Hacked email accounts reveal scientists were lying about global warming

[Bruno@MT]

Global warming may or may be happening. We don't know either way.
Noone knows for sure.

No matter what side you believe, you should be open minded enough to admit that the other side -could- be right. We don't know.

The additional problem is that we have only limited data of questionable quality. I have read the account of how they measured the background radiation of the universe. Basically, they measure an insane amount of data, which looks like random noise, which then has to be massaged.

This massaging is normal. You have to compensate for the rotation of the earth, so you do this. The antenna has these geometric properties so the data has to be corrected with X. Then the frequency responsivity is not linear so there are some mroe transformations, etc at nauseam.
and after all that, they finally had a result. Dozens and dozens of corrections had to be done. And of course, if you get it wrong, you introduce bias instead of removing it.

Similar things have to be done with what temperature data we have. Please accept that the bare fact that scientists are doing things to the data is normal. That is what you have to do when working with such data. this is NOT a conspiracy, this is normal. A friend of mine is a statistician, and his problem with global warming is that climatologists are generally not qualified statisticians.

As they say: don't attribute to malevolence what can be attributed to stupidity.

The only conclusion we can make is that we don't know. You can't prove GW is false any more than anyone else can prove it is true.

 

[Makalakumu]

If all of this ends up being a hoax, or if it's legitimately discredited in the future, I'll still be against the people who are pushing the "fixes" for global warming, because they are so terrible and Malthusian one has to wonder where people's humanity has gone.

The carbon tax on all sources of emission, cap and trade, the removal of industry to the 169 countries exempt from the global agreements, and the strengthened overseer status of the BIS through it's twin arms the IMF and the WB is a road straight to tyranny.

It addresses none of the real environmental problems we face and ultimately won't reduce any emissions because they just shift them to other places on the planet. I am a liberal when it comes to conservation, cleaning up pollution, and holding corporations accountable for the messes they make world wide. This legislation is a sham and probably has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the installation of a world government run by the same central banks of the world that already manipulate the economies of each individual countries.

At any rate, according the articles published so far, the people who wrote the emails admitted they wrote them. The university admitted that they were stolen. The context issue is the major point of contention in regard to these missives. A full investigation of the matter by the proper authorities should be required in order to get to the bottom of the matter.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I haven't looked through the emails, and for the purposes of my post, really don't need to. Perhaps they're condemning of their authors, or the organizations they're attributed to, perhaps not. On that matter, let me just say that the underhanded, even criminal, actions of parties in support of a cause do not necessarily debunk the cause itself.

What I find most disheartening about the global warming debate is that it's become so politicized that the actual science...the real questions that those of us with open minds are wanting to ask...are being drowned in the sea of finger-pointing and ideology.

Who cares what Al Gore's carbon signature is? What does it matter how much of it is or is not "our fault"? Why must people choose a side of the line in the political sand on what is, and should be, a scientific issue?

There are three central questions that should be asked, and which are largely ignored in favor of polarizing argument. They are 1) Is it happening? 2) Is it harmful to us as humans and the planet, as we know it, in general? and most important 3) Is there truly anything practical we, as humans, can do to influence the process in our favor?

 

[Archangel M]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/17...homework-100-things-blamed-on-global-warming/

100 things blamed on global warming: Here’s a list of 100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem.

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

And the list goes on...

 

[Makalakumu]

As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on. What one side is caught manipulating the debate and the data, it's difficult to discern who one can trust. I hope all of this kicks global warming out of the political arena for good.

 

[theletch1]

As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on. What one side is caught manipulating the debate and the data, it's difficult to discern who one can trust. I hope all of this kicks global warming out of the political arena for good.

Since when has scientific fact (or unfact depending) ever swayed politicians when they smell money and power? I have to agree with several other posters so far in that it shouldn't take "the end of the world" to get folks to conserve resources. I'm an avid hunter and fisherman, camper and kayaker and would like to be able to continue to do those things in the future. I conserve out of selfishness, I suppose... I also truly believe that we humans are so insignificant that we'll have little effect either way on the planet. George Carlin said it best: "The planet is fine. We're ****ed!"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between global warming and anthropogenic (human-caused or influenced) global warming.

There really isn't much argument over whether or not the planet is warming. I believe that there is a consensus view that it is, when compared to the period of time roughly before the Industrial Age until now. The earth is warming.

However, even within the general global warming discussion, there is argument over whether or not the period of time being viewed is large enough to establish a long-range trend. In other words, is the globe warming over 1,000 years trend; over 10,000 years; or over 100,000 years? When compared to the entire expanse of human history, we've been cooler and we've been warmer. Compared to a relatively short expanse of time, say the last 400 years, we're definitely warmer. But we've been emerging from the last ice age for the last 10,000 years.

Then, once we get past those arguments, there is the argument over whether or not man caused the current warming trend or influenced it significantly. This is the part with which I disagree. Not because I do not believe man could have caused it, but because I *doubt* it. I do not believe the evidence is anything like conclusive.

The recent emails appear to support my view - that not only was there not consensus, but that many scientists took steps to stifle and suppress conflicting viewpoints as well as hiding information of their own that tended to disprove their conclusions. THIS IS THE BAD PART in the recent revelations.

The emails do not mean that global warming isn't happening. They don't mean that global warming is not anthropogenic. They mean that scientists with a vested interest in making it appear as if it were anthropogenic took steps to skew the results to support their goals. That's bad.

I was doubly angry with the pro-anthropogenic side because, as has been pointed out in this thread, there was a concerted effort by 'believers' to paint 'deniers' as being as loony and unbalanced as those who deny the holocaust. In other words, if you didn't agree that global warming was anthropogenic, you were an unbalanced, possibly insane, person. Not just wrong, not just the loyal opposition, but a sick, sick, person.

The pro-anthropogenic global warming side has also often conflated the two (global warming and anthropogenic global warming) when challenged. If a person says they are not sure there is strong evidence for human-caused global warming, the reply is "you refuse to believe global warming is real? You idiot!" When the person never denied global warming, they just expressed doubt that we caused it (or that we can fix it).

The entire argument has moved from scientific inquiry to political and even religious. It makes me angry with the pro-anthropogenic side because they've consistently engaged in what I consider dirty tricks to demonize those who disagree with them. Now that is being exposed - I rejoice in it.

Global warming is real and continues. That was never in debate here, as far as I know. Just what caused it and what we humans can do about it.

 

[Ramirez]

Like Bill, when I grew up the consensus was that there was going to be a new Ice Age in the not too distant future. I still hold that to be probably given that glaciation is generally presaged by warming leading to a tipping-point and inversion.

I don't believe that ever had scientific support, it was mostly media sensationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

 

[Archangel M]

Global Warming a "Religion"?

Remember THIS?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't believe that ever had scientific support, it was mostly media sensationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Not true. It was taught as science from the early 1900's to the late 1980's. If that science is discredited now, that's one thing. Claiming that it never existed at all as a scientific theory is revisionist fakery created by the anthropogenic global warming proponents to try to make 'deniers' look like lunatics.

A simple search of Google Books for 'between ice ages' reveals hundreds, nay, thousands of scientific text books and articles in magazines about that very common scientific theory.

Was it wrong? Maybe. But it wasn't a myth, and it wasn't a 'late '70's delusion'.

I get so tired of these kinds of lies. I'm not accusing you of lying, but I'm point out that this is disinformation and revisionist history and it's common by the thug-like scientists who tried to sell us on this man-caused global warming ********.

 

[JDenver]

As a scientific question, I think we can safely say that we just don't know what is going on.

In related news, we have no idea how gravity works. It could be false.

Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science. Maybe it isn't there.

And finally, since it's the anniversary, Darwin's musings on natural selection and evolution are based solely on hypothesis founded on observation and a fossil record.

I don't say any of this to be shmuckish. I'm quite serious. Science cannot completely prove anything. You will never have complete and utter scientific agreement on anything - even evolution. I'm not sure what sort of evidence folks seem to be waiting for.

 

[Archangel M]

In related news, we have no idea how gravity works. It could be false.

Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science. Maybe it isn't there.

And finally, since it's the anniversary, Darwin's musings on natural selection and evolution are based solely on hypothesis founded on observation and a fossil record.

I don't say any of this to be shmuckish. I'm quite serious. Science cannot completely prove anything. You will never have complete and utter scientific agreement on anything - even evolution. I'm not sure what sort of evidence folks seem to be waiting for.

Me? Im waiting for evidence that enormous taxation, expense, lifestye changes, "cap and trade", carbon tax, giving up national sovereignty in UN Eco-Treaties, etc. is right, necessary or even simply "effective".

 

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025011.php

More From The East Anglia Archives

"In January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur:"

Your prediction for 2009 is very interesting...and I would expect the analysis you have done is correct. But, I have one nagging question, and that is how much SO2/sulfate is being generated by the rising emissions from China and India.... While I understand there are efforts to get much better inventories of CO2 emissions from these nations, when I asked a US EPA representative if their efforts were going to also inventory SO2 emissions (amount and height of emission), I was told they were not. So, it seems, the scientific uncertainty generated by not having good data from the mid-20th century is going to be repeated in the early 21st century (satellites may help on optical depth, but it would really help to know what is being emitted).

That there is a large potential for a cooling influence is sort of evident in the IPCC figure about the present sulfate distribution--most is right over China, for example, suggesting that the emissions are near the surface--something also that is, so to speak, 'clear' from the very poor visibility and air quality in China and India. So, the quick, fast, cheap fix is to put the SO2 out through tall stacks. The cooling potential also seems quite large as the plume would go out over the ocean with its low albedo--and right where a lot of water vapor is evaporated, so maybe one pulls down the water vapor feedback a little and this amplifies the sulfate cooling influence.

Now, I am not at all sure that having more tropospheric sulfate would be a bad idea as it would limit warming--I even have started suggesting that the least expensive and quickest geoengineering approach to limit global warming would be to enhance the sulfate loading.... Sure, a bit more acid deposition, but it is not harmful over the ocean.... Indeed, rather than go to stratospheric sulfate injections, I am leaning toward tropospheric, but only during periods when trajectories are heading over ocean and material won't get rained out for 10 days or so.

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.

Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc.

​

So there you have it. SO2/sulfate offsetting CO2 and actually we are having a bit of GLOBAL COOLING (and remember the sun's output has been on the decline for years as part of the cycle it has.)

And these 'scientist' are not worried about facts, they are worried that the 'Skeptics' will be proven right (can't have that now, can we????)

Deaf

 

[Ramirez]

Not true. It was taught as science from the early 1900's to the late 1980's.

Any sources?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

 

[Sukerkin]

You're connected to the Net, Ramirez .

When I grew up, the sources were in the school library (or on the Open University if you were up early or late enough) - it's much easier these days to do a quick Google to start an investigation.

Climatology is a very complex subject that it is not that easy to make definitive statements about. For example, we have been in a period of declining solar input since the 50's and yet temperatures have been rising. The sun is at a low presently it is observably true but the energy reaching the ground is even less than the low would suggest. Why? Particulate atmospheric pollution. So one pollutant is off-setting the impact of another. Plus, it is currently being modelled that CO2 is not the planet-killer it was once thought to be {which puts a big crimp on the plans to terraform Mars :lol:}.

So where has the rise come from? And does it presage a temperature inversion such as precipitated previous Ice Ages?

P.S. The present CO2 concentrations are similar to those recorded in Ice Core records and in that period there was a 6 degree centigrade rise - so what has changed that means a 2 degree rise is so catastrophic (or so it is claimed).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Any sources?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

Yeah, like I said. Go to google books and there are thousands.

http://tinyurl.com/yc82xbq

Also, if you likewise use google books to search for 'global cooling' and limit the output for years 1900 to 1970, free full content only, you find that:

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 50
By American Meteorological Society, 1969

Talks about what? Global cooling and how it is increasing faster than global warming.

Gee, that's funny, I thought it was NEVER A REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

That's why I get sick of this crap. Those who shove human-caused global warming down our throats have an agenda, and they'll do anything to realize their goals - even engage in revisionist history. Well, they can change Wikipedia entries, but can they change the books that were published by the American Meteorological Society back then? Nope. They just rely on the fact that most Americans are too brain-dead and uninterested to go and do the frickin' research themselves.

There were also lots of magazine articles from long ago, not just apocryphal tales:

http://tinyurl.com/y942lvo

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?

http://tinyurl.com/yjf3ako
http://tinyurl.com/yhx7t8u

I could go on for some time. The fact is, these theories existed, and they were 'real' and they were 'scientific'. Any attempt to pretend they did not exist is revisionist history, and it really makes me mad.

Argue global warming up or down. Argue man-caused global warming up or down. Fine with me. But pretend that history is not really history in order to ignore an inconvenient fact (that we once thought a new ice age was coming) and I get really really angry. I hate lies.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In related news, we have no idea how gravity works. It could be false.

Also, the existence of the atom is a theory, so far not completely proven by science. Maybe it isn't there.

And finally, since it's the anniversary, Darwin's musings on natural selection and evolution are based solely on hypothesis founded on observation and a fossil record.

I don't say any of this to be shmuckish. I'm quite serious. Science cannot completely prove anything. You will never have complete and utter scientific agreement on anything - even evolution. I'm not sure what sort of evidence folks seem to be waiting for.

You're arguing that global warming exists. I agree, it does.

If you're arguing that global warming was caused by humans, I don't agree that the evidence is so clear-cut.

And I really mind arguments that do not just try to argue facts, but attempt to belittle - ie, if you don't agree with me, you must be stupid, really stupid. Like the people who believe that up is down, Santa Claus exists, and so on. I know that science cannot prove or disprove global warming was caused by humans. I agree. So I say we don't know what we don't know. Let's stop pretending that we do. Let's not blindly spend trillions of US dollars (and no, other countries won't be asked to pony up on the order that we are) to pay for things that don't fix anything - even assuming that they could. Don't take money out of my pocket to pay for things that no one knows address a problem that even exists, or that will fix it if it does.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://tinyurl.com/yeqm7e8

http://tinyurl.com/y8dtswd

http://tinyurl.com/ye3sw68

Not a scientific theory, eh?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/170/3958/630

Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age

T. Hughes 1 [SIZE=-1] 1 Institute of Polar Studies and Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210
[/SIZE]

The Antarctic surge theory of Pleistocene glaciation is reexamined in the context of thermal convection theory applied to the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet surges when a water layer at the base of the ice sheet reaches the edge of the ice sheet over broad fronts and has a thickness sufficient to drown the projections from the bed that most strongly hinder basal ice flow. Frictional heat from convection flow promotes basal melting, and, as the ice sheet grows to the continental shelf of Antarctica, a surge of the ice sheet appears likely.

What? How could it be? Wikipedia and the smart global warming buttheads say that the notion of a coming ice age was NEVER A REAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!!

http://tinyurl.com/yzwtjk5

A scenario of possible future climates: Natural and man-made
FLOHN, H
WMO On Climate and Mankind p 243-266 (SEE N80-12665 03-47); International Organization; 1979

Warm and cold episodes of earth climate are analyzed, including the medieval warming, the Holocene warm episode, the last interglacial epoch, the glaciated Antartic versus ice-free Arctic scenario, the volcanic events and the Little Ice Age (1550-1850), and the possible initiation of a new ice age. It is concluded that a normal climate only exists in a very broad sense, and that many previous climate periods differed considerably from the present situation. However, the risks associated with a CO2 content that may reach 750-900 ppm should be seriously considered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D11FB3B5516738DDDA90994DE405B838EF1D3

MENACE OF A NEW ICE AGE TO BE TESTED BY SCIENTISTS; Indications in Arctic That Have Caused Some Apprehension -- MacMillan Expedition Will Leave for Greenland Next Month to Study Recent Movements of Glaciers.

June 10, 1923, Sunday

IS another Ice Age coming? Are the scenes of the latter Pleistocene Age -- the geologic period -which immediately preceded our own -- to be repeated? And, if so, what will it mean to the inhabitants of the earth? In an effort to determine whether there is any likelihood of such a cataclysmic occurrence the MacMillan expedition will leave this month for Greenland to study the recent movements of glaciers on that island continent.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3

MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...Ice+Age+Foreseen+In+10,000+Years&pqatl=google

New Ice Age Foreseen In 10,000 Years
Experts Find We Are On Cold Side of Inter-Glacial Temperature Curve
The Hartford Courant (1923-present) - Hartford, Conn.
Date: Sep 18, 1932

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...o's+Glaciers+Start+Growing+Spurt&pqatl=google

Two Colorado's Glaciers Start Growing Spurt
The Hartford Courant (1923-present) - Hartford, Conn.
Date: Oct 23, 1938
Estes Park, Colo.--After shrinking steadily for five years, two Colorado glaciers made a comeback this year that one official calls little short of phenomenal.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...e+Age+Prospect+Told+by+Scientist&pqatl=google
New Ice Age Prospect Told by Scientist

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Author: A Times Correspondent
Date: Dec 28, 1954
A new Ice Age may be starting in the Western United States, according to Dr. A. E. Harrison of the University of Washington. He spoke here today at a session of the American Association for the Advance-...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D10FB3C5B157B93C4A8178DD85F428585F9

ICE AGE PREDICTED IN GLACIER STUDY; New Theory Says Warming of Arctio May Set Stage for Freezing to South Sequence Is Explained
June 16, 1956, Saturday

Page 21, 580 words

The earth is now in an interglacial period and a new Ice Age is expected, according to a suggestion in a new theory on the origin of glaciers. But it may be thousands of years before conditions are ripe for the new Ice Age.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes...s+Times&desc=SCIENTISTS+PREDICT:&pqatl=google

SCIENTISTS PREDICT:
Another Ice Age Is On The Way

Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) - Los Angeles, Calif.
Author: LESLIE LIEBER
Date: Mar 30, 1958
Eleven thousand years ago--give or take a thousand years--the last of the great ice-age glaciers which blanketed the American continent from Northern Canada to the banks of the Missouri River began its retreat from the face of the earth. Known as the Wisconsin stage, it rang down the curtain on four separate loc Ages which had come and gone during the proceding million years.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C11FD3A5B137A93C1AB1789D85F4D8685F9

Science; Worrying About a New Ice Age
-- WALTER SULLIVAN

February 23, 1969, Sunday

Section: the week in review, Page E10, 1187 words

For the past few hundred thousand years the climate of the earth has oscillated enough to produce a succession of frigid ice ages and warm interglacial periods. It has generally been assumed that these climate changes were gradual, but new theories that they occur with devastating suddenness are now being tested.

Can we now put to rest the lie that a 'new ice age' was never really a scientific theory? Can we now stop mindlessly repeating the mantra that it was just a popular myth, that it was never really taught in schools, that it never really received any scientific support? Can we stop pretending that it was not considered a valid theory?

Right or wrong, the theory existed. Pretending that it didn't is a dirty trick, and not one I'm fond of. It basically calls me a liar, because I was taught that a new ice age was coming when I went to school growing up. Claiming now that it was never taught in schools is revisionist history and accuses me of lying. I really hate that.

 

[Cryozombie]

Any sources?

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

I'm too bored to go watch the whole thing again to see what sources he Cited, but if you check the Internet Skeptic's episode on global warming I recall he does cite some studies from the 70's suggesting we need to INCREASE our greenhouse gas emmissions to encourage global warming to fight global cooling.