Thanks Lear, I was re-reading it thinking I may have mis-written it or something and oddly enough I didn't. I never implied man doesn't impact the environment.
I too, interestingly enough, also don't need lessons in reading or writing posts (well maybe writing, my quoting articles may be a bit non linear and quoting through threads, OK I'm evolving and sometimes I go on tangents use lots of parens "(", dot dot dot's .....OK who am I kidding, I'm going to go google good posting style
).
First, just because zman said that humans have sped the global warming process up does not mean he is saying that humans are the sole cause or even a major cause of global warming. There is a difference between increasing rate and total effect. And so I go back to my point which was that I believe DamnSkippy was wrong to imply that zman was saying humans are the sole or primary cause.
MFILLINI5, towards my learning and evolving in my posting/communicating, please reply back with my passage that asserted this point.
Second, when I said "be a fool" in my response I put it in quotes. That normally implies I am not saying it myself. When you read that in the context of the rest of my statement you see that I said I agree that was not a nice way to make a point, but I think zman was just trying to make a point. So, basically I was telling DamnSkippy to lighten up. He has a lot of nerve telling me to lighten up.
Mfillini5, please see this link:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...o6=&o4=&o3=&h=
Please apply this definition to the bolded passage below
"Third, I'm not here to argue that global warming is mainly being caused by humans. I think it is very clear to anyone that has a smidge of knowledge that humans have at least some minimal effect on the environment. That was all I said and that was what I was saying I thought zman was saying. So, no I don't think you can really argue with that and I don't think I could be wrong about that. I don't think that it takes rocket science to know that we humans have at least some minimal effect on the environment."
I don't care how you try to nice it up by breaking it down to the least degree "some minimal effect", what you're trying to express is that if I don't agree with you I do not possess a "smidge of knowledge" or upon possess that "smidge of knowledge" I'm not intelligent enough to know what to do with it.
I'm going to be honest. I'm doing the same thing. I don't think you know what to do with that "smidge of knowledge" but I'll just state it AND understand that is my (please try to get this;I'm fairly stubborn and will beleaguer this) BELIEF. Just like it is your belief.
Yes, any fool will know that man impacts his environment. Everything impacts everything else, it's a basic concept; all should be readily able to grasp. Where we part ways and some of us IMNSHO believe the unwarranted piety, magnanimity, and self righteousness begins for those who believe the larger degree of it. I'm not here to preach "pollute the air with no recourse or penalty"; that would be folly. But to assert that we can break it is equally trite, we can dirty it up but in the grand scope of things, I believe (please get this) we can't do anything to it, that it can't undo. Should we pollute the air? Of course not.
Where I differentiate, is I am aware that these are my beliefs and I believe you and Zman (please get the "I believe" part) hold them as truth.
None of us really KNOW very much of anything, we believe things. If you get it, you get it, if not, just say "those with a smattering, dollup, minutia, iota, scantness, or microbe of knowledge has to agree with my belief or they are fools".
Sadly, a little knowledge (real knowledge, not belief) is most of us have, the trick is what we choose to do with it and value (real and beli