In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Angrboda]

And then there's the following from 1953  (cited in the comments of your article):



I think you misread the realclimate.org article.  It says, «Not only has the current spate of global warming been going on for about 35 years now, but also the term “global warming” will have its 35th anniversary next week. On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" in the journal Science. That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the ISI database of journal articles).»  Note that this is claiming that Broecker's paper was the first to use the term "global warming," not that it was the first paper to predict global warming.  Even if that is true, that is not of any importance to your claim that the graph and paper cited in the Wikipedia article you quoted is wrong.  Additionally, you claimed "hundreds" of papers citing global cooling in that Wikipedia article, yet a close reading of that article reveals something else entirely.  Very few papers extolling global cooling are cited in that article.  And your claim that the Wikipedia entry supports your claim that global cooling was "scientific fact" in the 70s is simply false.

then answer this how many papers/articles (Because the above is an article) by 1980 were there on global warming considering the three points of references we are using? I count 3. So How many on global cooling using the same references? I have 9 written down so tell me how I am wrong. remember one of the three sources voting for co2 warming is media related.

The table I quoted you earlier cited 44 different scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 in the warming column, so not only are you wrong, you can't even count. And that's not including the citation from 1953. Produce your nine scientific references on global cooling so I can laugh in your face. And the above article represents reporting of a paper delivered to the American Geophysical Union, not just an article in a popular publication. Gilbert Plass was a noted environmental scientist in the 1950s, and his opinion matters when determining what science thought about the subject. It was quoted to refute your claim that the first paper on global warming was produced in 1975, which it ably does, not as evidence for the number of papers pro and con during the 70s and before. Your interpretation of it as such is a straw man. I did not use it in any count of scientific papers, so it can be omitted from that count. Media related articles matter only insofar as they cite actual scientific papers and that doing so does not result in counting the same paper twice. If it causes you discomfort, I give you full permission to exclude it from the count of relevant scientific papers. Purely media reports on their own are irrelevant as explained to you earlier. I thought you had finally wised up and conceded the point, but apparently I was mistaken. You're showing yourself to be every bit the deluded idiot that I have maintained you are. You were shown to be misrepresenting the Wikipedia article in multiple ways, including claiming hundreds of pro-cooling papers and that it showed that global cooling was a scientific fact in the 70s, in addition to ignoring the graph and text saying otherwise. Then you misrepresented an Ars Technica article which also refuted your claims. Then you misrepresented an article from realclimate.org which also did not support your claims. You don't even appear to bother to read the articles you cite before doing so. I admit, I occasionally do not fully read an article before citing it, but I have not been repeatedly wrong about the content of a citation as you have been. And now you're claiming you are right based on a mistaken count of the pro-warming papers cited and trying to sneak the nose of the camel under the tent by claiming "media related" citations are relevant. All you are doing is proving what a monumental douchebag you are.