>During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> yahoo.com> wrote:

>>During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>>largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>>years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
>>debators on the Global Warming side of the issue.  They weren't really
>>debating.  They were screaming.  They were denouncing.  They were
>>emoting.  They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>>far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>>supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>>practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>>be the case -- their facts had been accurate.  The notion that global
>>warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>>pain, to the point of inducing madness.

>
> Liar.
>

>>At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development ...

>On Apr 11, 9:50 am, Christopher A. Lee optonline.net> wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>During the debate over Global Warming...

> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
> years --

> I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue.  They weren't really
> debating.  They were screaming.  They were denouncing.  They were
> emoting.  They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> be the case -- their facts had been accurate.  The notion that global
> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> pain, to the point of inducing madness.

> On Apr 11, 10:39 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>> years --

>
> Not where I live.
>

>> I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
>> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue.  They weren't really
>> debating.  They were screaming.  They were denouncing.  They were
>> emoting.  They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>> be the case -- their facts had been accurate.  The notion that global
>> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>> pain, to the point of inducing madness.

> ...

> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
> years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
> debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
> emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> pain, to the point of inducing madness.
>
> At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development
> of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
> environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
> and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
> polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
> indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great ...

>Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
>Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
>to believe in something, after all. We all must have some sense of
>purpose, if only to feed our bellies.

> On Apr 11, 7:39 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>> years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
>> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue.  They weren't really
>> debating.  They were screaming.  They were denouncing.  They were
>> emoting.  They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>> be the case -- their facts had been accurate.  The notion that global
>> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>> pain, to the point of inducing madness. ...

>
> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."