Actually this period right now (Holocene I think its called) seems to be about optimal for humans - it's probably why civilization has exploded during it.

Both global warming and cooling would have major effects and neither would be good for us.

Also civilization exploded just as much during the Little Ice Age as during the MWP

Yes, the Holocene Interglacial, you have it right.  

On the issue of optimal climate for humans I have to point out that we are not a static species in terms of survival capabilities, we have a wide range of climates we can survive in and warmth happens to be one we thrive in quite a bit where as cold is significantly harder on us (both from an exposure to the elements as well as food development standpoint, ie the basics of shelter and food). And these are only what we are capable of now without evolutionary advantages (both biological and technological) that would come about if the climate did change to a large degree to allow us to adapt to the situation.

Extreme temps can obviously be bad, but the fact is that there is a reason more people live near the equator than live near either pole.  We are better equipped biologically to handle heat than we are cold. 

Your answer (and Kasz's) are one of the main reason, why I love the offtopic-forum here. Many intelligent people, where you can learn some new things and points of viewing from and with who you can have a great debate.

That said, some notes as well^^

Point A: I'm not that kind of climate-nerd, to get myself into a large research about antarctica-ice-levels, but from what I've read, many scientists do agree with you, that the extent of ice is growing.

Where they don't agree with you is on another level. More widespread ice means, that this comes from somewhere. While still possible, most of the ice just doesn't come out of the ocean (if you've ever tried to freeze salty water, you probably know, that the freezing point is -21 °C or -5,8 °F) it's ice that comes more or less from the antarctic continent itself or it's outpost glaciers. They drift away, causing, the total area of ice to widespread. Ergo: Bigger Area, but lower thickness of the ice itself. This argument actually makes a lot of sense in my opinion. To try it at home, put a big ice cube in your bathtube and then but some smaller ice cubes with the same or higher overall volume in it. I'll bet, that the big ice cube will last the longest^^

Point 2:

Thanks for clearifying my point here, I didn't want to go to deep into this. Everything you write is true, but the big thing, we have to talk about here, are the primary forest better Co2 killers or mono-cultural forests. From what I've read and heard, it's the not economical used natural forests (this doesn't mean, that you can't create economical forest with a great mix, but in average the natural ones have simply more variety and therefore can transform more Co2).

Point 4:

That is actually the big, big question. What happens next. And if it's just a natural effect, how can we make sure, that it doesn't effect to many people in bad ways. Nature is cruel in general, but we are humans and if we can't control nature in one or the other way, there will be a lot suffering in affected countries and a little bit less in primary unaffected countries (immigration etc.). And that's what it's all about. If we can make sure, that some deserts in africa don't widespread faster than they probably do anyway with lowering carbon emissions, we should try it.

Sounds plausible, but I've just read an article yesterday (it's in German, so I doubt, a link would help you), where they complain about this very fact. Would be interesting to know why scientists still keep the stations though...

No, this shows that several major players in pushing the AGW theory have engaged in at best unethical and at worst illegal activities in their efforts to avoid FOI requests and possibly in regards to some of the work they have done.

The correct conclusion, imho, is that climate science needs to be thoroughly rechecked under a new 100% transparent process that adheres to and supports the adverserial process of the Scientific Method as its most fundamental principle.  Or in other words what people were told was going on before these e-mails came to light.

With that said, the impact of this leak will continue to be felt for quite a while as new information is discovered and newly available data and code is finally subject to critique.

Additionally, if the information was actually stolen and not carelessly leaked (as has happened with FTP sites in the past) then there should also be consequences for the individual who perpetrated the act.  Well intentioned or not, it is a crime and it shouldn't be ignored.

I love how all the agw scientists say that the science is concluded, that it is a fact. Hate to break it to them but science is never done--it is revised continuously, not to prove an opinion.

And that is the point of this thread - that the largest research group that proposes AGW exaggerated claims.

This doesn't change that we need to be better stewards of the environment. However, it does mean that the extremists are wrong.

That's the real problem... and it's one all scientists should learn.

If you spend a lot of time around scientists...  you learn that most of them actually don't care about science... or rather they do.  They just don't care about doing it the right way.

They only care about their field, and even more specifically, their specialty and their own outlook.

Once most scientists get something in their head, no amount of anything can get them to think otherwise.  Rather then be flexiable because of their training and being taught science, the opposite almost always seems to be true.  Scientists tend to be even more rigid and unflexable because they feel they're smarter then everyone else on the issue.

It's why they always try to hammer in research methods class "You try and prove what you don't believe." when it comes to the scientific method.

It's understandable.  People don't becoem scientists because they're nuetral towards science.   You pick a field of science because you have a STRONG feeling for that science.  So obviously you have preconceived notions and biases that are going to cause you trouble.

For example people choosing climatology right now likely are doing so because they feel strongly about global warming.

Then throw in things like getting research grants... and if you concede your research has been wrong and start over... that really hurts your road towards tenure... and all the other economic factors... and you become even more rigid.

It's why it's said that there isn't really scientific evolution but scientific revolution.  Rarely do scientists of one theory say "We were wrong" and jump to a new theory.

Instead, usually it takes a few unheralded young scientists saying "this is wrong."  Eventually the older guys die out or get marginalized and the new view point wins the "revolution."

Even people like Einstein stuck to theories of their own that were wrong, even when evidence to the contrary seemed much stronger and based by math.  After they get a few years in their career... most scientists opinions aren't going to change much in their own field.

It reminds me of hisotrians.  They have a much wider knowledge of history, yet still generally hold the same opinions on laymen mostly because they were "history fanboys" before they knew as much.  Some of those "great" leaders who had a bunch of skeletons and did a lot of unethical things to get stuff done tend to get their bad acts rationalized away,

This post reminds me that I wanted to do a stories in science thread a while back...the idea being each poster adds an interesting story from the history of science that they know about.  Some of the past revolutions are beyond fascinating from both a human and scientific perspective but they can also be extremely instructive on how and why some modern scientist can be completely well-meaning but also completely wrong (this point is true generally of science, not just of all or part of climate science).

I guess Al Gore will have to go back to protesting naughty words in rock songs.