Animated Graph of CO2 Levels Over Time

shcb has made disparaging remarks about the hockey-stick graph, so I realize that he has some sort of theory for why it’s not compelling, even though 98% (literally) of the top currently publishing climate scientists disagree with him.

Even so, hope springs eternal that leading the horse to water one more time will finally get it to drink. And this graph is animated. Look, shiny!

48 Responses to “Animated Graph of CO2 Levels Over Time”

  1. Smith Says:

    Maybe you should just drown the horse.

  2. shcb Says:

    Knarly, I know the arguments and I know the theories, I’m just not convinced it is a crisis. Any study I have seen that frames this issue as a crisis uses Mann’s data as a basis, if they use the other 3 or 4 data sets it is a more of a problem than a crisis. Flying monkeys with I Wish I Had A Brain condescendingly playing in the background doesn’t change that.

  3. Anithil Says:

    I think you’ll find if you re-read the BEST mission statement, your claim that their mission statement is to end criticism is not exactly true. I only see that they intend to “address criticism”, or to “provide an open record for rapid response to further criticism or suggestions”. Sounds like you read your own bias into the mission statement of those liberal doo-hickey scientists.

    I realize this is probably a small thing to harp on. I also realize that you throw these things out there all the time, as part of your arguments. But you’ve run some of the numbers yourself, so you conclusion must be accurate. Not like those darn climate scientists with their numbers (their numbers are wrong!).

  4. jbc Says:

    Two things I want to say:

    1) I was needlessly rude and snarky in my earlier comment, and you (shcb) were reasonable and polite in your reply. Sorry for my attitude, and a tip-of-the-hat for your being rational in the face of my unreasoning hostility.

    2) I encourage you to apply the same reasonable, rational approach to conducting a re-evaluation of your position. The Berkeley Earth study ( was conducted by a group led by a noted skeptic of exactly those points that you’ve been skeptical of, with significant funding and expertise. They sought to invalidate some of the claims that you find problematic, using independent sources of information and careful statistical analysis.

    I would think the results of such an investigation would be of interest to you. I encourage you to look beyond sources like the Daily Mail piece posted earlier by Craig. You could look, for example, at the BEST study itself, or at least its FAQ page, at

  5. shcb Says:

    Yeah I did read my own bias into it a little, and I will say I am pleased they seem to be the first to provide not only the data but the code to their models, I should have said that earlier. It also seems Craig’s article is using that data against them, and now they have a chance for rebuttal, as any good debate should progress.

    UAH also publishes its data openly, I’m not sure if they publish the model code, and it wouldn’t matter to me anyway since I wouldn’t know what I’m looking at if they did. But I have used the UAH data against some of the other sets to form my opinion. I understand it isn’t apples to apples since UAH is satellite, upper atmosphere readings, not surface and UAH only goes back a few decades but it is in line with the critical assessment of Curry in the last couple decades.

    My main criticism of the BEST study (I mentioned this above but maybe I wasn’t clear enough) is that it is only going back to the historical data, to the mid 1800’s. Staying in line with the subject of this thread what Mann did is flatten out the Medieval warming period and the little ice age to get his hockey stick, all prehistoric. We have been naturally rising since and the historical data shows this, the historical data just coincidentally happened about the same time as it started to warm. For the most part there isn’t any dispute between the two factions over the shape of the graph in the period this BEST study studies, so they aren’t clearing anything up. I say for the most part because there is the dispute of the last decade which Craig’s article addresses.

  6. shcb Says:

    I will look at it closer JBC, I spent maybe 20 minutes on it, based on that short look I think I have been fair, I do appreciate the openness of this study as I said above. Based on its scope I don’t think it is going to change the debate one way or the other but it is a step in the right direction and there is no reason it (or another study) can’t be expanded to the more contentious areas of the debate.

    If Craig’s article is correct this study may be too poisoned to be of value, but there is always room for another, this issue isn’t going anywhere soon.

  7. shcb Says:

    Actually I’m pretty much center to middle right. I read a book recently where the author devised a statistical method for measuring the media bias and comparing that to politicians past and present based on their voting records. Nancy P was the benchmark to the left (0) and Michelle Bachman was to the right (10) Joe Lieberman was pretty much smack in the middle, I am about a 7. America in general is a little to the left with media bias and a little farther to the right without.

  8. Smith Says:


  9. shcb Says:

    Back the subject. As you all know, I’m no conspiracy fan, but I am a little ornery at times. So, what if…

    The givens are we have a former denier ( I don’t like that description but it helps my case here so I’ll use it) the former denier, Muller has an epiphany, and comes over from the dark side, gets funding from known evil conservatives Koch brothers and does a study that (in my words) will stop the criticism of deniers that the data collection was poorly done at best or the books were cooked at worst. So he sets the study up with open data and code out there for everyone to see (something that will be handy later) then he assembles a team of legitimate scientists like Curry. Now he already knows what the outcome is going to be because there is enough data out there that a Senior Engineer in Colorado can figure it out and he ain’t very bright (proven fact). So this “former” denier and his well funded team goes out and does a legitimate study with parameters set up by the “former” denier that avoid the most contentious areas of the argument (my words). When the study is finished the data (remember it is readily available) supports the deniers argument, at least in one small area, that warming has paused. Then Muller does the unthinkable, he circumvents the peer review process, promises the moon to the faithful (the science is indeed finally in) and publishes a chart that is in direct conflict with the published data. This is all possible of course only if the Daily Mail article is correct (if it isn’t… my god! Another conspiracy!)

    Now I don’t believe this (or do I?) but you see can see the beauty of this kind of warfare, it doesn’t matter, all I have to do is insert the doubt. There are a lot of maybes and what ifs and supposes in there to make this farfetched scheme even plausible, as with any good conspiracy, but… what if…

  10. Smith Says:

    “There are a lot of maybes and what ifs and supposes in there to make this farfetched scheme even plausible, as with any good conspiracy, but… what if…”

    What if rainbows shot out of your ass?

  11. shcb Says:

    I imagine you would have em for dinner

  12. Smith Says:


    I was just trying to play along with your game of idiotic hypotheticals. It is no more juvenile than the moronic conspiracy theory shit in your comment. Or your “I’m not a wingnut” denialist bullshit.

    In closing,
    Mud huts

    P.S. Reactionary, Extremist, Racist, Shitbag

  13. shcb Says:


    So let’s take Michelle’s statements in order:

    1 dumb
    2 first part is fine, not sure about the you should try it, would have to have more
    3 absolutely true
    4 her opinion, could make a case for that, more context needed
    5 true I’m not on her side of that argument, but what she says is true
    6 true and a good point since I know the context this was probably used in
    7 good point
    8 true but will never happen, this is a point Tom Sowell makes very well
    9 not sure what she is talking about, but every politician or person says things like this, it is usually when they are walking or are thinking of something else more important.
    10 probably true, no reason the science can’t exist with God.

    0, 1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,1

    So I agree with her to one extent or another on 7 or the 10 items

  14. Craig Says:

    I’ll bite and play along with this silly “who says goofy crap with no context allowed”? I wonder what that makes me if I disagree, at least in part, with 8 out of the 10 quotes listed?

    But then, I don’t care much for her anyway.

  15. shcb Says:

    It means just what you think it does, you are to the left of me and the right of most everyone else on this site. But, given ten other quotes of Bachmann on other issues you might agree with more than I. It’s all a matter of balance.

  16. NorthernLite Says:

    LOL she was brain dead, being kept alive by a feeding tube. No sane person would classify that as being “healthy”, dining room table.

    Anywho, now that the Republican establishment has swift-boated Herman Cain (which I prophesied a few weeks back :) whose bandwagon are you jumping on? Newt’s?

  17. enkidu Says:

    Newt is the most Concervative.

  18. shcb Says:

    He has always been my favorite from an idiological standpoint, I just don’t think he is electabe. He is the smartest man in the room, no matter which room he is in. I really don’t jump on many bandwagons, I’ll vote for whoever the Republicans put up there.

  19. NorthernLite Says:

    Cool… I was just thinking of that 2008 commercial Newt did with that crazy left-wing socialist Nancy Pelosi where they jointly urged action on climate change.

    You may want to reconsider that ideological connection you have with him.

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    I’m going to love hearing that shcb voted for Ron Paul…

  21. shcb Says:

    If Paul is on the ticket against Obama I’ll vote for him. No Problem.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.