On Jan 25, 12:15*am, phorbin wrote:
In article ,
says...

By your standards, neither do you. The facts are in dispute, however the
preponderance of scientist agree that it appears that the planet is

maybe I misfollowed the thread. *I thought somebody was making a
claim that god or gods exist.

The thread is about global warming.

Frank threw a rather dumb monkey wrench into the mechanism by changing
the subject line and posting a link to

http://atroshenko.com/NSAlBuddha.html--an irrelevancy and in context, I
think an ad hominem.

I've stayed out of the mix to this point because I believe the small fry
AGW chiquitita pequeño tiranitos require no answer that absorbs more
than a moment of my time.

Generally I think AGW types have no instinct for the opportunity
embedded in an wholistic response to global warming.

Not sure I should continue thread but its raining today.
Originally I was giving reference to Crichton and from responses to
post was getting answers from a crowd that threats global warming as a
religion, thus the Gore Budda post. Go back and read Crichton.
Many years ago, I read "Earth in the Balance" and it was perfectly
obvious where Gore was going.
It's a political tome, not technical. As someone pointed out recently
in C&E News, the science is good but the politics are bad.

AZ Nomad wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank
wrote:
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

he is uneducated on the subject.


You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple
statement "he is uneducated on the subject."

Can you explain you own theory? If you have one!

I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:43:27 GMT, Part_No wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank
wrote:
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

he is uneducated on the subject.


You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple
statement "he is uneducated on the subject."

Can you explain you own theory? If you have one!

I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life

I'm going to ignore your ad hominem.

You suggest that crighton is educated about the subject. Please tell
us about his credentials.

On Jan 26, 11:39*am, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:43:27 GMT, Part_No wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote in
:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:29:31 -0500, Frank
wrote:
http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

he is uneducated on the subject. *

You would have to be educated in the subject to come to your simple
statement "he is uneducated on the subject."
Can you explain you own theory? If you have one!
I doubt you can even understand the subject...get a life

I'm going to ignore your ad hominem. *

You suggest that crighton is educated about the subject. *Please tell
us about his credentials.

Crichton, of course was educated as an MD and you can call this
science as he evaluated facts with a critical eye. His "State of
Fear" while fiction has, I believe, a couple of hundred references to
global warming studies.
GW was not intent of book but he arrived at his conclusions from his
in depth research for the book.