Interestingly, the Reuters article does what the “mainstream” media usually does with scientific data: twists it to support their politically correct assumptions despite a lack of evidence to support those assumptions.
I’m referring to these paragraphs in the Reuters article:
The study said the evidence, helping back up written records that are sparse in Europe more than 500 years ago, “may challenge recent political and fiscal reluctance” to slow projected climate change in the 21st century.
Modern societies seem less vulnerable but “are certainly not immune” to climate change, especially because migration “will not be an option in an increasingly crowded world,” they wrote.
This study examines a period of history which goes back hundreds and even thousands of years, long before the socialist target of blame for global warming ever existed: industry. Reuters “conveniently” ignores the fact that there were no coal power plants, no manufacturing plants, no SUVs, no airplanes or other industrial human activity existed during the Roman era…yet this “news” organization attempts to draw a parallel between climate change during the Roman era to modern warming which we are expected to believe is due to all that evil capitalist activity.
This study really isn’t a new revelation (we’ve long known about natural and cyclic climate change that goes back hundreds and even thousands of years–though you’d be looking in vain to hear much about it from the “mainstream” media). The Vikings colonized Greenland around the 900s AD when it was warm enough to grow vineyards, but had to abandon the area when it became too cold a few centuries later. Still, this study in Science does seem to be a fresh look at the information through an examination of tree ring data.
The article points out some interesting things that get almost completely lost in the media spin. For instance, it has long been understood that while there are some downsides to warmer climates, generally speaking, people and their civilizations usually do better in a warmer climate than a cold one (re: the Viking colonization of Greenland). It simply makes sense that warmer climate is more conducive to agricultural production (necessary to feed a growing civilization) as well as building infrastructure, travel, commerce, etc. Conversely, cold makes it difficult to grow crops, build, and maintain a thriving culture. Some believe that, in addition to pressure from the Huns in the east, a cooling period may have been what drove the barbarian tribes of Germania southward and put pressure on a Roman Empire already teetering from internal problems.
From the Science article:
When Büntgen showed the data to historians and archaeologists, they pointed out remarkable consistencies with what we know of past societies. At times of social stability and prosperity, like the rise of the Roman Empire between 300 B.C.E. and 200 C.E., Europe experienced warm, wet summers ideal for agriculture. Similar conditions accompanied the peak years of medieval Europe between 1000 C.E. and 1200 C.E.
In short, if we had to choose a warmer climate or a cooler one, a warmer one would make more sense.
But that is another–perhaps the most important–fact that gets lost (buried?) in most discussions of climate change: do we have a choice? When you cut through the propaganda, the speculation based on “fudged” computer models, the socialist hysteria, and examine the actual scientific and historical data, the answer is clear: no. There is nothing we can do about climate change in either direction.
Climate change has been going on without man’s help throughout history. Volcanic activity, solar activity, the oceans and a host of other natural mechanisms determine what happens with the climate on this planet. It is hard to understate the incredible arrogance contained in the unfounded assertion that global warming is anthropogenic; humans have gained a lot of knowledge, but we are not remotely knowledgeable enough or powerful enough to change earths’ climate.
The far smarter course of action would be to end the futile prattling and hand-wringing over a natural phenomenon we can’t change, and devote our full energy toward boosting the economic engines of all our nations (which is, of course, done through maximizing economic freedom, not oppressive socialism). With a fully thriving economy, human beings will be in a much better position for the invention and development of technologies which can help us adapt to natural climate change and ride out climate conditions we cannot change.
That is, if we decide the intelligent course of action is more desirable than the political course of action.