Hear hear!!We should stop trying to place blame and parse the syntax and put our combined energies together to devise solutions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hear hear!!We should stop trying to place blame and parse the syntax and put our combined energies together to devise solutions.
Secondly I do not think that 100% proof exists, nor did I state in any of my posts that I required or asked for 100% proof.
Thirdly I do not believe that humans are required in any way for global climate change to occur. There is ample evidence that the earth has gone through more than one of each cycle prior to human industrial society development.
I do have to state that I do not believe you will find any post I made that said I didn’t believe that humans could not exacerbate a naturally occurring climate change.
It’s not my job to present a definition to a proof.
What I object to is a simplification that man is the only cause of global climate change, of either direction. Contributor, quite probably, possibly definitely, but sole cause, nope. That type of theory totally denies that there is any planetary dynamic at all outside of human presence. That theory is baseless just on the face of it since there were climate changes before humans even arrived on the planet. I don’t have that high of an opinion of mans capabilities that at this level of development he can disrupt a planets heat cycle short of widespread nuclear exchange.
While I appreciate your statement of opinion of my intelligence or even educational background, your opinion of my opinion is yours to deal with. It’s not my responsibility to influence it. I do have to tell you that numerous folks have said I was not reasonable simply because I didn’t see things their way. You may weight it any way you want. You will anyhow particularly if it doesn’t fit your opinion of the subject.
As far as doing something to reduce my impact on the planet, that’s been done. I live on far less ground, less housing square footage, use 50 amps or less draw of electricity maximum and far less in the way of fossil fuels to maintain my home in the comfort level. Heck I even walk to the corner store for things like bread and milk.
Until self avowed tree huggers limit themselves to a 400 Sq. Ft or less home like I do they will have a hard time stating they are living in a more ecologically friendly.
Username,
Thanks for the compliment and I mean it sincerely. This is a volatile subject and there is already enough "heat" in most of the debates about it already.
To answer your main remaining question, what kind of proof would I require? I really can't give you an answer. That is exactly the type of question a saleman asks their next victim (customer ) to allow a narrowing of the negotiation and bring both sides to a closer agreement. The best response is to say..... basically nothing. Narrowing the negotiation is an invitation to closing the deal. In discussing this you are trying to bring me to your way of thinking or in other words closing the deal. No deal.
I don't believe I am missing the point. You claim that the meaning of "contribute" doesn't necessarily imply a causative link, and, in this context, I believe it does. I've cited a dictionary entry before, and I just looked in my Websters, which says that it means:Once again you are missing the point. You clamor that since the term "contribute" was used it means a definitive causative situation.
To me it couldn't be clearer what "contribute" means, that the actor is a causative agent, at least in part, to bringing about a result. I just don't see how you can twist a different meaning out of that. And it also means that the actor is a significant part, a substantial part of bringing about the result, a large enough part that one would notice the absence of the actor. If you want to continue to imitate Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less"), I'm afraid you'll have to get a different correspondant.Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary said:"to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result"
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. I am not claiming that humanity's activity is THE root cause of global warming; I am saying that it is A cause, possibly one of several. NOAA says that it is a "significant" cause."Contribute", without further definition such as percentage covers a spectrum that is rather vast. If the scientists that draft the report are either unwilling or (possibly / probably ?) unable to determine HOW MUCH the factor is contributing to the situation then you cannot claim that that factor is the root cause of the global climate change. The term "contributing" does not quantify the contribution and it's direct relational effect.
I don't believe I am missing the point. You claim that the meaning of "contribute" doesn't necessarily imply a causative link, and, in this context, I believe it does. I've cited a dictionary entry before, and I just looked in my Websters, which says that it means:
To me it couldn't be clearer what "contribute" means, that the actor is a causative agent, at least in part, to bringing about a result. I just don't see how you can twist a different meaning out of that. And it also means that the actor is a significant part, a substantial part of bringing about the result, a large enough part that one would notice the absence of the actor. If you want to continue to imitate Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland ("A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less"), I'm afraid you'll have to get a different correspondant.
The fact that neither NOAA nor I can give you a precise percentage contribution of man's activities to global temperature rise doesn't mean that they are insignificant; it only means that the data are imprecise. NOAA wouldn't issue a statement linking them if it weren't beyond the 95% confidence level that is usually applied in statistics. And especially not the NOAA in this adminstration.
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter. I am not claiming that humanity's activity is THE root cause of global warming; I am saying that it is A cause, possibly one of several. NOAA says that it is a "significant" cause.
If I could show you that humanity's actions are absolutely providing between 20% and 80% of global warming, would you still want to ignore the contribution? Tell me that I'm not understanding you, because this is what I think you're saying.
Just because science can't give you an exact, 3 significant digit figure, doesn't mean that it can't say that it's happening. Weather and climate have occuppied the fastest computers we can build for more than half a century, and will likely continue to do so. But we can see from the direct data we collect, and indirect data we find in the historical record (tree rings, ice cores, fossil data and so on) that industrialization has had a big effect on climate and it is accelerating.
We all contribute to the production of greenhouse gasses by our use of internal combustion engines of many types (cars, boilers, furnaces etc). Our coal fired electrical generation plants do their part. The list of contributions is endless.
We can do something. Change personal habits, Conserve, go solar, bug BMW about fuel cell powered bikes, call politicians about funding "green" efforts and most of all just do, vs. deny or whine.
This is a great planet. I hope future generations get to experience the beauty of it. It starts with us, here and now.
What does Bush have to do with this?? Please explain.
The oil industries were in place before he was born. If Americans feel the need to do something, they should get off their oversized lard-asses and quit driving big vehicles. Buying oversized crap from Detroit simply because it gets crammed down our throats is dumb. Consumers can demand smaller, less poluting cars for starters. But they don't, as it isn't 'cool'. The Jones's have the xxxxx , now we must keep up and get xxyz...
If you have a big gas guzzler is it because you NEED it or just WANT it?? Americans think they have the right to buy whatever and that is fine, but don't blame Bush for moronic choices in vehicles and other overpoluting consumer products.
I.E Sweden by 2020 is no longer going to import oil and is going totally green. It means making sacrifices that this country no doubt will refuse to make as we are too spoiled to do what is needed. Want to blame Bush for that too??
Florida will only flood if ALL the ice melts from both poles and Greenland. Since the ice on the north pole already floats in the Arctic ocean it's melting by itself is NOT gonna flood the planet. Take a glass, fill with ice, add water to the rim and let ice melt, see if it runs over the rim....... physics 101
Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.
Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.
Hey Al. I've got an inconvenient truth for you. Bout that election thing..YOU LOST. Get over it.
He's cracked our code. Now the truth is out. Al Gore, stewing in his sour grapes of defeat, took over the leadership of the top secret liberal project "Operation Drown Bangladesh". With the support of evil "scientists" Gore became the mastermind of the diabolical weather changing machine. With more savage storms, higher floods and deeper snows Gore and his liberal conspiracy were ultimately planning to collapse the economy and exhaust humanity's faith in a benevolent creator. But in the near term, out of mean spirited vengeance, Gore had wanted to expose Bush as an incompetent boob. As disaster after catastrophe wracked the planet and the leader of the free world failed to act, Gore would have been vindicated, but at a terrible cost.
Well now that the secret is out that plan is undone and we can go back to life as usual.