I think that the answer to this is that the 'little ice age' in north western Europe was a local phenomenon caused by, probably, changes associated with the Gulf stream. The point is that a decontextualised factoid such as this can give a wrong message when recontextualised without due regard for process! The original contest was that this was the end of a period in NW Europe known as the little ice age, when tempratures there had been unusually low and then returned to normal.

A single piece of data like this doesn't disprove that global warming takes place, only that we live in a complex climate system where local factors can over-ride global trends at particular times and in particular places. Of course this complexity can produce paradoxes whereby some times and places experience reversals of the warming trend as weather patterns shift. There is still little doubt that the overall trend in climate has been to increase temprature as carbon that was sequestered during the carboniferous period [when temperatures assisted by that same carbon, presumably] has been released back into the modern atmosphere.. These attempts to use the local and exceptional do not in fact disprove the rule; they are part of the the rule but at a greater level of complexity than is being allowed for.

I too wish that global warming would go away but I can't really get away from what appear to be a growing body of facts and interpretation pointing at the reality that it is happening and we humans are mostly to blame and we are going to have to deal with major issues of migration, disrupted food production etc before the century is half way. I hate that I have helped create a world that is going to be harder for my children than it has been for me. I am not a believer in global warming because I get a buzz out of doom-mongering. I would like my grandchildren to enjoy the fruits of progress but I have doubts that it will be a smooth ride by then.

Andii - I certainly agree that one cannot draw global conclusions from localized data, but I also suspect that (assuming your family is American) your children will enjoy a better environment than the one your parents had.

Time, of course, will tell.

Thanks for your comment.

I agree that local phenomenon or single factoids do not disprove anything. However, the reverse is also true--I trust Andii will speak out also to those who have been recently playing Chicken Little to the grieving folks in Florida and Bangaladesh claiming that recent Hurricanaes and floods are clear evidence of climate change. That is diversionary though, as the original point I took from Amy's post wasn't regarding whether climate change is occuring or not ocurring but rather whether industrial activity is the cause. The IPPC scientific panel has NOT concluded (I repeat has NOT) it's human activity--the political panel has.

Thanks, Tom. You are quite right. My point was that events occurring in nature sometimes are natural events.

Fair comments all. Just a few picky ripostes but no malice ;-)
I'm actually living in Great Britain and have not been part of any chorus over hurricane damage. Not sure who or what Chicken Little is so it is hard to comment on that point. Whatever the cause of a catastrophe, the toll on human life is tragic and the effects still have to be dealt with. For what it is worth the Bangladeshi floods are probably more to do with deforestation up river than climate change.

It is interesting that even here [in GB] we have been suffering more and higher winds in the last few years. I think this is *likely* on the whole to be an effect of global warming as greater energy remains in the weather systems ...

We should rmember the way that science works; following Popper et al. Verification is out; science can oly definitively falsify but lack of verification doesn't mean somethig is wrong or isn't happening. It would be wrongheaded to take refuge in lack of verification. For the record most scientists who have expertise in the relevant areas are saying that on balance they believe that human activity is a contributor to global warming. Please don't take refuge in their careful language; it's a shelter made of twigs.

ALso I stated "we are going to have to deal with major issues of migration, disrupted food production etc before the century is half way."
There appears to be agreement here that the climate is changing, though some dispute over the cause. In which case my concerns still stand. Climate change in itself is likely to cause enormous geopolitical change. Maybe the environment will be better or not for my grandchildren, but it wil almost certainly be different [and unpredictably so] and the geo-political situation that brings on is potentially terrifying.