AGW catastrophism Climate Change Cooling Culture Global Warming History Omniclimate Science Skepticism

Greenfyre Loses The Plot

I’ve just been honored by Greenfyre dedicating his very first blog in a long time to a couple of blog posts in my very successful “1970s Global Cooling Consensus” series. There’s the usual litany of insults, of course, yawn, and that’s fully compatible with the idea that poor Greenfyre and his acolytes have a strong urgency to repeat the same old concepts to themselves, somehow deluding themselves they’ll be stronger concepts.

In the real world, meanwhile, there is a peer-reviewed paper stating “By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), THE NOTION OF A GLOBAL COOLING TREND WAS WIDELY ACCEPTED, albeit poorly understood“. I wrote that sentence in big bold letters a few days ago, in a post sadly forgotten by all-singing all-dancing shouting, debate-challenged Greenfyre.

Well, if Greenfyre has an argument with that peer-reviewed article, he might want to exchange a couple of words with Connolley himself, thank you.

Oh, the bother.

0 replies on “Greenfyre Loses The Plot”

That guy at greenfyre has definitely lost the plot.

I couldn’t get one rational phrase out of him.

Try reading the annotated but otherwise unedited conversation at

When I pointed out and listed his 100 + ad hominem attacks he simply took my comment off his page.

Im not sure who and what sort of person he inspires by such behaviour.



“The dominant concern of climate scientists in the mid-1970s was global cooling and the possibility of the return of an Ice Age” – Climate affairs: a primer, Michael H. Glantz, Island press, 2003, p.152.

Dr Glantz is Senior Scientist at NCAR, and former head of its Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, and has written dozens of books and hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on climate since the mid 1970s. Since he was a climate scientist in the mid-1970s I attach some weight to his words. How arrogant are those youngsters who were not even practising science then to think they know better than he what was the dominant concern of climate scientists in the 1970s.

The CAGW enthusiasts might be forgiven for being somewhat ungracious, I suppose, as it’s that time of the year again! Climategate and Hopenhagen anniversaries, and yet another potential lead-balloon climate conference about to launch. Happy days!

Hi there,
I responded to Greenfyre’s post and got a similar response to yours.
Rather than discussing the facts he simply spent some time in ad hominem attacks.

I enjoyed answering him though. No doubt I will continue replying to him until he takes the ultimate step of the true believer (relying on faith only) of spamming my comments.

At least I hope you all may find it entertaining.



Greenfyre – I see you’re not content of insulting people at your blog and decided to parade around your self-righteousness here too. As I just wrote at Harmless Sky, in all these years the only people that have kept trying to move the topic of discussion to my own good self, are creationists, chemtrailers and AGWers. Mind you, with uncannily similar phraseology, including attempts to get my own Faith thrown in.

Actually that’s just too bad as months ago I had been lured at your site by the stated comment policy against personally abusive remarks. It took only a few days to find out that such a policy was a mere collection of words, and a few days still to collect all possible personal abuses one can think of (even the idiotic remark about me hiding behind a monicker, made by a person that I believe is an habitual commenter of yours, were left unchallenged for all to read). The abuses sit in a blog of mine, and I’ll launch a Rabid AGWer Bingo game one of these days.

So am not sure what you really want? Have you been missing a person or two to call names at your website, perhaps?

ps as a special gift, I hereby declare that any further comment of yours about my honesty, integrity, and personal relationship with God, will be deleted. Feel free to continue elsewhere, and if you link back to this place, thanks in anticipation for the added traffic.

Done yet?

I state a fact and provide the link.

How about you quote from my comment the parts that you think I was being insulting or that fit your description of it.

The issue has never been whether it cooled in the decades leading up to the 70s. It is about whether there was a consensus (of scientists) back then predicting future global cooling analogous to consensus predictions of global warming today.

Ie the global cooling consensus has to be about coming cooling, not past cooling. This doesn’t fit the bill:
“”“By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work (Mitchell 1972), THE NOTION OF A GLOBAL COOLING TREND WAS WIDELY ACCEPTED, albeit poorly understood“””

This is a consensus about past trends, not a consensus about where it’s heading (let alone stating it in terms of an ice age)

Greenfyre is correct. No matter how many newspaper articles you look through you will not find the mythical global cooling consensus, the reason being that it simply didn’t exist. I am very confident of that. Why? Because most scientific papers from the 70s predict future warming, not cooling. If there was ever a scientific consensus of coming cooling in the 70’s I would definitely expect the exact opposite.

Yes, if one defines what the “issue” is narrowly enough, one will always find the result one was looking for from the very beginning.

As already stated, an intelligent conversation can only be held with somebody having the courage of abandoning sophisms by replying “was there a consensus? Yes, but… ” (and then proceeding to list all the differences between current and past consensus). That’s not what Greenfyre managed, he only kept venting a very sour spleen full of insults and worse, denying history for political purposes. For example it is not possible to argue “against me” about an ice age consensus since I have repeatedly said there has never been one.

That’s nobody’s way of being “correct”. That’s blogging vandalism and AGW violence, if you ask me.

Ps I see you have issues with Connolley’s peer-reviewed paper too.

Your post “Why The Global Cooling Story Is So Important…In The Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate” you wrote:

“If one believes in contemporary global warming, the most obvious and logical reply to anybody saying “there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s” should be “Yes, but…” followed by a long explanation on why the consensus is right this time and was wrong at the time.”

Wrong at the time? If you are talking about cooling from 1940-1970 clearly it wasn’t wrong. That cooling happened and is still shown in the temperature records today. So if that’s what the consensus was about in the 70s it was right, not wrong. As right as the consensus today that it’s warmed in the past 30 years.

So what exactly are you arguing for? That there was a consensus in the 1970s that the world had cooled, or that there was a consensus that cooling would continue past past the 1970s?

Cthulhu –

Wrong at the time? If you are talking about cooling from 1940-1970 clearly it wasn’t wrong

This is exactly what we should be discussing about, not how “denialists” such as me are deviously conspiring to ruin the future of humanity and planet Earth.

At this point in time my thinking based on partial knowledge of all details, is that scientists in 1972 agreeing about a global cooling trend were expecting the trend to continue for some time. After all, why would they think a trend that had lasted for decades would magically disappear just as they were starting to be more sure about it? And then in 1975 the consensus collapsed under the weight of Southern Hemisphere evidence (showing little or none of the cooling, i.e. falsifying the “global” bit) and of renewed concerns about the effects of CO2 combined with the political push away from “fossil fuels” after the oil shock.

Right? Wrong? Whatever explanation is brought forward, it should be able to “explain” what we know happened at the time, including the obvious interest by journalists around the world to report about the possible consequences of a cooling world, and of a new “little” or “big” Ice Age. I don’t think it makes any sense to brush all those articles aside with a generic (and unjustified) “poor journalism” label.

It would also be nice to be able to talk about it without obsessing on what it means for present-day politics. But I don’t think anybody could be that much “super partes”.

“he only kept venting a very sour spleen full of insults and worse”

I documented at length that you are disingenuous and misrepresent the materials you present, as anyone who actually reads the post can attest

What does it tell you about yourself that you cannot respond rationally and instead add rgument by dismissal
to the list of logical fallacies you employ?

(comment above by Greenfyre recovered from the spam bin)

It’s ironic to be asked for a rational discussion by a guy that has published three blogs of late, on such a variety of topics as “deniers are bad and wrong”, “deniers are bad and wrong” and… “deniers are bad and wrong”. May I dare take as granted that you think “deniers” are bad and wrong?

ps I am not employing an argument by dismissal, there is nothing to dismiss since you’ve pretty much dismissed yourself already. You think I am a bad, evil, arrogant, ignorant person if not worse and in your world and your commenters’ there is no way I can redeem myself. Why on earth would you want to know any more of my opinions it’s the real mystery.

Eheheh… the irony DOES escape you, after all. No surprise there.

Save your breath, let’s anxiouslywait for another blog of yours about how bad and wrong the “deniers” are.

Very nice

Now how about you actually read the post and respond rationally and appropriately?

PS sorry to burst your bubble, but had you actually read the piece you would have discovered it is about the myth of a 1970s coming ice age consensus and the twaddle that is alleged to support it … literacy, it could change your life!

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.