Baking apple pie? Discount orange warehouse has you covered! A fruit’s a fruit, right?
Pečete pitu od jabuke? Diskont pomorandži je tu za vas! Voće ko voće, zar ne?
It’s 1988, and scientist James Hansen has just testified to the United States Congress that global warming trends are caused by human activity, and will pose an increasing threat to humanity in the future.
Godina je 1988, a naučnik Džejms Hansen je upravo svedočio pred Kongresom Sjedinjenih Američkih Država da je globalno zagrevanje posledica ljudske delatnosti i da će vremenom sve više ugrožavati čovečanstvo.
Well, well. That’s unusually prescient for a human.
Vidi ti to. Kako neuobičajeno pronicljivo za čoveka.
Looking for a wedding dress? Try a new take on a timeless classic. It’s sleek, flattering and modest— just like the traditional dress.
Tražite venčanicu? Probajte novu verziju bezvremenog klasika. Doterana, laskava i skromna- baš kao i tradicionalna venčanica.
Commercials. Could anything be more insufferable?
Reklame. Da li postoji išta nepodnošljivije?
It’s 1997, and the United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming. Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history were warmer than the 20th century. Because such variations existed long before humans, the witnesses claim the current warming trend is also the result of natural variation.
Godina je 1997, a Senat SAD-a je sazvao sastanak o globalnom zagrevanju. Neki stručni svedoci ističu da su raniji periodi zemaljske istorije bili topliji od 20. veka. Pošto su takve varijacije postojale mnogo pre ljudi, svedoci tvrde da je i trenutni trend zagrevanja rezultat prirodnih varijacija.
Ah, there is something more insufferable than a commercial. Luckily for the humans, there’s one more expert witness.
Ah, dakle postoji nešto nepodnošljivije od reklama. Srećom po čovečanstvo, postoji još jedan stručni svedok. Demon razuma
What are you looking at? We’re all dressed. At least we are by the logic you just used. It’s as if you were to say apples and oranges are both fruits, therefore they taste the same. Or that underwear, wedding dresses, and suits are all clothes, therefore, they’re all equally appropriate attire for a Senate hearing.
Zašto buljite? Svi smo obučeni. To jest, jesmo po logici koju si ti upravo koristio. To bi bilo kao da kažeš da i jabuke i narandže spadaju u voće i zbog toga imaju isti ukus. Ili da su donji veš, venčanica i odelo odeća, pa su zato podjednako prikladni za zasedanje Senata.
The European wars of the 19th century and World War I were all wars, right?
Evropski ratovi tokom 19. veka i Prvi svetski rat su ratovi, zar ne?
So World War I couldn’t be any more devastating than those other wars, could it?
Dakle, Prvi svetski rat nije mogao biti destruktivniji od tih drugih ratova, zar ne?
Let’s say two people have a fever. They must have the same disease that’s causing that fever, right?
Hajde da zamislimo da dve osobe imaju groznicu. One onda mora da imaju istu bolest koja je izaziva, zar ne?
Of course not. One fever could be caused by chicken pox, the other by influenza, or any number of other infections. Like your claim about rising global temperatures, these claims make a false analogy. You're assuming that because two phenomena share a characteristic, in this case warming, they are analogous in other ways, like the cause of that warming.
Naravno da ne. Jednu groznicu je možda izazvla varičela, a drugu grip ili neka druga infekcija. Kao tvoja tvrdnja o rastućoj globalnoj temperaturi, ove tvrdnje su primer pogrešne analogije. Ti pretpostavljaš da samo zato što dva događaja dele jednu osobinu, u ovom slučaju zagrevanje, da su slučni i po drugim osobinama, kao što je uzrok zagrevanja.
But there’s no evidence that that’s the case. Yes, there have been other warm periods in Earth’s history— no one’s disputing that the climate fluctuates. But let's take a closer look at some of those older examples of global warming, shall we?
Međutim, ne postoji dokaz da je ta tvrdnja istinita. Da, postojali su i drugi topli periodi u istoriji Zemlje- niko ne poriče da se klima vremenom menja. Hajde da bolje proučimo neke od tih starijih primera globalnog zagrevanja, šta misliš o tome?
The Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse, 92 million years ago, was so warm, forests covered Antarctica. Volcanic activity was likely responsible for boosting atmospheric carbon dioxide and creating a greenhouse effect.
Globalno zagrevanje za vreme krede, pre 92 miliona godina, bilo je toliko toplo da je Antarktik bio pod šumama. Najverovatnije je aktivnost vulkana izazvala porast ugljen-dioksida u vazduhu i prouzrokovala efekat staklene bašte.
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago, was so warm, crocodiles swam the waters of the Arctic Circle. This warming may have been caused by the drying of inland seas and release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from ocean sediments.
Paleocensko–eocenski toplotni maksimum je pre 55 miliona godina bio toliko topao da su krokodili plivali u vodama Arktičkog polarnog kruga. Ovo zagrevanje je možda nastalo zbog isušivanja epikontinentalnih mora i oslobađanja metana, potentnog gasa staklene bašte, iz okeanskih sedimenata.
Even among these other warm periods, you’re making a false analogy. Yes, they had natural causes. But each had a different cause, and involved a different amount and duration of warming. They’re as dissimilar as they are similar. Taking them together, all we can reasonably conclude is that the Earth’s climate seems to change in response to conditions on the planet.
Ti praviš pogrečnu analogiju čak i među ovim drugim toplim periodima. Da, oni su imali prirodne uzroke. Ali svaki period je imao drugačiji uzrok i varirao je u količini i trajanju zagrevanja. Koliko su slični toliko su i različiti. Kada ih sve uzmemo u obzir, sve što možemo da zaključimo je da se klima na Zemlji menja zbog promene uslova na njoj.
Today, human activity is a dominant force shaping conditions on your planet, so the possibility that it’s driving global warming can’t be dismissed out of hand. I’ll grant that the more complicated something is, the easier it is to make a mistaken analogy. That’s especially true because there are many different types of false analogy: that similar symptoms must share a cause, that similar actions must lead to similar consequences, and countless others. Most false analogies you’ll come across are far less obvious than those comparing apples to oranges, and climate is notoriously complex. It requires careful, rigorous study and evidence collection— and making a false analogy like this only impedes that process.
Danas je ljudska aktivnost glavna sila koja oblikuje uslove na vašoj planeti zbog čega se mogućnost da ona izaziva globalno zagrevanje ne može tako lako odbaciti. Mada, što je nešto komplikovanije to je lakše napraviti pogrešnu analogiju. Ova tvrdnja se pokazala tačnom jer postoji mnogo vrsta pogrešne analogije: da slični simptomi znače isti uzrok, da slične radnje dovode do sličnih posledica, i mnoge druge. Mnoge pogrešne analogije na koje ćeš naići su manje očigledne od poređenja jabuka i narandži, a klima je veoma kompleksna. Ona zahteva oprezno, rigorozno istraživanje i sakupljanje dokaza- a širenje pogrešne analogije kao ove samo ometa taj proces.
It’s 2013, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found, aggregating decades of research, that there is more than a 95% chance the global warming trend since the mid-20th century has been driven by human activity, namely the burning of fossil fuels.
Godina je 2013, a Međuvladin panel o klimatskim promenama Ujedinjenih nacija je pomoću decenija istraživanja zaključio da postoji više od 95% šanse da je trend globalnog zagrevanja od sredine 20. veka posledica ljudske delatnosti, uglavnom sagorevanja fosilnih goriva.
You’re both pets, and he likes living in water, so you should, too.
Vas dvojica ste kućni ljubimci pošto on voli da živi u vodi, to mora da znači da voliš i ti.