wrote on Jul 13^th, 2009 at 2:15pm:

But those article don't quote environmentalists, they quote scientists,you said it was a GREEN conspiracy, were you and grendel lying when you said global cooling was a Greenie thing? So ,what you are now trying to say is that the scientists were right about global cooling but are lying about global warming? You seem confused.

Confused (and therefore suspicious) is correct. Here's just one articulation of the reasons:

"So, Antarctic cooling and warming are both now consistent with computer models of dreaded global warming caused by humans.

In reality, the warming is largely at the beginning of the record – before there should have been much human-induced climate change. New claims that both warming and cooling of the same place are consistent with forecasts isn't going to help the credibility of climate science, and, or reduce the fatigue of Americans regarding global warming.

Have climate alarmists beaten global warming to death? The Pew Research Centre recently asked over 1,500 people to rank 20 issues in order of priority. Global warming came in dead last.

We can never run the experiment to see if indeed it is the constant hyping of this issue that has sent it to the bottom of the priority ladder. But, as long as scientists blog on that both warming and cooling of the coldest place on earth is consistent with their computer models, why should anyone believe them?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/06/antarctic-warming-climate-change

I've spilt this off the main thread, because we're getting way off topic (Plimer?)

The difference between East and West Antarctica has been discussed before. Let me attach the appropriate reply.

Believe it or not they are totally different.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1245571650/105#105

Start at PJB's post at Reply 106 onwards. It's all explained there.

Quote:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century

This issue comes down to gross simplification. It's a common confusionalist technique.

It  involves a lot of rhetoric, posturing, strawmen, but almost zilch in the way of facts. Maybe just the occasional processed fact. The picked cherry in the middle of a bowl of cream (well actually homogenised emulsified sweetened lard to be more analogous. It's not even genuine cream).  

If the man in the street was to scratch below the surface just a little, then the Confusionalist Fakeopedia would fall apart like a house of cards.

The trouble is that they don't - or don't want to.