Russ Greenlaw, Livermore
A recent article in the local daily, Nov. 26, on giant sequoias damaged by forest fires committed a terrible sin: they mentioned that some trees showed burn scars from the year 1297 as being in the ‘medieval warm period.’
Any such reference implies that there was a non-warm period both before and after said 'warm period.' This contradicts a cardinal rule of the climate change lobby, which holds that climate was constant until the industrial revolution. If there were a warm period preceded and followed by cold periods, then the climate must be cyclical, a violation of climate dogma.
A television program several decades ago documented that in 1308, European scribes noted a cold summer when crops failed, centuries of cold following. (California Department of Water Resources tree ring data clearly show the cold period becoming warmer starting roughly 300 years ago). Now, if it were true that the climate swings in cycles (if not exactly periodic), it cannot be that industrial society is to blame for the present slight warming.
Shame on the local daily for inadvertent truthfulness.