According to the study’s summary:
This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.
Huh. Ya don’t say?
But the local newspaper that did a story on the report couldn’t let it go at that. They had to extract a necessary side note from the study’s authors that just because the scientific data contradicts Man-Made Global Warming – at least on the West Coast – it doesn’t mean man-made global warming isn’t causing other parts of the earth to heat up.
True, but that doesn’t say anything for the theory. All it goes to show is we know for a fact that the rise in temperatures on the West Coat is entirely the result of natural causes.
Let’s remember, the people pushing the whole man-made global warming thing do so as if it were already an established fact. Not a theory in need of relevant data to confirm. Politicians do not speak of whether we need to discover the cause of global warming. They have already decided it is caused by us driving cars.
What we have here is classic scientific doublespeak: They don’t have to prove Man-Made Global Warming is a fact. It just is, until proven otherwise. Dissenters have to prove beyond a doubt it’s not men causing the warming, and even when they do, the results are carefully confined. Never would they dare ponder whether the rest of the world is warming up due to the same reason.
It reminds me of the South Park episode on Mormonism in which a skeptic questions whether or not Joseph Smith spoke with God, to which a woman replies, “Well, how do you know he didn’t?”
The name changes, but the intent is the same, more government control over people’s lives from what they eat to what they can drive.