Talk:Medieval Warm Period/Archive 1

message: This article has a lot of discussion of global warming - why not move the third paragraph and greenpeace article to the global warming page and just say the MWP is confined as per the dictionary definition?Robert McFaul 00:30, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use dictionary definition 

message: (William M. Connolley 12:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: (William M. Connolley 17:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  M&M. And etc. 

message: I am particularly amused by his repeated attempts to remove references to the cooling trend in the 20th century - presumably because it doesn't conform to his prejudices.  Tsk, tsk William, this isn't how a scientist is supposed to behave.--JonGwynne 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do you keep deleting it?--JonGwynne 23:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Revert-Boy, but you're not allowed to remove relevant information just because you don't like what it says.  Oh yeah, and see how I can restore the integrity of the article without resorting to petulant reversion?  Perhaps you might learn from this example, but you'll forgive my I hope if I don't hold my breath...--JonGwynne 12:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 14:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you're the liar.  A trained monkey could use the comparison tool and see that my recent edits are all significantly different.  Why is this beyond your capabilities?  I know you're smarter than a trained monkey, why can't you do it?  Is is that you can't?  Maybe it is that you just won't.  You're obviously not stupid or blind.  What's the problem?  OK, I'll make you happy.  I'll revert it.--JonGwynne 00:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 21:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't make "cosmetic changes".  I sometimes rewrite things, but that is a different matter.  Let me see if I understand this, you know that my different edits are different and yet you insisit on dishonestly referring to them as revert anyway?  Hmmm, that makes you a liar.  But then I've known that for some time.  It just puzzles me that keep at it even after having been revealed as such.  A better man would have apologized and undertaken not to repeat the mendacious behavior.
Removed blatant and senseless personal attack by User:smithsmith Vsmith 02:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMC playing partisan games again 

message: Stuff from a quick look at grapes, not including English grape business being affected by a wedding. (see "New Wine into Old Bottles") (SEWilco 06:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapes 

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: * The globality or otherwise of the MWP is important. It belongs in the intro. Shuffling it down is POV.
: It is a minority view that its effects were not global.  I'm pretty sure previous versions had different phrasing in the intro to reduce its globality, or maybe that was in LIA.  I'll do it again here. (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 16:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the article says, "recently this view has been questioned", because the majority view was questioned.  The IPCC link only gives a few references about the MWP.  For that matter, the IPCC gives warming in eastern China as an example of lack of a global MWP because western China did not also warm; hardly surprising as, western China is the different climate of the Tibetan Plateau and is next door to the Siberian High.  The lack of warming in the warm tropics is hardly surprising, as warming has the greatest effect closer to the poles (or so I've been hearing).  And researchers are still referring to the MWP. (SEWilco 18:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 18:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globality of MWP 

message: * The Jones and Mann quote doesn't belong in the climate events section.
*: Jones and Mann (2004) note that most paleoclimatologists developing regionally specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP". Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.
: Doesn't it describe how climate researchers associate events to the MWP?  It seemed to fit right in as an intro to the various events. (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of MWP 

message: * Removing the words "IPCC" whilst linking to them is inexplicable.
: You've said the researchers are important, not the IPCC.  We often mention information and link to supporting material.  (SEWilco 21:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC 

message: (William M. Connolley 21:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: JG removed:
:: although less extensively than they are today  (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards; and the time of greatest extent of mediaeval vineyards falls outside the MWP)
with the bizarre comment Remove speculation and irrelevant/unsupported editorializing. The comment is supported; its not speculation. What it is is something that upsets JGs POV, and as a dedicated POV-pusher he doesn't like that.
He also removed: It has been argued a better name would be the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.. It would be more polite to inquire, on the talk page, if this can be supported, rather than implotely removing it. It can, of course, be supported .
Happily, it looks like JG is about to be banned soon  so we won't have to suffer him much longer.
::What fresh nonsense is this?  --JonGwynne 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JG got a reference in Science?  Well.  (SEWilco 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, wrong ref, nonetheless he's been banned anyway. William M. Connolley 19:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv'ing JG 

message: Folks,  I've changed mentions of the end of the MWP to be vague on dates, being no more specific than "14th century".  This is because what year the MWP ended depends on what criteria you use to define it and where you're measuring; certainly it was still warm most places in 1270 and Northern Europe was in cold winters and short summers by 1350, but points anywhere in between are matters of scholarly opinion ... and the scholars don't agree. More discussion on the LIA discussion page. Jberkus 05:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the MWP 

message: Hi!
In the 'Climate events/North Atlantic region' section of the article, there is this first sentence: 
" During the MWP wine grapes were grown in Europe as far north as southern Britain[4][5][6] although less extensively than they are today[7] (however, factors other than climate strongly influence the commercial success of vineyards, for example wine is made in Alaska today; and the time of greatest extent of medieval vineyards falls outside the MWP). "
I would dispute the phrase, "..for example, wine is made in Alaska today.."  since there are no grape vineyards in Alaska. Wine made in Alaska is made from many locally grown things including wild berries or dandelions, but any grape juice would have to be imported.
The fact that wine is made in Alaska today doesn't have any bearing on the commercial success of vineyards, since there aren't any up here.
Marty gla 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  making wine vs. growing grapes in Alaska 

message: did not begin in the 19th century. From 1945-75 global temperature fell. So much so that scientists of that time were predicting a new Ice Age. I deleted a line to that effect. SmokeyTheCat 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current global warming period 

message: Could someone write a stub for box core and link to it?  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.252.212.143 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have restored the external link questioning the basis of the hockey stick graph. Since it is in this article, then you need a counter-balance to keep the whole article NPOV, despite what Connolly thinks. I notice he refers to his own blog as a main ref in the Global warming articles. Peterlewis 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box core 

message: Watching a program (Mega Disaster: Mega Freeze on the History Channel) that mentions the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age they point out the drastic effects on Viking civilization throughout Vineland, Greenland, and Iceland. Do you think such effects are worthy of mention here or should be regulated to the viking pages?
--Wowaconia 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That effect is usually overblown a bit - the Little Ice Age probably had an influence on the Viking colonies, but so had shifting politics and interests (with Norman England and  the Crusades, the focus of European interest shifted from the North). We have a bit of information on this topic here, though not in encyclopedic form. It would certainly be interesting if we find some better sources than a TV program (and then one with a title that could be from Marvel Comics ;-). --Stephan Schulz 08:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Viking colonisation of Greenland and North America is well attested by archaeological evidence and the historic record of the Norse sagas. Warming of the climate allowed tree growth in Greenland, and crop growth to support the Vikings. Ice-free waters also led them to colonise Newfoundland and maybe further south in Vinland. Peterlewis 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking expansion and climate 

message: On what basis do certain editors contend that this is an unreliable source? Iceage77 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis that it is not in any recognized science citation index, in extremely few libraries, and that it  has been criticized as unreliable even by some of its own authors, and is, in general, crap. See Energy and Environment for some of the gory details. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So papers which cast doubt on AGW are rejected by "mainstream" journals, forced to publish in E & E, then dismissed on the basis of a rather thin ad hominem argument. Given the obvious censorship inherent in this process, it's hardly surprising that so many are sceptical of the "consensus". Iceage77 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting a paper rejected is normal - most top journals publish less than 10% of submitted papers. And the criterion is the quality and significance of the work - which gives papers deviating from the mainstream a bonus. Nobody is forced to publish in E&E, and an E&E paper has no value even by publish or perish criteria. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of Stephans argument was ad hom William M. Connolley (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. If it's published in E & E, it has no value. This is the very definition of ad hom. Proper scientific criticism is going on at CA . Iceage77 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Stephan didn't say If it's published in E & E, it has no value. He said On the basis that it is not in any recognized science citation index... and various other things that you could have read yourself had you bothered to. What is the point in asking questions if you won't bother read the answers? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan clearly said "an E&E paper has no value" so it's you that is not reading the answers. The fact remains that this paper meets all the requirements of WP:V. Iceage77 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Iceage, the paper has no value as a CV item for the purposes of tenure and other academic credentials.  I am not familiar with this journal but in the areas that I do research (not climate related at all), there are numerous journals that allow publishing of ideas and research results that are not reviewed.  This is extremely useful for inventions that the inventor does not want patented, nor does he think it will pass review (or maybe it's not significant enough for more substantial publication).  The author can then publish in these journals to record it as "previously published" in case someone down the road tries to use the same invention.  There are no standards for inclusion.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That said, is the author of the piece an expert in this field?  Wikipedia has been using blogs as reliable sources for climate so I don't see how this is any different.  The author is named so it might be inclusionable on that basis.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E&E has a nominal review process, however, it has an academic reputation as being extremely lax and lop-sided in handling it. Also, the editor in chief is quite open in saying that she publishes papers to suit her own political agenda ("I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?" ). I don't know if that is an acceptable standard in the social sciences, but it is not in the natural sciences. Of course, that does not imply that the paper is necessarily bad, but it implies that it is not published in a WP:RS. Loehle's paper has previously been rejected from GRL (, comment 6), so that's an independent reason to be skeptical. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We accept non-reviewed blogs as reliable sources if the blogs are by experts.  Non-reviewed blogs are even less reliable than rejected papers or papers accepted to marginal journals.  The only question is whether the author is an expert.   I don't mind upping the standard of reliable sources, but that would mean that web sites such as RealClimate.org would not qualify as a reliable source.  I don't think anyone wants to do that so the standard for this source (which is the author Loehle) is the same as the standard for RealClimate.org which is the author is an expert.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in part. A WP:SPS can be reliable if the author is a recognized expert writing in his field of expertise. A rejected paper, however, is not more reliable than a blog - rejection does not necessarily mean a paper is bad, but it certainly does not confer any extra authority to the paper. So it boils down to the question wether Craig Loehle is a reliable expert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the question is whether Loehle is a reliable expert.  However I would twist your statement around: I would not convey any more authority to a blog, which has not been submitted for anything, than a "rejected" paper.  For example, if Loehle is an expert and he chose to self-publish his results on his blog, rather than submit it for peer review, it wouldn't have more authority because it hasn't been rejected.    He's either an expert and cited as such or he's not, but if we are going to allow WP:SPS sources, it's the whole Faustian bargain and published papers by experts, whether self-published or not, are citable.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a CV for Loehle on the web so it's hard to say. As best I can tell, he is a mathematical ecologist who only recently begun working in paleoclimate and reconstructions. He's published a couple of papers on that general topic but isn't nearly of the same prominence as RealClimate contributors such as Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Ray Pierrehumbert, and Stefan Rahmstorf who are widely recognized as leading scientists in their fields. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy and Environment 

message: It is referred to in section one but not identified. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typing it into the search box would have lead you to our article on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I've included the link. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the NOAA? 

message: but i don't know how to do i citation. The reference is http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf. Can someone add it for me, tell me how to do citations, or tell me where i can learn how to do them? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LaRouche movement publications are unreliable sources per arbcom. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've got a refference for it being world-wide 

message: The article says that NOAA pooh-poohs the idea of a MWP: "(NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric 'Medieval Warm Period' that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect".
But over at UCAR (which ought to be at least as likely to know), as of 2007 (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html) the The Medieval Warm Period (950-1100 AD) still exists.
Do I smell the stench of politics in this science article?
Consider further that the "Mayan Collapse" happened at the same time as MWP, and that the MC has been recently attributed to drought. Anyone out there still objective enough to fix these discrepencies? Twang (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from that very page you link to: "The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in Europe" (emphasis mine).  I'm not particularly familiar with Mayan history, but according to our article on the Classic Maya collapse, droughts in Yucatan coincide with cold temperatures in Europe. Also, the collapse was more or less complete the end of the 9th century, i.e. before the MWP starts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Its being done this way, because thats the way reliable sources do it. For instance the NAS and the IPCC (as well as several science papers). Your assertions of the IPCC using "tricks" certainly do not give an impression of NPOV btw.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Energy and Environment is not a reliable source. See many other discussions, as well as the E&E article itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOAA or UCAR 

message: The lede uses the term "unusually", though there is no basis or context for this term ("unusual" compared to what?).  Please provide basis or it will be removed. --Skyemoor (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unusually" Warm Climate 

message: I don't see how wiki can cite the NOAA website opinion piece on MWP when it is neither endorsed by NOAA (see the disclaimer) not give scientific justification for its conclusions. Especially at such length and with an unidentified author. This is surely heresay? 125.237.12.51 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is "endorsed by NOAA" - they wrote it. The disclaimer refers to "links to web pages which are not part of the NCDC web family". And the authors are, of course, given in painstaking detail at . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad refernces.... 

message: From NewScientist: "Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered". (02 April 2009).
This appears significant and important new research on the so-called "MWP".. I'd try adding to the article, but probably someone who is better versed in the science could do a better job.  Green Cardamom (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NewScientist: "Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered" 

message: is probably meaningless without knowing what they mean by CWP William M. Connolley (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CWP 

message: Would anyone mind if I replaced the misleading temperature graph with have at present with this more accurate one?
 (Source IPCC 1990)
 SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: WhatFile.txt? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I was just uploading it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would mind if you replace a large ensemble of recent climate reconstructions with a 20 year old schematic with unclear copyright status. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ....which represents Central England temperatures - and not global.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I won't cause a fuss. England is not in a climate bubble so it seems a fair sample. Anyway, I don't have an axe to grind. If we're all still here in 20 years time all the present global warming hysteria will be long forgotten and laughed at, just as we laugh at the predictions of a new ice age which were all the rage in the 1970s. It's no skin off my nose. Having just endured the coldest Winter in 20 years the whole thesis is looking distinctly pear-shaped now. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this opinion. It displays very well just how deep your understanding of the domain is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The graph at the beginning of this article should be removed as the black hockey stick line ending with the astrix 2004 clearly represents the totaly discredited Yamal treemometer.
As per Steve McIntyre http://www.climateaudit.org/
Sun Spot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.246.58 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better graph 

message: The graph is a compilation of a number of datasets around a mean.  What mean was used for each of the data sets?  Are the means different for each dataset?  Since these are comparative, the mean (and offsets of each dataset) is somewhat important for a relative comparison.  I didn't see a citation for the methodology of the overlay.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Robert's page, "each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap." Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get an up to date graph, this hockey stick stuck in 2004 is ridiculous and an embarrassment to wikipedia. Don't you wiki censors know how ludicrous this graph is ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.239.216 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval warming Graph 

message: The graph at the beginning of this article should be removed as the black hockey stick line ending with the astrix 2004 clearly represents the totaly discredited Yamal treemometer.
As per Steve McIntyre http://www.climateaudit.org/
Sun Spot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.246.58 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you perform the distinctly tricky procedure of clicking on the graph and reading the caption - hard, I know - you can discover that the black line is the instrumental data. It seems that you are "lacking in clue" William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, not the place for a protracted discussion.  But something has always bothered me about that graph and that's the statement "The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison" ... it would be better not to include an unsmoothed point (from 5 years ago) and even it is included "for comparison" it should not be connected by black line to the rest of the series.  It should be a single point.  I don't believe I've read the caption incorrectly. HarmonicSeries (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get an up to date graph, this hockey stick stuck in 2004 is ridiculous and an embarrassment to wikipedia. Don't you wiki censors know how ludicrous this graph is ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.239.216 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's stuck in 2000 or earlier for most of the reconstructions. The instrumental temperature record is updated frequently, but, as you might have notices, this article is about the middle ages. Has someone invented a time machine and gone back to change the climate in 1231? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruct Temperature, Graph 

message: [RfC tag deleted]
I contest the changes — either it should actually go according to the MoS: medieval warm period (or Medieval warm period for the title), or (better) it should stay Medieval Warm Period as it is used almost consistently throughout literature. Lars T. (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: renaming of article according to [[WP:STYLE]]? 

message: What's with the Hockey Stick graph? That graph is at least 50 years out of date.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/nhem_reconsml.gif
This one's more accurate. It shows the little ice age in all its glory but doesn't quite show how warm the medivel warm period is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.202.222 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your picture is of the original hockey-stick (notice the caption: Mann et al. (1999)) - while the picture on the page contains several reconstructions, most of them newer. --Kim D. Petersen 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hockey Stick Graph 

message: Has no-one considered the concept of grape varieties?  New strains of grapes are created all the time.  Eg the Bacchus grape that is commonly grown (because it can be grown in colder climates) in the UK has only been available for general cultivation since the 70s.  I would propose that viticulture is a bad proxy as the Romans didn't have access to varieties such as the Bacchus grape.  The climate changes but so does mankind's ability to cultivate.
Another aspect to consider is the demand for grapes.  A change in culture could increase a demand for grapes hence an incentive to breed and plant different strains.  Of course I'm being speculative here but wine popularity has generally been on the increase in the UK in the last few decades.  More demand means more opportunity and incentive for farmers to experiment with grapes as a crop.
What do you think? TheJoff (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, demand has been much reduced, at least relative to population and supply. In Roman and medieval times, there was a strong cultural (Mediterranean culture revolved around it) and religious (for last supper rites) demand for wine, but wine import was very limited and expensive. Nowadays, you can buy a bottle of Chilean or Romanian wine for a Euro or Pound in Britain . But yes, the whole point of the section is to point out that viticulture is indeed a bad climate proxy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Grape Varieties