"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:

If it were found to be true (the connection between warming and human
activity), how would you then decide which scientist hadn't been a
fanatic?

I don't believe you can explain to me how the thought process which
brought
you to this question is any different from the one used to pass the
PATRIOT
Act and other such "Al-Qaeda-is-under-your-bed" legislation, but it will
be
entertaining for me to watch you try.

Have at it, sir.


Which part of my question do you not understand?

Fruitz like to say that scientists who believe certain global warming
theories are fanatics. (He may even consider them socialists, but I don't
remember. He tosses that word around to describe everything including the
glides attached to the bottom of chair legs). Anyway...onward: If a number
of scientists come up with absolute proof of certain global warming
theories, Fruitz will now need to admit that some of all of the researchers
were NOT fanatics. But, how? Are they fanatics until proof of their theories
exists? Are they fanatics even if they're proven to be correct? Are some of
them still fanatics, but not all? Which ones?

There are other fields of research which Fruitz has no interest in at the
moment. Within those endeavors are scientists who believe strongly in their
theories, whether they involve cancer research or creating a better roof
shingle. If their enthusiasm is precisely equal to that of people studying
global warming, are these scientists also fanatics?