This is what I see Crash.
1. Crash Complaint: Holmes distortion in
Message 46
Holmes gave his interpretation of the graph information with a link to the graph in a response to RAZD:
Holmes writes:
Here is a plot of CO2 and temp (anomoly) for the last 750K years. As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference. And the earth has rebounded only to rebound again. Is there reason to believe human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution entirely?
Crashes response in
Message 48 starts out in an rude tone:
Crash writes:
That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph.
Then he progresses to explain his disagreement and closes in a rude tone.
Crash writes:
I urge you to learn to read a graph. The liberties you have taken with the data (to speak charitably) in your post are a staggering departure from the general level of intellectual output that used to characterize your posts.
In
Message 49 Holmes said his error was unintentional:
It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.
The rest concerning that statement is disagreement on reading the graph.
I don't see an intentional distortion.
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:
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.
Plus I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
3. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that opponents in the thread have asserted that global warming will spell the end of humanity.
Message 46
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
Holmes writes:
The facts are that temps fluctuate on the earth. There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 or other modern manmade influences can push us past what we have seen at any other time in earth's history... or at least not for the forseeable future. That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.
Again, I don’t see that anyone responded to the comment as if he had.
4. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.
Message 49
Crash said in
Message 48 There is no evidence that any "mechanism" has ever operated in the past that can ameliorate the effects of CO2 levels being 5.5 s.f. above their historical mean. What you urge is absolutely nothing more than "let's wait around for angels to save us."
Holmes said
??? We can see that CO2 levels and temps have fluctuated over earth's history. Thus there are natural mechanisms which control such things. They are not angels, unless you are claiming angels did so in the past.
You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past. Your only argument has been to say that we haven't seen such levels of CO2 before and therefore any effects must be catastrophic and beyond balance. Again I pose the question to you: Is there reason to believe... and I would like evidence... that human factors can break the back of natural mechanisms of energy/temp redistribution?
Crash said in
Message 52 I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past.
What I see is a debate. I don’t see any implication of assertion.
5. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog promotes the Kyoto treaty, and faults Bush for his failure to implement it.
Message 49
Within the context of the entire post, I don’t see that implication in Holmes’ statement:
Holmes writes:
And more importantly what active policies will result in the reductions we may want to see happen? Gore has pushed agendas that I see little merit in. Its sort of like agreeing with Bush that terrorist organizations do pose some sort of threat, but not as dire as he makes out, and even if true does not suggest any of his remedies. While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.
After you went ballistic in
Message 52 Holmes explained in
Message 55 that is was an example, which is how I read the original comment. I don’t see that a response was needed.
6. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog has asserted that the above graph does not have CO2 data on it.
Message 55
Crash in
Message 52 I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it).
Holmes’ response in
Message 55 ??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot". That it is missing the last century's data is irrelevant as I already agree that CO2 levels are higher than in the past, and yes they are spiking.
From what I read, you said the CO2 levels weren’t on it.
quote:
As is obvious from context, when I said "the CO2 levels", I was referring to the CO2 levels we had just been discussing, the ones that aren't on the graph - the current ones.
Apparently it wasn’t obvious and you clarified your statement in
Message 60
Crash writes:
But not the current ones. That's what I was saying.
No more was said about it in the following post. I don’t see an obvious intent to be obtuse.
7. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has asserted a direct, 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Message 55
Holmes writes:
I realize you want to keep nitpicking perceived mistatements about CO2 so as to change the subject which is TEMPERATURE. Fluctuating CO2 would mean nothing with the exception of what it means for temperature. That is what I keep trying to pull this back to.
Look at both the graph I initially pointed to, or the one you have presented (in fact let's use that one since you keep pointing to it). What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means. Interestingly temps (and CO2) have been climbing from well before the 1800s. The spike in CO2 is higher than seen before, but we see that CO2 levels have spiked in the past due to nonhuman sources.
Thus temps and CO2 fluctuation are not alien. We have only added a new source for CO2 spiking.
What I see is an explanation. I don’t see any implication that you asserted anything.
8. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has used "definitive, explosive rhetoric".
Message 55
Holmes writes:
Have you seen the documents put out by the science organizations who are supportive of GW efforts? They use essentially the same language I do. Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.
Again, I don’t see any implication that you had used definitive, explosive rhetoric. It’s not a comment that you should have focused on to further the discussion.
9. Crash Complaint: Holmes has implied that Crashfrog has predicted the imminent destruction of New York.
Message 55
You brought up NY in
Message 52
1) That an unknown factor is suppressing the warming effect of elevated CO2 levels, and;
2) an unknown factor, unrelated to the first factor, is actually responsible for the warming, but
3) a completely unknown factor will probably kick in at the last minute and save New York City.
and Holmes addressed your comment in Message 55.
Holmes writes:
This is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric which isn't necessary. My statement is that world climate and its mechanisms are not fully understood, and only recently have we been getting better models. There are factors beyond CO2 levels which effect climate, and more than man's interferences which effect BOTH CO2 and temp.
You are trying to portray "unknown" factor as if I am talking about pink unicorns. I am discussing not well understood factors, some which may not yet be known, that work together to result in climate.
Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon? How is that going to happen exactly? And lets pretend (and that is really discussing pink unicorns) that NY could be wiped out in the immediate future. How is that different than any other natural disaster that hits large cities all the time.
I could be wrong, but to me that statement reads like humor.
10. Crash Complaint: Selective quoting. Holmes quote: If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected.
Message 55
quote:
Obviously, that response is a non-sequiter. "Abnormal" in my statement above was obviously meant to refer to anthropogenic, nonnatural warming, not unexpected or unexplainable warming. But once again Holmes immediately leaps to the most idiotic interpretation, so that he can appear to correcting his opponent.
You are assuming it is obvious. I have no way of knowing if it was obvious or not.
10. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.
Message 55
Holmes seems to have stated back to you what he feels you are saying. Why didn’t you just correct his impression calmly?
Holmes writes:
And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want?
I don’t see any misconduct here.
11. Crash Complaint: Holmes implies that Crashfrog has asserted that we're doomed, there's no abating the CO2 even if we stop producing it.
Message 55
In Message 49 Holmes stated:
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.
Then you asked in Message 52:
Could you point out what catastrophic claims are being made?
Holmes responded in Message 55:
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.
Granted Holmes didn’t really answer your question, but I don’t see that he implied you had asserted that the planet is doomed.
Again, I see no misconduct. Miscommunication, yes, but no misconduct.
As for the rest of your complaints. I see the same trend. You’re seeing implications that aren’t there from what I can see.
As far as the doomsday talk. What I see is that you two are not actually “listening” to each other. You each are putting each other on opposite poles, but actually seem to be more in line with each other. You’re both focusing on the wrong stuff to further the discussion.
As I said before I can’t address any of the validity of the science, but I don’t see any misconduct in what you brought to my attention.
You both are muddling the topic. Focus. Stick to what is important.
If you still feel that he continually distorts your comments no matter what I've said, stop engaging him in debate.
™ Version 4.2
