I suppose that might be true, but why should it necessarily be? I am just wondering what makes you say this.
--- On Sun, 8/3/08, Dave Tooke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Dave Tooke <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Archaeology & Climate
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 2:17 PM
> You may find that modern populations are more constrained
> than ancient ones
> in the way they can move at will about the planet.
> Dave Tooke.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Haseler"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Archaeology & Climate
> > Orion wrote:
> >> At 05:48 PM 8/3/2008 +0100, Mike wrote:
> >> .
> >>> Put it another way, I don't see people
> starting to settle "Green"-land,
> >>> nor do I see mass population movements
> attributable to the 20th century
> >>> upswing, but this is the kind of affects that
> have been ascribed to
> >>> fairly mild temperature changes (if one is to
> believe the global
> >>> warming/climate scientists when they say this
> is the worst upswing
> >>> ever!)
> >>> Mike
> >> Do you think they are really 'scientists',
> Mike, or are they politicians
> >> trying to pass themselves off as scientists?
> There are 32,000 real
> >> scientists who do not agree with that bunch.
> >> om-global-warming-consensus/
> >> Orion
> > Orion, global warming is an extremely complex &
> interesting subject. But
> > far more interesting is how climate is used in
> archaeology to explain
> > various changes in population.
> > My concern is that according to many archaeologists,
> climate has had a
> > strong influence on populations, whereas the present
> proven upswing at the
> > end of the 20th century had no discernible impact on
> modern populations.
> > The implication is that archaeologists are blaming
> climate when it
> > demonstrably has very little impact. So are
> archaeologists being dishonest
> > to refer to climate as a population driver?
> > Mike