This exchange we're having is fascinating. You really don't see what you're doing. You seem to feel that since I don't agree with you I obviously didn't read the thread or didn't read it closely.
You haven't been able to stay consistent concerning the one simple statement made in Holmes' first post.
Look at what you've claimed I misunderstand.
1) If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I didn't accuse Holmes of saying that I said it. Only that he has implied that one of us said it. But nobody did.
2) As stated in the thread, RAZD's post is largely a reference to one of my own.
3) RAZD didn't say "the sky is burning", either. Nobody said that, but Holmes said that it had been said. That's a distortion.
Misunderstanding #1-3:
In
Message 272AdminPD writes:
2. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that the sky is burning. Message 46
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
As you can see, I did understand that you meant implied and not that anyone spoke the specific words.
In
Message 277AdminPD writes:
Example: Complaint #2 Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that the sky is burning. I stated that I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had. You disagree. To show me that you had responded to that comment as though he had implied that opponents in that thread have asserted that the sky is burning, you should have provided the link to the message and your quote. Just stating "but it's not true" doesn't accomplish anything.
Again, I still understood that you meant implied.
In
Message 279AdminPD writes:
The "sky is burning" comment was in Holmes' Message 46 which was a response to RAZD, not you. Why would you feel his comment concerned you? The response from RAZD did not reflect that he felt he was being accused of asserting that the sky was burning. Your response to Message 46, which is Message 48, didn't mention the "sky is burning" comment at all.
As you can see I have not asserted that you claimed that Holmes claimed that someone actually wrote those specific words in a post.
But you still have not clarified why you feel his statements had anything to do with anything you had said, as opposed to, the tone of the thread or the links in the OP themselves.
Holmes writes:
I'm not trying to argue that we shouldn't be mindful of human effects on the environment. I am simply trying to argue we must also be mindful of ideological or irrational effects on good science and so problem solving ability. If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole.
Yes I did check out the links and they carry the tone of doom and gloom. Yes I did read from the beginning of the thread and the posts carried the tone of doom and gloom. Like
Message 22
Because I object to sensationalistic scare tactics, like SARS, Avian Flu, and West Nile virus. Yes, those are legitimate diseases. Yes, Global Warming exists. But the way the media presents it just frightens people like my mother.
Now when you take into account that Holmes said
it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole and a hyperbole is is a figure of speech consisting of an etreme exaggeration not meant to be taken literally; I see no implication towards anyones post, but towards the overall topic of the thread and the links in the OP.
Since Holmes said:
I'd urge restraint and progressive measurse to try and reduce human impact on the environment,...; the "sky is burning" comment says to me that scaring people into knee jerk reactions isn't going to solve the global warming problem.
Misunderstanding #4
This is one of those areas I think you two were talking around each other.
Message 49Holmes writes:
I think it is clear that CO2, and other human factors (I notice you only focused on my mentioning of natural factors), are contributing to a rise in global temps. This has varied effects. I do not see any being as catastrophic as many portray, but there will certainly be inconveniences as change usually does mean inconvenience as people have to adjust. The more rapid the change, the greater the inconvenience.
Message 52Crash writes:
Could you point out what catastrophic claims are being made? Rising sea levels and the flooding of cities doesn't seem to be unreasonably catastrophic, especially considering that especially notable flooded city from last summer, and the observation that sea levels have already begun to rise above historical levels. At any rate, to suggest that low-lying coastal cities are going to slowly flood hardly seems unreasonable or carastrophic. I'm not familiar with any authority who has made claims of "burning skies" or whatever nonsense you mentioned last time. I'm not familiar with anybody serious who asserts that the human race is doomed as a result. That's certainly an unreasonable claim.
Holmes said he didn't see that any of the effects would be as catastrophic as many portray and you essentially agree, by saying that rising sea levels and the flooding of cities doesn't seem to be unreasonably catastropic etc. So why did it matter what catastrophic claims he was thinking of. He didn't say any authority has made claims of "burning skies", which I think you lost the hyperbole point there.
Message 49
Holmes writes:
In any case, yes I urge restraint and progressive measures to reduce human impact. Just because we do not have the data to draw specific conclusions you feel might be warranted, does not mean there is no benefit to avoiding that possibility or simply reduce our effects for other practical reasons.
Message 52
Crash writes:
But you know what I find equally unreasonable? Your claim that floods won't happen. Your claim that famines and drought won't occur. Your claim that absolutely nothing we might wish to avoid is going to occur as a result of this climate change, and we should all just relax with a margharita and wait for "enough data" to come in, with the obvious implication that there will never be enough data.
Now see I haven't found that Holmes said any of what you stated or implied them.
In Messages 55 and 60, you seem to forget that this topic concerns the links provided in the OP, which has the feeling of doom and gloom or catastropic.
Holmes writes:
Your hyperbolic rhetoric is apocalyptic in nature. You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes. Heck, you JUST referred to NY needing to be saved.
Crash writes:
Could you point out my specific statements where I said it was irreversable? Post numbers, please, or better yet you could even quote the exact language.
Message 62
Holmes writes:
You are missing my point entirely. If you believe CO2 levels ARE reversible, then what sources of its reversal are you appealing to except the exact same ones I am, and which you have dismissed as "hoping for angels"?
Even you lost track of what you were arguing about.
Crash writes:
I simply don't even know what we're disagreeing about any more.
You were challenging unimportant comments. I don't see that Holmes asserted anything concerning you and a apocalytic stance. The way you were arguing though gave you an apocalytic tone.
Frankly I think you both were on the same side but different levels.
quote:
But can we at least drop the pretense that you've done any sort of due diligence here?
Your accusations concerning me in this thread that I have not done my best to comprehend what was written strengthens my feelings that your emotions are guiding what you see in the posts.
If I had agreed with you, you probably would have felt I read everything, but since I don't agree with you I obviously didn't put enough effort into it.
My conclusions from
Message 272 still stands. I see no misconduct on the part of Holmes in the "An Inconvenient Truth" thread.
™ Version 4.2
