Al Gore and carbon tax would have saved Roman Empire

[eustacetilley]

Thanks, davester; I actually composed a reply to max's comment, and then discarded it, because it pointed out, as you did, that there is no modern consensus as to when the Empire fell, or as Pirrenne believed, it just shifted Eastward and transformed, partly in response to the rise of Islam, and that except for a few pockets, the were no "new" Dark Ages.
But not only was the response pointless in this case, it veered away from the puzzle that I first addressed- why that particular artwork? Why not show the full thing? Did burning Templars in mass quantities contribute to Late-Medieval Global Warming? Or was it a veiled reference to Conspiracy Theories, many of which center on the Templars?
My personal belief is that the author just wanted a pretty picture, and cut it to suit. Sort of like what they did to the facts and quotes in the article. Lewis Page does a better job of this nonsense in theRegister.

Just a little side-note: Muller was never a Denier; he was a Skeptic, and there is a difference. He just wanted better Science, and better Math, and he went out and got them, and he conned the Koch's into paying for it. As far as I know, he never benefitted financially from the study.

Eustace

[max]

davester wrote:
[quote=max]
[quote=eustacetilley]
Frankly, I fail to see how the arrest, trial, and execution of Geoffroi de Charney in 1314 has anything to do with saving the Roman Empire, which fell nearly a Millennium before

This has nothing to do with this discussion except for the fact that Roman Empire did not fall until a century a half later.....
If you didn't think that you already knew everything, you might have been able to figure out that the painting that the OP posted is in fact a depiction of that execution. What is your point? I was quite clear to the subject and limits of my post.
I did not refer to the OP, the painting, but solely to the end of the Roman Empire.
This another of your straw constructs.

davester wrote: Also, your statement regarding the fall of the roman empire depends greatly on whether you are referring to the western roman empire (generally what people are referring to when they say "roman empire", or the byzantine empire,.

No, it does not depend whether a geologist starts temporizing about historical geopolitics.
Nor does it depend on people's ignorance of history.
When Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium in 330, the Roman Empire did not cease to exist. It continued until its fall in 1453....