You heard the words at a cocktail party — “global cooling?” — usually with the rising, sing-song intonation of disbelief, so the speaker could get credit for knowing about the phenomenon if, shockingly, it ever came to pass and none of the blame if it, unsurprisingly, didn’t.
That’s about where we are, as a nation, when it comes to an important piece of the pie of climate change science: basically a valley girl question, with a valley girl’s mock knowingness and unknowingness competing for the attention of those around her, and of herself.
This is arguably a promotion for skeptical climate scientists in the public sphere, who for the most part have been in another valley girl precinct: the enormous what-ever file. Oh, like I’m totally sure that the huge hurricane last year, or whenever it was, wasn’t global warming. Like, what-ever.
Indeed, the way in which the public has bit down on to the IPCC’s spoon-fed, over-sugared and watery porridge is mostly an expression of the antipathy that most normal people have for science, including and especially climate science. Glancing at graphs of historic proxy temperatures for the planet sounds like about as much fun to most people as getting a root canal. Yuck! Ouch! Not even!
Meanwhile, month by month, and year by year, the evidence mounts that Habibullo Abdussamatov and the Russians badly beat NASA in the effort to understand the Sun-Earth climate connection. Being in the minority of people who knows this is about as much fun as being the boy with his finger in the dike before the flood. Because as many observers have noted, and as I make plain in my book, global cooling will have real consequences.
Ask yourself: Is it time to read the only book by an American focusing on the science of global cooling? Because it turns out my book came out at least two years too early for the tastes of a public that loathes science. That’s OK. The truth will out.
Global cooling? Wait, there’s a book about global cooling? Really?