Comments on: No SUVs Around During the Roman Global Warming ‘Crisis’

By: Alan C

Alan C — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:35 +0000

This is a joint statement issued in 2007 by the National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

“It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”

This is a joint statement issued in 2009 by the National Academies of Science of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States:

“Climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.” and

“Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”.

By: DAVID THOMAS

DAVID THOMAS — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:31:07 +0000

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.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:07:34 +0000

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!

By: GLN2

GLN2 — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:54:32 +0000

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!

By: Alicynx

Alicynx — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:41:09 +0000

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.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:50:11 +0000

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.

By: Linda F

Linda F — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:31:29 +0000

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.

By: John Radzilowski

John Radzilowski — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:39:36 +0000

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.

By: Elsa Nichols

Elsa Nichols — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:53:08 +0000

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.

By: deguello

deguello — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:08:54 +0000

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.