Latimer (that was you, wasn’t it Latimer? -
Had he meant to say something different he was perfectly at liberty to do so. But he didn’t.
That’s quite a duck we have there.
Here is what is clear, we have some smart people who are interpreting (or at least claiming to interpret) his statement in different ways. You are entirely correct that English is a flexible language – and that is precisely why it become relevant how we honestly think he intended his statement to be interpreted.
Now – your interpretation of his intended meaning could, I suppose, be correct. However, if your interpretation was correct, it would mean one or both of the following:
1) As suggested by the article Judith linked, his statement was, apparently, a refutation of what he has stated in the past. That it would be in contrast to earlier statements of his is reflected in his earlier comment that:
“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming.”
2) As suggested by the article Judith linked, he didn’t “realize” what he was saying.
Now the article indicated that both (1) and (2) are true. It seems highly unlikely to me that (1) would be true and absolutely ridiculous that (2) is true. So, that’s the reason for my question. My guess is that you’ll duck once again, but I’ll still ask again.
I know how you want to interpret his meaning (because of your partisan outlook on the climate debate), but you must have some opinion on whether your interpretation is really in line with how he views the science of the matter.
Which is it? Do you believe that your interpretation of his freakin’ words is in line with his view of the science, or not?
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, Latimer.