“It’s also important to remember that realclimate is not a scientific publication, but a shill for the climate terrorists.”

Well, I never said it was a scientific publication, but the myth of a “global cooling scare” hyped by the majority of climate scientists is plainly and provably false. But I guess someone who thinks poeple who study the climate are “terrorists” it might be a hard thing to grasp.

gh.

Brian said:
“But the notion that all “scientific bodies who study the climate have issued statements saying that anthroprogenic global warming is real” is demonstrably false.”

You then argue against my claim by showing individual scientists. Well, Brian, you can find individual scientists who think HIV doesn’t cause AIDS or who think evolution is a hoax. I’m talking about things like the AGU, the NOAA, the EPA, the Royal Society, the NAS. Scientific bodies, like I said.

“in spite of dispositive evidence of it’s validity.”

That may be true for whatever theory you are talking about, but there is no alternate theory to AGW that is not easily disprovable with observations or basic physics.

“It may well be that it is a myth to say that there was no scientific consensus about Global Cooling. But so what?”

So why do people repeat this myth? Why are they desperate to have it believed?

It’s important to remember that Newsweek is not a scientific publication, and they recently admitted that that article was a mistake.

I think that’s the point — it was a mistake. While the article itself wasn’t a peer reviewed article, it did quote the opinions of well-respected scientists.

I’d be more persuaded that the global cooling thing was purely the figment of the overactive imaginations of a few loopy fringe players if I could find some evidence that those proposing it were roundly criticized by their more sober and learned scientific brethren. It appears to me that the scientific consensus had not much to say in opposition.

Was the scientific consensus back then as critical of those championing Global Cooling as the contemporary scientific consensus is of those renegades who now question the anthropogenic importance of Global Warming?

Boris continues:

For more info consult:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
Now all scientific bodies who study the climate have issued statements saying that anthroprogenic global warming is real. None did so for global cooling.

I’m not a climatologist, but I did read the article, and the comments as well. It’s a really interesting site, and some really smart people contribute to it. But the notion that all “scientific bodies who study the climate have issued statements saying that anthroprogenic global warming is real” is demonstrably false.

1) Richard Lintzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, is one body who has raised serious questions about several aspects of it (link and link).

2) More recently, Timothy Ball, whose credentials are also impeccable (Ph.D. in Climatology, with “an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition”) is another such body (here’s a recent article entitled Global Warming: The Cold Hard Facts?.

3) And then, there are those 60 plus Canadian scientists (”accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines”) who wrote Prime Minister Harper to inform him that GW data is not so secure as lay people have been led to believe (”Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada’s climate policies are based.”) Read the whole letter.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse?

I would also like to add that scientific consensus is hardly infallible. Michael Crichton, dismissed out-of-hand at realclimate.com, makes that point in spades, pointing to scientific consensus choosing to ignore dispositive evidence that it (the consensus) was wrong about both puerperal fever and pellagra. (I myself am familiar with a contemporary case in which a theory that was inconvenient to the one preferred by scientific consensus was pointedly ignored, in spite of dispositive evidence of it’s validity.)

My point is that science is not subject to the democratic process, and that scientific consensus and scientific truth are two quite different animals.

Boris continues:

It’s a shame this myth keep gets repeated.

It may well be that it is a myth to say that there was no scientific consensus about Global Cooling. But so what? Scientific consensus is not infallible; there were experts who sold Global Cooling as plausible; and as far as I know, unlike those who question GW today, there predictions weren’t greeted with a firestorm of criticism.

Brian

(1) It’s great that 30 yrs after publication, Newsweek “admitted that that article was a mistake.” We all knew that was the case long ago. How is that relevant?

(2) “It’s important to remember” that RealClimate is also “not a scientific publication.” One difference, between Newsweek and that RealClimate is that (according to you) Newsweek can at least admit to it’s past errors.

It’s a shame this myth keep gets repeated.”

It’s also important to remember that realclimate is not a scientific publication, but a shill for the climate terrorists. We are glad to see that the 1970s cool fright got debunked – we look forward to the 1990s hot fright going the same way.

Thanks for proving how correct you are. You use the same tactics as the GW lobby to prove your point – BY SHOUTING! It must mean you have a concensus? If you hate America so much, go live in Russia, or China, or Burma where you can protest as loudly as you want all the way to, and in, jail.

For more info consult:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Now all scientific bodies who study the climate have issued statements saying that anthroprogenic global warming is real. None did so for global cooling.

It’s a shame this myth keep gets repeated.

Thanks for the advice and free debugging.

Cheers,
Dirck