Al Gore and carbon tax would have saved Roman Empire

[Charlie M.]

Roman made climate change warmed Earth for centuries.

[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, and what part Al Gore and Carbon Taxes had to do with said execution, nearly a Millennium after.
The complete image:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroi_de_Charney

Actually, the article was fairly well written, if a little narrow in focus. At least it got a few facts right- the Earth's Climate _was_ warmer during the Roman Era, something that has never been in dispute. And then the Climate changed, something that Climates tend to do for all sorts of reasons. There is some dispute about how much Human activity has had to do with the most recent change. The dispute is only in the matter of degree.
The Koch brothers are not fools; they found their Diogenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller, and he told them with great precision and certitude that the Earth was warming, and they are adjusting their long term plans accordingly.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07...pollution/

Of course, the Brothers are into it for the money only, and since they can make money off of Climate Change Denier Idiots as well, they do so.

Eustace

(Disclaimer: I knew Richard Muller slightly, and had a few conversations with him, on the Lab shuttle bus. We talked about Physics mainly.)

[OWC Jamie]

climate change is 100% man made, fool.

[$tevie]

eustacetilley wrote:
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, and what part Al Gore and Carbon Taxes had to do with said execution, nearly a Millennium after.
The complete image:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroi_de_Charney

Actually, the article was fairly well written, if a little narrow in focus. At least it got a few facts right- the Earth's Climate _was_ warmer during the Roman Era, something that has never been in dispute. And then the Climate changed, something that Climates tend to do for all sorts of reasons. There is some dispute about how much Human activity has had to do with the most recent change. The dispute is only in the matter of degree.
The Koch brothers are not fools; they found their Diogenes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller, and he told them with great precision and certitude that the Earth was warming, and they are adjusting their long term plans accordingly.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07...pollution/

Of course, the Brothers are into it for the money only, and since they can make money off of Climate Change Denier Idiots as well, they do so.

Eustace

(Disclaimer: I knew Richard Muller slightly, and had a few conversations with him, on the Lab shuttle bus. We talked about Physics mainly.)

Thanks for the interesting and enlightening response. Glad I changed my mind and opened this thread.

[davester]

Robert Wilson, author of the paper discussed in the OP wrote:
"Our study doesn't go against anthropogenic global warming in any way," said Robert Wilson, a paleoclimatologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a co-author of the study, which appeared July 8 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The tree rings do help fill in a piece of Earth's complicated climate puzzle, he said. However, it is climate change deniers who seem to have misconstrued the bigger picture.

More information on the study here: http://www.livescience.com/21624-tree-ri...rming.html

What is it that drives the ideologues to seek out and quote completely out of context every scrap of data that they can twist into an indictment of global warming science? I can perfectly understand the motivations of ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers, and the people they give money to (i.e. Anthony Watts [Wattsupwiththat blog], Richard Muller [when he was a climate change denier...probably his funds are dried up now], etc) since they have money at stake in this. However, why are there so many other nut cases out there who do this? Our pet troll is not the only one...there is a vast right wing blogosphere that seizes on any fiction they can to push this idiocy.

[$tevie]

There's a certain kind of odd mentality at work there. Like the folks who become angry about vegetarians. Not disdainful, not amused, not dismissive. They become actually ticked off and talk about how upsetting they find vegetarians, and especially vegans, and even talking about forcing them to eat meat or beating them up or some such. I never understood why people who eat differently than they do seems so threatening to them.

It does appear that a certain segment of the population feels personally threatened when they think corporate America may be financially weakened or regulated or tweaked in some way. Quite bizarre if you think about it.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

davester wrote:
Our pet troll is not the only one...there is a vast right wing blogosphere that seizes on any fiction they can to push this idiocy.

I am starting to think that this is a fake troll designed to discredit wingnuts because it is so easy to prove wrong... or is it just an endemic symptom of the easily manipulated non-critical thinkers that the billionaire Super PAC's rely on....

[davester]

Expanding on what $tevie said, perhaps these are the same folks who assault gays and minorities and fight to take away their rights just because they feel threatened by them.

[max]

eustacetilley wrote:
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.....

[davester]

max wrote:
[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. 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, which some refer to as the eastern roman empire but is not universally accepted as such.