As liberal members of the media promote the claims made by climate alarmists, the former don’t mention the elephant in the climate alarmists’ living room. That elephant is a little something called the Medieval Warm Period.
The Medieval Warm Period was a case of global warming that took place before the start of the Industrial Revolution.
It would be reasonable to ask what caused the Medieval Warm Period, since it apparently wasn’t caused by Mankind’s activities.
Instead of answering that question, climate alarmists have tried to delete the Medieval Warm Period from history. Either they claim that the Medieval Warm Period never happened – as in the case of Michael Mann’s infamous hockey-stick graph – or they claim that it wasn’t really global.
Such claim have been refuted by climate scientists.
Here is the the abstract of a science article titled “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula”, published by Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115).
The last sentence states, “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”
Now, here is the introductory paragraph of a 2003 press release issued by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Cambridge, MA – A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
It is one thing to claim that Mankind’s activities have contributed something – even if it is minor – to a present-day period of global warming, which is what that alleged 97% consensus actually says.
It is another thing to claim that Mother Nature can’t be the primary cause of a present-day period of global warming, which is not what that 97% consensus says.
The former claim is reasonable. The latter claim isn’t, because historical climate data refutes it.
Climate alarmists can continue being deniers by turning a blind eye toward the elephant in their living room, but members of the general public don’t have to.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, the study described in the above-quoted press release was funded in part by NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.