Nowadays? Also probably not, because the only people who seem particularly likely to do that kind of cherry picking are denialists, and the Little Ice Age fits their narrative.
I could not directly give an affirmative answer, how ever, I can inform that the possibility of someone using a heat wave to discredit an ice age is very possible and likely. Given the fact that political forces twist the reports and findings that have been, into far fetched status, they do it merely for the reason of making a profit and gaining political and industrial control.
The ice ages (and heat waves) have been in the findings for ages, then, recently, we get all this contrary finding. It is the product of a political machine, mostly from the left. Al Gore is a multibillionaire.
Yes there is pollution from industry, but not to the extent that is being claimed from the far left as to where we must shut down all the factories in the world and lay off all the workers and put environment before the people. It is only a bunch of elite who want to take over the Earth for the more well to do, not save it.
Yes. I would certainly bet that talk of heatwaves were used to discredit ice ages, plainly for the reason that they can then blame all the global warming on job-creating industries. As much as they would be happy to put all us second class working folks out of work, they would also be glad to have all the land for themselves after pushing the rest of us off. Then, they will, of course, come out with findings that the ice ages were real and that the warming was not so much caused by our industries. Sorry for the long wind but I think the points here are what can answer the question at hand.
Don't know, but I heard one guy on here claiming retreating ice was exposing plants that have been carbon dated to the little ice age. Kinda like the opposite.
Not that I know of...but the existence of these warmer and cooler periods of time in history tends to refute the extreme AGW alarmist position. Besides, there are vested interests behind all this rhetoric today. Much of the Energy Industry is now behind it (figuring they'll win with carbon trading, and such), while the "Greens" like it as it mostly aligns with their agenda...and they figure "Hey, if we go a little overboard, what the hell?!!" Others, simply because they like the idea of being with the majority (what is fashionable)...sheep to the slaughter.
The winning position insists on hard data and scientific methodology..and tends to be skeptical of outrageous claims. The AGW premise does not fly in light of this position. It is pseudoscience....and politics.
Assuming that those who lived in the year of 1650 knew what an Ice Age was.
Can you expand a little?
