In you first post one of the points you make is the following.
Global Warming is a theory, and it is an unproven theory.
Yet it is repeated like a gospel truth by people who ought to know better, despite the fact that it may well turn out to be just another form of phlogiston.
I'm not saying Global Warming isn't occurring, nor am I saying that human activity can't be causing Global Warming.
That's because I don't know.
You are first saying that Global warming is an unproved theory, and yet it is repeated as gospel by those who should know better. Then, in that same paragraph you claim that you are not saying that global warming isn't occurring, nor that human activity can't be causing global warming, because you don't know.
How can you prove that something is an unproven theory if you don't know? Remember, you can't prove a negative, much less if you confess that you don't know whether it is happening or not, that's a first when trying to reach a conclusion.
You talk about me and others speculating on false assumptions, yet you also state the following.
You can take potshots at my skepticism and suspicions all you want. All that tells me is that you don't even believe your own stories, and thus fear reasonable skepticism.
You are speculating in that sentence, concluding that people must fear reasonable skepticism. Yet you have not given one piece of evidence of your reasonable skepticism. In fact you depend on your emotions, which are obviously controlling you, when dealing with this topic.
You are saying that people are not presenting any reasonable proof that makes you think global warming is real, and that people are being taken away by emotions instead of logic. Yet when i presented evidence from NASA, who is one of the agencies that now is actually saying Global warming is real, and i gave a logical reason of why they don't have an agenda when they talk about this topic, you decided to ignore a logical explanation. In fact this is what you said.
NASA is not a disinterested party, nor are its employees, so arguments to that effect are meaningless to me.
There are no disinterested parties with respect to Global Warming, so I ain't buying that line. Period.
So pretty much you are saying that even thou you have not presented proof to back up your claim, you know better, and NASA must have an agenda for doing this, because you say so. Where is the scientific method you claim people are discarding when you made this and other unfounded claims?
Another of your claim, which is repeated by most people who say global warming is not real is the following.
It's a very big planet, and as wonderful and technologically advanced as we humans are, the amount of power we actually have to control global weather is infinitesimally small, despite dubious claims to the contrary.
We are human beings, not God.
First of all, we are not discussing that humans have a power to control global weather, and neither is any scientist whom state that global warming is real.
Second of all, your argument that since we are not God, human activity cannot have any adverse effect on global climate, is fallible, because we know for a fact that human activity has caused many problems around the world, changing the environment as a direct result from human activity.
Now, since you have been unable or unwilling to present evidence to back up your claim that NASA is not exempt from having an agenda on global warming, I will continue to use sources from NASA to make my point.
across the globe have shown that over the last 100 years the
surface temperature of the Earth, which includes the lower atmosphere
and the surface of the ocean, has risen dramatically
over the past century. The IPCC estimates the increase
has been between 0.4°C and 0.8°C. Worldwide measurements
of sea level have shown a rise of 0.1 to 0.2 meters over the
last century. Readings gathered from glaciers reveal a steady
recession of the world’s continental glaciers. Taken together,
all of these data suggest that over the last century the planet
has experienced the largest increase in surface temperature
in 1,000 years.
Excerpted from.
eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The data according to NASA sugest the largest increase in surface temperature in 1,000 years, so temperatures are rising which contradicts your statement which i quote below.
The Long View
Global temperatures have fluctuated wildly ever since the Earth was formed, and that does not seemed to have changed in my lifetime -- although methods of observing and measuring global temperatures most certainly have.
You are accusing people of discarding the scientific method, yet you are the one disregarding the scientific method, and instead relying on your emotions to make conclusions without presenting any proof to your claims.
[edit on 15-4-2005 by Muaddib]
- but your words in actual dissertation versus
deflecting cya's say otherwise. You dismissed the NASA work. There's not much you can do to undo that bias. 
* 
