DSkippy

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 ).

MFILLINI5, towards my learning and evolving in my posting/communicating, please reply back with my passage that asserted this point.

Mfillini5, please see this link:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...o6=&o4=&o3=&h=

Please apply this definition to the bolded passage below

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

1971Chall

I think the post got off track a little bit. I don't mind spirited debate either but really, I think we are here more for the cars(I hope). My original intention was just to draw the comparison between the so called "fuel saving" 4 cyl's vs. the "gas guzzling" V8. My original point was the 4 cyl performance vehicles that are comparable to the V8 cars show little, if any, fuel economy difference. I was having a hard time understanding where all this praise for these vehicles is coming from. I had a fuel injected 5.0 Mustang years ago that ran 13.9@100mph in the quarter and achieved a best of 31mpg on a straight highway cruise. I could usually average 29 - 30mpg as long as I kept the speeds to no greater than 65mph. The other thing to remember is that the mileage ratings were downgraded this year in order to show a "more realistic" mileage figure. Truthfully I have always managed to get the mpg that was advertised with the old rating. My opinion is that the new Challengers will see better mileage than what they are advertised for. In some cases maybe a decent jump more. This of course assumes that at the time you are driving it for mileage. RLSH700, thanks for trying to pull the thread back to the original conversation.

RLSH700

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'

zman

Appologize? I'll tell you what Chall I will when you do, the fact of the matter is that by you making the comment " I can't use the proper description for Mr Gore, so fill in the blank with your favorite word" insulted, or name called, or what ever your attack consisted of, because you wouldn't state it, in fact was an attack on Al Gore and ANYONE who believes that Al Gore has being doing something noble for the last 30 - 35 years, before he became a mainstream politician, Maybe youoooo, should go back and read my second post, and really focus on the last sentence of it. I believe, and most likely with alot of other people, that if you and others " don't think" that we have sped the process up at all the last 100 years of industrialization, Well then there you have it. But hey no hard feelings here. =)

Thanks to you MFI.

Z

Jeremiah 29:11

I personally believe the Earth is going through it's climate cycle as everthing does have a cycle........just like the seasons and the tide.

That being said, let's get back to talking about the awesome car the Challenger is before this thread gets locked or deleted.

zman

Agreed J.

Z

DSkippy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system

The contemporary view of the brightest minds on the planet was Geocentric until only 500 to 600 years ago (believed for over a Millennium by the "educated world" and probably the uneducated largely as well). So that fact that "alot" (sic) of people believe it is inconsequential. A lot of people (over a billion) believe communism is a fine approach to government, that doesn't make it true. A lot of people thought "professional wrasslen" was real sport. There are multitudes of examples where the masses are led to believe things that later don't hold water.

I'll start believing scientists can figure out the long term stuff (climate change), as soon as they can predictably prognosticate tomorrow's weather with a better than 75% kill ratio OR when they stop closing their ears to the possibility of other theories. They have become the Church of the middle ages who stifled scientists simply because these scientists who created the foundations for modern science thought differently.


I like science with my science and faith with my faith. I don't necessarily think the two should be confused or cross pollinated.

MFIllini5

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