Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

haven't had so much fun in a long time - honestly !
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

ican wrote :

Quote:
George Bush is not a competent climatologist, scientist, engineer, or otherwise knowledgeable about what are the primary causes of climate change. He's just a politician with a masters degree in business administration.

perhaps you'd like to let us know what issues THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STAES is permitted to address a/t your opinion ? :wink:

Any issue President Bush (or any other President) wants to address he is permitted by the US Constitution to address. But that doesn't by itself make him an expert in climatology.

the president might be surprised to learn that you call him "just a politician with a masters degree in business administration."

I bet he has sense enough to not care what I or anyone else calls him!

GREAT STUFF , ican !
you made my day !
hbg

But OK! How about this? George Bush is just the two term, elected president of the United States of America with a Masters Degree in Business Administration. What's he know about what is the primary cause of global warming in particular and climate change in general?

By the way, Foxfyre gave you the better answer. Surprised

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I double checked because you seed of doubted me.

Sorry Fox, but I used the word properly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contend

Contend does not imply advocacy or agreement, quite oppositely it implies conflict or arguement. One definition even listed "agree" as an antonym. Certainly "contest" would have also been correct though.

There isn't anything wrong with my phrasing.
K
O

Diest, seriously, you need to learn to use english before you even tackle science. Even using your own dictionary, the synonym for contend is to "hold" or "claim." You have certainly heard the term "contend" or "contender" in sports where a team is contending for a championship. They are battling for, or aspiring to, wrestling with, or arguing their case in favor of themselves. When you said "I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.", you essentially are saying you are not holding or claiming that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. If anyone contends something, they are claiming it, arguing it, and so forth, not arguing against it.

This is so elementary, I find it amazing you are stumbling at this, and so I find it more explainable your stumbling at rather simple scientific principles as well. I am losing interest in even discussing this stuff with you, as you seem sort of hopeless. Sorry to be so hard on you, but the argument over the meaning of "contend" was stunning to say the least.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

...

I don't strive or vie especially with determination and exertion in contest or rivalry or against difficulties, exigencies, or failings that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

I don't strive in debate that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

I don't ARGUE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

Laughing

Fox - I believe you said you did techinical writing? I'm sorry but you are wrong. The substitutions above illustrate this very clearly.

BTW...

Foxfyre wrote:

how you used it clearly states that you don't agree, don't support, don't argue that the sun warms the Earth

Odd use of the word "clearly" concidering you can't both argee/support and argue with something. "Clearly" you aren't the best authority on definitions.

As for you not caring what dictionary I used, I listed a source with several dictionary sources, and YES that matters.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Would you please stop, diest. You are only making yourself look sillier and worse every time you try to justify your argument. You are wrong, okay, so give it up. Your credibility is going down the drain fast, what little you had.

By the way, I looked at your source and it disagrees with you, so that is not helping you either. There is no source that agrees with you, unless you wrote it.

0 Replies

Almost forgot...

Quote:

Meaning that what you are accuing me of saying...

I don't AGREE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. We have to get our energy from somewhere. What I have a problem with is the notion that humankind has not effected the climate.

... is the EXACT opposite of what I am saying.

I'll never get tired of being right about this. However, I would like to point out how lame it is that the only part of my post that was replied to was this. That is particularly sad concidering my antagonists were DEAD WRONG.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Would you please stop, diest. You are only making yourself look sillier and worse every time you try to justify your argument. You are wrong, okay, so give it up. Your credibility is going down the drain fast, what little you had.

By the way, I looked at your source and it disagrees with you, so that is not helping you either. There is no source that agrees with you, unless you wrote it.

I'm nominating you for an Darwin award.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I am beginning to wonder, what have you been smoking, diest?

I feel relatively sure that all your fellow global warmers could tell you how wrong you are on this simple matter of word usage, that is if they aren't just as screwed up, not that it matters, but it is illustrative of a density of thought process.

0 Replies

I've validated my word useage, and if you wish to continue challenging it, you'd better be able to address my posts instead of insisting on substance abuse.

I have listed three examples using the definition of "contend" and one using the antonym of contend "agree." What you are claiming that I have said is represented in the example of the antonym, not the other three. You are DEAD WRONG about this.

I've been more than cooperative with your stale mind about this matter. I've been even more patient about your continued failure to retract your very false statments about the beliefs of your antagonists, and secondly the nature of averages and their relation to constants.

You are a worthless troll. Prove me otherwise by addressing my SHM question. Otherwise, piss off, you one trick pony.

T
K
O

0 Replies

You are one dense dude, diest. I do have a question, no need to answer if you don't want to, but in the interest of figuring out your problem which relates to being able to understand a simple term and also understanding dictionary meanings. Is English your first language, or is it a second language later acquired? If it is not your first language, this could explain your inability to understand something this simple, as part of the english language. I am not being sarcastic, but seriously curious about this problem of yours. If English is your first language, I honestly think you are in serious trouble in terms of the ability to reason logically. My posts are going from disagreement, to sarcasm, now to serious concern for you.

0 Replies

English is my first language Pony-Troll.

You failed to actually counter any of my points on this matter. I've said all I need to. The defintions (plural) side with me.

contend != agree;

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest, it means in a debate, you don't agree with the opposing argument. Read your own linked dictionary, which says:.
1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.
2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.
3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.
-verb (used with object)
4. to assert or maintain earnestly: He contended that taxes were too high.

Take No. 4 for example, if you contend, it means you maintain earnestly, in other words, you argue for, not against or agree with your opposition. The meaning revolves around the concept of a fight or contest, or debate, as the meanings indicate. To contend, you are fighting for whatever you assert, or arguing for, not agreeing with or giving in to your opposition or opposing argument. In the example sentence under No. 4, it says he contended taxes were too high, meaning he thought taxes were too high, not that he thought they weren't.

How many ways can this be explained to you? I can't believe we are going to have to start you over in grade school and walk you through this. You say English is your first language. Good grief, you have no business debating scientific phenomena if you can't figure something this simple out.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

contend != agree;

Agree or disagree?

If you agree, it is because you read the F-ing definitions and understood them.

If you disagree, then you are directly rejecting the definition.

You are trying too hard to dodge the bullet Pony-Troll.

You are trying to make the definition rather than use the accepted one. You are trying to assert that "contend" means to advocate for, in other words "agree." "Agree" is the antonym of "contend." Bottom line.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You are trying to assert that "contend" means to advocate...
T
K
O

I know it hasn't dawned on you yet, but it does. Other meanings include "maintain" or "argue" or "hold" or "claim" or "assert." One suggestion, read the entire definitions and explanations and do not take one word out of context and twist the intended meaning as you have done with the so-called antonym "agree." The reason that does not work is the dictionary is using the term "agree" in context with a debate with an opposing argument, so the antonym "agree" means that you do not agree with the opposing argument. Go read the dictionaries some more. Maybe someday you will figure it out. I'm not counting on it.

You have just wiped out any credibility you had left about anything.

I'm done trying to explain it to you now. If you can't get it, too bad.

0 Replies

Don't get your underpants twisted Pony-Troll. I'll take your non-answer to my direct question mean that you in fact do believe that to contend means to agree. You seem to be puttig in extra effort to avoid having to answer to this directly.

In other words Pony-Troll, you've just been elected President of the Dodgeball Club.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You are trying to make the definition rather than use the accepted one. You are trying to assert that "contend" means to advocate for, in other words "agree." "Agree" is the antonym of "contend." Bottom line.

English is not my native language but I know that "contend" means "advocate for" or "assert" and is much more similar to "agree" than "disagree".

So TKO, grow up, go get a life, read some book and stop being stubborn, hysterical and ridiculous Mad

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

English is not my native language but I know that "contend" means "advocate for" or "assert" and is much more similar to "agree" than "disagree".

Neither is mine - but to use two examples from Meriam-Webster: "we shouldn't stubbornly contend for what we believe to be the truth". Otherwise we "might soon be contending with difficulties" getting back to the topic. :wink:

(Source: "contend." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com [21 Feb. 2008].)

0 Replies

here is what the mother (OED 1971) says ;

1) to strive earnestly , to make vigorous efforts , to struggle

2) to strive in opposition , to engage in conflict or strife , to fight

3) to strive in argument or debate , to dispute keenly , to argue
...b) with clause specifying the point maintained or asserted

4) to strive in rivalry with another , for an object , to compete , vie

6) to urge one's course , proceed with effort

TAKE YER PICK !

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

TAKE YER PICK !

Well apart from hubris and deliberate obfuscation, I don't see the point of contending you can command words when your sentence is misunderstood by at least 3 people :wink:

0 Replies

He went a round with Highseas some pages back too in which he insisted that radiation and radiance can be used interchangeably re solar output. Apparently that university where he received his aeronautical engineering degree wasn't too focused on technical writing. Smile

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know