I also am getting tired of talking about this and thought I was done, but now I have to clarify things with DamnSkippy and RLSH700 since they wrote back and I'm entitled a response at least.

DamnSkippy...

You are reading into my last post too much. I was not implying that you never said that man does not impact the environment. What I was saying was that zman's only point was that humans are having at least some impact, that man does impact the environment (at least a little). Remember, I was talking about zman's posted comments, not your thoughts on the environment. These are mutually exclusive.

Therefore I was not implying anything with the "smidge of knowledge" comment towards you or anyone in particular. There was no hypocrisy involved. I was seriously trying to balance the discussion and not injecting my own views. I was not taking a stance or discussing my beliefs.

If you really want to know about me or my views, I'll tell you. I am someone who believes that man is probably having an increasing impact on the environment. I'm not sure whether I believe it is a huge impact or a small impact in total or that nature will take care of it itself or not. I also agree that none of us know very much about anything and that some of us know or believe a lot more than others in certain things. I'll also tell you that I have a Bachelor and Master Degree in Urban and Regional Planning, but I also have a working class background so I don't think I'm all high and mighty. I am the Village Planner for a 10,000 population city and do have to admit I do a great job at that. Our profession will be one of the key professions in trying to mitigate human impacts in the coming generations, environmental or otherwise. I admit there are many planners that lean toward the environmental side. There are just as many that lean toward other sides. Most, like me, are somewhere near the middle. Our profession in my estimation has more people near the middle than almost any other profession. Our pride is that we are a "jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one". So I am a mediator, negotiator, coordinator, facilitator more than anything, I like to provide balance to things. I did not think the conversation was balanced, so I was trying to balance it out. I'm the guy that provides the facts to the decision makers. Did you ever see "Sum of All Fears"? I'm Ben Affleck, except my type of balanced, factual info is not going to let or prevent a nuclear attack. Haha! (though I wouldn't mind doing that either)

RLSH700...

Please read my reply to DamnSkippy. I think you can now see why I don't need anyone telling me to lighten up - I was trying to balance the conversation, but somehow you guys were thinking that I am taking a side. Therefore, that is why I didn't appreciate someone telling me to "lighten up". I was not upset.

I did state that I did not think that saying "anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool" is the best way for zman to go about making his point. I do agree with you that that could be looked at as provocation on the whole forum. However, I also believe zman has a valid point that the statement by Chally criticizing Al Gore is not really any different. Al Gore is an icon of the environmental movement, so if you criticize him, you are really criticizing a whole group of people there too. Chally spoke first.

And while a true independent would likely criticize both sides equally, he would more importantly try to balance the conversation. I do believe from a historical perspective and basis, that the happenings in this country for the last 200 years have been mostly in favor of the "economic side". Therefore, balancing the "conversation" does mean leaning a little back to the "environmental side" for the next 200 years. I also think these can be mutually exclusive also though (i.e. technology might be able to improve both at the same t