It seems that skeptics are pretty credulous. In the Skepticism Examiner, they try to "Debunk" the idea that global cooling was once considered a real worry, in hopes of proving that science has never followed a trend, and that science always understood just how hideously awful global warming is. (They handily ignore the continuing debate over global warming, but we will ignore that for now.)

The first damning bit of evidence is their "proof" that a supposed "cover story" on global cooling was not on the cover. Damning as that is, it does not disprove the fact that global cooling WAS covered in Newsweek, as well as a number of other journals of the time.  They then proceed to make this observation:

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

·     7 articles predicting cooling

·     44 predicting warming

·     20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

Well, yes, by picking that particular time frame, they mange to squeeze in as many warming articles as possible. Had they narrowed it (say to 1965 to 1975), they could have produced the opposite result. What would be interesting (and informative) would have been to see how many articles were published by year.It also would have been quite informative to see what was covered in the popular press, as opposed to peer reviewed journals. As we have seen in global warming theory, much of what scientists say to the popular press is never reproduced in peer reviewed journals.

Then again, the entire thing is a bit of a sham. The choice of which journal are used, what period is chosen and so on can easily color the results. By selecting rightly today I could prove global warming is dismissed by scientists, or prove it is completely accepted.

And the worst part of the whole thing is the casual way this dismiss "popular magazines". By that standard, then global warming is not accepted today. After all, there are many more journal articles against global warming than for it, mainly as the anti-AGW side has to argue more strenuously since AGW is the accepted orthodoxy. And how do we know that. THROUGH POPULAR JOURNALISM.

How do we know what is the most generally accepted belief? Through what is covered in popular press articles. And, as one who lived through the 1970's, I can tell you the fear of a new ice age was all over the press. One need not look at scholarly articles, the science which made it into the popular press was full of cooling fears. And where did these fears originate? In the popularized science press. And where did they get stories? From the scholarly scientific press. To act as if popular press is entirely divorced from the scientific press is absurd.

Then again, they apparently count on their readers being too young to recall what actually happened in the 1970's, or else gullible enough to forget what heir own memories tell them. Fortunately, I have a bit of evidence. If the fears were so far removed from legitimate scientific research, then why did the Rand Corporation bother commissioning research on dealing with global cooling, as I documented before?

Sorry, guys, but global cooling was accepted at one time. I even recall the theory, that particulates in pollution would block inbound sunlight, increase albedo and cause a general cooling. In fact, it is akin to the silly solution Obama has proposed to remedy global warming. That this theory was accepted at one time does not disprove current AGW theories, but it does cast some doubt on how much faith we should put in facts that "everyone knows".

POSTSCRIPT

On the other hand, to be fair, some of their coverage is respectable. Their coverage of the changing revelations about Columbine, and of the UK's rather expansive libel laws are unobjectionable. On the other hand, their bias in favor of global warming and atheism makes them a bit one sides in covering other topics. And while they may think that makes them "objective", the truth is the science on AGW is far from settled, quite far from settled, and science has nothing to say about religion, or should if the scientist is honest. G-d is not subject to rigiorous proof, short of first hand experience, and so is not a fit matter for science, either in terms of proving or disproving. When will supposed "scientists" learn that lesson? Scientists of centuries past understood it, why have we moved backwards in this simple matter?

POSTSCRIPT II

It is misleading to rely on peer reviewed journals, as this article does for a number of reasons. in the present day, we are used to seeing peer reviewed global warming articles, but partly that is because it has become orthodoxy and taken over several journal's review boards. In the 70's there was less orthodoxy, leaving more stringent requirements for publication. As a result, the doom-sayers who lacked conclusive evidence often went directly to the press (as many still do today when short on even the minimal evidence required by some journals). So the popular press is often a better guide than peer reviewed journals, especially when it comes to the statements of scientists which shaped public policy. Peer reviewed articles rarely have as much impact on public policy as the public perception characterized by the popular press. Which is why the article mentioned above is so terribly dishonest.

POSTSCRIPT III

Also note the rather poorly marked graph they use for "evidence" of global warming. It does not list the source of the data, so I can't argue its validity, but note that within the grey band of possible values, one could actually draw a perfectly flat line. Also note surge in warming during the less industrialized first third of the century, the drop during the more industrializeed period during the 40's and 50's and a surge from the 60's to the end of the century no greater than that during the first third of the century. It hardly matches the tales of temperature being clearly and mechanistically tied to emissions of CO2.