On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:15:08 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On 26 May 2006 10:47:52 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, remember, I never said that human activity is wholly responsible
for global warming.



That the earth is currently experiencing a small upswing in temps is
pretty much an undeniable fact.

What bothers me abouty this whole thing is that we have "experts"
trying to tell us what it's going to be like in the year 2100. Hell,
the weatherman can't tell us what the weather will be like 5 days from
now with any kind of decent accuracy! Weather is simple compared to
*climate*, and we're supposed to put faith in these predictions?

Jack



Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics. (and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

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?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

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?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

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?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.


I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else.

However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a
scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory
does not preclude one from being a fanatic.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their
beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

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?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.


I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else.

However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a
scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory
does not preclude one from being a fanatic.

It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that doesn't
believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil
corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has
socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth,
they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age"
doomsday predictions of the 70's.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:00:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

Global warming alarmists are no different than religous fanatics.
(and
in reality, just another brand)

You must believe in their particular brand or you are a heritic.
Anything out of the ordinary that happens has roots in their
beliefs.
There is the constant proclamations of the "end of day"
Those that express their disbelief are shouted down

etc. etc.

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?


You may be missing the point. It's not that most people don't
acknowledge some type of connection between warming and human
activity. Rather, it's whether or not human activity plays a
*significant* role in the equation, and if anything we might do could
make any measurable difference whatsoever.

Jack

I'm not missing the point. If you acknowledge the connection, then
logically, you must stop calling any scientist a political fanatic.


I didn't call anyone a fanatic. That was someone else.

However, whether or not there's a connection has little to do with a
scientist being a political fanatic. Being correct on a single theory
does not preclude one from being a fanatic.

It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that
doesn't believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the
"evil corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist
has socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the
earth, they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice
age" doomsday predictions of the 70's.

You sound really smart. I want to learn from you. What is a socialist?

On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that
doesn't
believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil
corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has
socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth,
they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age"
doomsday predictions of the 70's.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that
doesn't
believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil
corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has
socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth,
they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age"
doomsday predictions of the 70's.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.



I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that
100% predictable. Say when.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 12:51:33 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


It is comical how the Global Warming Alarmists react. Anyone that
doesn't
believe in the creed is "in denial" or has been bought by the "evil
corporate conspiracy" Have you noticed at almost every alarmist has
socialist leanings, some even wish to eliminate humans from the earth,
they also have short memories........forgetting the "coming ice age"
doomsday predictions of the 70's.

And the difference between a "Global Warming Alarmist" and you, would be?
"socialist leanings", "eliminate humans", yup, I can see you are open to
the possibility that this planet could be warming. Scientists, who have
spent their entire careers studying this issue, have come down on both
sides, but the general body of science believes the planet is warming.
The only real debate is it natural, or man made.



I'll bet you $11.39 that I can make this Fritz unit go off on a tangent that
100% predictable. Say when.

Oh, I wouldn't touch that bet, we all know Fritz!!!