I like how angry you are that I brought to your attention that you said the exact same thing let creationists say. Your misplaced anger amuses me. You might want to take some medication for that. It can’t be good on your blood pressure.
Of course, the smartest thing to do if you don’t wish to be confused with creationists is to not steal their material.
Dealing with stupid people—and you are a very stupid person—is frustrating. I’ll just suggest that you reread my last post over again. And again. And again. And again. Don’t stop until you comprehend why what you said earlier is dumb as fuck. Digest the simple example I gave. I made it simple so even a simpleton like you could likely get it. Though I do fully accept the possibility that I’m giving you to credit.
In the section quoted right below the portion you quoted:
In case you are having trouble parsing, he is saying that the fact that humans are changing the climate are settled. That greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels are largely the mechanism, and the that the effect of humans is comparable in size to the natural variation.
That last bit is some what vague. Natural variation has a huge range, depending on the causes and conditions.
As I said before, he has moved on past full denial, past denial of human contribution, all the way to denial that we should ever try to do anything about it. I suspect the next step would be to claim that it is too late to do anything about it.
So in your view, this is equivalent to saying that human activity is responsible for recent warming?
Are you saying that in the past, he denied that global surface temperatures had increased? If so, please quote cite and link him.
In my view, he is saying it as gently as possible. Think about tides. They occur naturally and we can deal with them. If somehow human activity has an effect comparable to the natural rhythmic change in sea level, that would double the effect. That would be catastrophic. Taken at its most optimistic, his statement implies that we will see double the change in global average temperature.
I honestly don’t know or care. The WSJ has been solidly denialist in the past. The fact that they are now publishing opinion pieces that admit that average temperature is increasing and that it is due to human action is the take away from this.
Umm, we are talking about temperature increases which have already taken place. It’s a bit of a stretch, but if you read the piece to mean that human influences are the same as natural influences, then perhaps one can infer him to be saying that recent warming has been roughly halfway caused by mankind’s activities.
But there’s no reasonable way to read it the way you do – as an admission that recent warming is the result of human activity, period.
Can you quote the WSJ where it has flat out denied an increase in global surface temperatures over the 20th century?
This is amusingly “meta.” Now we’re encountering denialism regarding the denialism.
Better to call it skepticism regarding a claim of denialism. Do you happen to have a quote, cite, and link to back up Strassia’s apparent claim?
And do you seriously call it “denialism” to politely request that people provide actual evidence to back up their claims?
Of course it is.
It’s denialism to question anything regarding global warming.
It’s denialism to ask what somebody means by it. Or what predictions global warming theory makes.
Or to look at the actual data, the temperature records. Why would anyone want to actually see the data? They must be deniers.
Denialism, it’s the new buzzword. Just tar everyone with the same brush, that’s how science works.
Now hand over some money. Because you are killing the world.
Apparently so, but I decided to take a look myself at what’s been said in the Wall Street Journal. And found the following:
From an opinion piece in 2006:
From an opinion piece in 1997:
So it looks to me like Strassia has simply set up a nice juicy strawman to attack. But I will wait a bit to see if he has any evidence to back up what he is saying.
In my vast experience, it will be a very very loooong wait
Yes, I have a feeling he will either disappear or pretend he said something different from what he actually said. But we’ll see.
Martyr card.
Global warming theory says its going to get warmer and humans contribute to that.
Because it’s not possible to come to different conclusions from the same data, let alone cherry picked versions.
Wah. Coming from the guy that claims everyone on the other side is an alarmist/warmer.
There are economic costs to change.
But excellent full body foam at the mouth.
So if there’s a modest increase in temperature with minimal adverse consequences; and the human contribution to that increase is minimal, like 5%, then it’s consistent with “global warming theory”?
If mankind’s CO2 emissions have no effect on global surface temperatures, but human changes in land use cause modest warming, that would be consistent with “global warming theory”?
What exactly is your point here? Just a few posts ago, I politely asked another poster to back up his claims and was accused of “denialism.” Is it somehow illegitimate to point out how ridiculous such an accusation is?
It’s going to get warmer and humans contribute. It doesn’t have to get more specific than that.
Ok, so your answer to both questions is “yes.”
That depends on the point of the discussion. There are people out there who seem to be arguing that because of global warming, there need to be large reductions in CO2 emissions as a matter of public policy. As you have defined “global warming,” such reductions are not necessary or called for.
And by the way, would it surprise you to learn that Richard Lindzen has agreed that mankind’s activities are likely to contribute to warming?
What exactly is your point here? Just a few posts ago, I politely asked another poster to back up his claims and was accused of “denialism.” Is it somehow illegitimate to point out how ridiculous such an accusation is?
it still hasn’t recovered
Not only that, with your focus on evidence and facts, you are actually a “denier”, not just steeped in denialism.
Of course it is. Defending yourself only makes it worse.
If you use evidence and facts you are a denier. If you don’t believe the experts you are a denier. If you express skepticsism and don’t blindly trust in authority, you are a denier.
Looking at data and talking about scientific findings, it’s only because you hate science.
This is the consensus view, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a denier.
If we add to that I am in agreement.
“There is little doubt that changes in land use, damning all the major rivers, irrigation and agriculture, air traffic in the stratosphere and deforestation, along with the continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, stratospheric pollution, GhGs and methane producton, are influencing the climate.”
Oh damn it. I left out black carbon (soot) pollution, draining of wetlands, forest fire suppression, (which falls under land use changes, as does turning 10 million acres of soil into asphalt and concrete), and particulates. Like high sulfur coal burning produces.