another article from today’s Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/03/20/ST2009032003115.html

And I want to write a few things about the casual dismissal of eye-witness accounts.

Eyewitness testimony, such as offered by me and others above, is one of the strongest forms of evidence available. Period. When an eye-witness testifies, “I saw him with the gun, then saw him pull the trigger, and heard the gun go off, and saw the victim fall with blood spurting out from his chest,” that is very strong evidence. Many who stand accused have been convicted and sentenced to death on eye-witness testimony such as that.

So to dismiss as fantasy, or dreamy remembrances of days gone by, or “they were merely 4th graders,” shows a lack of understanding of evidence and persuasion.

An attorney reading this will think, Ah, but these comments above are not even admissible! They are hearsay only, and worse, some are from anonymous writers. And that attorney would be correct. (Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, offered for the truth of the matter asserted). Anonymous hearsay is virtually never allowed as evidence in a court of law. But, I am not anonymous, and if asked, I would be perfectly willing to testify to my account from 4th grade above.

Equally compelling, in my view (naturally, as I offered it), is the expenditure by the University of Texas of a huge sum in order to adapt to future cold episodes. If global warming was the thinking of the day, that would not have happened.

Finally, even the distribution of scientific papers, skewed 44 to 7 on warming vs cooling, is not compelling to convey the sense of the scientific community. Why were there 7? More generally, in any scientific matters, why would the number of publications count for anything? Did Einstein have hundreds of fellow-publishers when he wrote his world-changing paper on relativity? I think not. Quantitative arguments on the volume of publishing do not win in science. Quality and accuracy are what win.

Nope, my anecdotal reminisces carry no more weight than the others – except that I was a bit older and teaching and developing curriculum in the ’70′s and the personal reminisces from others seem to be as ’4th grade’ or other students. But, since the argument is that it was being taught, it would seem the weight of the evidence would be to produce that science book. And we haven’t seen one yet. And that argument has been out there for several years.

Will was trying to (and has tried several times in the past) to sway public perception of the state of climate change research by implying they were wrong in the past. he Peterson Connolley Fleck paper (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1) provides analysis that (44 to 7) there was more discussion of warming than cooling in that period. ~snip~

Now, if you don’t like the Peterson Connolley Fleck paper; rather than just say ‘agenda’ or ‘bias’ go check the data, work through the methodology. You’ll notice that there isn’t much discussion on skeptic sites. And there is a reason for that.
A small addendum: why are not Peterson and Fleck named as biased or with an agenda?

Then look at the Newsweek artcle: “…climate seems to be cooling…” “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend” . No cites of actual articles and who knows how much was cut to provide the quotes. And, no discussion from any scientist who didn’t fit that cooling meme the reporter was pushing.

For the fourth (and final) time: The topic before us is not what the press reported the scientific community was thinking or concerned of; it is not what may or may not have been in school curricula; it is not whether or not there was widespread panic (“The Glaciers are coming! The Glaciers are coming!”) (or fear, or mild concern, or complete indifference) among the general populace. All of the above are interesting, but off-topic.

It is about what the scientific community was concerned with. Period.

Therefore, we may discard press reports – for all we know, the press may have had its own axe to grind (or more likely, was sensationalizing as usual – exactly as it is doing today with AGW). We may also discount personal recollection, the contents of school libraries, celebrity scientists, and the girl in 7th grade who almost got frostbitten toes from when the bus was 30 minutes late on that -30 degree morning.

The only reliable way to gauge what the scientific community was concerned with is by looking at the scientific literature of the era. Primary sources only – Newsweek is a secondary source. Connelly & company did this. They may have been selective in their search; they may have biased their search terms to give the desired result; they may have even egregiously misinterpreted the main thrust of the articles they cited. All of this is amenable to review & replication, unlike, say, the silly op-ed piece by Naomi Oreskes purporting to show the mythical Overwhelming Consensus; which did not provide any information that could be used by another researcher attempting to replicate her findings.

There. I simply can’t put it more clearly.

==========================

A few last crumbs:

Smokey’s paragraph about falsifying natural climate change is a total red-herring. Absolutely no one, not even M. Mann with his broken hockey stick, argues against natural variability. Natural climate change isn’t even a theory – it’s a fact. There is nothing to refute; and even if there were, it would be completely off-topic vis-à-vis the current discussion.

What, exactly, in Giles Winterbourne’s comment leads Smokey to believe that he’s in need of calming down?

Strictly speaking, partisan means party affiliation and arguing along party lines, and more generally, arguing along ideological lines, ie: Liberal, Conservative, etc. When Smokey asserts (for the umpteenth time) that “Connelly has a partisan axe to grind”, what, exactly, is his point – again, vis-à-vis the current discussion?

And finally, given that I stated almost everything above in my very first post, Smokey may want to be a little more careful in tossing off phrases like “. . . PaddikJ either didn’t read, or maybe didn’t comprehend . . .”

And with that, I am, truly,

Over and out.

But you went on the attack over that very minor comment and made it into your primary argument defending the odious William Connolley. Your increasingly hyperbolic responses [over a comic book comment!] makes it clear that you’re grasping at straws to support your belief that there was no avalanche of global cooling stories back then, when in fact there were.

If you are blind to the obvious fact that William Connolley has a partisan axe to grind, that’s fine and you have my sympathy. But please calm down, and stop pretending that the global cooling scare didn’t exist in the 1970′s. It did. Just look at the recollections from others upthread. They were there, and they remember the scare stories. And despite your insinuations, they are not lying or deluded.

If the internet had existed back then like it does today, the same level of frantic debate would have occurred regarding the 1970′s global cooling scam that goes on today over the global warming scam. If you can’t understand that, then surely everyone else with a little common sense can.

This started with ‘programs in school’ in the 70′s. A single book (from the 90′s’ is offered as proof. A book with a single mention of cooling tossed off in a sidebar.

And some anecdotal reminisces…

My libraries contained Bibles, Korans, various creation mythologies, books on hairdos, evolution, books about sexuality, novels with gay protagonists, books on paper airplanes. All were freely checked out by students. But not part of any ‘program’, not in that sense, ‘used by schools’ .

But Connolley’s fake claims were falsified, so the only conclusion is that PaddikJ either didn’t read, or maybe didn’t comprehend, the info posted @15:49 and information by other commenters in this thread.

Take another look at that Newsweek article. See all the names of the scientists? See their quotes? See the government and professional organizations named? You know, the same ones that William Connolley and his newspaper sidekick couldn’t seem to find? And that was from just one issue of one news magazine.

I’m willing to invest more time to refuting Connolley’s bogus claim with even more examples… just as soon as anyone falsifies the theory of natural climate change. Wake me when that happens. For the umpteenth time, it is not the job of skeptical scientists to refute any newfangled hypothesis that pops up. Rather, it is the job of the climate alarmists to falsify the long established hypothesis of natural climate variation — if they can. So far, they have repeatedly failed.

And if the quotes and organizations provided are not enough to satisfy folks who won’t read the Newsweek article, there’s always Google. Have at it. Or you could read this, which is right in line with the recollections of all the other folks who matured in the ’70′s: click

Yes, facts are powerful — if they’re utilized. But some folks will only believe what they want to believe, and facts right in front of them be damned. If someone believes global cooling was a non-issue thirty years ago, then all the facts in the world won’t be enough to convince them. They will believe what they like, it’s more comfortable that way.

Jeebus.

Smokey would do well to heed the advice of John Laidlaw (04:46:32):

“. . . I am going to keep my trap shut until I can prove my point . . .”

Thus far, he & every other “skeptic” here have provided not one piece of hard, verifiable data. Connelly, et al, at least gave something that is replicable, at least in theory.

Look: if you want to refute their study, then try to replicate it. See if their data are good, and complete. See if they cherry-picked. In other words, stop bitching and moaning and do some research & analysis. That’s what Lucia did with the George Will piece; that’s what Steve Mcintyre does all the time. That’s how they blow sloppy research out of the water.

And for God’s sake, stop with the “Connelly’s got an agenda” whining – it’s old news, and besides, everyone has an agenda (except me, of course).

Name calling, bald assertions & baseless accusations are wimpy – the surest indication of rhetorical poverty. Facts are powerful.

=================

And BTW, why does Smokey keep harping on this “I’m not impressed that it’s a PDF” thing? Almost any document can be turned into a .PDF. That has no significance whatsoever.

Do you take this comedy show on the road?

look, the person in denial is you.

a couple of facts:

the 70s were rather cool.

there wasn t any “hysteria” though, especially not in scientific papers.

instead, scientist during that cool spell correctly “predicted” the coming increase in temperature.

Really… the 70s were ALL about cooling. Denying it is absolutely hilarious to those of us who remember it. Which is, well, ALL of us who lived through it.

Peterson Connolley Fleck _The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus_ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1

And still, nothing but anecdotal reminiscences about purported “programs in school that covered the “coming ice age”.

The International Church of the Anthropogenic Global Warming…is currently selling them.

Beware.

As an anesthetist I think it is hilarious that the EPA may soon deem co2 a pollutant. In surgery during laparascopic procedures we insufflate the abdominal cavity with co2. This is done thousands times each day all over the globe. Will this co2 insufflation become illegal? Hundreds of thousands of liters are used each day around the world.

An evil and heretical practice that must be banned to save the planet…

However, for a small fee, that can be appropriately passed on to the patient a carbon indulgence may be purchased to redeem these acts.

Will you accept eye-witness accounts from students who were taught this, in say, 1964?

If you will, I can provide at least 30 from my class (4th graders, in Houston, Texas).

I clearly remember those classes: The globe is cooling, our best scientists tell us so, the ice and snow are increasing, glaciers will be advancing, polar bears will range farther south, that is ok, we are in Texas and it is a long way for them, besides, we have rifles at home and our Dads know how to use them, and the trump-card: we have airplanes that can sprinkle charcoal dust on the snow to make it melt.

Public school, using approved curricular materials, authorized by the School Board.

No, I don’t have the materials, we had to check them out in September, then return them in May each year.