Wall Street Journal – Feb. 14, 2005

There’s going to be an article about the work of M&M in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal. (Update: Here’s a url

Here’s what’s on the online coverpage:

Climate Graphic Faces Attack
Since it was published four years ago, the "hockey stick" temperature graph has been used by hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers to make the case that the industrial era is the cause of global warming. Now, a semiretired Canadian mining executive is raising doubts about the graphic’s veracity.

I don’t have an online subscription and haven’t seen the article yet.

UPDATE (feb. 14, 2005): The article is on the front page complete with picture of a certain aging Canadian. The graphics people at WSJ deserve danger pay. I’m gratified by the coverage, to say the least.


4 Comments

  1. Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 7:10 AM | Permalink

    From junkscience.com, a few more sentences:

    “In Climate Debate, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Leads to a Face-Off”

    “One of the pillars of the case for man-made global warming is a graph nicknamed the hockey stick. It’s a reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers. The stick’s shaft shows temperatures oscillating slightly over the ages. Then comes the blade: The mercury swings sharply upward in the 20th century.

    The eye-catching image has had a big impact. Since it was published four years ago in a United Nations report, hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers have used the hockey stick in presentations and brochures to make the case that human activity in the industrial era is causing dangerous global warming.

    But is the hockey stick true?” (The Wall Street Journal)

  2. John A.
    Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

    Mann was also pictured.

    If there was a contest between you and Mann as to who looked as though they were enjoying themselves then you were clearly the winner.

    On the other hand, they could have warned us poor readers!

  3. Michael Mayson
    Posted Feb 14, 2005 at 10:38 PM | Permalink

    http://news-reader.org/article.php?group=sci.environment&post_nr=478287

  4. brent
    Posted Feb 17, 2005 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    Hi Steve,
    Looks like another “salvage” job is going on in the ranks of our government; “salvaging” the “political agenda” that is.
    From Torstar, in case you hadn’t seen it
    All the Best
    brent

    Kyoto plan dubs gases `toxic’
    Proposal would put greenhouse emissions on danger list
    Designation for carbon dioxide likely to spark controversy
    PETER CALAMAI
    SCIENCE REPORTER
    OTTAWA-Federal environment officials are hastily drafting a plan to curb carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases under the Kyoto accord by declaring them toxic under an existing law, according to government sources involved in the plan. The sources said the greenhouse gases would be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an updated 1988 law that already lists almost 70 chemicals or chemical families as potentially toxic. The proposed regulations, which could be published as early as next month, are almost certain to be controversial since “toxic” carbon dioxide is what people exhale and plants take in for photosynthesis.

    http://tinyurl.com/4zofw

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: