> At 10:11 AM 2/17/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>> Have archaeologists been over-egging the effect of climate?
> If so, Mike, they should be made aware that Nobel prize has already been
> (all be it hastily) awarded.
Orion, if you are talking about Al Gore, it's worth noting that he got a
Nobel prize for peace, not for science and certainly not for archaeology.
And if Al Gore is right and the present climate catastrophe which nearly
caused the Cairngorm ski centre to close (but as I can assert without
cause as the skiing was fantastic last weekend) ... if the "greatest
climate catastrophe that has ever happened to mankind ... nearly shut
the Cairngorm ski centre, how can any real disaster in world history be
attributed to climate?
Orion, please do tell me why archaeologists appear to have been telling
the public a load of lies for the last few decades! ... or is it just
possible Al Gore may have got it wrong?
If trees adjust to climate not be a reduction in the rate of growth in
any one tree, but a reduction in growth of the whole forest, not by a
thinning or thickening of the growth rings of an individual tree, but by
a thinning or thickening of the whole forest so that although the forest
responds to climate change, the tree-ring size does not and so the
apparent temperature remain fairly constant irrespective of actual
climatic temperature change.
To me the question is very simple:
1. Do I trust the archaeologists who see the effects of climate on past
civilisations and believe them that the effect of climate has had a
significant impact on humans and therefore must have been much larger
than the 20th century warming.
2. Do I trust the global warmers who seem to have a very political
agenda to convince the world of impending "climate catastrophe whose
interpretation of global temperature is that the present "catastrophe"
(which nearly shut down skiing at Cairngorm) is "unprecedented" and so
by definition all preceding climate change must have had much less
impact that the 20th century warming.