Nature magazine predicts global cooling. Why isn't this headline news?

Question

The NY Times, bible to all who think America and Americans are the world’s most sinister villains, is mad at Nature magazine for daring to predict a decade or two of global cooling right when their hysteria surrounding global warming appears to be based not on climate science on their “the sky is falling and it’s George Bush and white America’s fault” analysis of everything, even bad weather.

We remember their warnings of doom and COOL PERIODS weren’t one of them. No, we were going to fry our own kids we were told.

How can this so-called “settled science” be called settled or even science if Nature is right?

No doubt we have been suckered by the new celebrity-driven growth industry who spends most of their time lobbying to turn food into gasoline when half the world is starving. The Times like the rest of the mainstream media seem more concerned with promoting a swindle than getting at the truth. That borders on the unforgivable.

Answer 1

That sort of news does not sell carbon-credits or earn research grants.

Answer 2

This was a few guys with a new theory.  That's never "headline news".

The vast majority of scientists still support the mainstream global warming theory.  Even the guys with the new theory say any cooling would be temporary.

Answer 3

because we can put on a sweater for global cooling - with global warming we have to turn up the AC which runs on electricity provided by the power company which uses coal or some other non-renewable resource.  Political talking points.

Answer 4

Two main reasons for recent cooling...La NIna and low sunspot levels. Expect the warming trend to continue soon.

Answer 5

Simple. Because Al Gore invested in Carbon Credit companies and he can only make HUGE profits if Global "Warming" kicks in.

In the 1960s and 1970s the world was entering an "Ice Age" . Now it's this bull of "Warming".

Check it out the cooling in most of the US!

http://climate.weather.com/articles/apri...

Answer 6

It doesn't fit the eco-libs current agenda.

Answer 7

because many people wouldn't listen cause its boring :(

Answer 8

Why didn't you link to the NY Times or the Nature article?

The Nature magazine I read has certainly not predicted a "decade or two of global cooling".  Have you personally read such an article in Nature? Or are you merely passing along hearsay?