4 ms·

The headline says it all. Warmest in a thousand years. There were far fewer humans, no internal combustion engines, etc. So what was the catalyst for the pre

The headline says it all. Warmest in a thousand years. There were far fewer humans, no internal combustion engines, etc. So what was the catalyst for the previous warming? Climate change is a political movement rooted in communism. I’m sure I’ll be downvoted but I’ve been hearing this for 50+ years.

adammarples 4y ago
It is thought that the medieval warm period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity. It is thought that the current warm period is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions.
- Blackstrat 4y ago
  And we no longer have solar radiation variability?
- aquarium87 4y ago
  You are forgiven for thinking that scientist believe humans caused this warming. They both do and don't. 97% of scientists DO believe that humans have at least SOME impact. 3% believe humans have Zero impact. But that doesn't say anything, anything at all. It's a propaganda piece. 97% of scientists COULD believe that warming is 99% natural, and that stat would be technically correct. It simply doesnt have any meaning. The question that is rarely asked or claimed is what percentage is natural and what percentage is anthropogenic?
satiric 4y ago
The headline doesn't necessarily mean that it was warmer 1000 years ago. We might just not have accurate data past 1000 years. In addition, climate change doesn't mean that all temperature measurements are consistently higher all the time. It just means the average global temperature has increased. So measurements at a specific site don't mean much (yes, that means that this article doesn't mean much either. You need an average of many sites across the world to come to a realistic conclusion). It's also worth considering how fast the temperature is changing. The average global temperature has been hotter than it is now, but it rose and fell at a far slower rate than it does now.
- Blackstrat 4y ago
  Actually, once the heat islands are accounted for, the temperature increase is roughly halved. Even Obama’s climate adviser admits there’s less than claimed. Or Lomborg. Or go back and read Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, or further back Malthus. These folks aren’t Cassandra. They are snake oil salesmen. Simply observe those who are profiting most from promoting the hysteria: Gore, Kerry, Gates, Klaus Schwab, et al. Or notice that those screaming the loudest live in luxury, travel on private planes, etc., e.g. DiCaprio. Everyone who buys into this simply increases the mass of useful idiots to the detriment of all. Now several years into retirement, I have the advantage of having watched this play out for more than 50 years. Hopefully, those of you who are much younger will avoid drinking the kool aid and selling yourselves into slavery.
  - satiric 4y ago
    I think part of the problem might be that the biggest numbers get the most publicity. So if one person says it's +1 degree and one person says it's +2 degrees over the same time period, the more dire prediction will win. So it's hard to get a realistic estimate because you mostly just hear "it could be as bad as ###" and "it could only be ###, that's not too bad".

adammarples 4y ago

It is thought that the medieval warm period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity. It is thought that the current warm period is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions.

Blackstrat 4y ago
And we no longer have solar radiation variability?
aquarium87 4y ago
You are forgiven for thinking that scientist believe humans caused this warming. They both do and don't. 97% of scientists DO believe that humans have at least SOME impact. 3% believe humans have Zero impact. But that doesn't say anything, anything at all. It's a propaganda piece. 97% of scientists COULD believe that warming is 99% natural, and that stat would be technically correct. It simply doesnt have any meaning. The question that is rarely asked or claimed is what percentage is natural and what percentage is anthropogenic?

satiric 4y ago

The headline doesn't necessarily mean that it was warmer 1000 years ago. We might just not have accurate data past 1000 years. In addition, climate change doesn't mean that all temperature measurements are consistently higher all the time. It just means the average global temperature has increased. So measurements at a specific site don't mean much (yes, that means that this article doesn't mean much either. You need an average of many sites across the world to come to a realistic conclusion). It's also worth considering how fast the temperature is changing. The average global temperature has been hotter than it is now, but it rose and fell at a far slower rate than it does now.

Blackstrat 4y ago
Actually, once the heat islands are accounted for, the temperature increase is roughly halved. Even Obama’s climate adviser admits there’s less than claimed. Or Lomborg. Or go back and read Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, or further back Malthus. These folks aren’t Cassandra. They are snake oil salesmen. Simply observe those who are profiting most from promoting the hysteria: Gore, Kerry, Gates, Klaus Schwab, et al. Or notice that those screaming the loudest live in luxury, travel on private planes, etc., e.g. DiCaprio. Everyone who buys into this simply increases the mass of useful idiots to the detriment of all. Now several years into retirement, I have the advantage of having watched this play out for more than 50 years. Hopefully, those of you who are much younger will avoid drinking the kool aid and selling yourselves into slavery.
- satiric 4y ago
  I think part of the problem might be that the biggest numbers get the most publicity. So if one person says it's +1 degree and one person says it's +2 degrees over the same time period, the more dire prediction will win. So it's hard to get a realistic estimate because you mostly just hear "it could be as bad as ###" and "it could only be ###, that's not too bad".