Congressional Hearings Break 'Hockey Stick'

Originally posted by Redmike
Of course it matters what economic system you are under.

With a capitalist system, the greed for profits supercedes everything else.

Where there is no profit, more egalitarian considerations like the environment can be considered.

So, for example, only under capitalism would an oil company oppose the development of non-fossil fuels for cars, because it would affect their profits.

then how do you account for the fact that china and russia have smoke stacks galore yet aren't soley focused on corporate profits since most industries are nationalized.

While China/Russia may not be Marxist/Lennonist they certainly aren't capitalist.

Originally posted by Palynka
Here's the brief of a NAS report that is linked on a page that your article links.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

I'm willing to concede that the activities of man might have had some effect on climate change, however, its impacts are difficult to project according to the NAS report cited. I still contend that the timeline we've had for measuring the temperature of the planet has been far too short to conclude anything. Also, it is my belief that much of the debate has been taken over by the shrill sycophants of Al Gore, who would lie, cheat and otherwise shout down anyone with an opinion contrary to their religion. This was demonstrated by their slavish devotion to the accuracy of the hockey stick and the media’s failure to publicize its debunking. So, contrary to Al Gore, the science is not finished and the debate is not over. Indeed, until we have credible data as too the extent and impact of climate change, I think it would be foolish to enact any policies that would hamper economic growth. Many scientists and economists agree that because Kyoto's costs would be massive and its impact would be negligible -- even if everyone participated and hit their limits on limiting greenhouse gases -- it might be best to just live with climate change and mitigate its effects wherever we can.

Originally posted by uzless
It is definitely crap if you only look at 1400 years of history. Thankfully, some of us don't limit our view of history to the recent past.

1400 years may seem like a long time to a monkey but geologically speaking it's just a blip.

The hockey stick model applies if you take a longer view...say 400,00 years. In fact, the hockey stick model applies to ...[text shortened]... d then, "hockey stick like" the population shoots up like a rocket.

It's all related.

Except for the part about the Ice Age that killed all of the plants and the great lizards.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Except for the part about the Ice Age that killed all of the plants and the great lizards.

The Ice Age(s) didn't kill off everything. Many things survived. There have been several ice ages throughout the course of history. And the Ice didn't cover the entire globe.

Originally posted by uzless
The Ice Age(s) didn't kill off everything. Many things survived. There have been several ice ages throughout the course of history. And the Ice didn't cover the entire globe.

I'll take my chances with global warming.

Originally posted by uzless
then how do you account for the fact that china and russia have smoke stacks galore yet aren't soley focused on corporate profits since most industries are nationalized.

While China/Russia may not be Marxist/Lennonist they certainly aren't capitalist.

In Russia, most industries are privately owned. In China, they are state owned, but still capitalist - they are still run for profit.

If Russia and China aren't capitalist, what are they?

I'm not saying theat without capitalism, there would be no smoke-stacks.

Just that dealing with environmental issues would be a priority, ahead of the pursuit of profit.

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
Your reference is another half-truth that only serves to mislead readers. It only gives values up to 1950 for christ's sake! The whole debate is about what is happening from the latter half of the 20th century onwards.

Current CO2 levels are 380 ppm:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/index.php#global

This value is [b]way above all values of CO2 shown in your graph.[/b]

Well spotted, I honestly haven't seen it.

For temperature, though, the difference between 1950 and 2000 is still less than one degree which is still under some of those peaks.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg

Originally posted by Redmike
In Russia, most industries are privately owned. In China, they are state owned, but still capitalist - they are still run for profit.

If Russia and China aren't capitalist, what are they?

I'm not saying theat without capitalism, there would be no smoke-stacks.

Just that dealing with environmental issues would be a priority, ahead of the pursuit of profit.

???? Capitalism is defined as the ownership of the means of production is privately owned, not that industries can't be operated for profit. Even collective enterprises can be operated on a for profit basis.

Originally posted by no1marauder
???? Capitalism is defined as the ownership of the means of production is privately owned, not that industries can't be operated for profit. Even collective enterprises can be operated on a for profit basis.

You've never heard the term 'state capitalism', as used by some to describe the economics of the USSR?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The 'hockey stick' picture of dramatic temperature rise in the past 100 years following 1,700 years of relatively constant temperature has now been proven false. I just thought all of you global warming alarmists would want to know.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19734

Probably because the "hockey stick" diagram is CO2 concentration through time.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 report (based on the 'hockey stick'😉 concluded that man has influenced climate change, not the NAS report. Perhaps you saw something I'm unaware of?

How about the fact that the last 15 years have all been higher in temperature that the long term average. The chances of that are some half million to one. How about the fact that there is great data, especially from the Vostoc cores which go back some 700,000 years and show a fantastic correlation between atmospheric CO2 conc (measured directly from gas bubbles in the ice) and temperature (infered from 18O concentration of the ice, against known standards). How about the fact that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has went up by 36% since the start of the industrial revolution.

Want some more?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Except for the part about the Ice Age that killed all of the plants and the great lizards.

What are you talking about? You may not have noticed, but there are lots of plants. If by "great lizards" you are referring to dinosaurs, well, they died 65 million years ago due to meteor impact.

My offer to debate any point on climate change stands.

Originally posted by Palynka
Not CO2, at least. Nor the temperature.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/2.jpg

Source: UNEP. (United Nations environmental programme)

The current atmospheric CO2 conc. is 381 ppm.

Originally posted by scottishinnz

My offer to debate any point on climate change stands.

I can guarentee you won't get a serious scientific debate from this guy, so you would be wasting your time - his idea of scientific debating is to make wild claims with either no reference to back them up at all, or use a media article or reference produced by an energy company-sponsored think tank.

Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
I can guarentee you won't get a serious scientific debate from this guy, so you would be wasting your time - his idea of scientific debating is to make wild claims with either no reference to back them up at all, or use a media article or reference produced by an energy company-sponsored think tank.

I appreciate that, but if he refuses that merely shows the weakness of his point.