But you must admit that the phrase attempts to classify human endeavors and their impacts differently than everything else in nature.
That was the point I was making. We don't increase CO 2 any more than cows increase CH 4 . We are behaving naturally for humans. We know for sure, because (1) we are humans and (2) humans are natural.
Your "embarassing" rephrase of the intent of "anthropogenic" is embarassing, in my opinion also.
Nobody believes that "anthropogenic CO2" means CO2 created from nothing at all. Anthropogenic CO2 is simply a term scientists use to designate atmospheric CO2 that has come about due to human activities.
CO 2 doesn't "come about" due to human activities. All these elements existed already, their states change, their combinative forms change, but they don't "come about" because of us—I feel silly having to say this to you. Anthropogenic CO 2 is simply a term scientists use to try and segregate the processes humans have invented that result in the combinative form CO 2 . They attempt to evaluate these sources separately from all other sources, and they label all other sources as natural, by contrast to human sources.
Obviously, they must believe humans are unnatural and that their processes are unnatural. I was pointing out this as a very easily identifiable flaw in their reasoning on the matter. It is a fundamental flaw that flavors the conclusions arising from many scientific endeavors.
I think you got the point and you don't really like it very much. We are not the aloof guardians and caretakers of this planet. We are part of this planet. We are part of the experiment however much we try to pretend objective observer status.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
