Would you happen to have a copy of the article in PDF?

I think it is important to note that the Global Cooling hysteria ended only when the very brief cooling trend of the 70’s ended. Had we been in a natural long term cooling trend like that of the little Ice Age does anyone doubt the concept of Catastrophic Anthrogenic Global Cooling would still be going strong?

Global Warming is also an excellent object lesson on the corruptibility of science by selective grant approvals, and by big attention from Big Media. Scientists are human like anyone else, and will often sell a great deal for money and attention.

The salient and unavoidable fact about Global Warming, is that the science behind it is incredibly unsettled. The superstars of climatology such as Hansen and Mann want to hold back data and algorithms from independent analysts, and the data archiving responsibility of science journals and government agencies is being criminally neglected. Science and Nature, particularly, have thrown editorial responsibility and objectivity out the window.

Global Warming is an excellent lesson on how science, science publications, and science journalism can be co-opted by powerful political and financial interests.

It bears watching closely.

Anybody ever think of that?

However, Hansen and Mann have refused to release their data and algorithms to the general community. McIntyre managed to find the Y2K problem in the GISS data only through reverse engineering.

You absolutely cannot say that something is a scientific fact if you keep all the facts to yourself, releasing only the conclusions. Why Hansen at NASA refuses to release his research is something you’ll have to decide for yourself.

If you want to find actual science, look for curiosity. Curiosity is notably absent from the global warming debate.

cv: The IPCC report can be found here at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

John: The “Swindle” movie has been extensively debunked at: http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
Two specifics: Every graph used in the film has been proven to have been deliberately falsified; Carl Wunsch, who was featured in the film, has threatened to sue because they twisted his words out of context to imply the opposite of what he meant.

Robert: William Connolley has been keeping track of articles on “global cooling”. He points out that there was never a consensus among climate scientists on this idea; in contrast to today’s consensus on man’s impact on global warming: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

John: The “Swindle” movie has been extensively analyzed here: http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
Other problems with it: All the graphs presented in it were proven to be deliberately falsified; and the biggest-name scientist in the film threatened to sue afterwards, for having his words twisted out of context to imply the opposite of what he meant.

Robert: William Connolley has been collecting articles and references on the topic of “global cooling”. His clear conclusion is that there was no consensus among climate scientists at that time on that topic, in contrast to the consensus today on man’s impact on global warming: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Well there’s your problem right there…

Here is the link on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

It’s 74 minutes long.

Very interesting and very controversial. I hear almost a third of Australians watched this when it aired there in March.

Remember the Cold Fusion story that hit the papers years back?

And the falsehood that was claimed?

Why should we give any stock against what’s being claimed now?

How can we trust them?

Are they more truthful now than 30 years ago? 150 years ago? Last week?

As anybody who has made it through fourth-grade science knows, climate is a highly local concept. It can be pouring rain at my house and bone dry three blocks away. The temperature at the airport (about 20 minutes away) is frequently 10-15 degrees F higher or lower than at my house.

The so-called “average global temperature” is derived from a scant few thousand metering stations spread quite irregularly about the globe. Most are installed in conditions that can’t provide anywhere near the level of accuracy claimed by all of the Gore-Bull Warming alarmists.

Much of the proxy data used to make claims regarding ancient temperature is worthless. The temperature “record” prior to the advent of satellite measurement in the late sixties is too inaccurate to make determinations of anything closer than + or - 5 degrees F. On top of that, the so-called calculations of these “averages” are so flawed and faked that they would make Enron’s bookkeepers blush.

Yes, it’s getting warmer, has been since the end of the last ice age, will continue to do so with or without us until such time as we head into the next ice age.

While I didn’t assign either, I did mention them to my class as items of interest. I figured between both of them we’d break even.