Capitalist Climate Cola (with a side of global warming hockey stick info)

Capitalist climate cola, originally uploaded by oxpeaceart.

It’s the real thing.

This picture is superimposed over the now well-known ‘hockey stick’ graph showing temperature compared to CO2 concerntrations.

The hockey stick graph superimposed on the image here (here’s an original version of the chart) has been used by climatologists to underscore their claims that recent temperatures on earth are significantly higher than in past centuries. It’s among the most compeling arguments in support of global warming.

But it’s not without its detractors. Some have argued that the graph is faulty, phoney and misleading. Supporters of the research, in turn, have charged that those who are against it have been funded in part by oil compnies.

According to Michael Mann, one of the developers of the original research, “Ross Gelbspan—he’s a former editor of Boston Globe—has written two books on the connections between industry funding, in particular funding by ExxonMobil, and these climate contrarians. The vast majority of them appear to receive funding from industry sources.”

For background and to inform yourself on this debate, here are some sources for information on this debate:

1. The wikipedia entry discussing the issues surrounding the graph as it was published.

2. Ain interview on Mother Jones magazine with Michael Mann, on of the developers of this data and a founder of realclimate.org.

3. This article which questions the accuracy of the hockey stick graph

4. Another article questioning the hockey stick data

5. A detailed, annotated response to the criticism of this data posted on realclimate.org

FYI – Here’s the original hockey stick graph:

technorati tags:, ,

5 thoughts on “Capitalist Climate Cola (with a side of global warming hockey stick info)

  1. In order for the hockey-stick to be correct, you have to ignore the Medieval Warming Period. Try looking into sun/cosmic ray cycles. Those seem to have an effect on cloud formation, which appears nowhere in climate research.

  2. Interesting comment — so, you are familiar with Henrik Svensmark’s work in this area. Thanks for the comment.

    I’m actually very open to Dr. Svenmark’s ideas — however, I’m not ready to accept that man is having *no* impact and cosmic rays are everything.

    From Dr. Svenmark’s Wikipedia entry: “In June 2007, the ideas of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen were challenged in a paper written by Mike Lockwood of the UK’s Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland which was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in June/July 2007.[2] Their study concluded that the link between increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere and global warming was substantially more significant than that between cosmic rays and global warming.”

    Even Dr. Svenmark has stated he belives there is a link between CO2 and global warming (see my earlier post here.)

    But thanks for reading and thanks for commenting. I appreciate your contributions and hope you stop by again.

    Kevin

    ps. I hope the weather in Hawaii is nice this time of year…

  3. Pingback: 8 Great Global Warming Podcast Episodes / Series

  4. i think this is a classic case
    of advocates for change
    allowing themselves to get bogged in the details
    and losing sight of what’s important.

    advocates of radical change see “the hockey stick”
    and so see evidence that is
    “among the most compeling arguments in support of global warming”.

    some of us see problematic use of statistical analysis
    but remain advocates for change
    and so are stuck in the middle.

    others have vested interests in avoiding change
    and use these same reservations about statistical analysis
    to insist that this “evidence” is “fake” or “misleading”.

    advocates for change should not rise to this bait.
    there is no reason to rise to this bait.
    if those with conflicted interests
    would rather side with oil profits
    than the well being of their own children and grand children,
    then let them do that.

    if radical climate change on that scale is real,
    other evidence will become available.

    why allow ourselves to get bogged down in a pointless debate
    about a single graph
    with people who are never going to change their minds
    not because they are too stupid to see the reality
    but because the opinion is bought and paid for?

    the problem is,
    to “the masses” both sides are bought and paid for.
    big oil on the one side
    “radical environmentalism” on the other.
    (aka Luddites who want us to live in caves and eat moss.)

    you will not sway the masses by debating the details
    wrapped around a single piece of evidence.

    personally i think all of global warming is a red herring.
    who cares if global warming is real or not?
    shouldn’t we want to conserve and recycle and reuse
    whether a fiery hell on earth awaits us or not?
    shouldn’t we want to do these things
    simply because it is -better- to do them then not to?

    it sounds way too much like those christians
    who get saved not because they want to be better people
    but because they want to avoid an eternity in Hell.

    i remember environmentalism from the 70′s and 80′s.
    it wasn’t about global warming.
    it wasn’t about debatable topics and statistics.
    it was about the fact that pollution is ugly
    and it makes people ill.
    we’ve lost a lot of ground with global warming
    with the general public
    because global warming involves geology
    and geology is the science of millenia
    and most people are not willing to think in millenia.
    it’s just too big.

    and that’s the problem with this graph.
    it is a graph of millenia,
    and there simply isn’t reliable data that old to back it up
    and there simply isn’t the patience and insight
    on the part of most people to think on that scale.

    let’s go back to the crying native american
    who looks out at a spoiled wilderness
    and convince people to stop pollution
    (without all the complicit racism of course).

  5. Pingback: Paris Hilton Sex Tape Video 2 - Paris Hilton Exposed *HOT*

Leave a Reply