I have to explain my explanation? Is it so hard to fathom?
I asked : 'is anything Norman Gray writes fundamentally wrong or incorrect?'
mack replied: Interesting question. The short answer is no; the slightly less short answer is it depends; and the longest answer is too long for the time I have to answer, but might look something like the short one, except that it's yes.
If this isn't a politician's answer -- Yes, no,maybe -- then I don't know what is.
I thought it was clear enough if you actually also read the words that came after; Derek got it ok. I'll spell it out again, but if you just read the post it should be obvious: Yes, he's right if you accept his terms of reference; it depends, if the terms of reference aren't thought about or decided; and Yes, he's wrong because the terms of reference are not just wrong but spectacularly so and for reasons I thought I'd explained. That's why I said it was an interesting question, because there is no single answer but a more nuanced one. My answer to the question says that you can't accept his reference frame because it is bereft of meaning in the real world.
And how the dickens quantum physics got into this, heaven knows.
And how on earth did dickens and heaven get into a discussion about trees and CO2? Goodness me!
Because I used it as an illustration of reductionist thinking - and that perhaps means we're not seeing the whole picture. I identify that as a problem here. I thought that was pretty obvious too. There's a saying: can't see the wood for the trees.
Let's go back to what Norman Gray was actually replying to in the original article -- much of the response has been rebutting or denouncing what he hasn't claimed in the first place. As I've said before, I'm a layperson in this field. What I find disturbing and unnecessary is this belittling of someone by addressing him as "Norm" and the dismissive references to him as IT and not an ecologist. It's a tone of superiority and dismissal I find distasteful. People sure of their facts and scientific credence needn't resort to such cheap tactics.
Tactics? I reserve those for playing chess. Disturbing? Blimey, what a delicate flower you've become. Whatever. Be offended for someone else if you want. I think this is an example of poor thinking, which is rife, as is wondering if 'trees can/can't save the planet', which just addresses the wrong question. Maybe I could manage to find that more 'offensive' (I'd have to try pretty hard though) than being called by my name, because if people in academia can't ask the right questions, then what kind of answer are we going to get?
If you still can't see my point/answer, or just don't agree, that removing a tree from its environment in order to do some facile calculation to 'prove' they are insufficient to the task of clearing up our mess (even if you bury some of them! FFS! What is he on about?!), then so be it.