27 Sep 06
Originally posted by uzlessYou aren’t a critical reader are you? Neither H. Sterling Burnett, the NCPA, nor the Heartland Institute make any claims about the accuracy or reliability of the ‘hockey stick.’ However, the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. David Legates, Delaware state climatologist and director of the Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware, performed the research, held hearings and reached the conclusion that the hockey stick model is hooey.
Ha, how can you possibly use Heartland.org as your reference? Those guys are sooooooo frickin right-wing its a joke. These crackpots actually try and argue that the directors of ENRON, (Lay and Skilling) weren't responsible for that Fiasco. Those two should be strung up a pole and shot (even the dead guy) but oh no, here's what your "source" had to say abo ...[text shortened]... . Worse still, some people may actually believe the junk they read from sites like that.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOk, ritter, I agree with you that the hockey stick is crap. However, the same study also shows evidence that mankind has a significant influence over global temperatures.
You aren’t a critical reader are you? Neither H. Sterling Burnett, the NCPA, nor the Heartland Institute make any claims about the accuracy or reliability of the ‘hockey stick.’ However, the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. David Lega ...[text shortened]... med the research, held hearings and reached the conclusion that the hockey stick model is hooey.
Would you agree with that or do you want to contradict the science of the NAS?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIf its global and all countries are capitalist, how can you identify it as the cause?
I don't see what's vague about it.
I didn't say any countries weren't capitalist.
We're talking about a global economic system, which is having a disastrous impact on the environment (to bring it back to the topic).
Oh, of course, utopias don't pollute the air because they don't exist.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThe 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?
Ok, ritter, I agree with you that the hockey stick is crap. However, the same study also shows evidence that mankind has a significant influence over global temperatures.
Would you agree with that or do you want to contradict the science of the NAS?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIt 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.
You aren’t a critical reader are you? Neither H. Sterling Burnett, the NCPA, nor the Heartland Institute make any claims about the accuracy or reliability of the ‘hockey stick.’ However, the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Edward Wegman of the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. David Lega ...[text shortened]... med the research, held hearings and reached the conclusion that the hockey stick model is hooey.
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 many other human statistics over time. Check out the world's population figures since man first walked on the earth. For thousands of years the population is relatively flat, and then, "hockey stick like" the population shoots up like a rocket.
It's all related.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, I'm saying that, without capitalism, it would be possible to bring environmental damage under control.
No, the fact is that the caption 'capitalism' is essentially meaningless because it includes all economies.
Capitalism is the cause of the problem. The fact that it is global is irrelevant.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeCheck out the historical temperatures (and CO2) over the last 400,000 in the graph I've linked. Any reduction of such fluctuations into a graph suggesting a line with a sharp increase at the end is deceiving.
Just to be clear, what is it that you think is crap? Is it a proposed mechanism (e.g. co2 rising leading to T rising) or an observation (e.g. co2 or T rising)?
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIt's false that it can't be brought under control with capitalism. Or are you muddling it again with pure free markets?
No, I'm saying that, without capitalism, it would be possible to bring environmental damage under control.
Capitalism is the cause of the problem. The fact that it is global is irrelevant.
The cause of the problem is industrialism, regardless of the economic system.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHere's the brief of a NAS report that is linked on a page that your article links.
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?
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaFor once we may be in agreement.
It's false that it can't be brought under control with capitalism. Or are you muddling it again with pure free markets?
The cause of the problem is industrialism, regardless of the economic system.
Gases coming out of smokestacks and tailpipes are the cause of global warming...not the political system.
They have just as many smokestacks in china and russia as they do in the United States, Canada, England etc.
When you burn natural resources as a fuel, it doesn't matter what political stripe you are wearing.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYour 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.
Check out the historical temperatures (and CO2) over the last 400,000 in the graph I've linked. Any reduction of such fluctuations into a graph suggesting a line with a sharp increase at the end is deceiving.
Current CO2 levels are 380 ppm:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/index.php#global
This value is way above all values of CO2 shown in your graph.
27 Sep 06
Originally posted by uzlessOf course it matters what economic system you are under.
For once we may be in agreement.
Gases coming out of smokestacks and tailpipes are the cause of global warming...not the political system.
They have just as many smokestacks in china and russia as they do in the United States, Canada, England etc.
When you burn natural resources as a fuel, it doesn't matter what political stripe you are wearing.
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.