ORIGINAL: MFIllini5
lear4406 & DamnSkippy & RLSH700...the following apply to one or more of you based on your responses since my last...
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.
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.
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.
Last and most importantly, zman did not call anyone a fool. If you look at his original post he said "anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool". That is a general statement to make a point, not directed at anyone in particular.
And again, I think zman's point is that humans are having an increasing effect, not necessarily that we are the sole or primary cause of global warming.
MFIllini5, if that is what he meant, he is obligated to state that in his original post or in later posts state specifically what he claims to mean and what specific points he is standing by without what is deemed to be an insult. The fact of the matter is he hasn't apologized for his remarks and continued to insult those who did not agree with him. There are lots of effective ways to make a point without attacking a person's intellectual integrity. Instead of simply correcting the record, he persisted in trying to make himself the moral and intellectual superior by treating his stance as being 100% correct and anyone who disagreed as lacking intelligence. That will not be tolerated plain and simple. As Skippy already said, you are making yourself into a hypocrite if you try to tell someone to lighten up, but then you get angry when someone tells you to lighten up. Lighten up is not an insult, nor an attack, therefore, you have no reason to get upset. I would infact advise you to lighten up.
Your argument under your third point is another attempt to declare yourself smarter than anyone who disagrees with you and makes assumptions about other people's stances. Has it ever occurred to you that people believe differently not because they lack intelligence but because they utilize different sources for their knowledge than you do? Let me break it to you, the fence on this issue does not exist. All you are trying to do is reposition yourself as an independent so then you can be seen as having no bias while trying to paint those who disagree with you as lacking your intelligence. It isn't working and by the fact that you only try to attack people who disagree with the whole "Global Warming" stance, you prove what you really believe. A true independent would criticize both sides equally and wouldn't really take a stance to begin with anyways. When zman said what he said, he WAS calling people who disagree with him a fool as he later confirmed by calling people who disagreed with him as ignorant. That is a general audience attack. Trying to say it wasn'