Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either.
Not only such argument was used in this thread (by BADdecker, but by now I've learnt to take what he says with a grain of salt) but also on the sites I originally linked.
Well, consider for a second, petroleum geologists. They work with oil, eg fossil fuels, the GREAT SATAN, some would say. But they known the history of dirt and rock, so might be considered an "intelligent adversary."
They are not going to claim such things.
But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?
In here lies most of our misunderstandings, I'd reckon.
Global warming & cooling to me climatic trends, which indicate whether the average world temperature is rising or decreasing, and therefore to claim global cooling exists is essentially to argue the world's temperatures in the long term are decreasing.
Naturally there are cooling & warming influences, but these are factors that feed the pattern and not the pattern itself.
Phrasing such as "influences..." ..."feed the pattern but not the pattern..." are not scientific. I assume the "pattern itself" is what, a world temperature? What is that?
What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?
That question is more complex than it seems. What would equilibrium temperature mean? Which sphere of the Earth System is being accounted (I'm assuming only the atmosphere)? In which time scale? And, lastly, I don't see how knowing that would contribute to the conclusion
there is/isn't global warming/cooling....
Let's just say thermodynamic equilibrium, which if reached would present a temperature measurable like on a gray body radiator. What you'd be seeking is that temperature upon which you'd superimpose say, man's co2 emissions, then noting their effects, or superimposing solar flare and solar wind effects, therefore measuring their effects.
Otherwise, how could one make any intelligent assessment? But you don't have a baseline temperature?