Wayne Stollings wrote:
It is putting words into their mouths. The paper was not on the subject of natural contribution or not, the statement is clearly a passing caveat on the subject slightly touching on the actual subject, and the "elaboration" is semantical gymnastics worthy of the Olympics which goes so far passed the normal and customary in the inclusion of all that could be considered if the reader really wanted to add it. The author would be the one to make such an elaboration given there is nothing else in the paper from which to draw a conclusion. The statement is clear English which does not need expansion or elaboration because it is not intended to be taken in the context by which you have chosen to add. That is not scientific, not ethical, and not like you at all.
Their study was the oceans can account for the land warming, and GHGs are not required,
That is false. The LOCALIZED warming of the land masses is related to ocean heat, which is far different from the global warming to which you have tried to connect it.
debunking a fingerprint that GHGs should cause landmasses to warm faster than the oceans.
Where is this "fingerprint" proclaimed? Other than the blog source from which you probably got the connection to this paper being some proof against warming.
This was their research goal in this paper, and they stated that the oceans could have been warmed by a combination of anthropogenic and natural factors (though it was not the subject they were researching).
Yes, and you then tried to claim a stated uncertainty the paper did not make in relation to the split.
It is implied that there is still uncertainty with how much of the oceanic warming is anthropogenic and natural as stated here:
"Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation"
There is always a level of uncertainty in every measurment. They state the facts of ongoing investigation, which you seem to try to twist into some statement of huge uncertainty. The first two causes listed are anthropogenic, which would, if anything, indicate those are the primary causes in their opinion.