Hockey one, Hockey two, Hockey three….

Barry Brook over at BraveNewClimate.com has a ground breaking report on an existing hockey graph that we have all seen and has now been discredited.

For decades, school students and the general public have been taught that world human population size has exploded into exponential growth over the last few centuries (see left), with ‘demographic models’ being used to predict that this trend will be ongoing for at least the next 50 years.

It turns out that research has shown that the graph could not possibly be right. As Barry notes, one of the professors involved in dicrediting the graph uses some historical stories in his effort to get to the real data:

Xerxes managed to muster an army of a million men at Plataea — on one tiny field of battle! Now I ask you, how is that possible if world population size at the time was mere 50 million? It just didn’t make any sense to us.

Exactly – how can we be so arrogant to think that scientists know the answers!

Advertisements

14 Responses

  1. “Xerxes managed to muster an army of a million men at Plataea …………….”

    That depends on which contemporary ancient historian you choose to believe. All were prone to gross exageration to make the Greek victory seem even more “magnificent”.

    An army of 1 million is highly doubtful…..!

  2. Walrus,

    Take note of the tags Barry Brooks has given the article over at BNC.

  3. D55

    Was just about to say the same sort of thing to IATW… especially the names of the professors he quotes LOL

  4. joni,

    I was going to link to the article on the original Hockey one, Hockey two thread but I saw your comment of at BNC which saved me the effort.

    I still can’t believe that johnd, Lotharsson are hammering it out on the other thread…

  5. Go over to BNC for the full story – but put your watch back to April 1st.! Got you going didn’t he!!

  6. I still can’t believe that johnd, Lotharsson are hammering it out on the other thread…

    For some bizarre reason, I live in hope that a lightbulb will go on, at least for the basic mathematical points that aren’t a matter of opinion.

  7. Maybe I need to put a comment up making sure that everyone realised that this was a joke-post by Barry?!?

    🙄

  8. I am still left wondering how backtesting is undertaken for A in pre-humanity.

  9. I am still left wondering how backtesting is undertaken for A in pre-humanity.

    As in, for “anthropogenic” influence before humans arrived?

  10. Well, historians have been pretty skeptical of the Million-mag gig at Plataea for many years now.

    I personally put-it down to a bit of Greek spin. They were pretty good at that, after all, it was the Greeks who wrote the accounts of the battle afterwards. A couple of Hundred Thousand, maybe, but a Million?

    And this affects the climate change debate how exactly……?

  11. Evan, on June 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm Said:

    “And this affects the climate change debate how exactly……?”

    Maybe it was all the blood and the trees they cut down to knock up the arrows and spears? Or all those methane-producing beasts they would had to have cultivated for their grub?

  12. Evan,

    It caused the medieval warming period, no wait, the roman warming period, no wait, the little known grecian warming period (which was preceded by Noah’s great flood (rising sea levels)!

  13. Lol, well done jane and Dave 55.

    At last, all is clear to me.

    Not.

  14. Legion, on June 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    As in, for “anthropogenic” influence before humans arrived?

    More the converse, or, better, more the polyverse …it seems a critical question in ‘the debate’…how to characterise ‘humanity’ and thence directions and degrees of influence across a variety of dimensions over time-scales both human and (in)human (I say inhuman rather than pre-human, because it requires humans to have the thoughts, and to entertain thoughts about a variety states that embed thoughts about the (in)human for comparative purposes: present-when, up-when and down-when for comparative purposes).

    The model I had in mind was Plimer’s, who draws, in part, on pre-human evidences to make his case; and yet he must be holding in mind the (ec)topic human epoch to make it, and must be at least subconsciously running the thoughts of a kind of humanity (non-)existing in pre-human times to even begin to make a comparison. Or, at least, that’s one possible interpretation, perhaps.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: