“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Roman-Era Tree Ring Study Finds Natural, Cyclic Climate Change

image - Roman Forum

Ruins of the Roman Forum (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Hill and Reuters discuss a study published in the journal Science today which found that climate change may have played a factor in the fall of the Roman Empire.

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.

image - tree rings

Tree rings (Source: Wikimedia Commons

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.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


65 Responses to “Roman-Era Tree Ring Study Finds Natural, Cyclic Climate Change”

  1. Doc! Do not go gentle into that good night! Have a good tomorrow!

  2. Now you tell me. Where were you when I needed that advice. I know. I know, doing the hokey-pokey

  3. No excuses! You already said your Mom warned you!

  4. Mendel’s work didn’t come until long after “Origin of the Species” and the subsequent developments in genetics depended on Mendel’s work, but not one tiny bit on Darwin.
    Now, good night, Brian.

  5. It was about 13 years ago and to the best of my recollection by study of both was done in tandem.

    And radiometric dating isn’t to me based on assumptions; it IS based on assumptions. Even an honest secularist geologist will admit that; they just assume that the assumptions are accurate. Those assumptions include: that we know the decay rate has not changed since the rock was formed, that we know there was no daughter element present at the time the rock formed, that we know nothing leeched either parent or daughter element away since the time the rock was formed, that we know no new daughter element was introduced to the rock sample by a process other than the natural radiometric decay of the parent element, etc. That’s a LOT of stuff to know over the course of theoretical millions of years in the absence of any observation or record (it would be hard enough to know with certainty over 100 years, much less a million or more).

    Oh, and the rocket? If the 98% of physiCists were making wild, unsupported and frequently-demonstrated-to-be-inaccurate assumptions about the rocket, and the 2% had never been proved wrong in 3,000 years, I’d ride the latter in a heartbeat. In fact, in a sense, I’ve placed my eternal soul onboard that second rocket and strapped it in.

  6. Rest well amigo. Pax vobiscum

  7. Wonderful poem Gina—Rage, rage against the dying storm. Can’t remember anymore SO will look it up again. Thanks Gina !

  8. Wonderful poem Gina—Rage, rage against the dying storm. Can’t remember anymore SO will look it up again. Thanks Gina !

  9. DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
    By Dylan Thomas

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
    And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

  10. Well I flumbed the little bit I thought I knew, but my heart was there. Thank you so much for sending

  11. Hope your evening went well. but disagree with ” subsequent developements in genetics depended on Mendel’s work, but not one tiny bit on Darwin ” Simply not true. When ‘ Origin’ came out and evolution came out, geneticists began looking at genetics differently. All of a sudden they realised that genes/ alleles are themselves actually capable of changing an organism. Bang.

    How could this happen. What causes this–are questions they began asking and their research and ideas on what genes could do was forever changed. Evolution caused the geneticists to think differently about the genetic code and the science was off in that direction and they haven’t held back since.

    Evolution caused a revolution in how geneticists thougt and researched their science. They( evolution and genetics) are inextricably linked because of Darwin’s ideas !

  12. “For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution….But there was not one thing I knew about it… So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, “Can you tell me any one thing that is true?” I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School”….over the past few years….you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

  13. Interesting and not sure why these people couldn’t answer the ‘ one thing that is true’ question. Maybe they were caught off guard,stoned, hungover or whatever, but all they had to answer is ‘ Man descended from others species ‘ and that would have been the answer to name one thing that is true about evolution