What do you think of the 1500 year natural warming cycle theory? Historical evidence suggests past warmings have been more intense than the present one, at least if there is no significant further warming.
The historical evidence is well documented and clearly points to conditions that could only be caused by warmer temperatures than we are presently experiencing.
This begs the question. Are the current conditions really exceptional as many AGW believers would have us believe. Would they try to erase history to convince us of their position?
http://www.cgfi.org/2008/08/27/global-wa...

Additional Details

6 days ago

Little -If farming on what is now ice covered frozen barren wasteland, is not good evidence of a warmer than today period, I don%26#039;t know what is. Maybe your holding out for time travel to collect data.

6 days ago

WDA - If what you say is true answer me this. Why is the MWP missing in the infamous Hockey stick graph? Why do so many proponents claim today%26#039;s warming is unprecedented, when clearly it is not, regardless of the cause? Why would believers try to minimize the observed historical data and favor far from real-world computer models? Yes I have thought of that, and it seems pretty fishy.

This site includes a number of other cycles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_varia...
the most well known (11 years) as well as 22 years, 87 years, 210, and 2300 years. There may be other cycles such as one that seems to be about 60 million years old. \

These are the scientific facts. Suggesting that CO2 is necessarily causing significant or harmful warming is gross speculation that has more to do with world view and politics than science. Alarmists try to suggest that recent warming must be due to man, yet current climate falls within natural variations so their conclusions become probematic. They try to settle this delima by pretending that it has never been as warm as today, or not in the last 100,000 years, and they try to gloss over the fact that climates change. The fact is climates change dramatically and have since we entered our current ice age.

Sophist is probably refering to the Toba volanic eruption 75 thousand years ago. This is what theoretically reduced our population, at least I have not heard any credible theories that suggest it was warming. I have heard ridiculous theories that global warming wiped out the dinosaurs (ridiculous IMO).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Aver...

The hockey stick did overly smooth the data, and the MWP doesn%26#039;t appear. But the National Academy of Sciences says it was basically correct. It%26#039;s been repeatedly duplicated with better statistics, showing the MWP as it actually was. Less warming than today, much slower.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

I believe you AGWers confuse the words theory and fact.

Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is theory.

Natural climate cycles are fact.

ok so i am going to go with what a bunch of farmers* think about climate change, rather than the scientific consensus? hardly. especially as the first two %26#039;examples%26#039; are our old friends %26#039;grapes in england%26#039; and %26#039;settlements in greenland%26#039;. yawn. get some more convincing evidence, please, i would really love someone to prove this (in my dreams)

* no offence, i work on the land myself. if i wanted to know about the effect of soil moisture on germination rates, i wouldnt ask a climate scientist....

%26#039;farming%26#039;? they were on the same lattitude as norway and iceland, where they came from. sure they farmed. hard life, but better than hanging for murder. probably mostly cattle though, i doubt it was grain crops much, maybe a bit of barley. afaik, they traded with the burgundians, swapping trapped animal skins for grain, cloth and wine etc..

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  more real than the AGW group can conjure up.