[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Deja vu? Science is in full agreement on the issue. You're saying differently - which goes against general concesus on the issue. So the burden of proof here falls on you.

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.

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). The fact that the GCC council members refused to share their data (which goes against the very basics of scientific method and research) and justified their refusal on the premise the other scientists "just wanted to find something wrong with the data" indicates the general consensus you claim also does not exist.

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.

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?