Pajamas Media

91 Comments

1. WarTip:

It does make one wonder. The Bay of Alaska is filled with marvels that proudly display the countless years of cooling and warming. That is perhaps the most beautiful display I have seen at least. In Northern Nevada at elevations well above four thousand feet (Above Sea Level) there is clear evidence of the existing shorelines from when the land was covered by the oceans. The earth is changing and the truth is that we can do absolutely nothing about it. If you think we can, petition your government to outlaw all of that activity which creates those nasty little earthquakes out in Cali.

Still, there really is no way to be logical or reasonable with people who refuse logic and casually dismiss reason. Emotions after all, are much more profitable than facts it seems.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:50 am 2. eon:

The 1816 cooling downspike was exacerbated, if in fact it was not entirely caused, by the eruption of Mount Tambora in the Java Sea. Tambora threw enough particulate matter into the upper atmosphere to cause bizarrely-colored sunsets and sunrises in Europe, and cause a sharp spike in precipitation worldwide. Among other things, the bizarre, dark, and threatening weather resulted in Mary (Godwin) Shelley writing “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus”, now recognized as the first true science-fiction novel in history.

A similar result was seen after the nearly-as-large eruption of Krakatau (Krakatoa) on 14 August 1883. (Tambora and Krakatau are less than 200 miles apart, in the Sunda Strait area, a “hot spot” on the Javanese Arc of volcanic activity.) In both cases, the dust residue from the eruption took over a decade to settle out of the atmosphere. Similar results were seen yet again in 1980, after Mount Saint Helens erupted in Washington state. (This is the easternmost arc of the Pacific Ring of Fire, by the way.)

And if anyone was wondering, St. Helens, Tambora, and the volcano known as Anat Krakatau (The Son of Krakatau) are all showing signs of increased activity again, as is the rest of the Ring of Fire and the Javanese Arc.

The point being that whatever Man thinks he can do to the environment, Nature always holds the trump card. And plays it at its whim, and without mercy.

clear ether

eon

Mar 31, 2009 - 3:19 am 3. Pajamas Media » No SUVs Around During the Roman Global Warming … | Gaia:

[...] Continued here: Pajamas Media » No SUVs Around During the Roman Global Warming … [...]

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:01 am 4. Craig:

“Make no mistake — the earth has warmed.”

Maybe so, but not in Fargo, ND.

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:08 am 5. elvis:

How dare you use history and facts to talk about Al Gores life pursuit!

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:12 am 6. Terry Gain:

Self-hating humans need to relax and enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.

What warm weather? My gas bill says temperatures were down 7% last year. This past January was the coldest I can remember in my 62 years and today is the last day of March and it feels like February. The sentient know we have already entered a period of global cooling.

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:14 am 7. WxChief:

All this is beside the point. No serious climate scientist denies – or worries about – natural climate variability, including rapid, but short-term, coolings due to volcanic eruptions. The problem is with the liberation of fossilized carbon, not the easily-liberated carbon (mostly stored in the oceans). The climate system has managed the latter in ways paleo-climatologists know and understand well: periodic glacial and interglacial periods lasting tens of thousands of years. Paleo-climatologists also know what the Earth’s climate was like when the now-fossilized CO2 was in the atmosphere about 55 million years ago. Earth was a planet with no permanent ice and with sea levels hundreds of feet higher than now. The problem is the fossilized carbon being liberated by burning fossil fuels.

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:31 am 8. C3H Editor:

Yep, as most sane people recognize, the climate continuously changes and there is not a whole lot we can do about it, other than adapt. Unfortunately, today’s liberal politician does not invoke a sense of sanity as they jump from one faux-crisis to another in order to get “air” time. This is especially true for the entire faux-CO2 crisis and the need to “stop” climate change.

We’ve compiled a recent list of articles that reflects what Obama and liberals want to legislate/regulate on the climate change front, despite any actual evidence that any legislation would change the climate one iota. The article list can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/dcskv6

C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines.com

Mar 31, 2009 - 6:16 am 9. AThinkingPerson:

Isn’t it nice when the whole global warming hysteria can easily be debunked with one short, precise article? Loved it and forwarding it on to all of my friends still wishing a pox on humanity for “warming” the Earth.

Mar 31, 2009 - 6:19 am 10. Xanthippe:

If I had a choice between an Ice Age and Global Warming, I’d pick the latter.

I have little faith in Anthropogenic Global Warming adherents, given their awful prognostications over the past twenty years. The believers behave more like religious followers than scientists, particularly when it comes to convincing us that they are correct.

If only they used facts and reason, rather than passion and faith, to argue their points.

Mar 31, 2009 - 6:42 am 11. JD:

I would rather that we concern ourselves (and deal) with things that we know to be threats – North Korea and Iran’s nuclear program to name but two – rather than things about which we are unsure and, more importantly, unable to effect in any meaningful way.

http://trackacrat.com/2009/03/30/big-fat-hypocrite/

Mar 31, 2009 - 6:56 am 12. asdf:

Wx Cheif
read some more. In the Ordovician Era the co2 was 4400ppm and an ice age.
Only 2 times in last 600 million years have temps and co2 been as low as it is today. Burning fossil fuels is not cauring GW.

Mar 31, 2009 - 7:01 am 13. JFM:

While I am a strong believer than MMGW is an inconvenient lie I feel compelled to say that the “vineyards in Britain” argument should be downplayed. That is because with international, interregional and even intraregional trade virtually stopped due to general insecurity and toll booths every five miles, everything had to be produced locally. That is every village had vineyards, sheep, flax parcels and so on. This was inefficient and contributed to create famines. Once trade thrived again, people began to think in the awful yield of their vineyards, in the poor quality of their wine and what would happen if they bought their wine elsewhere and used the vine parcels to grow something else and sell the surplus: it was no longer necessary to cultivate vine in the British Isles.

Mar 31, 2009 - 7:22 am 14. Delia:

We have yet to get much sunshine here where I live and boy-oh-boy what I would give for a little global warming! I am freezin’ my arse off! -Another cold, gray, rainy, day here in my dismal seepage part of WA state. Bleh.

Mar 31, 2009 - 7:26 am 15. Joe Bison:

True facts don’t matter when the real goal is
government control of all areas of human activity.

When Stalin ordered his purges the guilt or
innocence of the person was irrelevant. The
purpose was to maintain total control.

The difference is that the left plays with a
lighter hand today in the west.

Mar 31, 2009 - 8:14 am 16. Ben Blankenship:

Warmists’ causes suffer when they latch on to goofy ideas of no consequence–plastic vs. paper bags; California’s moves to ban black cars (to reduce air-conditioner loads). Maybe the upper midwest will ban white cars which reflect needed heat. And how about the “darkness hour” to demonstrate dedication to…..What?
…to a passing fad masquerading as a movement to control…(they can’t be serious)…CLIMATE ! It will make for a great comedy in a few years.

Mar 31, 2009 - 8:16 am 17. WxChief:

asdf:

Your assertion is in dispute; see, for example, http://www.physorg.com/news2844.html. The uncertainty in the data of that age is huge. The problem with data alone is that the statistical criterion for significance is far more demanding than when correlations can be related to physics. You seem to simply dismiss the vast body of published work on the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer. This is a surprising basis on which to build any solid scientific hypothesis, assuming we’re really talking about science here.

Mar 31, 2009 - 8:56 am 18. Bill Perron:

First Algore gives us the internet, then he gives us global warming, all he does is give, give, give, and all you ungrateful bastards do is complain, complain, complain. Shame on you !!

Mar 31, 2009 - 8:59 am 19. Mike McNally:

A must-read: ‘Rise of sea levels is the greatest lie ever told’.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph talks to one of the world’s leading authorities on sea levels.

Booker regularly has very good stuff on all aspects of global warming hysteria. Search the Telegraph site for ‘booker warming’ or ‘booker climate’.

Here’s another great one, the vanishing Artic ice myth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:03 am 20. Doc:

I read one art historian who observed that through the centuries artists who painted peasant life and country scenes have depicted the climates that Matt explains.

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:34 am 21. JMH:

You seem to simply dismiss the vast body of published work on the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer. This is a surprising basis on which to build any solid scientific hypothesis, assuming we’re really talking about science here.

When Global Warming Alarmists start using real science themselves, maybe we can have a discussion. Having a theory is not the same as doing science. All we have in support of AGW are various “gospels” based on computer models that fail, time and again, to predict future climate changes. As each model fails, the prophets tweak it to account for the unexpected result, but the new model still fails to predict the future.

AGW isn’t based on science. It’s based on fitting data to a curve, something anyone with a computer can do these days. Real science is about proposing a theory, proposing a series of tests for that theory, and then conducting the tests. If the outcome predicted by the theory does not match the outcome realized by the tests, then it’s back to the drawing board.

So far, AGW theories have had zero predictive success. Does that mean there could never, ever, be any chance of human activity causing a climate impact? No, but it does mean nobody to date has any credible evidence we are “destroying the planet” and demands that we impoverish ourselves (and our children) on the chance that, maybe, there’s a problem are asnine.

AGW is a zaxdamn religious movement, not a scientific consensus.

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:36 am 22. Bob Miller:

It would be even harder to establish a world socialist state if panics about Global Warming and the like could not be manufactured by our best and brightest.

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:46 am 23. David W. Lincoln:

It is easier to cover eyes, than it is to open eyes to see what counters a person’s bias or perspective.

Too bad that the copious imbibers of the koolaid of kyoto are too insecure to apply dispassionate scrutiny on themselves.

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:07 am 24. jerryofva:

Chief:

Sounds like doubletalk to me. We know there were periods in geological history where CO2 levels were substantially higher then what is projected for the end of the 21st century. At no time did we observe runaway global warming like the GCM models project. It isn’t about correlation versus causation. It is about the inability of real data to match model projections. The source of the carbon is irrelevant to the debate. The atmosphere cares little if the CO2 is generated from a lighting strike induced forest fire or an SUV.

James Gliek in his book “Chaos: The Birth of a New Science” spent some time on early GCM models. These models produced the white earth phenomenon as temperatures dived off the scale. All the models exhibited unstable behavior. Oddly enough one Dr. James Hansen was in the forefront of early GCM modeling and was a big proponent of the coming man-made ice age. He reversed himself in the 1980s as we went into a natural warming cycle. Now instead of projecting a descent into a white world the models suddenly came around to predict that temperatures would rise out of the livable range. GCM models are inherently unstable because of non-linear effects. Dress them up; improve the solution algorithms and increase the models’ complexity and you still are left with an unstable solution set. GCM models are worthless beyond 7-10 days or actually 7-10 time steps. There is no real data that supports the man-made global warming hypothesis only model results.

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:20 am 25. WxChief:

JMH:

Well, you lost me with the statement “having a theory” is not the same as doing science. It’s precisely what science is about (as in theory of relativity, quantum theory, etc.). Data and theory (usually embodied in the algorithms of a computer model) go hand in hand, neither hold the “absolute” truth. Theories in the popular vernacular may be something akin to a notion. Scientific theories comprise both physical models verified with data. This verification is in terms of statistics that include uncertainty. Characterizing the modeling methods as mere curve fitting exercises with zero predictive success reveals a breathtaking degree of ignorance.

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:26 am 26. Rosie Moore:

As a geologist who has studied our fascinating earth and the implied climatic shifts for decades, I’ve often said, “The only thing more egotistical than thinking humans did something to warm the earth is thinking we should do something to stop it!”
You pegged it! Well done – keep the truth and good words flowing!

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:28 am 27. Eric:

1. If the planet were in fact warming, why is that necessarily a bad thing? More people die due to cold weather than they do warm weather.

2. Why would we want to impose massive taxes on ourselves to “do something” about what is mere speculation? Why would we want to voluntarily give the government even more money and power? If carbon taxes were 100% offset by income tax reductions I could support them. I can’t support giving our irresponsible government even more money to waste.

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:40 am 28. Eric:

As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Too small to impact temperatures on Earth.

Mar 31, 2009 - 10:43 am 29. WxChief:

jerryofva, et al:

Yes, GCM/NWP models degrade to climatology after 7-10 days. Though, large ensembles that include dozens of members can pick up a “whisper” of a statistical signal above the climatological noise out to, maybe, six months in El Nino years. This fact is about how the heat in the ocean-atmosphere system is spread around. These are internal circulations within the system and they are, indeed, chaotic. Climate modeling is about changes in the net radiative forcing of the entire system, NOT how it’s spread around.

I’m old enough to have been in my professional career in the 1970s. There was never a scientific consensus that favored global cooling (remember, the media and scientific literature are not equivalent!). I tended to favor the cooling side myself at the time. As new information came in, the split went from about 75 – 25% of scientists favoring warming in 1978 to about 97 – 3% now. I’ve been to many scientific conferences on climate change over the decades. There are a lot of Republican/Conservative scientists at these meetings. The arguments are about how to mitigate the problem, not whether there is a problem. Just because the proposed solutions are unpleasant doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.

And, precisely, what is “real” data?

Good bye and good luck!

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:06 am 30. Old Soldier:

“Why would we want to impose massive taxes on ourselves to “do something” about what is mere speculation?”

So the government can sink it’s fangs into every aspect of the economy and our personal lives. There is nothing we do, make, or use that does not require energy (including having children). Most energy – including livestock and physical labor – involves carbon based energy. And, it makes a handy excuse to destroy international trade and bring down the global economy. It is the perfect excuse for imposing a new form of feudalism on the world.

That’s why.

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:17 am 31. G Alston:

#29 — I’m old enough to have been in my professional career in the 1970s. There was never a scientific consensus that favored global cooling (remember, the media and scientific literature are not equivalent!).

I too am old enough and I know that Sagan’s “nuclear winter” nonsense was based on the research you claim doesn’t exist. There was certainly enough of a consensus that the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) were using it to club their political enemies (Reagan administration) re the Star Wars initiative. Oh, and as a sidebar, note that a lot of that stuff is working as well. UCS has never as far as I know been correct about anything, and they’re one of the largest AGW cheering squads.

After nuclear winter was discredited as junk science, the only thing that was done was to use the same research and change the sign. Add 4+ years, then stir, and Hansen appears before congress.

No consensus? What an idiotic lie.

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:37 am 32. jerryofva:

Chief:

A couple of points:

Real data, you know measurements of weather/climatic conditions. Model output is not real data. The only thing you have is modeled data to back warming claims.

I suggest you read Milton Friedman’s “An Essay on Positive Economics” to understand the relationship between theory, data and prediction. If a theory doesn’t predict then it is probably wrong.

Finally, the only place where you have a lopsided 97-3 margin is in a communist election. The fact that you cite that phony number shows you have more in common with Lysenko-ism then science

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:39 am 33. robotech master:

29. WxChief:”As new information came in, the split went from about 75 – 25% of scientists favoring warming in 1978 to about 97 – 3% now.”

Thats laughable at best… like global cooling only the loudest most retarded sciences that coming out for it… the whole “overwhelming majority” is the same BS they did with global cooling that majority only exists in the fantasy worlds of global warming nutters.

I think its funny that you bring up El Nino since it was only recently “discovered” and forced many global warming nutters to change their nutter models…

The simple fact is we know very little about the climate expect that human unless doing things on a massive scale(ie nuke warfare) within a short period of time(ie a few years) can have major effects on it.

The argument of these “net radiative forcing” model is that its like taking a cup and putting in your basement. Global warming nutters argue that if you kept pouring water into the cup(even a few ml’s) that suddenly your basements overflowing with 8ft of water in it. The problem is they’ve never been in the basement, they’ve don’t know if the basement has doors(open or closed), windows(open or closed), drains in the floor, the cup is in a sink or not…. they know nothing about the basement so they just pick the outcome that profits them the most… IE if you pay insane amount of money and let us control your life in every detail then we will prevent your basement from flooding….thats the whole argument from nutters.

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:45 am 34. thestupidwhiteguy:

We all know Global Warming is real. Why deny it? Instead, become part of the solution:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1a4af347eb/eco-commando-episode-1

Mar 31, 2009 - 12:29 pm 35. WxChief:

I can see I’m not getting anywhere here; but a few parting comments:

1. I repeat; there was no SCIENTIFIC consensus favoring global cooling in the 1960s or 1970s. This has been objectively confirmed in a recent article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1)

2. El Nino has been known about for centuries and studied/modeled for about 100 years. Models do a poor to crappy job of predicting their onset. Once again this doesn’t mean much; this is a heat distribution, not a total heat content, issue. Here’s a simple example: two flies are swimming on the surface of a glass of water that’s just been placed in a hot oven. When placed in the oven, there was a chunk of ice frozen to the bottom of the glass. For a minute or two, the flies are feeling warmer and warmer and become concerned. The first fly says to the second, “I guess we’re going to cook!” Just then, the ice at the bottom of the glass breaks lose and the flies ride on top of it. The second fly retorts, “looks like your theory may be wrong. It’s freezing in here!”

3. As far as “real data”, these numbers are not delivered on stone tablets. I worked with weather sensors at a government lab. These numbers come from electical-engineering models embedded in computer chips in the sensor. We had a saying: “No one believes the model data except the modeler; everyone believes the sensor data except the person who took the measurement.”

Mar 31, 2009 - 12:48 pm 36. Old Soldier:

Waxcheif – So what? There’s no consensus now either. The “real data” is the temperature – and it’s going down.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:06 pm 37. jerryofva:

Chief:

Are you a creationist or Intelligent Design advocate? You sound just like one when someone confronts with the fact that the data contradicts your models.

In science the observed data is ground truth. You seem to be saying that nobody believes the data that contradicts his model. But that only shows that you confuse the psuedo-science of global warming modeling with the real thing.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:08 pm 38. robotech master:

lol I love the flies argument its pretty common try by nutters… once again though in the end nutter only know their in an oven… they have no idea what the oven is set at or who controls it…

The nutter argument is that the flies by crapping in the oven are causing it to heat up.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:11 pm 39. Paul -Indiana:

From #15. The difference is that the left plays with a
lighter hand today in the west.
=
Think so? Check out Obambi’s plans.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:11 pm 40. SGT Ted:

1. There is no scientific consensus today that favors AGW. Much like there having been no consensus on global cooling. But, many of the same people who were predicting the cooling are now AGW pushers. So, why should we listen to them in the first place?

2. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as opposed to that caused by volcanoes and other natural sources etc., will cause the earth to warm. The most glaring example is water vapor, which is around 95% of the gases that are alleged to cause the “grennhouse effect”. No one talks about the amount of water vapor which is produced by the internal combustion engine, and which remains the most abumdant of the grennhouse gasses, just the carbon. And not just any carbons, just the CO2, which is the result of more efficient fuel burning and the use of catalitic converters. And the solutions all involve the implementation of some sort of collectivist political system which will usher in utopean “green solutions” via massive taxation, wealth redistribution, and not much practical engineering.

So much for the “science” of AGW.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:17 pm 41. Nomad:

I live in THE GREAT STATE OF WISCONSIN (the frozen North!!) Last winter over 100″ of SNOW!!!! a record breaker.. This year over 70″so far, (more this wkend). Colder than normal: many Jan. 2009 days w/ wind chills at -25*to -40* Global Warming HaHaHa My A$$………..

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:20 pm 42. Paul -Indiana:

I might pay more attention to the green freaks when their models can predict the weather through the 1990s based on data gathered in the 1950s. We already know the answers, so they can’t just wave their Kum-By-Ahh songsheets and get away with their deception.

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:21 pm 43. WxChief:

You guys are a hoot … take care, and have a good life!

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:22 pm 44. friedfish2718:

On the issue of burning of fossilized carbon.

From a NASA news conference,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=av6QSiI5BuOI&refer=us

“Between 1751 and 2003, human activities released 626 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, NASA said. Yet only about 192 billion tons of the gas remained in the atmosphere, according to the agency.”

ONLY???? Damn you, photosynthesis!!!

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:47 pm 45. robotech master:

Wow thats a jem right there chief…. talk about trying to pretend history didn’t happen…

I love the opening page…”The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”…. The IPCC is just what global cooling nutters were back in the day… o wait these nutter have a prize… whoop tee fricking doo.

“Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking
to aerosols to explain the change.”

By “explain” they mean BLAME.

I find it funny under “Perpetuating the Myth” section how they don’t talk about programs such as “in search of” which was hosted by Leonard Nimoy which was a science show(and alot more based on science then al gore’s film). You’ll also note how theirs no show from them about global warming.

“The first analysis to show long-term warming trends was published in 1938. However, such analysis were not updated
very often.”

Wow selectively reading data to fit into a bias…. yeah that sounds knowing like the “today’s” nutters….anyone want to play with my hockey stick…

“The first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late
1960s to the early 1970s. This trend was capped by unusually severe winters in Asia and parts of North America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974),which pushed the issue into the public consciousness (Gribbin 1975). The new data about global temperatures came amid growing concerns about world food supplies, triggering fears that a planetary cooling trend might threaten humanity’s ability to feed itself”

Wow if I replace summer with winter and drought with snow…. that doesn’t at all sound like global warming/al gore.

“Members of the Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction (CLIMAP)”
No thats not the IPCC…. this is the thing that the report says didn’t exist…. but was the same as the IPCC and they said

“the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”

Wow now that doesn’t sound like the global warming nutters/IPCC at all. The “ong term trend”…. We predict that in the future… but not close enough for you common stupid ppl to live to that the world will end… and its all you stupid peoples fault… now shut up and do as your overlords demand.

Man this thing is a jem… I’m only on page 4 and this thing is the best proof I’m see that global cooling nutters are the same as global warming nutters…

Mar 31, 2009 - 1:52 pm 46. Moogie:

This is a terrific article, if for no other reason than the hilarious picture of Algore spewing flames.

I’m not a scientist. I didn’t even like science in school. It was boringly presented by a boring teacher.

But I do know this (and I don’t particularly care if my opinion doesn’t mesh with scientific mumbo jumbo): a theory is crap without proof. All of the computer generated projections, data compilations, measurements of this and that are meaningless without hard proof.

A “consensus” does not a proof make. Once upon a time, the “consensus” was that the earth was flat. So shut up about the meaninglessness of “consensus.” It’s worthless fiddle faddle.

Does anyone have any hard proof that us lousy humans are causing global warming this time around? That the burning of “liberated” fossil fuels is sending us into another tropical weather pattern? No? Then the theory is crap.

Note to Dehlia: I wouldn’t mind some of that tropical warmth either, being a WA state resident myself.

Mar 31, 2009 - 2:10 pm 47. Marie Claude:

“Art and science flourished in what we now know as the Renaissance.”

well you may want to talk of the “carolingian renaissance”, otherwise the very “Renaissance” that we are in use to think about, occured in “little ice ages”, XV century

Besides the villans during the barbarian invasions didn’t grow wine in parcels, for they were serfs and had no properties ; the celtish princes and the Romans used to import their wines from mediteranean roman countries, until that the muslim invasions stoped them ; though this kind of occupation was carried on and was mainly devoted to monasteries’s, (cuz of the mass wines) The still celtish “basic populations” were rather known to drink “cervoise” the original name for beer, hop and barley grew better in northern aeras. Charlemagne priviligied some wine productions for their quality. I don’t know much of the british wine production of this era, but I suppose they hadn’t, and most likely their wine was also imported from roman empire, if the Brits had any, it seems that it wasn’t really appreciated, since Bordeaux and La Rochelle were exporting quantities of barrels to England, though, after that the Plantagenets occupied the region, around XII century.

http://www.alyon.org/generale/cuisine/histoire_du_vin/monde_du_vin_1.html

Emmanuel Leroy Ladurie made some researches on climates based on wine producings registered in churches and villages annales from XIV century

Mar 31, 2009 - 4:14 pm 48. El hefe:

It was warming now it’s cooling. It was warming now it’s cooling. It was warming now it’s cooling. Looks like a cycle to me. The Sun has been very quite lately; very few Sunspots if any. Anybody notice that this past year was the weakest hurricane season in a long time?
We need to store up a lot of wood, coal, fuel oil, atomic energy, gas and food for the cold days ahead. Isn’t it funny how these lefties always seem to have it backwards? As in we need to use less fossil fuel, less energy, less everything just at the time when we are really going to need more just to survive these cold years ahead.
I think we could if allowed, make energy so cheap and so clean in this country it would become an afterthought, we would just kind of forget about it, instead we have been forced to regulate ourselves to death just to fatten the bureaucracy.
Hopefully the cold will freeze the eugenicists before they get to kill us with their good intentions, maybe I’m wrong, maybe they just want to rob us blind and then kill us. Ever notice that they screw everything they touch up and then blame someone else. You name it they’ve screwed it up before. Remember when we had to go and kill Hitler before he killed us all, far fetched? Hitler was a eugenicist, thought he had a good enough reason to kill and take what was not his.
If we let the global warming tards rape and kill (cap and trade, carbon credits) us whose fault is it? Should we entertain them? Meet them halfway? What? Halfway to hell?
They will do it if we let them. They are banking on us doing nothing. Yes they have virtually every politician, judge and juror in their pocket and the governments look big and scary but they are only people and they are cowards afraid of their own shadow.
We on the other hand have the truth, freedom and history on our side so if we fight them we will win.

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:06 pm 49. Themistocles:

Instead of reading the ranting of True Believers like “WxChief”, wouldn’t it make more sense to read what a real, internationally esteemed climatologist says? Someone who is, for instance, the Head of the Atmospheric Sciences department at M.I.T.?

You can read Prof. Richard Lindzen deconstruct the bogus AGW/CO2 hypothesis over at the site that was voted the “BEST SCIENCE” site in this year’s Weblog Awards:

http://wattsupwiththat.com

Read what Dr. Lindzen — a true climatologist, not an astronomer like James Hansen — has to say about the kind of bilge that bovine fecal purveyance specialists like “WxChief” are spewing these days.

[One final note: the site that every globaloney warming alarmist loves to cite, "Realclimate", is funded by George Soros. Just so you know who's behind their climate alarmism.]

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:26 pm 50. Delia:

46. Moogie,

I hear ya, kiddo! Being ’sunless’ is uber depressing. I spent one summer as a teen in Fairbanks Alaska and it was ’sunny/daylight’ all the of time and we had heavy curtains and blinds on windows so we could sleep but it was kind of cool because if I had a nightmare I could just open a window and ‘light’ was there yay!

Regarding global warming and the left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:40 pm 51. Gozer the Carpathian:

“lol I love the flies argument its pretty common try by nutters… once
again though in the end nutter only know their in an oven… they have no
idea what the oven is set at or who controls it…

The nutter argument is that the flies by crapping in the oven are causing
it to heat up.”

ROFL, I love that. It does bring up the biggest point that is always glazed over by the man made global warming guys. The friggin sun!

We can’t check sun temperatures for anything but the last what? 50 years or so? So we have no real clue what the sun’s condition was throughout all of these warming and cooling times. I don’t know if I was looking for a source of a change that effects the entire friggin globe I’d look at the biggest thing around that could effect the whole planet.

Oh wait, look at the gigantic burning ball of gas in the sky! Perhaps that has something, just a bit, to do with globe temperatures? Just a thought!

Mar 31, 2009 - 5:45 pm 52. robotech master:

To 51. Gozer the Carpathian

You know whats even better is the fact that global warming models… don’t model the sun or the oceans… they are “to complex” to model so they just leave them out.

Mar 31, 2009 - 7:18 pm 53. Class Clown:

I had something witty that I was going to say about this, but now I’ve got to turn off my computer for an hour to celebrate “Earth Hour” here at my school.

Mar 31, 2009 - 8:41 pm 54. myth buster:

Models are only as good as the assumptions made. Models can’t think at all; they can only project out based on the data input and the assumptions made on what to do with it.

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:22 pm 55. fear Obama:

The Hopenchange administration will be cutting back on global carbon emissions.

In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government.

I think it’s about time we got away from the so called gas hog Muscle Car events.

Nancy Peloski and Tree Huggers Inc. will be sponsoring a 60 mile electric green car race in San Francisco California.

Top speeds will be in excess of a breathtaking 45 miles an hour.

Only a couple of race viewing drawbacks –

Drivers will have to bring their own colored drop cords and the race only lasts 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Harry Reid and Geritol will sponsor a 12 mile Power Racer Range Chairs event in Reno Nevada.

Last year 88 year old Eloise Milbarge came in first with an average speed of .045 miles per hour.

As you guessed,
The drawback in this race is the 9 hours of viewing.

But at this age who really gives a shite?

Mar 31, 2009 - 9:38 pm 56. Gozer the Carpathian:

Oh yeah those “too Complex” items must have absolutly NO effect. I mean they’re just too complex to affect something as “simple” as the global climate.

Sheesh..

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:10 pm 57. JMH:

Well, you lost me with the statement “having a theory” is not the same as doing science.

No Chief, I lost you a long time before that. Or rather, you lost yourself. A theory is the start of the process. The theory needs to be predictive to be of any value or have any claim to being “science” rather than, how did you put it?, a “notion.” The data that you mention is indeed important, but it has to come after the theory, and needs to be predicted by the theory or else you don’t have a scientific theory, you have a bunch of post-hoc rationalization. Curve fitting. Correlation but who knows if there’s any causation. The kind of “statistics” that gave rise to the saying about “lies, damn lies and statistics.” That’s why Anthropology is treated as a second-class science, there are few opportunities to test predictive values.

In particular, if two Anthroplogists have competing theories about something, there’s no way to devise a test to determine which theory better models reality. Both theories have been built by making assumptions about the existing data, and no new data can be expected (well, not until after Obama gets done with the economy anway – we’ll be lucky to have a hunter-gatherer society by the time we’re rid of him and his buddies).

But Climatology doesn’t have that problem. You can create predictive tests, gather the data, and validate the theory. You can, but you don’t. Instead, you present and ever-changing set of postulates, postulates that always change to account for new data but always end up predicting the same thing. You started with your conclusion and worked backwards from there. Every time new data comes in that upsets your applecart, you start over from your conclusion and work backwards to build a model that incorporates the new data, but that’s bass-ackwards fella. The data is supposed to lead to the conclusion, not the other way around.

Let us know if you ever start doing things the right way. That’s when we’ll take you seriously as a scientist. Until then, you’re a crank.

Mar 31, 2009 - 11:34 pm 58. David W. Lincoln:

Take a look at what Lawrence Solomon has written about “The Deniers”. Then get back to me. Okay?

Apr 1, 2009 - 8:43 am 59. Jim Baker:

Well, even though WxChief has been thoroughly debunked, he is winning. That is because global warming is a political issue and not a scientific one. WxChief has already moved on to helping Obamanation control our driving habits and restrict our choices of the the vehicles we drive. Meanwhile, we are all still getting upset because of the “ignorance” of people who believe in global warming. Time to get into the fight and prevent these nuts from destroying more of our liberties. Take the damned fight to them. Call your damned congressmen and state representatives. Challenge anyone, who even spews this collectivist claptrap, to show how restricting our freedoms is going to improve the civilization.

Apr 1, 2009 - 9:02 am 60. GLN2:

I am in favor of “Global Warming”. In fact I can’t wait for it to get here…its cold here in NE Ohio. We have run our furnace longer the past 3 years and our AC less in the summer. I know I should not just look at my own short life span of 40 years, so I read history to give me the facts, not propaganda! You notice they have stopped calling it Global Warming and are now referring to it as Climate Change. Because there is no world wide warming happening. It’s the SUN stupid. The ice caps on Mars have melted too, there are no Martian running around in SUV’s. We have warming and cooling cycles. Look at history! The sad part of all of this is the indoctrination that goes on in the “Government Schools”. So, teach your kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews the truth about the lies of MMGW! IT IS A LIE! Then show them the evidence. They will become a light for right, instead of mush brained global warming alarmists, giving up all of their rights.

Apr 1, 2009 - 9:19 am 61. Moogie:

GLN2 – You’re wrong about Mars! We left a couple of rovers up there, remember? THEY must be causing the Martian ice caps to melt. Damn us selfish humans, anyway.

Apr 1, 2009 - 10:07 am 62. The Shadow:

Of course the real question is what is the difference between past period of warming and today. There is clear evidence that humans have played a huge role in the current warming adn if it continues the consequences will be drastic. Of course this column is further evidence that many dopes would prefer to stick their head in the sand or water than to work out solutions

Apr 1, 2009 - 1:46 pm 63. Mike Blackadder:

WxChief is absolutely wrong from his first post #7: “No serious climate scientist denies – or worries about – natural climate variability”

What a crock. Every “consensus” climate scientist denies the existence of the climate events described in this article. According to the climate science ‘hockey team’ (and Al Gore) global temperatures have been totally flat (or declining slightly) for 2000 years up until about the last 80 years. No Medieval warming period, no little ice age. That is central to their story of man-made global warming.

Apr 1, 2009 - 1:49 pm 64. DJS:

1) The Great Plague (Bubonic Plague) did not hit Europe in the Dark Ages, but first arrived in the late 1340s.
2) The Renaissance was in full swing in the 1400s, not before.
Man made warming is a fraud, but getting historical events wrong undermines your credibility.

Apr 1, 2009 - 3:35 pm 65. cgregor:

For your own personal check on global warming, try this: Look at the number and severity of storms in your state over the past couple of decades or so. The theory is that if the atmosphere warms, it tries to achieve equilibrium by throwing off the heat, much like a pot of water heating eventually comes to a boil. Since gases are much freer than water molecules, the atmosphere will respond to warming by having more and greater storms. Dig back into the newspaper files and find out when the first tornado usually struck in your state, and when the last one did, over fifty years. Look for the number of snowstorms and the amount of snow and rain deposited. Unfortunately since you’ll be looking at only a fifty-year span, you might not detect a trend by Mother Nature, but then you might! Global warming first of all means more storms and more severe ones. Let me know what you find out.

Apr 1, 2009 - 4:02 pm 66. robotech master:

To 65. cgregor

They changed that now thats its been completely debunked… the last 20 years have been the weakest storms seasons on record… so now global warming causes storms to weaken…until it causes them to become stronger…. then causes them to become weaker.

Apr 1, 2009 - 5:01 pm 67. Anthropogenic Solar Chaos:

deep solar minimum
For 2008 there were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%).
Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%)
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:

Apr 1, 2009 - 9:32 pm 68. Benson:

Chief says:

“Characterizing the modeling methods as mere curve fitting exercises with zero predictive success reveals a breathtaking degree of ignorance.”

Now see this:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Apr 1, 2009 - 10:39 pm 69. paul_unalaska:

robotech master – Thank you for your thought provoking, clever assessments. The individual ‘WxChief’ was a good sport, though his arrogant-like username and mention of being employed in a ‘government lab’ spoke volumes. F U N D I N G.

I too work in the meteorological field and converse with many ‘WxChiefs’. I’m proud to call many my friend. Suffice to say, reasoning and being forthcoming is often set aside for job security.

I sleep well at night..

Apr 1, 2009 - 11:18 pm 70. GLN2:

Excuse me Shadow, first, you are quite mistaken…there is NO evidence man is causing global warming or cooling or you name it! Second, (if there were such a thing as global warming) there is nothing man kind can do about it. There have been larger catastrophes that have happened to our planet than the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. The only global threat we are in danger of is Global Government. That is the reason for the nonsense we call MMGW. An agenda to crush capitalism, take away America’s Sovereignty, and setup the UN as our rulers. I agree with paul_unalaska… “F U N D I N G”. They want to use carbon creditS and cap & trade to fund the global government.
As for the comment by Anthropogenic Solar Chaos, he’s right, which is why it has been getting cooler since 1998. If they would get their “heads out of the sand” and look at the facts, they would see the only real climate change is exactly that; cyclic climate changes. DJS is correct, we must make sure our facts are correct or we are no more credible than MMGW people or the revisionist history crowd.

Apr 2, 2009 - 4:45 am 71. MS:

I’m sure everyone here probably smokes a lot, since Rush Limbaugh has proven that there’s no conclusive evidence that cigarettes cause lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease.

And where does everyone stand on the geocentric universe controversy? Phlogiston? Plate tectonics? Evolution? Falling water tables in the SE USA?

Seriously, the fact that there are aspects of climate and climate change that we can’t affect at all doesn’t mean that there we don’t have an impact in others. That’s not a really hard concept.

Apr 2, 2009 - 10:34 am 72. Benson:

For MS: yes, it’s not hard to believe that humans have an impact on climate and climate change. It’s also not hard to believe in ghosts and, as you say, phlogiston, which was indeed believed in for many years, and it’s not hard to believe that excess stomach acid causes ulcers, though it is not true (and two docs won the Nobel for debunking the myth).

Let’s add to that list of things that we can believe in these two really simple principles:

1. If in fact rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused climate warming, then we would expect to see that whenever CO2 goes up, temperature (after a pause) goes up. In fact the exact opposite takes place, with the claimed cause following the claimed effect.
http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_09/contoski-warming.html
It is not at all hard to believe that higher levels of CO2 do not and can not increase climate temperatures, because that’s what the data of tens of thousands of years show with total consistency. But for some folks, it’s not only impossible to believe the truth, it’s irrelevant.

2. It is not hard to believe that we have an excellent idea of the percentages of gases in the earth’s atmosphere. In fact we do.
http://www.popsci.com/node/24073
It’s not a stretch to believe that we have a very good idea of how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by human activity; it turns out to be less than two one-thousandths of one percent.
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
http://http//www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html
(Two sources, one from a “global warming is man-made” site, the other from the opposition.)

That makes it pretty easy to believe that if somehow mankind were able to reduce its production of CO2 by eighty percent — an impossibility — two things would happen: (a) the global economy would be wrecked, and (b) there would be no impact on global climate.

What we believe and what we find easy to believe are interesting topics, but they can backfire on you when you cling to the concept that a cause can follow its effect. “The dead guy killed himself with a pistol, after doing which he purchased the pistol, loaded it, put it to his temple and pulled the trigger.”

When you consider the facts (however hard they may be to believe) that Al Gore’s award-winning film contains nine errors in the crucial parts of his argument,
http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
and that the “hockey stick” graph he uses to show that our industrial age is driving temperatures up is a proved hoax,
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
you wind up with a case for anthropogenic global warming that is Out To Lunch. Not hard to believe, yes, because of Gore’s preaching and ranting; but correct? No.

Apr 2, 2009 - 11:26 am 73. Jim Baker:

MS,
I don’t smoke and amazingly, I think for myself. I am conservative but I am not often persuaded by Rush Limbaugh’s beliefs. Do you think for yourself or is the Gang Green providing you with your belief on the subject of global warming?
Because Limbaugh believes that the health affects attributed to smoking are not proven and because he also believes that man made global warming is unproven, it does not follow that believers in the latter opinion are, by necessity, believers in the former.

Apr 2, 2009 - 12:14 pm 74. GLN2:

MS–doesn’t mean that there we don’t have an impact in others.

I am a conservative, which means I believe in it to the highest sense of the word. Conservation is something I support, full! But my scientific beliefs are based on fact. And that is also why I do not believe in EVOLUTION either. I do not need government supported (by tax payers) propaganda to form my opinions and deeply held beliefs. Research these things with an open mind and heart and you will find the truth for yourself. You don’t need the Greenies or Government or talk show hosts to tell you or indoctrinate you. I do not want nor do I need the Feds to pay for supporting or farthing my beliefs. But the FAITH the Global Warming Crowd has is not based in fact. Because, like EVOLUTION, it is a religion, NOT SCIENCE! Like evolution, after being proven wrong in many areas, climate change advocates still use the same brain washing rhetoric to lie to your children in schools. And also like evolution, they use the tax supported Government Schools to do it. If you want to support them, fine! Just don’t use public funds to do so!!!

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

http://www.drdino.com/

Apr 2, 2009 - 2:23 pm 75. Marie Claude:

EVOLUTION and OR CREATION are human theories, therefore subject to doubt and are endorsed until further discoveries. Believing in one or the other theory is of oneself perception and faith, though EVOLUTION has a larger pannel of scientific analyses that can be contradicted, then re-updated, depends on the new researches results, while CREATION is standing on its first dogma

Apr 2, 2009 - 4:16 pm 76. azpatriot:

Climate models are GIGO; Garbage In, Garbage Out. Leave out water vapor, oceanic influences AND the Sun?

And “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. “Consensus” is a political concept, not a scientific one.

Apr 2, 2009 - 7:57 pm 77. Benson:

It’s established that CO2 is not a driver of temperature and we know that both Gore’s film and the “hockey stick” graph are hoaxes. Skeptics are not involved here — it’s science versus junk science.

Helpful: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf

Apr 2, 2009 - 9:22 pm 78. Jim Baker:

There is nothing scientific about evolution and it’s offspring, environmentalism. These are faith based belief systems and, in that respect, are just like creationism. However, the practitioners of each are financed differently. The environmentalists extort from the people through the tax dollars unwisely spent by pliable politicians. Creationists pass the collection plate among the people to sucker them into giving back. I favor neither but I can’t make near as much noise as either of these groups of zealous believers. And, as we all know, he who shouts the loudest wins.

Apr 2, 2009 - 9:38 pm 79. GLN2:

azpatriot–that’s perfect! Much said in few words.

Jim Baker–Well said, but the “believer” in Creationism has a choice to give in the collection plate. The tax payer does not! We are forced to give to the junk science of the modern environmental movement (ie: MMGW) and EVOLUTION thru tax dollars to schools. Worse yet our kids are then spoon fed these in Government Schools, again with no choice. There is a big difference my friend. It is very unbalanced!

Apr 3, 2009 - 5:21 am 80. Reginald Perrin:

I guess the moral of the comments here is that if I can find a link to a website with an article that supports my view, then I have conclusively “debunked” the other side…
In terms of the thesis of the main article, I take it that historical climate variations are proved; I myself have studied many “liberal” history textbooks from the grade school to the college and post-grad level that refer to these events, even textbooks written by and used by those in the dreaded liberal “academy”. The History Channel has run specials on the “Little Ice Age” and the “Year without a Winter”. So no rational person of whom I am aware denies non-anthropogenic climate change. But just because you have a valid premise doesn’t make your conclusion correct; simply because non-anthropogenic warming occurs does not mean that anthropogenic warming cannot occur or isn’t occurring. The existence of anthropogenic warming would just be much harder to prove and predict (and, for what it’s worth, the current climate change “models” are truly deserving of major scepticism, for this among other reasons). It’s just as fallacious an argument as the argument, oft repeated in the comments above, that because it seems to be getting colder where I live, the world as a whole cannot be getting warmer. Perhaps conservative arguments would receive a warmer reception if conservative reasoning weren’t so often flawed and dogmatic (and paranoid — just who is it who wants a world government, and why? Even if you wanted to control the world, why would you want to control an impoverished one? But then, raving paranoia probably won’t make sense to the rational….)

Apr 6, 2009 - 2:21 pm 81. Reginald Perrin:

I might also point out that the article would be more convinving if the historical data cited within it were correct. In particular, plagues occurred at many times other than those you refer to. Prof. Kagan would probably be pleased to tell you about Greek plagues that occurred during the Peloponnesian Wars. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius died of plague, and the Empire was ravaged by it during his reign (2nd Century AD), seriously hindering his efforts against the Marcomanni and other German and foreign peoples outside the Empire. Droughts and famines are often regional; review the records of pre-Little Ice Age Gaul/France to see how local droughts and famines could exist just a few score miles from areas of plenty. All that we can really say is that climate is a terribly complicated thing, and we lack sufficient accurate data, both historical and current, to make accurate models with good predictive effect, or to understand other than in the grossest terms how the world’s climate workds.

Apr 6, 2009 - 2:29 pm 82. Jim Baker:

Reginald,
Just say man-made, and call it twentys instead of scores, okay! No offense, but I got tired from reading your posts. The author was trying to talk in time frames the enlightened can relate to. Truth is, we can’t even fathom the time frames involved in climatic changes.

Apr 6, 2009 - 8:11 pm 83. deguello:

MODEST PROPOSAL:Make every democrat yuppie suburbanite,sell his BMW or SUV ,use the money to buy GM built rickshaws,(to be pulled by their soon to be unemployed children or illegal mexicans) ,while the rest of us can continue to enjoy our cars.

Apr 7, 2009 - 9:08 am 84. Elsa Nichols:

If I remember correctly, Rush Limbaugh said SECOND HAND smoke has not been proven to cause cancer and other diseases. He is a former cigarette smoker and I’m sure he didn’t quit because he didn’t like it.

Apr 11, 2009 - 7:53 am 85. John Radzilowski:

Sir,
Your basic point is correct, but it is too simple to assign the rise and fall of civilizations to climate change.

The Medieval Warm Period was evident by 1000 AD. This did contribute to the High Middle Ages which was a brilliant period of growth in art, culture, economics, and learning. This was the era of the great cathedrals. By 1300, the climate was cooling. The Renaissance occurred after 1350 but most of the great art and learning happened in the period after 1400, when the cooling trend was well underway. Ditto with the Age of Enlightenment and the Reformation which happened during a period of cooling, the so-called Little Ice Age.

Apr 12, 2009 - 8:39 pm 86. Linda F:

Don’t wish to be nit-picking here, but the theory is the end (or, near-end) of the process. What is at the beginning is the hypothesis.

Apr 13, 2009 - 1:31 pm 87. Roderick Reilly:

A couple of corrections from someone who supports the author’s basic premise:

As noted above by others, the implication that the Renaissance familiar to most people ocurred in the High Middle Ages, rather than later — actually during the early stages of the “Little Ice Age” — is sloppy research. Also the “plague” you referred to was an earlier one than the noted Black Plague, but yes, at least one such plague did indeed occur in the Dark Ages. Also, it’s over the top to say that the Sun gave “little warmth,” in the Dark Ages since the variances in solar dimming are really quite small (assuming any such “dimming” even occured in the Dark Ages). The “Little Ice Age,” by the way, wasn’t really an ice age, and the name was given much later, of course, for dramatic emphasis. It was merely colder than what we today consider normal for a temperate climate.

Incidentally, some AGW proponents insist that the Medieval Warming Period never occured. I bring this up because inacurate anecdotal “evidence” has been used in support of their having been such a warming period, and zealous AGW proponents pounce on such discrepancies. For instance, the much-promoted anecdotes about wine grapes being cultivated in the British Isles. Grape cultivation doesn’t require a Mediterranean climate, although the latter climate is optimal for wine grapes. Climactic evidence of other types supports the notion of medieval warming, rather than agricultural anecdotes.

Apr 13, 2009 - 2:50 pm 88. Alicynx:

I think that there is an important factor missing in this piece, and that is the fact that CO2 emissions have sharply increased with the Industrial Revolution, and that fact cannot be ignored when speaking to climate change.
If you have an empty basin and start to put water in, you have lenty of time before it overflows; if you start with a half-full basin, however, the time it takes to overfill it is cut in half respectively. Before we started dumping carbon into the atmosphere, there was an empty basin that warming and cooling had to work with. Now that basin is half full, and the warming doesn’t just lead to better summers – it leads to weird weather that can cause spectacular damage (see Katrina et al). The Romans did not have the atmosphere we do now, so you’re comparing apples to oranges. Even the Earth of 1816 did not have the obsenely large hole in the ozone layer that we have today, allowing for even more harmful rays to enter our atmosphere. Its not a simple matter of “well, we were fine then, so you’re all full of it” – thousands of scientists are deciphering the signs of humanity’s effect on the planet, and they’re coming to a concensus that the last 100+ years have indeed impacted the way our planet self-corrects. Unless you’re speaking from a background in physical science, with some sort of citations to back up your argument, you are only contributing to the circle jerk of the uninformed, who have no desire for the truth, but only to back up their own misguided beliefs that nothing could be wrong.

Apr 17, 2009 - 1:41 pm 89. GLN2:

Alicynx-they’re coming to a consensus

Again, consensus in NOT science! Let’s all continue to seek the facts. What ever side of this issue you are on, the facts not scare tactics or rhetoric will prove out when history is written.

“back up their own misguided beliefs” – sounds like the green crowd!

RHETORIC!

Apr 23, 2009 - 7:54 am 90. Glenn:

Yes, “seek the facts!” “The earth has warmed.” “Warming periods have occurred throughout recorded history.” “SUV’s” don’t drive “these ancient cycles.” All true, but there is one more relevant fact. Sure there have been cycles, but the earth’s temperature is now warmer than any other time in the last 400,000 years. We are beyond all previous maxima. “Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and historical records) show that the 1990s is the warmest decade of the millennium…” The author’s conclusion that, since there have always been cycles, this must be part of a cycle, has no validity considering ALL of the facts.

True, “consensus is not science,” but the Global Warming consensus is driven by the science. While there have been inaccuracies and overstatements and inadequate models, there have also been adjustments and corrections. The science is very sound. That’s why there is consensus. It’s based on the facts. Seek them, and you will find!

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:07 pm 91. DAVID THOMAS:

The last comment displayed, from Glenn, is one of only a few among the other 89 which is objective and lacking in cant. The amount of spelling, grammatical and factual errors in these is alarmingly high, considering the serious nature of the topic.

Jun 25, 2009 - 8:31 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: