Gregor - OK so as not to labour the point for other people I will ignore the latest batch of logical fallacies and just get straight to the point you raise with regard to global cooling. (At least you have raised something with a tenuous connection to a fact, so that's progress)
A cursory glance at Wikipedia reveals that global cooling has been scientifically sidelined since the 1970's. (And yes, you have my permission to shoot the messenger - everybody knows Wikipedia is fundamentally wrong about everything, right?)
Present level of knowledgeThirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been incorrect. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out.
As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn't true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally. [27] Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. [28] Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO 2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.
As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons. [29] Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979. [21]
There may well be new recent evidence of global cooling - as in cooling that affects the globe, not anecdotal evidence of unseasonally thick ice in Minnesota. Perhaps an edit by you on Wikipedia would be a good place to start. Or even post your research or sources here on JWD.
You'll possibly notice I still haven't expressed a personal opinion, merely refuted logical fallacies and untruths as and when I see them. Your suggestion that I'm part of a screaming movement is incorrect, if a somewhat humorous word picture.
FWIW my personal opinion is it makes more sense to be gentle with Nature - its not there to be 'conquered' by humans, as if such a thing were possible - particularly our consumption of finite resources. Why not be a bit more careful with what we are doing on a personal level - there's no need to insult those with a different opinion, labelling and dividing into camps along political lines.