One thing I would like to see more of, say beyond the benefits of raising cattle in Greenland circa 900 AD, is a study of how humans have historically fared in warm and cold climates throughout our recorded history.

A first order comparison of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm periods for instance shows that during all three of these climatic optima human civilization has flourished.

Conversely, the cold periods following each of these optima coincide with periods of mass migration, starvation, chaos, and plague.

Then again, I suppose its far smarter for historians to keep quite. What with gorehounds on every campus maintaining the “consensus”.

That position would be Optimistic Climate.

For myself, I believe that increased temperature and CO2 rises are entirely naturogenic.

Furthermore, I believe that that temperature rise and other associated (but not necessarily correlated) changes are beneficial to mankind.

And finally, I have put out predictions resulting from increased temperature that I believe to be more accurate than those of the IPCC, including:

1) Increased arable land due to warming.

2) Increased rainfail in desert areas such as the Southwest, Gobi and Sahara deserts (I am already monitoring some data on the southwest — NOAA — where certain daily percentages of rainfall are 300% to 500% above normal!). I see a great lowering of the seas — not a flood. I have been monitoring some tide data where it appears for the last few years there are more low tide anomalies than high tide anomolies.

This leads us to the idea of “What to do” about it. Far from building climate shelters on moutains, we need to be standing around with baskets to scoop up all the manna that’s starting to rain on us!

Plus ca change…

Or consider their classification of Roger Pielke Sr. He is put solidly into the “skeptic” crowd- even though he believes in anthropogenic global warming. (He take the view that the IPCC exaggerates everything. But then again, he does not think that they are actually wrong about the science.)