Go react!! what is your reaction to this segment of wall street journal?

[strateguy632]

if i myself wrote the same words people would SCORN me, nobody would publish me,

cutting emissions is futile g. w. IS the myth

instead with a "99% concensus" of scientists (who is the remaining 1% mensa and nobel prize winners?) i MUST be crazy insane to think i know better... yet wsj a respected journal published their opinion.

[NamerOfStars]

Utter nonsense- there's quite a bit of evidence that humans are contributing to rising planetary temperatures. We've certainly disrupted the climate in other ways. Is there proof? No. Is it overpowering or even conclusive evidence? No. But it's not like we have another biosphere to experiment with. By the time we DID have sufficient evidence to state a firm conclusion, it'd be too late to do anything about it; some pre-emptive restraint is DEFINITELY called for, here.

Of course, there's more to plausible anthropogenic climate change than global warming, more to global warming than the greenhouse effect, and sure as hell more to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide; the fact that it's all a given person talks about shows they're either a huckster or ignorant, but crying wolf doesn't change the fact that there's a problem here.

[strateguy632]

first, they wrote FUTILE, meaning dont bother, 2, second if the author was a moron, then wsj would ignore them. same as they won't publish MY two cents.

[NamerOfStars]

The WSJ has a very strong political side; it's far from entirely financial. Don't assume the lack of overt bias is a lack of bias.

[jshm2]

He was probably quoting someone's opinion. Context is everything,