global cooling
stoat | September 8, 2011 The Washington Post Continues to Publish George Will's Climate Change Disinformation at thinkprogress. Just keeping track of these things, you understand. I thought the 70's-cooling mole had been well whacked, but no.
Refs
* Now out in BAMS: The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
* Global cooling: Inhofe talking sh*t* again
* Fuckem's Razor and the solution to the climate question
* etc. etc.
stoat | May 11, 2011Time for some more insult-throwing. And Morgan Griffith is a deserving recipient of just about any insult you might care to throw. As the youtube video is so correctly titled: Climate Zombie Morgan Griffith: Vikings, Mars, And Global Cooling (uploaded by climatebrad, which leads off to the Wonkroom). And indeed, there he is, brain entirely dead, reading out a list of "questions" he has been supplied by some lobbyist, all of which have been answered long ago.
The bit I like is at about 2:00 in, where he says that when he was taught in high school, his text book told him that increasing GHG's…
illconsidered | November 24, 2010As fate would have it, no sooner does a disengenous commenter here point out the unusual cold and snow falling on my hometown of Vancouver, Canada than I come accross this amusing comic from Jen Sorenson:
hrynyshyn | August 26, 2010The invaluable pseudonymous Tamino has a brilliant explanation of the causes of the "global cooling" trend in the mid-20th century. There's nothing new, except the clarity of the writing. So if you've ever been stumped by a skeptic who suggests that anthropogenic climate change theorists can't explain why the planet cooled for the three decades following the Second World War, bookmark this post.
Just a tease:
... the 1940-1975 time period experienced anthropogenic global cooling. This cooling was from the same root cause as volcanic cooling, namely aerosols (mostly sulfate aerosols) in the…
illconsidered | February 27, 2009Things Break does a thorough take-down of George Will's continued dishonesty in the Washington Post. For the background, if somehow you have missed this kerfuffle, check his earlier post.
The story in a nutshell is not remarkable: mainstream columnist prints op-ed full of outright falsehoods, complaints are rejected, paper stands by its right to fill the information age with disinformation. ie Facts don't matter.
The only remarkable thing really is the attention it is receiving and who knows, perhaps there will be some real consequences... like maybe people will remember this for a change.…