[Cerek]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: EDIT: Now please, drop the ad hominem and return to the argument at hand. I have no time or patience for a fight about me or what I think. All I expect from a civilized debate is that both sides be treated as human and intelligent, otherwise we might as well resort to shouting in all caps rather than attempting intelligent arguments. If you persist in attempting to shift the debate to me rather than to my arguments(Most of which I note have been entirely ignored.), then I shall expect that it is because you have no superior facts or logic to counter mine, consider the debate a victory and leave the "battlefield."

The only slightly ad hominem attacks I've seen thus far have come from you, Purple. ZFR asked Seraph why snowfall levels can be used to support global warming but not used to contradict it. Instead of addressing the question - which you have since acknowledged is a legitimate query - you accused ZFR of "putting words into Seraph's mouth". Something he/she did not do. Melting ice caps and warmer winter temperatures are a cornerstone argument used to support global warming, so it was reasonable for ZFR to ask why the argument can be used for one side but not the other.

When I added my :2cent: worth, you criticized the labels I chose to use rather than address the question. You also claimed - erroneously - that I was basically stating every person on either side of the debate wholeheartedly accepts any and ALL arguments offered to support thier side. Simply stated (in American Southern grammer), I never said no such a thang. I did use generalized labels to differentiate between the two sides of the debate, but there is no implication at all in my post that either side wholeheartedly accepts all arguments offered to support their view.

As for the revelation of your former identity, that had no bearing on this response. If you're active on IW at all, then you know I'm not around much these days (for various reasons). I had no problem with you when I was active and I don't have any problem with you now. But I do suggest you follow your own advice and focus on the questions asked rather than criticising the poster or the wording used in a particular response.

As for the whole question of melting ice caps, lower snowfalls and warmer winter temperatures, that is one of the foundation arguments used by most supporters of global warming - at least the ones getting any media attention. Al Gore recieved an Academy Award for his "documentary". In the trailer of his film, he cites reduced snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro (along with comparative photos to validate his statement) as just one example of the impact global warming is having on our planet. Which brings back once again to the legitimate question ZFR asked several posts ago; if snowfall (or snow on the ground) can be (and IS) used to support global warming, why can it not be used when measurements contradict global warming? That question - so far - remains unanswered.