"That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;"
(emphasis mine)
Note the "astrological" (!!!) and the fact that they don't even write proper English - in a resolution, no less (http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/affect-effect-grammar.html).
For the Nth time, the global warming "sceptics" (you don't get to be a sceptic in an area where you have no clue whatsoever) have demonstrated their true face - a bunch of ignorant anti-science idiots.
A democracy without an educated demos does not work.
Here's the link...
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm
...and the screen shot, in case they correct it...
7 comments:
The most common use of 'effect' is as a noun, but in that context, 'effect' the verb is correctly used.
Have to say that I'm absolutely not convinced in the global warming.
And, that it's sad, because I'd rather *have* global warming. Because, you know, it's pretty cold here. Warmth is good.
To Dave: to effect = to cause; to affect = to influence.
See the link in the post.
The context of the sentence, "...that can effect world weather phenomena...", allows you to say "...that can influence world weather phenomena...", but not "...that can cause world weather phenomena..."
I'm with Dave. This is perfectly acceptable use, both grammatically and semantically, of "effect" as a transitive verb.
From AskOxford.com:
To affect something is to change or influence it, To effect something is a rather formal way of saying `to make it happen'. Confusingly, either may produce an 'effect' or result. ('An affect' is a technical term in psychology.)
The stability of the wall was affected by passing lorries.
The demolition of the wall was effected by the detonation of a charge of dynamite.
The dynamite did not just 'affect' (influence) the demolition of the wall: it caused it.
I wasn't sure either, so I just did a search. I am now better than two other people! WOOT!
What baffles me is people who have no training in climate science, no training in any real science at all, who claim that they don't believe in science if it happens to be science (like climate science) that might in some way inconvenience them. In the days of Galileo undoubtedly they would have voted to burn him at the stake for making the scientific observation that the Earth goes around the Sun rather than vice-versa. I believe in science and the scientific process for one simple reason: they work. You have the proof in front of your face, for cryin' out loud. Yet people who are staring at the result of physicists determining how electrons move through semiconductor substrates refuse to believe in the same science that made that computer in front of their face possible... it is absolutely baffling. It's as if they're absolutely convinced that the sky is a fine shade of puce, despite all evidence to the contrary!
Sergey,
Your argument appears to be this: "since I can find grammar errors in legislation produced by global warming skeptics, this proves that all global warming skeptics are uneducated idiots"
This is the guilt by association fallacy.
So if I can find grammar errors, or how about this, what if I can find actual errors in data gathering by global warming supporters, can I then denounce them as idiots? I hope you've been following the news because this is what has happened.
Of course you'd be all over me if I tried to discredit global warmists this way wouldn't you?
But now let's get one thing straight. Please start using the the right terminology lest you also be guilty of the straw-man fallacy. Climate skeptics (the ones I read at least) are not skeptical of global warming at all. Every time you lump us all into that bucket you create a straw-man. We absolutely agree that there has been warming. We even agree that humans have an impact. What we are skeptical of is catastrophic global warming. (Emphasis on the word catastrophe). If there is no catastrophe looming, then we can all have a reasoned cost-benefit analysis.
The science isn't so inaccessible to the masses that you have to be anointed to understand it. This is like the days when the Church tried to keep the scriptures from the rabble. I'm-smarter-than-you types aren't the only ones qualified to be skeptics.
To help educate the demos, I recommend a visit to Meyer's site
I'd be happy to talk specific CAGW claims with you all. And I'll also readily concede errors of skeptics too. Bless their hearts--they at least forced academia into being more open with their data and methods this last year.
Post a Comment