[wlll]

That's not what I read into the response at all.

What good_gnu did was point out the logical fallacy commonly used by climate change deniers: "something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid" (a full description http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20...).

The number of warming and cooling studies over time would suggest to me (and this is my interpretation) that climate was a (relatively) new field back in 1970ish, people were still working out what was going on, how to study it, and what the data meant, and over time as these things have become clearer the trend towards warming has become the most arrived at interpretation.

Though I'm sure there have been exaggerated claims in the past, nothing that good_gnu said leads to "what you are saying is that in hindsight it's easier to see which side was making exaggerated claims?" being an accurate summary.