Lucia, my other point, your statement “The vague start date of “mid 20th century” is shifted– sometimes to the mid-70s — known to be cooler due to aerosols.” or at least that it was “known to be cooler due to aerosols.” Known to be due to aerosols? Or is that what they have to program into the models to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect? Now, I would invite you to use your knowledge of the past year or two where there was a temperature decrease, where the main cause was the transition from a weak El Nino to Moderate La Nina. Now go back and compare those same years (mid 20th century cooling period 1948 – 1977) on your temp graph to any of the Nino indexes (MEI, ONI or SOI, if you use SOI then don’t forget to invert it). I won’t give ya a clue, just tell me what most affected the mid 20th century cooling period… aerosols?

When I am discussing “most”, I am discussing “most” as used in the sentence in question. If you feel I am not, too bad. *chuckles* Seriously though, just point out a specific example when your up to it, and I’ll clarify.

“A woodchuck would chuck what a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.”

I still don’t know if the woodchuck will chuck most of the wood.

I’d add “in a scientific rebuttal” to the end of the second sentence. But otherwise, *thumbs up* .

But I think in all cases it is important to remember, “A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.”

For what it’s worth, my intent was simply to clarify remarks that were made. I didn’t really intend on debating with Magnus, though sometimes debating can be fun and one gets carried away.

Remarkably, I have a piece of paper that says that I might know something about the subject. Of course, I don’t put stock in that piece of paper. However, in this specific case, I once wrote a paper about this very subject. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? A paper on the grammatical use of Most? *chuckles* But, it’s true.

What is probably crazier, is that there are peer reviewed articles on the subject. I have actually looked at some of the articles which were written after I wrote my non-peer reviewed “write it to get an A” paper. Many of those papers define most the same as Magnus. Which is, as I pointed out, contrary to the concept of the superlative. I have yet to find an article which defines a superlative in new manner, so I am at a loss.

Raphael, have at that.

Clearly we are now saying that the IPCC stated that human CO2 emissions may have had some indeterminate affect on temperatures over some undefined 50 year period in the past.

Excellent.

So why do we NEED to do anything about this then?

If you are a professional, publishing in a newsletter is a no-win situation either way. It’s a lot of trouble to write up a decent article. The article will be somewhat reviewed– meaning there will be time consuming back and forth. But, since the journal is not “peer reviewed”, the article is considered grey literature. So, why go to the trouble.

I can understand why the invited people posted. If one were putting something down for tenure or promotion, being invited to speak has some prestige. But just writing a letter to APS? It’s got no more prestige than writing a letter to your local suburban newspaper!

If the article isn’t going to bring any professional or personal benefits, why not just blog?

That is a strange formulation. It is the increase in the concentration of heat-trapping gases that is responsible (or not) for the warming, not the increase in emissions. For instance, methane emissions are rising, but the concentration is more or less stagnant (for reasons unknown, and no one really wants to talk about it…). Humans are not “causing increases in emissions”, they are emitting GHG’s, that would have otherwise stayed buried. Furthermore, we are told that even if we decrease emissions, temperatures will keep rising.

I would rather have said: “Increases in atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases, largely caused by human emissions, are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years”. Of course, there is also the issue that there has not been warming for 50 years, but rather more like 30 years (since 1975), but that would sound less dramatic, wouldn’t it? You don’t want people to start asking too many questions.

And I don’t know what “most” means. It’s vague enough it could mean anything. I guess that’s the idea. Why give a precise number for sensitivity (with error margins), when you can just make vague statements about warming and emissions.

Semantics aside, are we going to have a scientific debate on AGW between an IT manager and a bored English aristocrat? I don’t mind amateur scientists, but aren’t there more competent people out there? I am 100% sure that many professional scientists do not agree with the so-called consensus, and resent the alarmism. One problem is that climate science (and science in general) is a very broad field, and scientists are very specialized, so no one really has a grasp of the whole thing, and most scientists will be reluctant to express an opinion on something that falls outside their expertise (and they generally dislike those who do). Furthemore, the way that the dissenters are treated is not to encourage anyone to speak up.

I just noticed you used a definition from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

In this case I clicked the link Lucia gave for likely (the free dictionary) and searched most, and transcribed the first definition for most as a pronoun. (I used the definition early on.)

*shrugs*

I really don’t think the definition matters though. Definitions are derived from the use of meanings that are clearly understood. Your “definitions are definitions” argument might have had some merit if Dictionaries came before language.

Let’s take a different tack.

The “More than half” definition, we can define as

Most (A)(B) = true iff set ( A intersection B ) is greater than set (A – B.) (excuse my sloppy notation)

Where A is the main set and B is the superlative subset. This definition basically says there are only two subsets of importance in set A. As I pointed out, comparing only two things is not the job of a superlative. So, I don’t know what to tell you. I think it is a case where definitions of commonly used bad grammar is added to a dictionary.

Are you sure you just don’t want to trust me?

No? *sigh*

Assure you without arguments? There, there it’ll be all right. Language should be natural. You shouldn’t have to do backflips to understand what an author meant. He is suppose to make the meaning clear when he is doing all that yucky writing. Just let the sentence do the work. If it fails you, blame the writer.

Now if you actually wanted arguments, without arguing:

(Apologies if some of this sounds redundant, I am repeating some of what I have already said for the sake of clarity.)

“Most of” is not stand alone. Properly, it is “most (of the)”. It means “most used with the preposition of”. It must be used with a definitive, though it need not be the definitive article “the”.

a) Most of the apples are red.
b) Most of Bob’s apples are red.

“Most” is the subject, “are” is the predicate. “Most are red,” is a more ambiguous sentence, but still valid. “Most” is used in these sentences as an indefinite pronoun. The definition of Most as a pronoun is “the greatest number or part”

The sentence a) can be rewritten as: The greatest number or part of the apples are red.

Here we have a compound subject, to help clarify we can break it up into two sentences.

The greatest number of the apples is red.
OR
The greatest part of the apples is red.

Now lets look at the important parts of the sentence in question:

Most of the … increase … is …

“Most” is the subject.
“Is” is the predicate.
“Increase” is the object of the propsition of.

Now rewrite and break:
The greatest number of the increase is…
The greatest part of the increase is…

There is no reason to show preference to only one portion of the definition. So, we cannot simply choose one sentence over the other. But even if we could, both are ambiguous.

But, you have your argument. So let’s take a look at the core of that argument.

If something can only consists of two parts, then “most of” has to be more than half.

Can an increase only consist of two parts? No.

But let’s assume it can be divided into only two parts. It is not grammatically correct to use a superlative when referring to only two things. It is grammatical to use a comparitive in those cases. (More instead of Most)

Now, depending on linguistic prescription, it can be considered grammatically correct to use a superlative when referring to two things, but only if there is a possibility of more than two. The higgest bidder… There could have been only two people bidding, and the winner could still be referred to as the highest bidder. But that caveat returns the ambiguity in the case we are examining.

Lucia: Please, no insults like this.

Human-caused increases in the emissions of heat-trapping gases are responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years.

“I assume” wasn’t my personal assumption. I used this phrase since I presented (and invited readers to) step by step logic, where I proved the case. It described what definition of “more of” we due to logics with no excemptions must assume; that anoher definitoin is impossible. I could have – and obviously should have – used the words “the conclusion must be” instead. So please replace phrases like “I assume”, “we shall assume”, and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be”, and then reply again.

Raphael: “I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half” definition.

Assure me? Without any argument?

Raphael: ” If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident.”

The level to which writing is clear depends (among other things) on distinct definitions. We have had a discussion about defenition, and as I have proved the definition of “most of” is “more than half”. I urge you to replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be” in my latest comment and reply again. I you refuse to do that, it would appear as if you hold your own assumptions of the definition for true rather than what the definition must be due to logics.

Also, the only definition of “most of” in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English is:

“Most determiner, pron (superlative of many, much) 1 [(of)] nearly all: Most people take their holidays in the summer. | He spends most of his time traveling.”

Raphael: “If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.”

The content of written text depends on definitions of words and phrases. I’ve shown by logics that “most of” has to be “more than half, and also Longman Dictionary has this definition of “most of”. I’ve been clear enough.

We discuss definition of a phrase, and I can’t see how the obvious talks of yours is arguments. It more looks like an insinuation, and I think you can adopt it to yourself.

“I assume” wasn’t my personal assumption. I used this phrase since I presented (and invited readers to) logics step by step, where logics well prove the case. It described what definition of “more of” we with no excemption have to assume due to logics, and that the opposite is impossible. I could have – and obviously should have – used the words “the conclusion must be” instead. So please replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be”, and then reply again!

Raphael: “I assure you there is no reason to hold onto the “more than half” definition.

Assure me. Without arguments.

Raphael: ” If the writing was clear, there is no reason to assume anything; the definition will be evident.”

The level to which writing is clear depends (among some other things) on distinct definitions. We have had a discussion about defenition, and as I have proved the definition of “most of” is “more than half”. I urge you to replace “I assume” and “I argue” with “the conclusion must be” in my latest comment and reply again. I you refuse to do this, it would appear as if you hold your own assumptions of the definition for true rather than what the definition must be due to logics.

The Longman dictionary says:

“Most determiner, pron (superlative of many, much) 1 [(of)] nearly all: Most people take their holidays in the summer. | He spends most of his time traveling.”

That’s the only definiton of “most of” in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

Raphael: “If the writing is not clear, the writer should find another way to express himself.”

The content of written text depends on definitions of words and phrases. I’ve shown by logics that “most of” has to be “more than half, and also Longman Dictionary has this definition of “most of”. I’ve been clear enough.

Also we are now discuss definition of a phrase, and I can’t see how obvious talk like this is an argument. It more looks like an insinuation, and I think you can adopt it to yourself.