's actually ideal. Personally, I'd do a combo of phone and email stuff if it was me. Some people won't take calls, others prefer to. Some only deal in answering machine messages and return your call when free.

And, I don't think anyone would dismiss a majority of dissenting opinions by known accredited experts in the field. Especially if you came back with names and positions as well as contact info. In fact, you could become quite famous for breaking this story to the public and throwing the scientific community into chaos, if it is indeed the case! At the very least you will have your firsthand answers.

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.

Not sure exactly what this means. The information is public access. Also not sure what you mean by not letting the government doing it for you. Do what for you?

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.

Then you clearly have not even scratched the surface. Opinion is fine when discussing religion, spirituality or existentialism. But this is science. What's the harm in educating ourselves on the subject?

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.

I helped you with that in my last response while visiting your link. Did you miss it?