The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was an unusually warm period during the European Medieval period, lasting from about the 10th century to about the 14th century. It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. The MWP is often involved in contentious discussions of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
The Medieval Warm Period varies little between different studies.

Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Those damned knights should have bred more fuel-efficient horses! They nearly destroyed the planet!!

People worry too much about the world ending. If everyone dies, whoTF cares? No one will be around to, so let's all just party.

People worry too much about the world ending. If everyone dies, whoTF cares? No one will be around to, so let's all just party.

I'm with you, buddy :nice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Those damned knights should have bred more fuel-efficient horses! They nearly destroyed the planet!!
I wish I could say this is the stupidest argument in the arsenal of the climate sceptics, but unfortunately it has a lot of competition :(

I'll just say again: no one has ever said that nature doesn't affect climate.

no one has ever said that nature doesn't affect climate.

and no one can prove whether the current change is caused by nature or by man.

and no one can prove whether the current change is caused by nature or by man.That's right. But, it won't stop certian people from trying to force mass changes in our way-of-life and from ruining our economy.

That's right. But, it won't stop certian people from trying to force mass changes in our way-of-life and from ruining our economy.

Improving efficiency in the use of resources is not going to destroy anybody's way of life. It's a good idea in general.
Any economic model based on wasteful excess isn't going to last anyway, climate change or not.

Yep. Emissions controls on cars, for example, didn't do a damn thing to hurt the economy in any way. Imagine what the air would be like now if the chicken-little worry warts that wrung their little hands in despair got their way back in the late 60s and early 70s... Technology and innovation have created cars that are so much cleaner and more efficient that they very often are "cleaner" travelling down the highway than their 1960s counterparts were sitting in the garage. Or the air exiting the tailpipe is cleaner than that entering the airbox.

Emissions controls on cars, for example, didn't do a damn thing to hurt the economy in any way.

sure they do. They add costs to the cars.

That doesn't mean that the cost is unreasonable, but to say they have NO effect is goofy.


Imagine what the air would be like now if the chicken-little worry warts that wrung their little hands in despair got their way back in the late 60s and early 70s...

didn't have the technology back then. So the the "sky is falling crowd" had to rely on the fake science of Rachel Carson, a bitter cancer-infested woman who thought her cancer was a result of chemicals.




Technology and innovation have created cars that are so much cleaner and more efficient that they very often are "cleaner" travelling down the highway than their 1960s counterparts were sitting in the garage. Or the air exiting the tailpipe is cleaner than that entering the airbox.

And don't you think that tech will continue to improve our lives?

The way the enviro-theists present the argument is almost exclusively along the lines of "humans are weeds that are destroying the Earth" variety.

No one can currently imagine what the tech will be in 40 years.

Just like they have absolutely no idea what the temp will be in 10 days let alone 10 years.


Go ahead, call me a "flat-earther".

No one can currently imagine what the tech will be in 40 years.
Just like they have absolutely no idea what the temp will be in 10
days let alone 10 years.

The research and development that goes on today is directly affected by what the national priorities are. If people think non-polluting technologies aren't important, the politicians won't think they're important, and funds for research and development won't be available for this technology. Thus, in 10 years you won't see much improvement.
I can understand how some of the more extreme claims related to climate change make many people skeptical. Skepticism is good most of the time. But, you can still be skeptical of climate change and support investment in new technologies that reduce pollution and increase efficiency. It's the most sensible reaction to the unknown potential effects of climate change really.

and no one can prove whether the current change is caused by nature or by man.- I'm not entirely sure where you've gotten this idea from, but in the way that is meaningful in science - yes one can.

If you're talking about "proof" in the strictest sense, the only areas in which anything could ever be "proven" is math and philosophy.

and no one can prove whether the current change is caused by nature or by man.

Irrelevant. Do you believe cutting down most of the worlds forest and burning millions of years of stored carbon within coal, oil and gas within 1-200 years would have no effect on the climate?