http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireS...ming-pacific-25679516

"It just seems to us it's a pretty simple story," Mantua said. "Yet it's going to take people by surprise, because it is ingrained in our minds that if the climate warms up in the course of the century, it's probably because of global warming, the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other things humans have done that have pushed it in a warming direction."

"It was greeted with skepticism by several mainstream climate scientists, who questioned how the authors could claim changes in wind direction and velocity were natural and unrelated to climate change."

That is the beauty of the global warming cultist's argument, everything is evidence of global warming. Warmer? Global Warming. Colder? Global warming. More hurrocanes? Global warming. Fewer hurricanes? Global warming. Ebola outbreak? Global warming. ( No, I'm not kidding -http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1114-ebola.html   But it is precisely that type of thing that has clued in the majority of people that the whole thing is hogwash.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

In your mind "Mainstream scientist = cultist"
That's funny.




-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

"They pointed out that the study sees a correlation but did not do the rigorous statistical and computer analysis to show that the cause of the wind changes were natural - the kind of analysis done when scientists attribute weather extremes to global warming.

"This may say more about the state of climate modeling than it says about causes of warming in the Pacific Northwest," Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, said in an email. "The authors ... have not established the causes of these atmospheric pressure variations. Thus, claims that the observed temperature increases are due primarily to 'natural' processes are suspect and premature, at best."

Yep. This one study totally disproves the global warming consensus.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

No, I refer to the so-called scientists  as "Elmer Gantrys." "Cultists," on the other hand, refers to those who are not climate scientists who, without question, believe everything the Elmer Gantry's might say.  

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

I see, it's the cult of those that trust scientists. (whom you equate with religious charlatans)
Vs the cult of those that trust Heartland institute lawyers and Fossil fuel industry PR men (men of impeccable motives)

yeah, I still like the first one better.



-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Being anti-science is just a fad for the conservos. "They're not scientists....."


-------------------------
“It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti

Wrong again. I am amongst those who don't trust anyone until they earn that trust. In other words, I am what a scientist should be - skeptical. I also know a couple of other things about how scientists should behave. No good scientist would bully and ostracize scientists that hold the opposite view or have different findings. Yet, that is what is happening. The goal should be to get to the truth, not to silence those who believe dfferently. These Elmer Gantrys are doing the latter. And anytime I see that going on, I hold on to my wallet tightly.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Right on, Tpap.

Good (real) scientists would try to prove their findings.
Also, computer models are only as good as the software you add to them. With a computer model, a scientist can tweak the models to get the outcome they want, kind of like a prog does with a poll.

'No good scientist would bully and ostracize scientists that hold the opposite view or have different findings."
Yet, that is what is happening"

Bullshit. No it is not.
Not bullying, not ostracizing,
Just questioning.

When the mainstream shows their work to be deficient, as always seem to be so, some of them whine like babies and then get all sorts of disingenuous sympathy from the likes of you. Such wimps some "conservative" scientists are.

Challenging the mainstream is always a difficult task in any scientific field,
If you show up with research that is contrary to the conclusions of the overwhelming body of existing research, you better have the data and stones to stand up to withering criticism. If you do, you shift the mainstream, if you don't, you don't.

What's happening here is that the denialist camp and their well funded conservative media hacks jump all over any reported study that seems to be a bit contrary, pushing it to the public long before it has been peer reviewed and then they say "see the mainstream has it wrong", they are all some sort of big conspiracy.

Because the financial stakes are so high. There is so much concentrated "wealth" tied up in carbon in the ground that could turn out to be worthless if it can't be safely dug up and pumped into the atmosphere

This new study is no different, it will either be corroborated by further research, and thus become a part of the accepted science, perhaps even shifting the consensus , or it will be explained, fit into the current models.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Yes, bullying -

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

That article is well documented. If you want more, there are hundreds of articles about this.

Look, I know that you and many others will never let go of your religion, no matter what (and by all accounts, the evidence has not been going your way recently). That is the nature of cults. It is also the nature of cult members to disparage non-members, hence the labels "climate denier," and "anti-science."  But, many people on this forum are open-minded and will look at the scientific evidence to form their own conclusion. I post for them.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Yet you had to back 5 years, and to a political site no less, not a scientific one to find that gem.

"(and by all accounts, the evidence has not been going your way recently)"

All accounts? that's even funnier.
The consensus is far stronger now than was even back in 2009.

No I won''t call you a cultist, that's stupid language. You are just wrong, and stubborn.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Yes, stubborn when standing up for the truth. But, at least I wasn't suckered into a cult. I can live with stubborn.

Signs of a cult:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

It is pretty much all there, WG. You are a member of a cult.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Here's a good example of the intensity of the big media push to undermine the science. Read this article and you should understand how poor the journalism is, but you probably won't.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...ge-consensus-john-fund

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Edited: 09/23/2014 at 02:31 PM by WG

LMAO at the "insider knowledge" of computer models.

-------------------------

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

o/10


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Edited: 09/23/2014 at 11:50 PM by WG

Big media is out to undermine global warming? Check out # 4 above - unreasonable fear about evil ... conspiracies.

Best you check out this website before it is too late - https://www.psychotherapy.net/article/cult-members

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

You read me wrong.
I wasn't talking about "Big Media".

I was talking about a big media push.

Big Media isn't the pusher, it's just the whore.
It's "Big Energy" that has that "wealth" in the ground.
Leaving it there would be a huge net loss of wealth for them.

And I bet you thought that was another great piece tearing apart the consensus.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Science is in fact a religion, just listen to some of our resident zealots. 

And why don't the environmentally minded D's attack things like GMO, and weather modification which destroys God's perfection?  Instead you are going to go after carbon dioxide

? One of the key components to life on Earth?  

-------------------------

Ring...BOOM...snow. -Hatrick Penry

Sounds exactly like the bammy and his administration and the progs, daily.