Talk:Medieval Warm Period/Comments
The article gives very little information about its topic itself, namely the medieval warm period in Europe and its implications for life at the time. It emphasizes too much all kind of information about specific incomplete measurements in other parts of the world and tries to downplay the subject itself. If I lived in Europe at the time I would have felt teh effect however and was not aware of global means. Why is that? This is not a (climate)political debate, there are other and better places to do that. I am here for raw or commented quality information on the subject itself, the global story and the opinion of factions I am quite capable of finding myself in the places where they are prime subject.
It is troubling to me that this article presents a one-sided perspective from climate alarmists while ignoring substantial evidence against claims made herein. Specifically, the Medieval Warming Project at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php suggests that the preponderance of studies conclude that the MWP was substantially warmer than today's temperatures (see http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php for details). The substantial reliance on the work of Mann and Jones, whose ethics and/or competence have been called into question by disclosures in the ClimateGate scandal makes this article a mockery of scientific process and completely unworthy of Wikipedia. I strongly recommend a more balanced approach that admits that there is substantial disagreement by reputable scientists (see list at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php) with the conclusions presented here and offers readers the competing evidence until such time as there is a scientific conclusion on the matter that replaces the imaginary political "consensus" represented by this article. Sapienthetero (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Validity as representation of scientific consensus
The article is weak, as a previous comment notes, in its lack of detail on the effects on life at the time. It does not seem to be politically tendentious, but it is suspect scientifically because of its reliance on the study by Mann et al., whose claim that the MWP was not warmer than today has been challenged credibly by many peer-reviewed studies summarized well enough by Singer and Avery (2007) and elsewhere. It egregiously fails to note possible explanations for the warming and subsequent Little Ice Age based on the well established Dansgaard-Oescher oscillation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)