1 With respect to the telegraph piece, why would you trust him?

Bob Carter writes for a foundation funded by big oil.

Actually I have done some research and it seems that Dr Bob Carter is a propagandist. A blogger called Skeptipundit also pulls apart Bob Carter's piece from a scientific point of view.

2 Going by your logic, i shouldn't believe anything you say on the matter -- after all, you are a true-believer who maintains a propaganda site on the religion of global warming.

3 Religion of global warming ... where do you get that from you freak! Do I worship an invisible god? No. Do I base my beliefs on faith? No. I am empirical in my approach to what I will believe. It has to be real, concrete and verifiable, as global warming is. Do we have priest and bishops? No. Do we have churches? No. Finally, the most important test of religion, do we have tax free status? No.

Perhaps I missed your criteria for what constitutes a religion.

I read you carrying on about the Gospel of Judas like the discovery of a document revealing life for early christians is a disaster ... if there is anyone who is a fruitbat wacko religious wing-nut it is you fruity boy. You seem to show bugger all understanding that matthew, mark, luke, and john simply won a popularity contest in 180 CE (with Iraeneus as the judge) to get into the new testament. Judas was not included because because of Roman politics and nothing else. The Gospel of Mary Magdalena was not included because none of the religious wing-nut freaks in power at the time could deal with the fact that Jesus singled her, a woman, out as for special teaching. In fact wing-nut religious freaks turned Jesus most faithful companion into a whore (like they do). It was her that witnessed the crucifiction, remember - the other apostles went to water remember. Gutless pussies.

And don't forget why Iraeneus chose only 4 out of the 30 gosples derived from those who had experienced Jesus during his life. For no other genius than there are 4 points of the compass he says. How deep is that?

Finally I want to say that the logic that support global warming is a lot more substantial and independently verifiable than the 'logic' that supports the idea of god. Oh sorry two gods. Oh, sorry, make that three gods in the one god.

So shove that in your incense pipe and smoke it you insulting bastard.

BY the way - just wondering whether you are one of the 72% of Americans who once believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11? If you are you then you are a truely a stupid fuckwit indeed. a) for believing it and b) for accusing me of basing my global warming belief on exactly that - belief.

4 I won't even begin to go into all the errors in the above attack on Christianity.

5 Good, next time you might think twice before before being so rude. A black eye for a black eye brother, but other than that - pax - especially now.

BY the way I do not see an attack on Christianity in what I wrote. If you do you are trying very hard or you are in the habit of affecting mock persecution when you don't like something. It is an insult to people who really were persecuted. Everything that I wrote is historically factual about how the bible was decided upon, by men, and about how the image of Mary Magdalena, the Apostle to the Apostles, the one as depicted in the bible who Jesus chose to announce his resurrection to, how MM was turned into a prostitute by Pope Gregory.

6 Like I said, I won't even bother to go into the inaccuracies and half-truths above.

And that you buy into the goofy Mary mMgdalene stuff tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding of Christianity and Christian history.

7 Well..OK I guess, as long as you understand that I am not attacking Christianity, and definately not not over Easter. Like Ali G says... Respect!