Andrew Revkin Loses The Plot, Episode XXXVIII

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I went over to Andy Revkin’s site to be entertained by his latest fulminations against “denialists”. Revkin, as you may remember from the Climategate emails, was the main go-to media lapdog for the various unindicted Climategate co-conspirators. His latest post is a bizarre mishmash of allegations, bogus claims, and name-calling. Most appositely, given his history of blind obedience to his oh-so-scientific masters like Phil Jones and Michael Mann, he illustrated it with this graphic which presumably shows Revkin’s response when confronted with actual science:

revkin monkeys

I was most amused, however, to discover what this man who claims to be reporting on science has to say about the reason for the very existence of his blog:

By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, which moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section in 2010, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Conceived in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Dot Earth tracks relevant developments from suburbia to Siberia.

Really? Let’s look at the numbers put up by this charmingly innumerate fellow.

Here’s how the numbers play out. I agree with Revkin, most authorities say the population will top out at about nine billion around 2050. I happen to think they are right, not because they are authorities, but because that’s what my own analysis of the numbers has to say. Hey, color me skeptical, I don’t believe anyone’s numbers.

In any case, here are the FAO numbers for today’s population:

PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION: 7.24 billion

PRESENT CHINESE POPULATION: 1.40 billion

PRESENT POPULATION PLUS REVKIN’S “TWO CHINAS”: 10.04 billion

So Revkin is only in error by one billion people … but heck, given his historic defense of scientific malfeasance, and his ludicrous claims about “denialists” and “denialism”, that bit of innumeracy pales by comparison.

Despite that, Revkin’s error is not insignificant. From the present population to 9 billion, where the population is likely to stabilize, is an increase of about 1.75 billion. IF Revkin’s claims about two Chinas were correct, the increase would be 2.8 billion. So his error is 2.8/1.75 -1, which means his numbers are 60% too high. A 60% overestimation of the size of the problem that he claims to be deeply concerned about? … bad journalist, no cookies.

Now, for most science reporters, a 60% error in estimating the remaining work to be done on the problem they’ve identified as the most important of all issues, the problem they say is the raison d’etre of their entire blog … well, that kind of a mistake would matter to them. They would hasten to correct an error of that magnitude. For Revkin, however, a 60% error is lost in the noise of the rest of his ludicrous ideas and his endless advocacy for shonky science …

My prediction? He’ll leave the bogus alarmist population claim up there on his blog, simply because a “denialist” pointed out his grade-school arithmetic error, and changing even a jot or a tittle in response to a “denialist” like myself would be an unacceptable admission of fallibility …

My advice?

Don’t get your scientific info from a man who can’t add to ten … particularly when he is nothing but a pathetic PR shill for bogus science and disingenuous scientists …

w.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Bad science and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

239 Responses to Andrew Revkin Loses The Plot, Episode XXXVIII

  1. Steven says:

    Ouch! That’s going to leave a mark.

  2. Climate Change is People!

  3. Eric Barnes says:

    He’s a misanthrope and social darwinist. His hate of people and freedom is plain to see. He won’t come out and directly say it, but he wants the dirty masses to be rounded up, sterilized and penned up in the cities so the enlightened few can protect gaia from the mouth breathers..

  4. DJ says:

    I dunno, seems like his math is pretty consistent with the ‘science’ he supports.

  5. Ed moran. says:

    Ouch! That last para stings!
    Willis!, stop beating around the bush. Tell us what you really think!

  6. Bob says:

    In Dot Earth, which moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section in 2010,

    I think this is the real message here, Dot Earth isn’t news it’s only opinion.

  7. Didymous says:

    Andrew should watch this excellent documentary where Hans Rosling corrects some widespread misunderstandings about population growth http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/

  8. Auto says:

    Willis
    Are you being a bit easy on our beloved Revkin; I suggest so .
    He is wildly off the mark, despite his bloviation.

    Have a very decent week-end.

    Auto

  9. Charles Battig says:

    The population control activists have a ready-made solution in Dan Brown’s “Inferno” novel. They just need to replicate that “virus programming thing,” and make one-third of the world sterile.

  10. Martin says:

    Revkin meant adding another China to the PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION, which adds up to two China’s seeing as the PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION includes China.

    PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION INCLUDING CHINA: 7.24 billion

    PLUS EXTRA CHINESE POPULATION: 1.40 billion

    PRESENT POPULATION PLUS REVKIN’S EXTRA CHINA : 8.64 billion

  11. Alan Robertson says:

    The sad part of it is, Andrew Revkin is one of the least worst of the alarmists.

  12. Chad Wozniak says:

    Revkin is a perfect illustration of who the REAL denialists are: the alarmists who ignore the new Holocaust caused by carbon policies (33,000 dead from hypothermia in the UK last year, 2 million Africans dead from starvation thanks to the ethanol program).

    @Charles Battig – this is also the program proposed by der Fuehrer’s witchcraft advisor, John Holdren, except that he wants to knock the population down to 1 billion.

    Global warming alarmism is MASS MURDER. Global warming alarmism is GENOCIDE.

  13. Clay Marley says:

    No Martin, he says “adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today”. That is: Pw + 2Pc = 9.

    The problem with the statement is that both world and Chinese populations are trending with time at different rates. The idea that Pw + 2Pc = 9 was true ~10 years ago but not today. Such a caviler blog should be more careful.

  14. Brezentski says:

    Reading the comments posted on Revkin’s article give one hope that people are waking up. Revkin should be ashamed.

  15. Political Junkie says:

    Martin, are you suggesting that he can add but that he can’t write coherently?

  16. Oldseadog says:

    Yep, the picture at the top says it all. Don’t see. don’t hear, but say anything you think the MSM or the general populace will swallow.

  17. Alex says:

    Willis, I can show you the slides from my “World Food Needs: 2050″ presentations from 1994 with a “now accurate” 9 billion population peak forecast based on nothing more than that the previous 20 years’ worth of “projections” (note, NOT predictions) from the UN Population division had always overestimated. Thus, I assumed their low projection was slightly optimistic. But then I realized that the UN pop div always assumed that EVERY country would stabilize at a replacement fertility rate (2.1 children per couple). Every country above would make a “soft landing” at 2.1 and every country below (the entire Western world) would rise back up to 2.1 from 1.5-1.9.

    Reality is that most Western nations have stabilized at below-replacement fertility, hence the 9 billion peak.

    1997 was the year of fastest population growth, with fewer people added to the planet every year since.

    Alex Avery
    Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues

  18. David Ball says:

    Excellent post Willis,

    Just in case someone has not seen this yet;

    http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/

  19. Alex says:

    And my very first speech as a Hudson guy was in early 1995 in Seskatchewan and I followed the most entertaining speaker I’d ever seen (filled with facts and jokes) and his name was Dr. Tim Ball. He told the crowd that the global warming hysteria was not rooted in science and they loved him.

    I sucked. But I eventually got better. Dr. Tim Ball: Thanks for the most awesome example to try to live up to, sir!
    Alex Avery

  20. john robertson says:

    Way too kind.
    Revkin is the definition of; Useful idiot.
    Willis, I hope you realize you probably bought Andy’s blog another stay of execution by this traffic you have directed to his site.
    I stopped visiting some time ago, as the man blithers.
    I still wonder if he is wilfully blind or definitely deluded.
    However the more important point, this fear of humanity, our numbers will kill us all, is the core of CAGW.
    Every one of these concerned citizens I personally have argued with, dismiss the abuse of science, claim the social good of restricting energy for human use justifies the lies and when pinned down, to a man/woman have then launched into a tirade about the population explosion.
    And justify the destruction, carbon dioxide mitigation policies, have wrought on the poor as necessary to save the atmosphere.
    A depiction of smug believers of eugenics, secure in the righteousness of their cause, would hardly be satire..

  21. gnomish says:

    i detect a tipping point.
    first spencer, now willis.
    they are no longer constraining themselves to polite disagreement- they are wholeheartedly damning the liars and calling them out.
    my cup of optimism half full, at last.
    i so devoutly pine for climate fraudster head.on.a.post that my schadenfreude gland is tumescent with anticipation.

  22. pokerguy says:

    “…particularly when he is nothing but a pathetic PR shill for bogus science and disingenuous scientists …”

    Seems that everyone you disagree with is a contemptible slime, Willis. I disagree with Revkin on just about everything, and marvel at his apparent credulity in climate matters, but on a personal level he’s never struck me as anything but sincere and well meaning. For a warmist, he’s quite willing and open to discuss opposing points of view.

  23. Ivor Ward says:

    Worth reading this article by Julian Simon again when you come up with lunacy like Revkins.
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffsimon_pr.html It puts a few things in perspective.

  24. Mycroft says:

    Already the new global scare takes shape, the BBC had a programme with a world famous statistician Hans Rosling i think? which states the population will level and then fall!

  25. Willis – I strongly disagree with you on your post. While I do not agree with all of Andy’s views, he is one of the most objective and open journalists in the mainstream media. He has provided a much needed forum for debate.

    I have no idea why you choose to attack him when there is plenty of science to discuss and analyze.

    I also prefer that WUWT not post personal attacks on anyone. This only demeans the website which is otherwise an outstanding forum for a much-needed debate on climate science which is not available at most other venues..

    Roger Sr.

  26. Bryan A says:

    Interesting, 7.24bn People If each had a space of 4′ X 6′ you would require 173.76bn Sq’ of space or 6323 Sq Mi. At 10,900 sq mi, the entire world population could fit on 3/5 of the space of Hawaii

  27. b4llzofsteel says:

    Well said Dr.Pielke. Eschenbach is the last person to judge over other persons, while Revkin is certainly pro AGW, he is one of the more moderate people in the discussion.

  28. Hans Erren says:

    Willis you are nitpicking this time: 7+2=9

  29. Julian in Wales says:

    Ha Ha

  30. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    Clay Marley says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    ‘The problem with the statement is that both world and Chinese populations are trending with time at different rates. The idea that Pw + 2Pc = 9 was true ~10 years ago but not today. Such a caviler blog should be more careful.’
    Good point.
    Its as if the writer lives in some past understanding of population.My thought was ‘But which China are we talking about?.’
    The term ‘Web of Life’, is apt but a bit the same.
    That’s because it was all the rage back in the 60’s and 70’s and the name of a Biology one text that talked about ‘overpopulation’.
    I was lucky to attend a number of non examinable lectures on ‘the future’ in the early ’70’s.
    The lecturer spoke of the limits of growth of population and fixed the limit at the highest melting point of a metal.
    The theory was that as population increases then the amount of heat produced increases from the activities of man and this has to be radiated into space, this being done by a metal emitter.
    The idea was that the planet would eventually be covered with structures that had within them artificial climates, powered by nuclear fusion/fission.
    Judging by the demography of China, Japan, the Middle East, such as Iran and of course Europe,’catastrophic population change’ is unlikely.

  31. papiertigre says:

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Always someone who doesn’t like the way the sausage gets made.

    Isn’t this the same Revkin who described Greenland ice in units of Manhattan’s melted?
    Same guy who describes downwelling infrared radiation in “Hiroshima bombs” added?

    Yeah don’t want to question his numbers – cause that would be rude.

    Roger, the thing is I don’t want to wake up one morning to discover I’m living in a Venezuelian analog, due to excessive politeness.

  32. Terry says:

    I think he makes a fair point. We have a demonstrably imperfect understanding of physical and atmospheric processes – eg: 17 year standstill and other historic medium term changes in climate. However it is entirely plausible that the climate will change as a result of human impacts and a real risk that the current standstill is simply a pause not the new reality. In any event the benefits may outweigh the negative impacts, and the jury is still out on whether the costs of mitigation, even if IPCC fears are realised, can be justified.

    Growth in human population is the real problem, notwithstanding an inability to add two numbers together with an accuracy of less than 60%. Historic trends provide only limited confidence that total population will stabilise, albeit at a higher level than current. Even if the projection is correct, the risks from increasing populations is likely to be far greater than that from moderate climate change – stress over resources, conflict, loss of natural habitats, loss of species, social unrest, increasing state control over human activities etc.

    The killer point, though, is that human activity stands accused of driving climate change. The win-win strategy is population reduction which mitigates both risks. Focussing only on CO2 reduction is unlikely to be effective with the upward pressure on resource consumption as improved living standards are pursued. A much more difficult challenge with moral and religious implications. However If we don’t address the population issue directly, any action on CO2 will ultimately be futile.

    Terry

  33. Thanks, Roger.

    And a note to Willis Eschenbach about carelessness (I agree that my 2007 population math – there from the first day of the blog – badly needs updating; leaving it up unchanged this long was careless).

    Despite repeated references to David Victor in the introduction to the Denialism post, you somehow missed that it was the text of a lecture by him at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

    All of the assertions you complain about are his.

    This is a guest post – kind of like yours here at WUWT.

    I’m sure Anthony doesn’t agree with everything you wrote. I don’t agree with everything David said. But it’s important in open forums to air a range of views.

    As for your lapdog references, etc., sheesh….

    (Accidentally posted under an unrelated WordPress ID a minute ago.)
    [Thank you for the response. If so, to maintain traceability and accountability, should the "unrelated" item be deleted? Mod]
    [Andy's identical comment under "pacebrazil2014" - deleted, and no I don't agree with this post entirely. - Anthony]

  34. David L. Hagen says:

    Willis
    I endorse Roger Pielke Sr.’s comments.
    A simple PS on that error would be sufficient.

    Far more important is to address the challenge of how to provide fuels to replace the 6%/year depletion rate in current oil wells. while the population grows 24% to 9 billion (say the current 1.5%/yr), say 2.5%/year to allow for economic growth. i.e., how do you find replacement fuels for 10%/year of current crude oil production (then add for depletion of natural gas liquids etc. used for fuel.)

    See: Kjell Aleklett’s post: The IEA raises a little warning flag on future oil production – World Energy Outlook 2013

    Regarding production of conventional oil the IEA maintained its position that the decline in production from existing producing fields is 6% per year, i.e. that same decline rate that we published in 2009. The current rate of production of around 67 Mb/d will decline to 17 Mb/d by 2035 (i.e. in 22 years).

  35. dp says:

    This is 2014 and he is talking about conscripting the people of 2050 to our vision of future needs. That is the equivalent of our being handed a world designed by the futurists of 1978. If one could bring the most brilliant of minds forward from 1978 to today that person would be a babe in the woods around our contemporary technology and the way time has change our world. Nobody would listen.

    Mr. Revkin – you sir are an imperious ass and a moron today and you would considered the same in 2050 should any of your vacuous screeds survive.

  36. Bruce Cobb says:

    Revkin’s post (at least the part on “climate denialism”) is based on a speech by David Victor. He doesn’t appear to be making a comment about it pro or con, so it’s difficult to know how he actually views it. In any case, since the views are those of David Victor’s, he is probably the one who needs attacking. Among the things he said was this:
    “We should talk less about consensus and more about the consequences of being wrong—about the lower probability (or low consensus) but high consequence outcomes.” I’m reminded of Greg Craven and his idiotic outcomes grid (“The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”). In other words, they just want to side-step the science and go right to policy. They know they’ve lost on the science. But with policy, they can play these mind games, and try to scare people.

  37. I’ve long suspected that the real ‘Green’ agenda behind AGW and ‘de-carbonising’ our society is a population cull of some sort. Having an interest in demographics – it was once an essential part of a ‘planning’ role I filled – I have tried to follow the world population trend ever since, and while it does seem likely that 9 billion will be achieved, the interesting question is; where will the biggest growth occur. At present Europe’s population is ‘growing’ only because os inward migration. This is true of the UK, North America and Australia as well. China has recently relxed its ‘one child’ policy, because there are now around 1.6 males for every female and a large proportion of their younger males will never find a marriage partner. India, despite its growing population, set to equal or overtake China’s in the not too distant future, faces a similar imbalance, but with typically Asian ingenuity, they are trying to attract brides from Europe and elsewhere.

    The big and unchecked growth remains in the poorest nations where child mortality rates are highest, though, with modern medicine, these were, until recently, falling. The anti-vaccination campaigns in many western countries, however, have impacted in ‘developing’ nations and the killers of TB, Polio, various Poxes and even plague are making a come-back. How much of that is factored into the growth predictions I do not know. I do know that southern africa, specifically South Africa, is now saddled with a population of over 50 million when the agricultural resources can probably – according to an expert I used to know – support about half that number, and would be better able to support about a third of it.

    So, perhaps the Green/AGW peeps have a point. It does come down to far too many people. Now, the BIG question is – which of the world’s peoples should be culled …

  38. Max Erwengh says:

    Sorry I really don’t see the sense of this post. He made a rule of thumb estimate, and it is a quite acceptable approximation. So, no matter if it is silly to be a afraid about rising population or not, the calculation is fine. And guess what, natural science is all about approximations (ye of course not that silly ones about population growth), we don’t do pure science which applies only to mathematics.
    Back to the topic, this is just a very disturbing ad-hominem attack. I know you could do better.

  39. James (Aus.) says:

    Oh dear, the Revkins of this world lurch from bad to worse. You can hear the temper tantrum in the cave even from this side of the globe and as Anthony says, Revkin not be taking down the numbers soon. After all, the rest of the true believers will need more false information to thrive on for a few months.
    And so it continues.

  40. James (Aus.) says:

    Max Erwengh (1:17pm) confuses an accurate attack on numbers with an ad hominem attack. Mislabeling is so convenient when you’re called out. You need to do an awful lot better, Erwengh.

  41. Mike McMillan says:

    I think we usually denote precision by the number of decimal places, and since Andy said “nine” billion, which has no decimal places, rather than “9” billion or “9.0” billion or “9,000,000,000.0”, he’s rounding to the nearest billion, (don’t we all ?) and because China is closer to “one” billion than “two” billion, twice China’s “one” billion is “two” billion, which added to “seven” billion makes “nine” billion.

    Roughly.

  42. richardscourtney says:

    Terry:

    At February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm you assert

    Growth in human population is the real problem, notwithstanding an inability to add two numbers together with an accuracy of less than 60%. Historic trends provide only limited confidence that total population will stabilise, albeit at a higher level than current. Even if the projection is correct, the risks from increasing populations is likely to be far greater than that from moderate climate change – stress over resources, conflict, loss of natural habitats, loss of species, social unrest, increasing state control over human activities etc.Population growth declines with affluence.

    No, that is plain wrong. Population decrease is the real foreseeable problem.

    The world population is projected to peak around 2050 and then to decline. There are several reasons for this. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families.

    The result is that the indigenous populations of rich countries decline. But rich countries need to sustain population growth for economic growth so they need to import – and are importing – people from poor countries.

    Increased affluence in poor countries could be expected to reduce their population growth with resulting lack of people for import by rich countries. Hence, the real foreseeable problem is population decrease; n.b. not population increase.

    The stresses from overpopulation which you describe derive from the mistaken Malthusian idea that human population acts like bacterial population in a Petri dish: i.e. population increases until resources are consumed then collapses. But that is plain wrong. For all practical purposes the resources used by humans can be considered to be infinite, and that is why ALL Malthusian predictions have been wrong.

    The obvious example is food.
    In the 1970s the Club of Rome predicted that human population would have collapsed from starvation by now. But human population has continued to rise and there are fewer starving people now than in the 1970s; n.b. there are less starving people in total and not merely fewer in in percentage.

    Now the most common Malthusian assertion is ‘peak oil’. But humans need energy supply and oil is only one source of energy supply. Adoption of natural gas displaces some requirement for oil, fracking increases available oil supply at acceptable cost; etc..

    As I said in the real world, for all practical purposes there are no “physical” limits to natural resources so every natural resource can be considered to be infinite; i.e. the human ‘Petri dish’ can be considered as being unbounded. This a matter of basic economics which I explain as follows.

    Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts).

    A resource is cheap (in time, money and effort) to obtain when it is in abundant supply. But “low-hanging fruit are picked first”, so the cost of obtaining the resource increases with time. Nobody bothers to seek an alternative to a resource when it is cheap.

    But the cost of obtaining an adequate supply of a resource increases with time and, eventually, it becomes worthwhile to look for
    (a) alternative sources of the resource
    and
    (b) alternatives to the resource.

    And alternatives to the resource often prove to have advantages.

    For example, both (a) and (b) apply in the case of crude oil.

    Many alternative sources have been found. These include opening of new oil fields by use of new technologies (e.g. to obtain oil from beneath sea bed) and synthesising crude oil from other substances (e.g. tar sands, natural gas and coal). Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.

    Alternatives to oil as a transport fuel are possible. Oil was the transport fuel of military submarines for decades but uranium is now their fuel of choice.

    There is sufficient coal to provide synthetic crude oil for at least the next 300 years. Hay to feed horses was the major transport fuel 300 years ago and ‘peak hay’ was feared in the nineteenth century, but availability of hay is not significant a significant consideration for transportation today. Nobody can know what – if any – demand for crude oil will exist 300 years in the future.

    Indeed, coal also demonstrates an ‘expanding Petri dish’.
    Spoil heaps from old coal mines contain much coal that could not be usefully extracted from the spoil when the mines were operational. Now, modern technology enables the extraction from the spoil at a cost which is economic now and would have been economic if it had been available when the spoil was dumped.

    These principles not only enable growing human population: they also increase human well-being.
    The ingenuity which increases availability of resources also provides additional usefulness to the resources. For example, abundant energy supply and technologies to use it have freed people from the constraints of ‘renewable’ energy and the need for the power of muscles provided by slaves and animals. Malthusians are blind to this obvious truth.

    The Malthusian idea is wrong because it ignores basic economics and applies a wrong model; human population is NOT constrained by resources like the population of bacteria in a Petri dish.

    Richard

  43. dccowboy says:

    What he doesn’t seem to understand is that he’s a ‘useful idiot’, ‘shill’, whatever, for the political powers that want to gain control over every aspect of our lives, down to the air that we breathe, even to tax breathing (which is what a carbon tax is ultimately. As in all things, corporations don’t pay taxes, their customers do. They pass along the cost of the tax to consumers AND energy is a ‘product’ that people cannot simply decide not to buy or select a substitute for, they HAVE to have it). That he doesn’t see that is very sad.

  44. Colorado Wellington says:

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Roger:

    I share your dislike of personal attacks but they are common even in the history of unpoliticized science, let alone in politics. Unfortunately, much of climate science today is intertwined with the nastiest brand of personal attack politics. I agree with your appeal to moderation but I am skeptical about the outcome. Too many proponents of the CAGW theory choose to play dirty.

    Is it not a sad state of public discourse that “one of the most objective and open journalists in the mainstream media” sees it fit to crown his contribution with an inflammatory headline and accompany it by a picture of obviously stupid monkeys?

    Revkin’s article about David Victor’s speech is titled:

    A Look at the ‘Shills,’ ‘Skeptics’ and ‘Hobbyists’ Lumped Together in Climate Denialism

    I am sure you notice he puts quotes around “shills”—as he quotes Victor—but none around the asinine “climate denialism” insult. This seems to be his standard usage.

    I am sorry but I have little respect for “objective and open” journalism of this kind. I will not call Andrew Revkin names here but it seems he sees no problem with doing so to others in his mission of shaping public opinion.

  45. cynical_scientist says:

    What I find most interesting about Revkin’s article is the language. He consistently uses “Denialist”, “Denialism” instead of “Denier”, “Denial”. And it isn’t just Revkin doing it – most of the people he quotes are doing it too. This looks to me like yet another orchestrated language shift along the lines of global warming –> climate change –> climate weirding –> etc. It is bizarre the way they keep switching language. Who decides these things?

    Anyway, as people do not speak of Holocaust denialists or Holocaust denialism, this looks to me like an attempt to hide their tracks and make the smear less obvious. The new language is close enough to the old to still be offensive. But the slight distance gives plausible deniability so that if someone takes them to task over the use of the D word they can pretend we are too sensitive and it is all just a coincidence.

    (I suspect this is headed for the moderation queue due to use of the D word.)

  46. richardscourtney says:

    David L. Hagen:

    I answer the question in your post at February 22, 2014 at 1:05 pm in my post addressed to Terry at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm.

    My post is in moderation limbo but if it does appear then I think this will be a link to it.

    Richard

  47. Brian H says:

    You’re both wrong. Way wrong. The UN spreadsheet to look at is the Low Fertility one, previously the Low Band. It’s the only one ever even close to accurate. It says peak at ~8bn in 2045 or so, declining continuously thereafter. If you want to play Demographer, have a boo at this:

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0505.200407.eberstadt.demography.html

  48. Seems too of some note and of need to be included in the math would be the current numbers on abortions along with the sterilizations of women in China. Seems to be sure to cause a some what different out come on the date and numbers.

  49. manicbeancounter says:

    The population might only be going up to 9 billion by 2050, or 30% on today’s figures, but emissions are going to go up even faster. Global CO2 emissions in 1990 were 22.2 bn tonnes. They rose to 33.6 billion tonnes in 2010. By my calculation emissions will be 60 billion tonnes in 2050, or 2.7 times higher than in 1990.
    The rich countries of Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA (ACEJU) have figures of 10.7, 11.2 and 11.0. If all the rich countries reduce their emissions by 80% (like Britain is crazily trying to do), then CO2 emissions will be still 2.3 times higher than in 1990. If, like Andy Revkin, you believe the climate catastrophe that these emissions levels will cause, then the rich countries will have done little to abte the costs of these nasty consequences, but will have to bear the huge costs of cutting those emissions. In Britain, Germany and elsewhere, these those costs are turning out to be far higher than anyone projected.

  50. richard says:

    “By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today`’

    if so we should rejoice, agriculture is feeding this many people which means the climate is in better shape then than now.

    As far as I know when the climate goes pear shaped the first thing to suffer is agriculture and then the population, I could list the civilizations effected by climate in the past but i think we all know.

  51. Joe says:

    Seems to me that Andy Revkin is one of those rare breed today of journalists who will actually look at, and report, the facts as they see them. The fact that, so far, the available “facts” (consensus, IPCC repports, literature that’s passed pal review etc) happen to support anthropogenic warming isn’t his fault.

    We all get frustrated that the MSM avoid reporting the glaring problems we all see in climate science, but I’d suggest that random attacks on those high profile individuals, such as Andy, who [i]will[/i] see and acknowledge the light as it becomes brighter isn’t a particularly smart move.

    Which makes the fact it came from Willis, who’s an eminetly smart guy, a little peculiar. You didn’t have any of our world famous Mad Cow burgers on your recent visit here, did you Willis?

  52. Plus all here are sure that all wars have ended and the loss of life to wars, some new plague or a miss placed nuke from Iran would not have any effect at all

    .”sarc” to the tenth power.

  53. heysuess says:

    In journalism we call this a ‘gotcha'; practiced far and wide, fairly or unfairly dependent on your side in a fight. In order to determine whether this post by Willis is an out-of-line gotcha, one must return to the Revkin archives to see where (or if, place your bets) he has dabbled in the practice himself.

  54. Seems after review he could use the computer code and Hockey Stick graph of Mann and hide any and all causes of a possible decline in population.

  55. w.w.wygart says:

    Maybe Andy was aware of a population projection showing China’s population having decreased by 2050 to only 880million – unlikely but possible. By some estimates China’s population may be peaking this decade and give a low range projection of a bit over a billion in 2050. For instance here: http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_TotPop_TFR.htm

    I’m being a bit facetious, but my point is that the one ‘China’ unit of population is very likely to be a lot smaller in 2050 than it is today.

    W^3

  56. papiertigre says:

    Well look at that. Revkin is given the royal welcome, along with a never ending line of kiss asses.

    This is what happens when lazy moderators let the heckler’s veto run the ship.

    Might as well surrender now, let Obama nationalize energy companies, beg him not to make the taxes excessively exorbitant, then pretend that’s political opposition.

    Roger Pielke – isn’t that the guy who used to run a blog with comments until Revkin’s raiders over ran the place? I remember a stream of polite answers met by never ending scornful comments.

    What happened to that place anyhow?

  57. Gary Pearse says:

    Population that would fit into Lake Superior each with a square metre to tread water in is 90billion. I like to make a calc like that to get a rough idea of how big a problem is. As expected, we do attract neoMalthusians out of the woodwork. For them: We will not be buried in horseshit 9 feet deep by 1950, just in case you never noticed. We will not run out of resources. Almost every ton of iron, copper etc. mined is still on the surface of the earth and we have more reserves of these metals, and as it turns out, fossil fuels, than we had in 1950 (reserves are measured resources that can be mined – indeed, reserves used by the COR, Ehrlich, etc. were tonnages measured by mining companies as a 10-20yr inventory, not all that was there. They have been mining nickel in Sudbury for over 100 yrs but probably never had more than 20 years reserves at any time – it costs money to drill reserves – they do enough for mine and plant planning).

    Who’da thunk that Canada would be one of the world’s largest diamond producers before 20 years ago. …..changing tech, miniaturization, internet worldwide meetings …. agricultural revolution…. remote robotic mining underground operated from an office desk has been with us for a decade or so… Some ask what are we going to do about declining conventional oil and gas – just watch us, that is all you have to do! Keep capitalism, freedom alive and you keep the innovative engine going and it takes care of all these concerns. Imagine I gave this speech in 1894 when the horseshit concern was causing so much loss of sleep and look at us now.

    Ya know, we always seem to have all these dreary linear-thought books about the impending doom. Its time to write a bunch about the wonderful future that awaits if we don’t let the socialists plan what we do.

  58. Alan Robertson says:

    To all of those posting in this thread who are calling for controls on human population, I would suggest a tall bridge… The idea that too many human beings exist is the most dangerous idea that mankind has ever faced.

  59. richard says:

    judging by the UN statistics for 2100 not only is the climate in great shape it has gone into hyper drive great shape.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/graph-of-day-un-population-projections.html

  60. richardscourtney says:

    Gary Pearse:

    I was applauduing your post at February 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm because I agreed with every word until I reached its final sentence which said

    Its time to write a bunch about the wonderful future that awaits if we don’t let the socialists plan what we do.

    Please read my post above at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here because – me being a socialist – I think you will see why such irrelevant political swipes as you have made are not helpful.

    Richard

  61. Lloyd Martin Hendaye says:

    We observed an auto License Plate # 16180-338 yesterday. Obviously, this Fibonacci Proportion means that traffic will increase exponentially through c. AD 2030, at which point ten-trillion coupes, hybrids, and sedans will stand immobile, bumper-to-bumper on every major thoroughfare.

    Numbers don’t lie, the science is settled: Prove us wrong.

  62. Jimbo says:

    I have heared 10 Billion by 2100. Others beg to differ. Fertility rates are plummeting and no one really knows where we will hit the ceiling.

    YaleGlobal, 26 October 2011
    Global Population of 10 Billion by 2100? – Not So Fast
    With urbanization and education, global fertility rates could dip below replacement level by 2100
    ………………….
    The demographic patterns observed throughout Europe, East Asia and numerous other places during the past half century as well as the continuing decline in birth rates in other nations strongly points to one conclusion: The downward global trend in fertility may likely converge to below-replacement levels during this century. The implications of such a change in the assumptions regarding future fertility, affecting as it will consumption of food and energy, would be far reaching for climate change, biodiversity, the environment, water supplies and international migration. Most notably, the world population could peak sooner and begin declining well below the 10 billion currently projected for the close of the 21st century.

    Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division,
    is research director at the Center for Migration Studies.
    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast

    BBC – 28 September 2013
    Is population growth out of control?
    “When I looked at them I discovered that they were almost certainly wrong,” says Sanjeev Sanyal, Global Strategist for Deutsche Bank, of the latest update of the World Population Prospects, released in June this year…….

    “I took into account two or three things which I think are inadequately reflected in the UN [report],” Sanyal explains.

    “I have probably accounted more aggressively for things like gender bias in countries like China and India. The fact that they are countries with far fewer women of childbearing age than their overall population would suggest.”………
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537

    Population Bomb? No, there’s been a massive global drop in human fertility that has gone largely unnoticed by the media
    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/population-bomb-no-theres-been-a-massive-global-drop-in-human-fertility-that-has-gone-largely-unnoticed-by-the-media/

    More to follow………………….

  63. François Marchand says:

    Overall populations numbers are decreasing mostly in Russia and Eastern Europe, that is true . It’s funny though, the numbers in places that Mr. Bush and his friends -you, for instance- used to brand as “old Europe” are growing : there are 65 millions of us French, 300 000 more every year, mostly born locally. Take a good look at the figures, and you will realise that indeed, the world population is growing, is going to keep growing for quite some time, and we are running short of space. Just try to find enough room in Delaware for the same number of families as you have bogus corporations.

  64. Jimbo says:

    Hans Rosling would tell Revkin not panic over population. Yet Revkin and Co. are convinced that we must panic. As a result I plan to have 2 more children than I had originally planned.

    Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population
    With the world’s population at 7 billion and still growing we often look at the future with dread. In Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population, world famous Swedish statistical showman Professor Hans Rosling presents a different view.
    …..
    Professor Rosling reveals that the global challenge of rapid population growth, the so-called population explosion, has already been overcome. In just 50 years the average number of children born per woman has plummeted from 5 to just 2.5 and is still falling fast. This means that in a few generations’ time, world population growth will level off completely. And in what Rosling calls his ‘Great British Ignorance Survey’ he discovers that people’s perceptions of the world often seem decades out of date….
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2013/45/this-world-hans-rosling.html

  65. Latitude says:

    so….deny them electricity for cooking warmth and cooling by pricing it out of their reach….make abortions available on every street corner….trick them with expensive medical procedures that don’t work…..deny them jobs and the ability to control their own money….limit their food and ability to buy it……………………

    /snark

  66. Steven Mosher says:

    You forget the mail where revkin was mentioned by mann.basically mann said revkin could not be trusted to carry the message.

    By the numbers by 2050 or so we will add essentially two chinas.

    Or so
    Essentially.

    The text ur referring to was probably written in 2007 at the start of the blog. China was 1.3 billion then . World was 6.6.
    6.6+2.6 is 9.2

  67. eyesonu says:

    There are only two monkeys in the pic on the lead post. “See no evil” and “hear no evil.”

    Should we infer that there is now a missing monkey that refuses to “speak no evil”?

  68. _Jim says:

    Andrew Revkin Loses The Plot

    In light of the, um, fact that the man, um, suffered a stroke back in 2011, is there much wonder that there could be, would be, perhaps, some manifestation in the higher-order mental faculties?

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/time-for-a-checkup/

    Just wondering out loud at this point …

    .

  69. Jimbo says:

    Over the decades we have heard a lot about over population, the population explosion but very little about the plunging fertility rates worldwide, why? Agenda is the key.

    Now here is a long series of articles taking on the population issue. There are also counter arguments. It seems that aspirations via soap operas also plays a role in women wanting fewer children. Electricity is the key to the soaps however.

    The Breakthrough Institute – May 8, 2013 – Martin Lewis
    “In a recent exercise, most of my students believed that India’s total fertility rate (TFR) was twice that of the United States. Many of my colleagues believed the same. In actuality, it is only 2.5, barely above the estimated U.S. rate of 2.1 in 2011, and essentially the replacement level. (A more recent study now pegs U.S. fertility at 1.93.)…..

    …In today’s world, high fertility rates are increasingly confined to tropical Africa…..

    …fertility rates are persistently declining in almost every country in Africa, albeit slowly. Many African states, moreover, are still sparsely settled and can accommodate significantly larger populations. The Central African Republic, for example, has a population of less than 4.5 million in an area almost the size of France……

    …As it turns out, the map of female literacy in India does exhibit striking similarities with the map of fertility. States with educated women, such as Kerala and Goa, have smaller families than those with widespread female illiteracy,…..

    …Thus while the education of women is no doubt significant in reducing fertility levels, it is not the only factor at play……

    That television viewing would help generate demographic stabilization would have come as a shock to those who warned of the ticking global population bomb in the 1960s…..

    To return to our first map, fertility rates remain stubbornly high across tropical Africa. The analysis presented here would suggest that the best way to bring them down would be a three-pronged effort: female education, broad-based economic and social development, and mass electrification followed by the dissemination of soap-opera-heavy television……”
    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/population-bomb-so-wrong/
    http://geocurrents.info/population-geography/indias-plummeting-birthrate-a-television-induced-transformation
    http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/television-and-fertility-in-india-response-to-critics

  70. Joe says:

    papiertigre says:
    February 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Well look at that. Revkin is given the royal welcome, along with a never ending line of kiss asses.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    It’s called civility, mate. And it’s the one area where most sceptics have consistently beaten the other lot hands down; Andy Revkin may be wrong in his views but, as far as I’ve seen, he’s one of the few believers who generally keeps a civil tongue in his pen and avoids ad-homs. For that alone he deserves the same in return.

    It may be a new concept to some around here but, if you’re hoping to change peoples minds (which is what we need to do with climate change), then throwing napalm at them is a very very bad idea ;)

  71. John W. Garrett says:

    w.,
    I, too, find Revkin to be a sanctimonious twit. That is compounded by the fact that he is also a flat-out hypocrite.

    It is useful to recall that his livelihood is entirely dependent upon his ability to pander to the mob.

  72. JeffC says:

    with gentlemen like Roger A. Pielke Sr. on our side we will lose the battle for public opinion … stick to science sir … when mud needs to be slung you are simply out of your element and in the way … and mud definitely needs to be slung at Revkin …

  73. Jimbo says:

    I predict that in 2100 the main worry about population will be a stagnant OR the start of a declining world population. This is what is so funny about the population debate, many people’s concerns are headed in the opposite direction (whether they know it or not). They just did not think it was possible, but any observant person knew this: generally the better off people are the fewer children they have. Do not believe me take a look at Singapore, Japan etc. This is where the world is headed, gnashing and grinding of teeth over aging populations and stagnancy.

    “Five myths about the world’s population”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-worlds-population/2011/10/26/gIQArjSWmM_story.html

    “The Coming Population Crash”: The overpopulation myth
    How feminism and pop culture saved Earth from getting too crowded — and are helping to avert planetary catastrophe
    http://www.salon.com/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010/

    There is plenty of land for us until 2100. Most populations of the world are around the coasts.

  74. _Jim says:

    john robertson says February 22, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    A depiction of smug believers of eugenics, secure in the righteousness of their cause, would hardly be satire..

    Prescient maybe even.

    Referencing this document, as prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics: “Summary of Vital Statistics 2012, The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes”

    . . . **Caution** an un-PC subject follows! Mature audiences only ****

    Quote: “NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born” – link

    In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

    Is it ‘Eugenics’ when it is self-imposed? Within a single ‘race’-category even?

    No thoughts on what Margaret Sanger (truth in labeling: “planned non-parenthood”) might think; the old “Mission Accomplished” which Bush was much excoriated for does come to mind though …

    .

  75. 4 eyes says:

    Population predictions are pie in the sky stuff. All other species expand their popultaion naturally to the natural level of sustainability. The human population, despite humans’ intelligence and understanding, will do the same. The good thing is we are pretty smart and our capability of expanding the sustainability side of the equation, like our ability to adapt to climate change, will see us through.

  76. John Shade says:

    I have long thought of Revkin as a weak man who has had suffered from bad company but who had some shreds of self-respect left which occasioned the occasional gentle challenge to his chums. But now I am beginning to think he has lost his shreds.

  77. richardscourtney says:

    Jimbo:

    At February 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm you say

    I predict that in 2100 the main worry about population will be a stagnant OR the start of a declining world population.

    I disagree because I think it will be much earlier than that!

    I predict that by 2050 the main worry about population will be the start of a declining world population.

    Please see my above post at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.

    Richard

  78. Willis Eschenbach says:

    gnomish says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    i detect a tipping point.
    first spencer, now willis.
    they are no longer constraining themselves to polite disagreement- they are wholeheartedly damning the liars and calling them out.

    Yeah, I’ve been so restrained in the past …

    w.

  79. richardscourtney says:

    4 eyes:

    At February 22, 2014 at 3:32 pm you say

    Population predictions are pie in the sky stuff. All other species expand their popultaion naturally to the natural level of sustainability. The human population, despite humans’ intelligence and understanding, will do the same.

    No. Your assertion is denied by empirical data, Human birth rate is below replenishment level in all affluent societies.

    Please see my above post at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.

    Richard

  80. Max Erwengh says:

    @James (Aus.)
    yes I admit, the ad-hominem part was wrong. I should better call it wrong understanding of dealing with large numbers and a general problem in estimating approximations. Ok let’s do an ad-hominem attack: What the heck is so difficult to understand that this guy made an comparesion, naturally lacking in accuracy? Using the fact that this approximation results in roughly a biilion more people on earth by the time, to show that he is of unscientific nature, is just a silly as someone claiming that we all gonna die because of global warming, population growth etc. etc.

  81. Willis Eschenbach says:

    pokerguy says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    “…particularly when he is nothing but a pathetic PR shill for bogus science and disingenuous scientists …”

    Seems that everyone you disagree with is a contemptible slime, Willis.

    Naw. You’re not contemptible slime, but I disagree with you on that very point. Isn’t that a neat recursive proof?

    I disagree with Revkin on just about everything, and marvel at his apparent credulity in climate matters, but on a personal level he’s never struck me as anything but sincere and well meaning.

    OK, let me try again:

    “…particularly when he is nothing but a sincere, well-meaning, and ultimately pathetic PR shill for bogus science and disingenuous scientists …”

    Do go and read the Climategate emails, pokerguy. Revkin is a toady and a sycophant. I disagree with lots of folks who are neither one.

    Finally, the fact that someone is “sincere and well-meaning” makes things worse, not better … but he’s neither. He colluded with the Climategate folks to spread and popularize their lies. That is not the act of a “sincere and well-meaning man” on my planet.

    w.

  82. Max Erwengh says:

    Contributions like that makes me feel like I’m on greg laden’s blog, where every weather event is linked to global warming. Willis Eschenbach is more a philosopher, great articles though, but please stick to the science here, when it comes to science.

  83. Jimbo says:

    Bravo Dr. Tim Ball!
    http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/

    Could it be that the IPCC was set up to dampen or reduce the world’s population? I have said in the past that it was to de-industrialize the west but maybe I was only half right. You see progressives can’t come out openly and say we need to cut the world’s population. They mask it as an attempt to deal with industrialised nations’ externalities when in fact it is an attack on the poorest most vulnerable peoples in the Third World. Indirect genocide based on the trace gas co2.

  84. trafamadore says:

    If you are using updated pop figures, you should be using 9.5 or 9.6 for 2050, not 9.0. At least if I am using your referred population site correctly…

  85. Arno Arrak says:

    Willis: Revkin was quoting David Victor who in turn was talking of Kerry’s talk in the Philippines. Victor also contributed to a seminar at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say.” There was no science there, just warmists trying to find the best way to propagandize and turn the public against “denialism.” I wrote the comment below to put them in their place. This is what I said:

    “First, there is absolutely no science in this, just another seminar promoting the public relations of the global warming pseudo-science. Victor talks derogatorily of ‘denialist chatter’ and opines that it is not even denialism but that ‘…what we are seeing is what psychologists call ‘motivated reasoning’ — people hear about something they abhor and they find reasons to justify their dissent.’ That perfectly defines his attitude. I happen to be a scientist and I prefer to talk about science, not propaganda. Global warming, so we are told, is anthropogenic because we are putting carbon dioxide into the air where it causes greenhouse warming. It does that by absorbing IR radiation that leaves the earth. But here is a conundrum. There is more carbon dioxide in the air now than ever before but there has been none of that greenhouse warming for the last 17 years. This extra high atmospheric carbon dioxide should warm the world but it doesn’t. True believers are so worried that they are looking for an imaginary ‘missing heat’ everywhere, including the ocean bottom, but our century is greenhouse free. Since there is no greenhouse warming now, and observations say so, we must consider the possibility that the entire greenhouse warming theory is false. Natural laws cannot be turned on or off. If the theory is false now it always has been false. But what about past warming? Very simple, use Ockham’s razor. They were misidentified by over-eager pseudo-scientists.”

  86. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Willis – I strongly disagree with you on your post. While I do not agree with all of Andy’s views, he is one of the most objective and open journalists in the mainstream media. He has provided a much needed forum for debate.

    I have no idea why you choose to attack him when there is plenty of science to discuss and analyze.

    I also prefer that WUWT not post personal attacks on anyone. This only demeans the website which is otherwise an outstanding forum for a much-needed debate on climate science which is not available at most other venues..

    Roger Sr.

    Roger, for you to say that means that you have not read the Climategate emails in their entirety. I suggest you might start with the two links I provided above.

    Here’s Revkin on the “Mann’s Nature trick”, where Mann spliced two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed …

    He [Mann] said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

    Here’s Revkin to Santer and Mears in the emails …

    Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:38:52 -0500 To: santer1@llnl.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, mears@remss.com

    From: Andrew Revkin Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this singer/christy/etc effort.

    If you call that “objective and open journalism”, Roger, you desperately need your meters recalibrated …

    Finally, you say:

    I also prefer that WUWT not post personal attacks on anyone.

    I am sick of climate scientists who never, ever seem to want to either see, hear, or read anything at all negative about another climate scientist. Roger, it is just that unwillingness of you and other climate scientists to call a spade a spade that has left the field in such a shambles. Nobody is willing to say a bad word, even when people start breaking laws like Peter Gleick he just gets feted and invited to speak at the conferences. I’m sick of this toffee-nosed attitude.

    The problem is not that I’m too outraged about these issues.

    The problem is that you and your friends are not outraged enough. You think this is some kind of cream-puff faculty affair where you all pat each other on the back even though you can’t stand each other, and nothing makes a damn bit of difference … but meanwhile, out here in the real world, Revkin’s lies and misrepresentations are actively harming the poor of the world and leading to fuel poverty even in the developing world. See here, here, and here for details.

    So I’m sorry, Roger, but despite my huge respect for your many scientific accomplishments, I’m not going to be all collegiate about Revkin’s inability to add. You might think Revkin’s feelings are more important than the fact that the policies he promotes are killing people … me, not so much …

    w.

  87. Jimbo says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Jimbo:

    At February 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm you say

    I predict that in 2100 the main worry about population will be a stagnant OR the start of a declining world population.

    I disagree because I think it will be much earlier than that!

    I predict that by 2050 the main worry about population will be the start of a declining world population.

    I have suspected 2050 but I prefer to be conservative with my predictions. Lest I be attacked without mercy. ;-) All the signs so far do point THIS century being a defining moment for global population. To be very honest my biggest worry for humanity is not overpopulation but our eventual extinction (on planet Earth) within the next 2,000 years in our present form (conservative). I talk like this because I don’t know what is possible or will happen in 1,000 years time as regards technology, innovations, genetics, hybrids, etc.

  88. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Hans Erren says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Willis you are nitpicking this time: 7+2=9

    Hans, he has overestimated the number of people we’ll be adding to the planet by 60%. Perhaps you live in a world where discussing a 60% error is “nitpicking”. Here on my world, a 60% overestimation is called a big error.

    In addition, this was not a throwaway comment. His bogus and wildly incorrect claim that we’ll have to add 2.8 billion people to the planet is the reason he is blogging …

    w.

  89. _Jim says:

    François Marchand says February 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Overall populations numbers are decreasing mostly in Russia and Eastern Europe, that is true . It’s funny though, the numbers in places that Mr. Bush and his friends -you, for instance- used to brand as “old Europe” are growing : there are 65 millions of us French, 300 000 more every year, mostly born locally.

    You might still be overrun; per wiki (b/c it is quick):

    The national birth rate, after continuing to drop for a time, began to rebound in the 1990s and currently the country’s fertility rate is close to the replacement level.

    According to an INSEE 2006 study, “The natural increase is close to 300,000 persons, a level that has not been reached in more than thirty years.”

    Among the 802,000 newborns in metropolitan France in 2010, 80.1% had two French parents, 13.3% had one French parent, and 6.6% had two foreign-born parents

    Something does not appear to jive in the math; ‘natural increase … 300,000 persons’, 802,000 newborns, 80.1% had two French parents?

    Depending what is correct, you may or may not be overrun … what is the cause of those car
    burnings and riots again and high unemployment? High Unemployment

    Also interesting to note is this tidbit from here on the bottom of page 505 that may be the ‘core’ reason birth rates are up (and perhaps the families are intact?):

    Because of the variegated nature of its family policy, France does not fit easily into the classifications of Western welfare systems.” …

    The text goes on to explain the differences between ‘English’ welfare systems and European et al as contrasted with the French system.

    .

  90. Jimbo says:

    Malthusian Warmists coming to this thread must be horrified by the plethora of opposing views and evidence regarding the ‘problem’ of population. It may make some of them look deeper and start less eco-worrying. Please stop worrying about ‘overpopulation’ and start worrying about the people who are supposed to support your grandchildren and descendants in their golden years of retirement. THIS IS THE PROBLEM before 87 years time, for now it’s ‘overpopulation’ blah, blah.

  91. u.k.(us) says:

    No middle ground anymore.
    That’s how wars start.
    Wow.
    Gotta leave an exit for the defeated foes, lest they fight to the death.

  92. Max Erwengh says:

    [trimmed. Mod]

  93. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 22, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    You forget the mail where revkin was mentioned by mann.basically mann said revkin could not be trusted to carry the message.

    So your point is that Revkin can’t even be trusted to be a proper toady, he’s only “carrying the message” part of the time? I hope that your explanation (he’s not bad, just flaky and not trustworthy) makes him feel better.

    Let me ask you this, Steven. When Revkin talks of “climate denialism”, and claims that the folks like Anthony, myself, and Steve McIntyre are (take your choice) either “shills” or “skeptics” or “hobbyists”, and he doesn’t say or quote a single good word about any of the three possibilities, but instead quotes claims that it’s all because we’ve just heard “about something [we] abhor and [we] find reasons to justify [our] dissent” … is he “carrying the message” for Mann, or not?

    Because that’s certainly Mann’s message … and Revkin’s certainly carrying it …

    w.

  94. Willis Eschenbach says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    No middle ground anymore.
    That’s how wars start.
    Wow.
    Gotta leave an exit for the defeated foes, lest they fight to the death.

    For many, perhaps most of the AGW alarmists, their entire existence depends on the purported existence of global warming. If there was none, most of them would be out of a job tomorrow. This includes literally thousands and thousands of rent-seekers, government bureaucrats, political activists, and other peripheral parasites.

    So the bad news is, as we’ve already seen for some years, they will fight to the death no matter what we do. You seem to think the war is starting now. It started when they all realized that their claims were built on sand … and the desperation kicked in. Revkin is a perfect example.

    w.

  95. gnomish says:

    ” Roger, it is just that unwillingness of you and other climate scientists to call a spade a spade that has left the field in such a shambles. Nobody is willing to say a bad word, even when people start breaking laws like Peter Gleick he just gets feted and invited to speak at the conferences. ”

    there is more than one kind of toady, eh?
    ‘the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”
    why should anybody have a problem with willis demonstrating that ‘good men DO call out the fraudsters’ and that anything less doesn’t measure up to being a ‘good man’ or maybe even a man at all?

    stop feeding the beast would be more sensible, though.
    hiring frauds is no less stupid. crying about getting what you paid for does what? dare to speak the name?

  96. By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today.

    PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION: 7.24 billion
    ———————-

    Now I compiled the following statistics more than a year ago, to wit:

    Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

    year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
    1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
    1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% —— 1.0 ppm/year
    1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% —— 0.6 ppm/year
    1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
    1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% —– 1.3 ppm/year
    1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% —– 1.6 ppm/year
    2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% —– 1.5 ppm/year
    2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year

    A 2 year increase from 2010 …..
    2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year

    And now to add the 1 year increase from 2012 ….
    2013 – 7,240,000,000 – 2.59% increase in one (1) year,

    An increase of 430,028,000 between 2010 and 2013 for a 6.31% increase in 5 years

    Thus the average increase is still above 12% per decade …. but is decreasing.

    And another 36 years or 3 ½ decades to go to 2050.

  97. gnomish says:

    ” It started when they all realized that their claims were built on sand … and the desperation kicked in”
    i disagree, willis- i think it started when these individuals defined human beings as their prey and learned that the prey would only complain- even as they cooperate fully. this was never ever about science.
    the idea of leaving a backdoor for predators is quite insane.
    but that’s just one of the many insanities required for this madness to exist as it does.

  98. Jimbo says:

    Malthus was wrong, Malthusian followers like Ehrlich were wrong and are still wrong. They will remain wrong this century and after that their concerns will be irrelevant. There is more than enough food for everyone now and for the rest of this century, the issues are a lack of refrigeration, food waste, other types of preservation, transport etc. Not all cultivatable land is being currently used either (without fallow land).

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS/countries
    http://farmindustrynews.com/blog/top-50-innovations-agricultural-engineering
    http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/current-and-potential-arable-land-use-in-africa_a9fd [2006]

  99. alan neil ditchfield says:

    INNUMERACY
    a,n.ditchfield
    Innumeracy is a new word, coined as a companion to illiteracy. To those afflicted by innumeracy, the dozens, thousands and millions are mere words. The Innumerate talk about billions and trillions with no concern for what they say and are prone to bad judgment when it comes to large quantities.
    A sense of proportion is needed to address issues requiring insight into magnitude. One billion seconds add up to about 32 years. One billion minutes is close to 1900 years, a span of time that takes us back to the Roman Empire at the end of the century of Christ. These facts throw some light on the lack of perception of those not endowed with a mathematical background.
    All grant that the planet is large, but how large is crucial in many issues. What is the content of the crust of the earth?
    One cubic kilometre of the crust weighs 2.7 billion tonnes. A sphere with a circumference of 40 thousand km has a surface of 509 000 000 km². To a depth of 1000 m, the crust holds 1.366 billion billion tonnes:
    1 366 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes
    .Reckoning with a depth of 100 m, as readily accessible, only knocks off one zero from an astronomical number.
    It is unlikely that mankind will ever assay the content of such a vast mass. Diehards will still hold as axiomatic that, ultimately, a finite planet cannot sustain infinite growth. But resources are so great that they may be regarded as infinite when compared to any conceivable human need. Does the innumerate talk about limited non-renewable resources make sense?
    Common sense and mathematics make exhaustion of non-renewable resources a concept alien to mining businesses tuned into realities of supply, demand and cost. Consistent records of prices of commodities are maintained by a magazine, The Economist, since the middle of the 19th century. Far from rising in response to growing scarcity, all commodity prices have shown decline in response to abundance and falling costs. That is why feeding a human being costs, in real value, 1/8 of what it was in 1850.
    An additional fact is that, ultimately, the planet is subject to the law of conservation of mass. Human consumption never subtracted one gram from the mass of the planet. All the stuff is still around in some form and may be recycled. The limit would be the availability and cost of energy, but with the advent of inexpensive fusion energy from deuterium this becomes possible. It may be claimed that controlled fusion energy has not yet become practical, but to assume that it never will be is an assumption that science and technology will henceforth remain frozen. Fusion energy is no physical impossibility on a par with perpetual energy; is an ongoing process in stars and mankind has made H bombs.
    How much energy is available? Each cubic meter of seawater contains about 102.8 x 10 ²³ atoms of deuterium with a mass of 34.4 grams. It holds the equivalent to the heat combustion of 269 tonnes of coal, or of 1360 barrels of crude oil. The world resource of seawater’s deuterium is around a billion times greater than the known fossil fuel reserve.
    Quantification reveals a clash of two mindsets set apart by a chasm of understanding. The innumerate camp resorts to acts of faith in experts – and soothsayers they are incapable of spotting. Those with background in hard science don’t care about beliefs. Engineers use Euclidean geometry because its propositions stand demonstrated, not because they believe in Euclid. Richard Feynman said that science is a belief – in the ignorance of experts. The hard science people are trained to mistrust all doctrines and think for themselves.
    The innumerate depend on faith on what others say. When it suits them they quote a consensus in peer reviewed periodicals as the stamp of approval by higher authority. This hardens opposition to a suspect cause of propagandists. Consensus forming is a political process that has no place in science, always open to inquiry and addition of new layers of knowledge. Who peer-reviewed the work of Isaac Newton? Nobody: Newton has no peer. Einstein over fifty years wrote five hundred articles, none of them peer-reviewed. Is Relativity Theory invalid because it lacks approval by self-appointed authorities?
    Getting mathematicians to believe in a consensus of soothsayers is akin to referring an obscure point of a theological dispute to an atheist.

  100. u.k.(us) says:

    @ Willis,
    I thought your comment to Roger A. Pielke Sr., was way over the top (even for you).
    No middle ground.

    Divide your enemies, is a tactic in war.
    Are we not in one ?

    The politicians need a face-saving way out of the hysteria they have been promoting.

  101. wayne Job says:

    Being an optimist, I have faith in the overall goodness of mankind.
    Many times in the worlds history an evil has bought mayhem to
    mankind, but in the fullness of time has been overcome.

    This latest evil created, not for the first time by bad science,
    shall also be overcome. Revkin et al are only useful idiots in
    the grand evil and know not what they do.

    Mankind was given the instruction “go forth and subdue the world”
    I take this to mean to make the world a safe and suitable place for mankind.
    Transforming the entire planet into the best garden of eden possible.
    Useful idiots are a road block to progress, that shall be overcome.

  102. Robert in Calgary says:

    Bravo Willis. Delighted to see a spade called a spade.

    The dainty folks are once again, shocked….shocked at direct talk.

    http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1848/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1848-65447.jpg

  103. Jimbo says:

    Terry says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    …………………..
    The killer point, though, is that human activity stands accused of driving climate change. The win-win strategy is population reduction which mitigates both risks. Focussing only on CO2 reduction is unlikely to be effective with the upward pressure on resource consumption as improved living standards are pursued. A much more difficult challenge with moral and religious implications. However If we don’t address the population issue directly, any action on CO2 will ultimately be futile.

    Are you out of your mind? WTF are you talking about? Please beef up your assertions. All I see are your BS words. How do YOU propose to reduce population??? Will you be among those reduced??? I wait for your reply.

  104. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    And a note to Willis Eschenbach about carelessness (I agree that my 2007 population math – there from the first day of the blog – badly needs updating; leaving it up unchanged this long was careless).

    Despite repeated references to David Victor in the introduction to the Denialism post, you somehow missed that it was the text of a lecture by him at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

    All of the assertions you complain about are his.

    This is a guest post – kind of like yours here at WUWT.

    Of course I knew that you were quoting somebody, Andy, don’t be foolish. Perhaps your usual readers might miss the big blocks of quoted text in between your own paragraphs … I didn’t, you’d have to be blind not to notice them.

    But you quoting someone else doesn’t make it a guest post.

    THIS is a guest post. As with other guest posts, the guest wrote it, not Anthony. The guest author, myself, chose what to put in or leave out. The guest author decided on the headline. The guest author picked what to quote, and what to leave out. The guest author decided on the order and the logic, and edited it, and checked it for errors. That’s called a “guest post”.

    In your case, none of that is true. It’s your post, Andy. Look, I quoted you, just as you quoted David Victor … does that mean that this is an Andy Revkin “guest post” simply because I quoted you??? Absolutely not, and you quoting David doesn’t make your post a guest post either.

    Trying to pass your own work off as a “guest post” when it is questioned is a joke. You wrote the post, you wrote the headline, you laid out the order of the ideas, you chose which what to emphasize and what to ignore, you decided that the message was worth repeating, you checked the spelling and edited it for clarity … and now you want to disown it? That’s your excuse, that it was a “guest post”???

    I can see why Mann said you couldn’t be “trusted to carry the message” … you can’t even be trusted to stand behind your own words that you’ve chosen to publish.

    Finally, I ask people to QUOTE MY WORDS when they disagree with me, for a reason. The reason is that otherwise, folks like you twist what I said to fit your fancies. In this case, you speciously claim that I didn’t notice that you were quoting Viner, and thus “all of the assertions that [I] complain about are his [David Viner's]” …

    So I’m sure that you can point out the various “assertions” of Viner’s that I complained about in the head post. As far as I can see, I didn’t bring up one damn word about what David Viner had to say … so it’s time to put up or shut up, Andy. Here’s the question, we’ll see if you come back to answer it, or you walk away from your train wreck. Are you ready? It’s not a tough question:

    Which of Viner’s “assertions” are you claiming that I “complained about” in my head post?

    Please provide quotations of my words to back up your claims.

    w.

  105. usurbrain says:

    If the so-called global warming is going to cause all of the death and destruction, war and pestilence that they predict, would not those events prevent the over population they are so concerned with? Looks self regulating to me.

  106. Jimbo says:

    Terry says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    …………………..
    The killer point, though, is that human activity stands accused of driving climate change. The win-win strategy is population reduction which mitigates both risks

    You really should get out more. Generally speaking the poorer people are the more children they have. The wealthier they are the fewer kids. Please do not believe me look around you then go to Haiti. Do you want to live in a country like China or North Korea with their forced abortions?

  107. jorgekafkazar says:

    Alan Robertson says: “The sad part of it is, Andrew Revkin is one of the least worst of the alarmists.”

    Amen. He tries to be even-handed, and sometimes succeeds, when he’s not worried about “the big cut-off.”

  108. Gail Combs says:

    Charles Battig says: @ February 22, 2014 at 11:51 am

    The population control activists have a ready-made solution in Dan Brown’s “Inferno” novel. They just need to replicate that “virus programming thing,” and make one-third of the world sterile.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    They are already on solved that problem:

    In 2001 scientists at the Epicyte bio-lab in San Diego created the ultimate GM crop—’contraceptive corn’—after researchers discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives.

    Announcing his success at a press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants and announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”

    ….The company itself was taken over in 2004 by Biolex and nothing more was heard in any media about the development of spermicidal corn….
    Link

    (Biolex is located in Pittboro NC)

    Just to make you feel all safe.

    Biotech Company Admits StarLink Contamination Is Forever 3-22-1

    ….Last fall, Bohlen discovered StarLink corn in Kraft taco shells at a Maryland grocery store. The discovery led to a recall of almost 300 food products. Now, Wichtrich said, “no matter how diligent our collective efforts are, we can never get to, or guarantee, ‘zero.’ ” Because the StarLink corn can never be cleaned out of the U.S. food supply, Wichtrich said, Aventis wants the Environmental Protection Agency to change its rules.

    ….Wichtrich said that 437 million additional bushels of StarLink have been found in storage, which is much more than previously thought. About 50 million bushels of StarLink corn were grown under license during 2000, and Starlink was inadvertently mixed into another 20 million bushels.

    The EPA now has a “zero-tolerance” policy, meaning it views any amount of the StarLink corn in the U.S. food supply as a violation. One kernel of StarLink corn in a sample of 2,400 kernels would cause a load of corn to be rejected, Wichtrich said. EPA should give Aventis an exception or revise its policy to tolerate a certain level of StarLink in food, he said…..

    Until the Centers for Disease Control finishes its study, no one will know whether the StarLink corn causes allergic reactions, he said. CDC is investigating the claims of 44 people who said they got sick after eating corn products, he said….

    Even though Starlink corn (Cattle feed) was withdrawn from the market the problem has not gone away. This is mainly because the Starlink corn cross pollinated with ordinary corn on neighboring farms and the genetics is now ‘loose in the wild’

    August 29, 2013: StarLink resurfaces: GM corn banned decade ago found in Saudi Arabia

    …The study published in the journal Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology earlier this month found that genetically modified StarLink maize, allowed for domestic animal feed only in the US, has been contaminating Saudi Arabian products…

    ….aid sent by the UN World Food Program and the US to a number of Central American nations was found to be highly contaminated with StarLink corn. 80% of the 50 samples tested came back positive for StarLink maize and Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador were all compelled to refuse the aid, according to the journal Green Med…..
    rt(DOT)com/news/banned-gm-resurfaces-saudi-arabia-074/

    Enjoy your corn chips, corn flakes and Mexican food guys.

  109. Willis Eschenbach says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 5:00 pm

    @ Willis,
    I thought your comment to Roger A. Pielke Sr., was way over the top (even for you).
    No middle ground.

    While you quibble about my tactics, people are dying from the policies espoused by climate activists. The UK is hard hit by “fuel poverty” … is there a middle ground for the old buggers freezing in their garrets?

    Call me crazy, but in such a fight, I take sides, I don’t try to find middle ground. In this case, your precious “middle ground” means people dying, but just less of them …

    I see this all the time. There’s a financial dispute, and someone says “well, just split it down the middle”. But if someone stole a hundred thousand dollars from you, does splitting it down the middle solve anything? Is that the dispute resolution you’re looking for when someone has stolen your money? Sometimes, both sides are on the cliff, and the only thing in the “middle ground” is the abyss.

    Divide your enemies, is a tactic in war.
    Are we not in one ?

    The politicians need a face-saving way out of the hysteria they have been promoting.

    Like what? What would be an example of that? What is a “face-saving” way to admit that the policies that they are promoting are already causing untold damage to the poor? Break out some examples, so I can figure out what the heck you are talking about.

    w.

    PS—As to whether I was “over the top” with RP Sr., I have great respect for his science. But when you start defending folks whose policies are killing people, you cease to be a respected eminent scientist on my planet, at that point you’re just another bloodthirsty joe who doesn’t give a damn about the poor.

    Finally, after all of the endless reams of abuse that I’ve taken personally for my scientific views, particularly from decent honorable gentlemen like Roger and Andy, I fear that their complaints simply don’t ring true. I didn’t see them rising to my defense when I’ve been attacked … Dr. Roy called me a plagiarist, for example. Where was the good Dr. Pielke then?

    Well, he was doing what far too many climate scientists are very good at doing … sitting quietly, not saying a word, and watching the field of climate science circling the drain because of their inaction …

  110. Willis Eschenbach says:

    jorgekafkazar says:
    February 22, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    Alan Robertson says:

    “The sad part of it is, Andrew Revkin is one of the least worst of the alarmists.”

    Amen. He tries to be even-handed, and sometimes succeeds, when he’s not worried about “the big cut-off.”

    Oh, please. He entitled his post, “A Look at the ‘Shills’, ‘Skeptics’ and “Hobbyists” Lumped Together in Climate Denialism”. If you think that is “even-handed”, you’ve both lost the plot entirely. Even-handed people don’t describe their opposition as “denialists” and claim that their movement is “denialism” … perhaps the word you’re trying to grab hold of is “under-handed” rather than “even-handed”.

    w.

  111. Hi Willis,

    Not to reopen an old argument, but Mann didn’t “splice two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed.” The Nature paper in question had both the reconstruction and historical temperature records as separate curves, both clearly labeled. It was Jones and others who spliced them together without labeling for the cover of a WMO report.

    Here is the Nature paper in question for reference: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

  112. Gail Combs says:

    pokerguy says: @ February 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    …. on a personal level he’s never struck me as anything but sincere and well meaning. For a warmist, he’s quite willing and open to discuss opposing points of view.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is why he is the most dangerous kind of propagandist. It is the Con Artist who can suck you in and make you believe he is a warm, sincere, reasonable and genuinely caring individual that has the best chance of really suckering you in and taking you to the cleaners.

    If a Con Artist can’t pull off that facade he isn’t going to be successful. Given the huge amount of money behind this Hoax, they can afford the best Con Artists in the business.

  113. Henrik Sørensen says:

    After years of reading and having this site as my dearest on the web, I need to leave a reply – something I haven’t done for years since I kicked a Usenet habit. This … almost dissing Willis and asking, even demanding, this website be without personal attacks and sticking to science. My. Had this site been another website without deserved personal attacks and the fireworks that is a Willis’ or a Monckton’s it wouldn’t be what it is – a site of such proportions it actually has an impact. And we would be so far worse off for it. Willis, thanks for your writings.

  114. dbstealey says:

    I fully agree with richardcourtney’s comment @1:41 pm above. Richard quotes ‘Terry':

    “Growth in human population is the real problem…”

    No, it isn’t. Population growth is not a problem at all.

    First, the word “billions” is simply a scare word in this context. A while back there was a conversation here about the effect of the human population on the planet. It was pointed out that the entire population of Earth could easily fit within a one-kilometre sphere, with room to spare. Also, that termites alone have a mass that is 10X greater than humans.

    The problem isn’t the number of people. The ‘problem’ is that everyone seems to want to live in the choicest locations. But there aren’t that many choice locations. People are parochial, so when their choice location gets crowded, they assume the whole planet is equally crowded — which leads to wrong-headed and emotional Malthusian thinking. But in fact, most of the planet is essentially vacant.

    It can easily be shown that a rising population is good for everyone: in a growing population everyone on average becomes wealthier. They are also healthier, and they live longer. Conversely, in areas with a declining population, everyone is worse off on average. Just visit the finger lakes area of New York state, or California’s Lake County, or the West Virginia countryside, and you will see very long term poverty. That is due directly to a stagnant population.

    Andy Revkin is wrong in his population alarmism, just as he is wrong in his climate alarmism. Both views are based on conclusions that were arrived at by using an erroneous premise. The premise that a growing population is a problem is contradicted by real world observations — the same way the erroneous AGW premise is contradicted. Climate alarmism is based on the fallacy that CO2 is bad. But CO2 is not bad. In fact, there is ample evidence that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better, at both current and projected concentrations.

    No one has been able to identify any global damage, or global harm, due to the rise in that beneficial trace gas [which has only risen from about 3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000 over a century and a half]. That is why Revkin’s pejorative labeling of scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] as “denialists” is so objectionable. [I call on Andy Revkin to publicly repudiate the 'denialist' label, and abstain from using it any more. Among other reasons, it takes the place of rational thought.]

    The true deniers are those who deny objective reality; those who deny scientific facts and empirical observations. Despite asking for examples for literally years now, not one person has ever been able to produce any measurable, testable scientific evidence showing that “carbon” is a problem. So long as Revkin continues to treat harmless, beneficial CO2 as a problem, without any testable, measurable evidence whatever, the more ridiculous he sounds to thinking people.

  115. u.k.(us) says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    February 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    ===============
    Damn, when you prod Willis you better be ready.
    I forgot about all that other stuff you speak of (not my doing).
    I liked the “precious” inference, I guess my writing needs work.
    All the best.

  116. Ron House says:

    cynical_scientist says:

    What I find most interesting about Revkin’s article is the language. He consistently uses “Denialist”, “Denialism” instead of “Denier”, “Denial”. And it isn’t just Revkin doing it – most of the people he quotes are doing it too. This looks to me like yet another orchestrated language shift along the lines of global warming –> climate change –> climate weirding –> etc. It is bizarre the way they keep switching language. Who decides these things?

    Anyway, as people do not speak of Holocaust denialists or Holocaust denialism, this looks to me like an attempt to hide their tracks and make the smear less obvious. The new language is close enough to the old to still be offensive. But the slight distance gives plausible deniability so that if someone takes them to task over the use of the D word they can pretend we are too sensitive and it is all just a coincidence.

    I’ve noticed this for many years, and it doesn’t only apply to climate opinions. It is part of an ongoing attempt to tell lies deniably. Another example: have you noticed how, once upon a time, human beings came in two sexes, now they come in two “genders”? The code: “sex” reports your biological reality, “gender” reports how you were socialised. So the cogniscenti write papers about socialisation, report their conclusions, and you and I and the great unwashed masses all imagine they are talking about biological realities – and they allow us to keep our foolish illusions. Someone of the male “gender” isn’t necessarily a male! After looking at quite a few of these, I have found that anywhere a word gets inexplicably changed for another, you can be pretty sure there is a deep and malicious reason for it. You are right to be suspicious of this change.

  117. Mike Smith says:

    I’m with Willis on this one.

    By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today.

    Revkin like so many other so-called journalists publishes made-up predictions about the future claiming solid scientific grounding. But it’s pure nonsense. His basic assertion doesn’t stand up to 10-second sanity check. But he runs with it anyway.

  118. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Zeke Hausfather says:
    February 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Hi Willis,

    Not to reopen an old argument, but Mann didn’t “splice two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed.” The Nature paper in question had both the reconstruction and historical temperature records as separate curves, both clearly labeled. It was Jones and others who spliced them together without labeling for the cover of a WMO report.

    He did exactly that, Zeke. The clearest explanation I know of is on ClimateAudit, here (emphasis mine):

    Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

    Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

    mike’s response speaks for itself.

    No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

    But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here.

    When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

    So I hold to my original claim. Mann most assuredly spliced the data together by padding the proxy data with real data, and then he smoothed the joint so no one would notice.

    My best to you,

    w.

  119. Willis Eschenbach says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:

    February 22, 2014 at 5:31 pm
    ===============
    Damn, when you prod Willis you better be ready.
    I forgot about all that other stuff you speak of (not my doing).
    I liked the “precious” inference, I guess my writing needs work.
    All the best.

    Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

    w.

  120. Kip Hansen says:

    Willis,

    Peilke Sr. has it right. [NB: You've gone ahead and made a D.F. of yourself again. Have you tried biting your tongue until the urge passes?]

    Revkin is a colleague…he may be a bit over on the “other” side (if there must be sides at all), but he is a fellow science/climate science journalist, and deserves to be treated with a modicum of collegiality. If he were to write about you (small chance, but he has mentioned me, so he might mention you) he would do so respectfully.
    –kh

  121. Ed_B says:

    Willis, I admire your brilliance, and your fighting spirit. I personally have used your concept of the ocean equatorial thunderstorms functioning as the earths thermostat. It is simple to explain and is brilliant. CO2 is thus not a threat.

    Unfortunately, the climate hysteria is pushed by very powerful advocates. They have their views propagated by a fawning media. As a result, the average citizen has no way of accessing alternative views.

    You are quite right to point out the moral hazard of scientists being polite towards bad science. It is hurting people, if not killing them.

    Fortunately, mother nature has dumped several cold winters on us ordinary folks, and we are now naturally more skeptical of the warmist hysteria.

    Secondly, I do hope that Mark Styne and M Mann end up in court and the words FRAUDULENT becomes a household word attached to climate science. IMO, these polite climate scientists had best get out front with their own strong words, or they will be left behind.

  122. Eeyore Rifkin says:

    Revkin has earned this opprobrium. He knows that the denialist rhetoric is toxic. He ought to know that it’s wrong. He adopts the appearance of a semi-critical position, allowing for nuance and even a touch of irony while still accepting and promoting the label he knows to be toxic; then he complains when others refuse to acknowledge his sophistication, choosing instead to make a point of his stupidity. In what discursive universe would that outcome not have been predictable?

    As tempting as it is to regard Revkin as a victim of groupthink, which promotes stupidity even among the highly intelligent, Willis is absolutely correct to hold Revkin responsible for his own words. Revkin did not simply fall in with a bad crowd. He’s the author of his own stupidity.

  123. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kip Hansen says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    Willis,

    Peilke Sr. has it right. [NB: You've gone ahead and made a D.F. of yourself again. Have you tried biting your tongue until the urge passes?]

    Revkin is a colleague…he may be a bit over on the “other” side (if there must be sides at all), but he is a fellow science/climate science journalist, and deserves to be treated with a modicum of collegiality. If he were to write about you (small chance, but he has mentioned me, so he might mention you) he would do so respectfully.
    –kh

    Which part of Revkin calling me a “denialist” strikes you as being “collegial”? When a man calls me a “denier” or a “denialist”, it is an intentional, underhanded, clear and scurrilous link to the idea of Holocaust Denial. For you to claim that a man willing to use that kind of language, after endless requests from those he aims it at to NOT use exactly those offensive terms, might make him YOUR colleague, I don’t know …

    … but it damn sure doesn’t make him my colleague.

    Colleagues don’t call each other “deniers”, “shills”, “hobbyists” or anything like that on my planet, Kip. If you think that kind of insult is “respectful” in any shape or form, you’ve lost the plot entirely. READ THE DAMN POST and come back and tell me what a polite respectful fellow he is …

    Not only that, but READ THE DAMN LINKS I posted above, and then go do some research on your own. Revkin was the toady and the “go-to” guy for all of the crooks exposed by climategate … sorry, Kip, but your nice, kind, and polite description of Revkin runs aground on the facts. He has lost any claim to be either “respectable” or a “journalist” by his shameless shilling for Mike Mann and Phil Jones.

    w.

    [NB: You've gone ahead and without reading the post or reading the links I posted, or perhaps after reading them, you've made a D.F of yourself again. Have you tried biting your tongue until the urge passes?]

  124. Siberian_Husky says:

    Dude- you need to seriously get a life.

  125. hunter says:

    Revkin is part of the great NYT tradition that pushed eugenics, dismissed Robert Goddard’s work on rockets in space because rockets could not work with no air to push against, and covered up Stalin’s political mass murder. And that is just a few highlights of the NYT getting it wrong. Revkin is a willing schill for those who have profited from misleading people about climate. That he would also mislead people about population is not surprising. This sort of basic deception appears to be a pattern he is very comfortable with.

  126. David L. Hagen says:

    Richard Courtney
    I read your linked post. Initial response – superficial. Wave the economic wand and presto.
    Reality check!
    If its so easy, why did Finland lose 1/3rd of its population – to a cold snap?
    Why did North Korea lose 1 million to famine – when it lost its cheap diesel fuel and tractor parts?
    Why did China lose 60 million to famine?
    Why did US oil production peak in 1970 and then decline?
    Why has each state/region of the US except one peaked in oil production?
    What is required to replace that oil?
    Why is Shell drilling in the Arctic?
    Why is oil at $110/bbl instead of $10/bbl?
    Study the graphs and data at Actuary Gail Tverberg’s Our Finite World.
    Yes I believe there are solutions, and I am working on them. However poor planning could easily result in a billion people dying from famine on the way.
    May I encourage you to grapple with the issues and practical engineering magnitude and task of what needs to be done.
    What does it cost and how long does it take to install a coal to liquid fuel plant?
    See Robert Hirsch, The Impending World Energy Mess.
    Try reaching a credible understanding of the issues and how to grapple with them.
    How do we supply 10%/year replacement fuel to get form here to there?
    Typical cost is $110,000/bbl/year.
    World consumption is 91 million bbl/day.
    10%/year is 9 million bbl/day.
    You “only” need ~ $1 trillion/year.
    Saudi Arabia only produces 9.8 million bbl/year of oil.
    How do you go about adding a Saudi Arabia of oil about every year?
    (Besides having a wand and a black hat)
    See Charles Hall, Energy and the Wealth of Nations.
    I look forward to your serious response.

  127. pat says:

    in Australia, we have science reporter, Robyn Williams, who fronts two radio shows for the taxpayer-funded ABC – The Science Show and Ockham’s Razor.

    i heard a repeat of an ABC “The Naked Scientists” program recorded at the AAAS in Chicago, this morning, & a condensed transcript plus audio is on the Cambridge University “Naked Scientists” website:

    ABC Naked Scientist: Chris Smith: Naked at the AAAS
    Do scientists resort to propaganda to defend climate change? How do we deal with evolution unbelievers? How do governments and policy-makers decide what science should be funded? Where will the next generation of communicators come from? Why are western countries spending more on baldness than malaria? Live at the AAAS 2014 meeting in Chicago, panellists David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Science, Robyn Williams, of the Science Show on the ABC, MIT Enterprise Forum president, Kathleen Kennedy, IgNobel Awards founder Marc Abrahams and University of Madison-Wisconsin scientist Molly Jahn join Chris Smith to answer questions live from the audience…
    CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT:
    My name is Chris Smith otherwise known as the Naked Scientist. We’re here at this conference with people from all over the world who are authorities in their own rights and we’ve been hearing about lots of discoveries and challenges that are going on…
    Now, the AAAS meeting is all about science and innovation…
    ROBYN WILLIAMS: Robyn – Well first of all, a point about entrepreneurship which I find rather fascinating. We mainly think about great entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, but a point made by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who’s at the University of Sussex and she specialises in innovation is that if you take Steve Jobs’ wonderful invention kind of, the Smartphone, all seven technologies and scientific discoveries for that device came from state-funded campuses and he put them together. It wasn’t done in his firm. It was done at state-funded universities. So, we need to bear that in mind…
    ***Joel Veness, science journalist. Like most good ideas at this conference, this question came from some spirited drinks we had after the session yesterday. Climate deniers often use the tools of propaganda to further their campaign. Should science be embracing these similar tools?
    Chris – What propaganda?
    Joel – Yeah.
    Marc – Propaganda and lies, that’s what you’re asking?
    Joel – Maybe not lies because that goes against the whole principles of science I guess, but maybe propaganda?
    Chris – Marc?
    Marc – It’s difficult. Arguments between somebody who wants to discuss whatever the topic is and somebody who simply wants to stick their foot out and trip the other person, they’re not fair fights in either direction. Does anybody here have any guidance for anybody in dealing with that?
    Kathleen – I’ve been doing a lot of work in Russia lately. I was actually in Moscow 4 weeks ago, I think. It’s interesting, this propaganda question that there’s in society like that. there is still this idea of – I’m in meetings and often they talk about science innovation policy that they’re trying to build that we should just do that in the innovation Marcets. They sort of talk about – if they talk about it enough, things will happen. It’s such a counter thinking to how science and technology is done here and in the UK I’m sure. That it’s a very much a bottom up type thing and I think propaganda is about being a top down methodology. And so, I think that there are certainly places in the world that are trying to do that and they think if they push it down enough that it will happen. My thinking is that I see the way science works here and I don’t know that – it seems to me, counter the way that science actually happens…
    David – Yes, I think it will be dangerous to get into propaganda because the origins of propaganda is propagating the faith and science has to be a rational and sceptical inquiry. I think the problem with the climate change deniers is that they’ve taken one of the tools of science which is scepticism and taken it to such an extreme. It’s become a new form of kind of irrationality. I think where science has to get it right is, how sceptical you can be. If you’re being asked to believe that almost all major western scientists and researchers working in this discipline are engaged in a kind of organised conspiracy, at that point, calling it scepticism doesn’t capture then the sort of irrationality of it. So, I think getting the balance, getting the scepticism right is the best approach.
    Marc – Rather than going for the tools of propaganda.
    Robyn – It just so happens, I did my programme the Science Show, the first one in August 1975 and one would guess it was Lord Ritchie Calder and he happened to be talking about the energy crisis then back in 1975. And he said, “Amongst other things, we’ve been so concerned about the use of oil and coal, and fossil fuels that this is going to change the atmosphere and affect the climate drastically. We’ve been talking about this since 1961 and here we are in ’75 and no one has done anything yet.” Which was, when I heard it back, rather chilling. But I think what has been shown Naomi Oreskes who was at San Diego and is now at Harvard in her book “Merchants of Doubt”. As Marc said, what one side is using is rational argument and trying to get the information over and it’s complex. When there’s something that knocks their ideas, they write a 20-page article which is published in one of the journal which their mates read and on the other side, the people who are knocking climate science are using all the techniques of advertising, of propaganda and the sowing of doubt. Naomi Oreskes is sighting the tobacco companies who, for 40 years or more were trying to say that cigarettes may be okay. There is doubt about the science. So, it’s unequal and I think it’s time the scientists really got up, didn’t use propaganda, but use short, sharp sentences and fought equally.
    ***Chris – And stun guns might help as well.
    Robyn – Yes…
    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/20140214-1/nocache/1/?cHash=7cc4c94970a73724aa3bd0a2037b8257&tx_nakscishow_pi1%5Btranscript%5D=1

    ***Joel Veness: find proof anywhere online that shows Veness is a science journalist. i have found nothing whatsoever.
    however, Veness was previously with UNSW &. on his website heading, he is now Adjunct Professor at University of Alberta in Canada, tho his own website says he moved from Sydney to the UK. who knows or cares, but he’s into REINFORCEMENT LEARNING, which sounds very much like PROPAGANDA to me:

    Joel Veness: GOOGLE SCHOLAR
    University of Alberta
    Artificial Intelligence – Reinforcement Learning – Data Compression
    http://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=_iYrAxEAAAAJ&hl=en

    much, much more craziness in the transcript at The Naked Scientists/AAAS link.

  128. george e. smith says:

    Well my local talk radio station, has an evening talk host (weekdays), name of John Bachelor. A usually interesting guy, with often more interesting guests, from all over the world, and news gamut.

    So just the other night (thur or fri) he has on Andrew Revkin, who, being from NYT is the world’s leading expert on climate. So Revkin spouts the usual CAGWMMCC as if he hadn’t seen any evidence for the last 17 years and five months.

    So Bachelor laps it all up, and effectively appends his stamp of credibility to Revkin’s authoritative stature.

    Sorry John; Revkin did nothing to raise his stature; but he surely did send yours right into the toilet bowl.

    So there’s another talk radio Icon; whose reputation has bit the dust. It’s getting like the WWE and MMA, are about the only things one can trust any more. But I am also saving batteries in my portable radio.

  129. Willis Eschenbach says:

    I called Revkin a “lapdog” for the Climategate crooks. Revkin objected above to this. So I suppose I should remind him that it’s all in the public record …

    Andrew Revkin to Michael Mann:

    is there anything about the GRL paper forthcoming from Mc & Mc [Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] that warrants a response?

    I guess this is what passes for hard-hitting science journalism in Pomerania … when someone writes a paper, you email a scientist that hates them with a passion, and ask his advice regarding what you should write about, and ask him whether you should mention the paper at all …

    Then there’s this one, about Mann/Jones et al and their “key allies” …

    Why don’t we sign this document, “Mann, Bradley, Hughes” that will be ready for distribute to our closest colleagues and allies. I’ll prepare a PDF version for distribution, to make it difficult for others to alter (you never know w/ these folks)…

    Should I go ahead and forward this document to Heike, then, in an email? Also, should I send this to Dick Kerr at Science separately–Dick has often been helpful. And maybe Jesse Smith at Science, and a few key journalists (Andy Revkin at New York Times)?

    So perhaps Revkin really isn’t a Pomeranian, since he’s a “key ally” like Dick Kerr at Science magazine … then there’s this:

    date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:08:13 -0500
    from: Andy Revkin

    a key take-home point, please, is that this story was written mainly for the benefit of the
    10s of millions of disengaged or doubtful or simply under-edcuated Americans out there for
    whom it is NEWS that the only discourse now is among folks who believe human-forced climate
    change is a huge problem. (as jim hansen said in my story, exclamation point included!)
    the ‘hotter’ voices are doing their job well.

    i’m doing mine.

    So the activists are doing their part in spreading their lies, the science is settled, and he’s doing his part for the activists … but of course, if he gets off-line, they yank his leash … this from Ray Pierrehumbert to Andy:

    I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global warming and an ice age at the same creates a real public relations problem for us.

    Note the concern is not that what Andy writes might be true, or even that it might be false. The real concern, what Ray is telling Andy to get back to doing, is providing “public relations” for “us”, that is to say for the Climategate unindicted co-conspirators …

    Then there’s the famous “pause” in temperatures. When that appeared, what did Revkin do? Well, he asked his masters what they wanted to have highlighted in his “independent” article:

    As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the ‘Average Joe’ out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big ‘skeptics conference’ coming next week), I think it’s important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally.

    Note that I haven’t touched on Revkin’s abysmal handling of the crimes of Peter Gleick, or a host of other related topics. Those are just a few of the low points, there are plenty more.

    To me, all of that spells “Pomeranian”, but YMMV …

    w.

  130. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Siberian_Husky says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Dude- you need to seriously get a life.

    I’ve spent the day where I’ve spent the last three days, in a hospital room with my father-in-law, who is 86, blind, and not at all well. I feed him, and hold the urinal for him, and clean him up afterwards, and tuck in his blankets … and in between, I write to fill the endless empty hours, and to take my mind off of his ongoing pain.

    So thanks for your concern about what I do, but in fact, I have a life, and a very full life indeed. It’s not necessarily full of rainbows and unicorns, but it is a full and very rewarding life nonetheless.

    I’ll let my father-in-law know that you think I should be doing something completely different. He’ll enjoy the irony … he’s lost a lot, but he still has a sense of humor.

    w.

  131. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Joe says:
    February 22, 2014 at 3:08 pm
    papiertigre says:
    February 22, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Well look at that. Revkin is given the royal welcome, along with a never ending line of kiss asses.
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    It’s called civility, mate. And it’s the one area where most sceptics have consistently beaten the other lot hands down; Andy Revkin may be wrong in his views but, as far as I’ve seen, he’s one of the few believers who generally keeps a civil tongue in his pen and avoids ad-homs. For that alone he deserves the same in return.

    It may be a new concept to some around here but, if you’re hoping to change peoples minds (which is what we need to do with climate change), then throwing napalm at them is a very very bad idea ;)

    Calling people “denialists” and calling me a “hobbyist” is “civility” on your planet? Dang, you must live in a bizarre place. That’s not keeping a “civil tongue in his pen”.

    That is an insult, and a deliberate insult. Not only that, it’s an insult that he has been asked time after time not to use, and still uses … charming.

    Civility? Joe, that kind of passive-aggressive behavior might fool you, but not me. His entire headline consists of nothing but ad homs, and despite that, you’re so taken in that you actually say he “avoids ad homs”???

    Wake up and smell the coffee.

    w.

    PS—Various skeptics have asked Revkin over and over, politely and nicely, to stop insulting us by calling us deniers … you see how successful your brilliant plan of being nice to the man has worked? Did you ever hear the phrase “nice guys finish last”? It’s because of guys like Revkin that we say that.

    So you may be right that throwing napalm at him might not change his mind … but at least he might actually notice that there is an issue when his eyebrows are singed off …

  132. Colorado Wellington says:

    Siberian_Husky says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Frivolous shots can ricochet.

  133. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..alan neil ditchfield says:

    February 22, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    INNUMERACY
    a,n.ditchfield
    Innumeracy is a new word, coined as a companion to illiteracy. To those afflicted by innumeracy, the dozens, thousands and millions are mere words. The Innumerate talk about billions and trillions with no concern for what they say and are prone to bad judgment when it comes to large quantities…..”””””

    I found your innumeration of the world’s Deuterium resources to be very interesting, and also the existence of hydrogen bombs as evidence that fusion energy is doable, even if not yet demonstrated in controlled fusion.
    I have often read statements to the effect that all the energy the world needs can be obtained from the deuterium in just the top 1/16th of an inch of the water in San Francisco Bay. Of course SF Bay is much smaller than it used to be, so I don’t know if that is still a good number.
    Also, there is some doubt that the top 1/16th inch of SF Bay, is actually water.

    But more importantly; do you know for a fact, that those H bombs you mentioned are actually deuterium ones ??

    The …1D2 + 1D2 -> 2He3 + 0n1 + 3.27 MeV reaction is not yielding a whole lot of energy, and it is not particularly easy to start, in terms of reaction crossection at a given Temperature, plus the neutron radiation is a bit of a safety issue. Even smaller crossection is the alternative :
    ….1D2 + 1D2 -> 1T3 + 1H1 + 4.04 MeV , but eventually that tritium has to give up a neutron.

    ….1D2 + 1T3 -> 2He4 + 0n1 + 17.60 MeV has the largest crossection and yields the most energy, plus that pesky neutron, and is the easiest one to do. I have zero knowledge about which
    reaction(s) have been used; but I doubt that it will be free / cheap, however they do it, or clean either. There are other reactions more interesting, but probably damn hard to do under control.

    Then there is the problem, that gravity sucks, which is why the sun works. But electromagnetism pushes; and then what the hell is it going to push against to squish the fuel ?? Good luck on that; and check out Earnshaw’s theorem.

  134. george e. smith says:

    And my M$ restricted nomenclature should be obvious to anyone. Sorry about that.

  135. john robertson says:

    How do you negotiate with a parasite?
    The great global warming scam has been a real winner in the game of robbing the many to enrich the few.
    Doom, damnation and salvation are always the key memes of mass manipulation.
    Now lets look at who is doing this.
    Our governments, especially the bureaucratic branches of our governments.

    So either these bureaus are staffed with idiots or power hungry thieves, or they have a great mission.
    Me I say fools and bandits, the government payroll has always attracted the most lazy, clueless and greedy.The great mission concept does not compute, what with the post office and motor vehicle branch, Obama care…
    Government has grown like a cancer for the last 5 decades, critical mass must have been reached in the 1980s and the IPCC was formed.
    Seems the parasites are foolish and greedy enough to assume that they shall rule over the productive peoples of this world.
    The parasite now believes it shall dictate the behaviour of its host.
    The Greeks who gave us Democracy, called this Kleptocracy.

  136. My last attempt at quoting didn’t work out so well, so I’ll try to be very clear in my comments instead.

    This post seems a little mean-spirited.

    1. IIRC, Revkin was mentioned in the climategate emails as someone who couldn’t be trusted, not as a media lapdog.

    2. Dot Earth has had the same blurb at the intro since 2007 – except for the clause “, which moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section in 2010,” World population in 2007 was 6.7 billion. Add 1.3 * 2 and he was talking about 9.3 billion – not so far off after all. (My sources for those numbers are indexmundi and geohive, the top google hits when i did quick searches on world and china annual population)

    By the way, how confident are you in FAOSTAT’s data? I see 1.34 billion quoted on the top 6 google hits I get on China’s current population, with annual increases only in the tens of millions. CIA World Factbook says 1.349 as of last July. 1.40 seems high. Were you including Taiwan, and the CIA excludes it maybe?

  137. wws says:

    I think what we’re seeing here in the climate wars is analogous to what’s happening today in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, and even in Syria. Low level warfare between two sides that despise each other can stay hidden beneath the thin veneer of “civility” for a while, but that is only a temporary situation. Either the situation is resolved, or sooner or later open warfare always breaks out, and that only ends when one side definitively wins, and one side definitively loses.

    There is no more civility left in the Climate Wars; once one side abandons it, it is foolishness for the other side to cling to such a thing- you get no rewards for “style points”. But that means the warfare is out in the open now, and there is no turning back, not even for those who wishfully think that they could stay free from it.

    The warmists have been trying to destroy the careers and reputations of the skeptics for quite some time now; suddenly they realize that we are gaining the ability to strike back at them in the same fashion. This is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop that. Things have already gone too far, and for too long.

  138. _Jim says:


    w.

    PS—Various skeptics have asked Revkin over and over, politely and nicely, to stop insulting us by calling us deniers … you see how successful your brilliant plan of being nice to the man has worked?

    It’s the stroke I tell ya; the man is not ‘firing’ on all eight cylinders (or six, or 5 -e,g, old Mercedes 3L diesels- or 4, or 3 -e.g. Smart Car engine et al-) … He may be 1 stick shy on memory, or the ‘access’ lines are all screwed up; maybe dynamic RAM refresh time is messed up now and he is slowly ‘losing bits’ …etc …

  139. James Allison says:

    Revkin has been and continues to be a Toady for members of The Team. He spins the truth and lies and is deceitful. He is following his own particular agenda. These are facts Ladies and Gentlemen. Nobody can truthfully deny this. Sitting here on the sidelines I see Mongrel (read variations that are not genuine) Climate Scientists that Revkin admires so much spin their science output to suit their own agendas. They have been doing it for years. Calling Revkin out is entirely appropriate. ALL True Climate Scientists should climb down from their Ivy Towers and make a habit of doing this. The public would thank them.

  140. Lancifer says:

    Willis,

    I think Mr. Revkin is typical of most “main stream” media types. They have been trained by a long line of “journos” that it is noble to defend the environment and the “little guy” from the evil big corporate polluters.

    This simplistic narrative is part and parcel of the liberal ethos on which the vast majority of journalists, especially ones that have been employed by the Gray Lady, have been weened.

    He doesn’t have the intellectual firepower to overcome this simplistic bias nor do I expect that he has the courage to turn upstream against the current, that has carried him along to his comfortable place in the “media”, even if he were to figure out that the scientific evidence is aligned against the narrative that he has reflexively supported.

    “F” him.

    Keep up the good fight.

  141. hunter says:

    Apparently Mr. Revkin reads this blog.
    Is it possible he believes calling skeptics ‘deniers’ is really that different from calling African Americans “ni**er”? Both terms serve to end conversation, delegitimize those who disagree with you and end all discussion. Odd behavior from someone whose job is allegedly about communication.
    The question is why shouldn’t skeptics pile on point out when he makes idiocratic mistakes, plays lap dog for AGW promoters, etc., if he is just another cowardly bigot pushing an agenda?

  142. b4llzofsteel says:

    [snip - a bit over the top -mod]

  143. John Coleman says:

    Willis Eschenbach, you are super sharp mathematical analyst with an amazing life-experience build up of knowledge about the atmosphere and oceans. I learn a great deal from your posts on WUWT. Thank you and please continue with your contributions. I have great empathy with the current situation with your father-in-law. We old men who have been through these tough times have great appreciation for those who help out in difficult times. hang in there.
    Roger A. Pielke Sr. you are very powerful hero of all of we climate skeptics. I think I understand your approach to the Andrew Revkin issue. An effort to maintain professional contact and improve the personal relationship so that he might give some consideration to your work in the future seems like a good approach.
    I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
    As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
    I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
    It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
    Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling.
    Join me on the high road, please, one and all.

  144. Willis Eschenbach says:

    wws says:
    February 22, 2014 at 8:46 pm

    There is no more civility left in the Climate Wars; once one side abandons it, it is foolishness for the other side to cling to such a thing- you get no rewards for “style points”. But that means the warfare is out in the open now, and there is no turning back, not even for those who wishfully think that they could stay free from it.

    Out in the open now? Now?

    Where have you been for the last decade, during which climate skeptics have been routinely vilified, pilloried, accused of being in the employ of big oil, fired from their jobs, claimed to be mean-spirited, described as “flat-earthers”, and a thousand other forms of opprobrium far, far worse than anything discussed here? Where was your feigned outrage then?

    Go clutch your pearls elsewhere. I’m not buying it.

    w.

  145. Willis Eschenbach says:

    br4ynzofsteel says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    So, caring for your father-in-law gives you the excuse to behave like a rabid dog, Eschenbach?

    Y’see, folks? This is why I ask people to quote my words that they disagree with …

    I said absolutely nothing of the sort. I did not put it forward as an excuse or justification of any kind. That is purely your sick twisted interpretation of my words.

    In fact, from my perspective I do not deserve any commendation for taking such good care of my father-in-law. Instead, I see it as a minimum requirement that would only be worthy of comment if I didn’t do it. It is my obligation, one which I fulfill happily because I’d be a fool to fulfill it in any other manner.

    I was given impolite advice (although nothing compared to yours) that I should get a life … so I described the life I have. Sorry you don’t like it, but it’s the only one I’ve got.

    w.

  146. Colorado Wellington says:

    b4llzofsteel says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    So, caring for your father-in-law gives you the excuse to behave like a rabid dog, Eschenbach?

    Huh? Everyone who can read understands that Willis responded to this by Siberian Husky:

    Dude- you need to seriously get a life.

    I’ve seen such attacks before but that guy’s name was bra1nofw00l.

  147. Colorado Wellington says:

    You beat me to it, Willis.

  148. Joe says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 22, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    [...]Calling people “denialists” and calling me a “hobbyist” is “civility” on your planet? Dang, you must live in a bizarre place. That’s not keeping a “civil tongue in his pen”.

    That is an insult, and a deliberate insult. Not only that, it’s an insult that he has been asked time after time not to use, and still uses … charming.[...]

    [...]So you may be right that throwing napalm at him might not change his mind … but at least he might actually notice that there is an issue when his eyebrows are singed off …
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    The problem is, Willis, it’s not actually about changing is mind. The only thing that’ll do that is his readers (given enough time). Like any journo, he’ll write what his readers want to hear because that’s his business.

    But part of the illusion is that, as Nature increasingly makes the whole thing untenable, he’ll be one of the first to start (openly) changing his tune because that allows his readers to start expressing their own doubts. The fact is, most people want to be told what to think and will avoid admitting to a new thought until someone tells them it’s ok to.

    Quite apart from p*ss*ing him off, reacting like this hands him ammunition to take to his readers about just how nasty and unreasonable we all are. They won’t see that there may be valid complaints at the root of it, just that AGW sceptics are thoroughly nasty people who make unwarranted attacks. They will also tar all sceptics with the same brush because most people are plain stupid (and inherently tribal) like that.

    Meanwhile, maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never really got all this “equating with holocaust deniers” bit. Sure, that may have been the intention of whoever started using it, but it’s only a word and it only has that connotation if we react to it and keep highlighting it. The warmists consistently deny that’s what they mean by it, so take them at their word and the word looses its power.

    If they then try to escalate the insults they’ll have to be more direct next time and some of their own readers will find that just as unpalatable as some of us find this post.

  149. Joe says:

    b4llzofsteel says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    So, caring for your father-in-law gives you the excuse to behave like a rabid dog, Eschenbach?
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    That’s not only below the belt, it’s taking a valid, if robust, discussion into the playgorund.

  150. Jim Bo says:

    george e. smith says:
    February 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    While I didn’t hear the Bachelor broadcast you mentioned, I did catch a portion of his Wednesday evening broadcast…and he’s, apparently, not unsympathetic with the skeptic viewpoint.

  151. NRG22 says:

    By 2050 the US will have lost its Baby Boomer population of 79 million. Birth rates here are down to 63 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

    Does anyone believe that by 2100 there won’t be at least one nuclear war that greatly reduces world population?

  152. Michael Larkin says:

    John Coleman says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    “Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling. Join me on the high road, please, one and all.”

    I agree with you. I love Willis to bits, but sometimes he gets carried away with the rhetoric. I’ve always been impressed by your civility even towards those who disagree with you. Civility costs nothing and has a habit of making people with no axe to grind listen to you. Even if you are right, using invective tends to make the undecided suspicious, because invective is often what the poorly-informed reach for to compensate for their ignorance.

    I’m not suggesting Willis is ill-informed, far from it, only that a certain kind of language might cause some to dismiss him out of hand, which would be a great pity. In fact, it’s one of the reasons that an average bod like me who sometimes gets lost in some of the technicalities of climate science is so suspicious of warmists. I say speak softly and carry the big stick of data, which IMO on good days, Willis does very well. In the long run, I believe it pays big dividends. Steve McIntyre understands better where you are coming from, I believe, and Willis maybe needs to bite his tongue a little more; I can usually read past his occasional invective to the data, but not everyone might be so inclined.

    All my best to you, sir: I think you are a wise gentleman and I urge Willis to listen to you.

  153. Willis Eschenbach says:

    John Coleman says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
    As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
    I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
    It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
    Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling.
    Join me on the high road, please, one and all.

    First, John, thank you for your thoughts, always welcome. However, here’s how I see it.

    Michael Mann is a crook. He broke the law by both deleting emails subject to FOIA, and by advising others to do the same. He stands convicted by his own words.

    Caspar Amman worked double overtime to subvert the IPCC process, lying and cheating at a rate of knots along the way. It’s all well documented.

    Peter Gleick is a crook. He is guilty of wire fraud, fraud which cost Heartland big money in donations. He passed off forged documents attacking his perceived opponents. None of that is disputed.

    Phil Jones is a damn liar. He lied to my face when I made my FOIA request, the Climategate emails revealed it all.

    Lonnie Thompson and his wife are frauds. They defrauded the taxpayers by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to collect data, and then not revealing the data. Matter of public record.

    And Andrew Revkin has been these men’s constant enabler, has spread their lies far and wide, and ignored their criminal actions. He was too pious to print the Climategate emails because in his view they were obtained illegally … but he was happy to publish the Gleick forgeries and stolen documents. His callous, uncaring attitude is evident in the fact that to this day he calls his opponents “deniers”.

    Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS. I don’t care about their personal habits or whether they are nice to their wives. I’m saying they lied and cheated and defrauded and deleted evidence and committed wire fraud and suborned perjury and broke every rule it’s possible to break.

    And John, because people like you refuse to call a crook a crook, and discourage those of us who do so, those men continue to be feted and honored and invited to speak and join the distinguished societies. They have not suffered the slightest opprobrium, unless you count the poor efforts of myself and a few others.

    Now, if this was a faculty tea party, who would care? Certainly not I.

    But these men’s policies are harming and impoverishing and killing poor people now, today. Not only that, but they are causing that pain and suffering under the pious rubric of maybe possibly helping the poor in 50 years …

    So despite the fact that I have the highest respect for you and your work, John, I fully intend to continue to point out that these men are not scientists. They are liars and cheats and frauds whose actions are hugely dangerous, damaging, and destructive.

    Here’s the paradox to me in all of this … why were almost all the good honest climate scientists struck dumb by the revelations of Climategate?

    I don’t understand the attraction of staying silent while your chosen field turns to shit and people are dying around us, truly I don’t, John. You’ll have to come up with a better explanation for staying schtumm than saying you won’t “stoop to name calling”. I don’t want you to stoop for anything. Quite the contrary.

    I want you to stand up for something …

    w.

  154. Adrian O says:

    Willis, I agree entirely with the fact that the climate fellows impoverish the poor, causing the deaths of many, like in the UK.

    Andrew Revkin has always kept his blog open to discussions and opinions of every kind.

    It is the only main newspaper blog with such a record.

    Moreover Revkin has brought up controversial topics for discussion – in particular those you mentioned – when few others did. His own opinions didn’t interfere with the choices of topics and with his printing of answers.

    In emails, he also taught me how to be opinionated without risking to be libelous.

    This is no mean achievement, and should be recognized.

  155. Lew Skannen says:

    I have to agree with Willis on this one. Forever now we have been expected to turn the other cheek and give the benefit of the doubt when the other side behave in increasingly abusive, dishonest and unscientific fashion.
    One of our leading lights has recently decided that he is sick of being called a ‘denier’ and he has a point.
    Now Willis decides to tell it like it is.
    I am also tired of always being treated like a punch bag by vacuous ignorami who we seem to have elected as politicians or appointed as academics. I do not see any point politely ‘engaging’ with people who just want to waste your time and play games. These people are using fake science as cover for political agenda. Real scientists do not have to be forced by FOIA requests to release data and, more importantly, the ONUS is on them to prove, not on us to disprove. We have been jerked around long enough. From now on I am going to make a point of NOT accommodating lies. I will remain civil but I will be very blunt.
    Revkin and many others are dishonest and we should say so.
    Well done Willis.

  156. Lew Skannen says:

    Typo: I am going to make a point of NOT accommodating lies.

    [Fixed. -w.]

  157. gnomish says:

    this exhibition of his hierarchy of values neatly defines the character of each individual in a conclusive way.
    some are insisting that political correctness supersedes survival. to them the disapproval of their destroyers is means more than survival itself.
    some would rather be raped than rude – hey- it worked for dan pearl but not for rational people.
    hatred of evil is directly proportional to love of life.
    and that’s how i know that willis is a man – nothing less.

  158. negrum says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/andrew-revkin-loses-the-plot-episode-xxxviii/#more-103648
    dbstealey says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    I fully agree with richardcourtney’s comment @1:41 pm above. Richard quotes ‘Terry’:

    “Growth in human population is the real problem…”

    No, it isn’t. Population growth is not a problem at all.
    —-l

    Just to clarify: do you feel that population growth can never be a problem (for humans as a whole) under any circumstances?

    As the statement stands, it seems a bit extreme to me. I feel that some are too intent on “culling the unnecessary ” (amongst which I assume they don’t include themselves or their offspring) but from a group perspective I think that when the ratio of humans to resources in a certain area climbs, a point could be reached where the amount of people are the problem. One solution is to expand to new areas, but this presumes that there are always new areas available and raises the issue of who should go and who should stay. Another solution is to control the birthrate, which leads to the question of personal liberty.

    If there were a consensus (since I don’t think it is so much a scientific as a political issue) as to how much resources each person is entitled to (minimum and possibly maximum) and the number were used as a guide (to be adjusted according to eternal factors such as war), do you think it would be a better solution (for the group) than letting the individual decide?

    I do not support the idea of the current socialist state or the CAGW hypothesis and I feel that this issue goes beyond the current battle.

  159. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Adrian O says:
    February 22, 2014 at 11:52 pm

    Willis, I agree entirely with the fact that the climate fellows impoverish the poor, causing the deaths of many, like in the UK.

    Andrew Revkin has always kept his blog open to discussions and opinions of every kind.

    It is the only main newspaper blog with such a record.

    OK.

    Moreover Revkin has brought up controversial topics for discussion – in particular those you mentioned – when few others did. His own opinions didn’t interfere with the choices of topics and with his printing of answers.

    OK.

    In emails, he also taught me how to be opinionated without risking to be libelous.

    Since truth is an absolute defense against libel in the US (unlike the UK), I just tell the truth as best I know it and never give libel a thought.

    This is no mean achievement, and should be recognized.

    OK. Make it so.

    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, how does any of that change the fact that Revkin spent years carrying the water for men who lied, cheated, destroyed evidence, and generally flouted every norm they could find?

    And what does that have to do with his calling me and other skeptics a “climate denialist”? That’s a nasty, ugly term that I and many others have protested has no place in a scientific discussion. It’s just a raw appeal to bigoted emotion … and yet your hero not only uses it, he uses it over and over despite requests that he stop.

    Now to me, that disqualifies him right then and there to any claim of being an honest broker. Honest brokers don’t go around repeatedly calling people a name that they’ve told him they don’t like, and given reasonable explanations for why they don’t like it.

    So you can go on all you want about how he saved you from getting busted for libel, and I won’t deny it. But for me, he’s an unpleasant and vindictive man who goes out of his way to torment his fellows by deliberately doing things he knows they don’t like.

    More to the point, he is complicit in deceiving the public and causing huge damage to the environment, the economy, and the poor. When he comes to grips with that, get back to me. I’m not holding my breath.

    w.

    PS—You notice that Revkin dropped in here to make an untrue claim about what I’d said … and when I asked him to quote what he claims is objectionable, he vanished? Go figure.

  160. Hari Seldon says:

    Willis is correct, and gnomish nailed it for me…
    “the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”

    These ‘people’ are despicable, contemptible. They know their work is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of poor people yet they still push their poison into the mouths of politicians.
    Revkin and other apologists are like the local townspeople near the concentration camps in WWII.
    “We didn’t know what was happening in the camps”,(but we could smell the flesh burning)

    This is not some senior faculty common room.
    This is a dirty lowdown street fight where the opposition will use any tactic to gain advantage.
    Their mentality is aptly displayed in the famous 10:10 video where they promulgate the elimination of all opposition.

    My very best wishes to you Willis, and keep kicking them in the balls and gouging their eyes.

  161. James Bull says:

    I see he didn’t have the last of the three monkeys in the photo so it alright to speak evil for him then! As you have pointed out some of that speaking evil has to do with numbers.

    James Bull

  162. richardscourtney says:

    David L. Hagen:

    I am replying to your post at February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm which is here in response to my serious information and considered analysis at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.
    Your reply begins by saying to me

    I read your linked post. Initial response – superficial. Wave the economic wand and presto

    Then poses a series of questions each of which was answered in my post before concluding

    I look forward to your serious response.

    If you had read my post then you would have understood the economic principles it explained which are why as my post said to Terry

    Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts)…

    So, my “serious response” which you request is this:
    Read my post you have replied and try to understand it because it is NOT “superficial”. And if you cannot understand it then try reading something more at the level of your reply to me; e.g. ‘Noddy Gets A Car’ Blyton E.

    Richard

  163. richardscourtney says:

    Mods:

    This is a test. Am I banned?

    (Reply: No. I don’t know what is happening. ~ mod.)

  164. b4llzofsteel says:

    Joe says:
    February 22, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    Joe, actually Eschenbachs use of “lapdog” gave me the inspiration. Everybody who does not agree with Willis Eschenbach will be victim of his vicious attacks. His narcistic behavior does not really help the skeptic side of the discussion.

  165. b4llzofsteel says:

    So I’m over the top according Moddy… And this comment by Lancifer just above mine is perfectly ok?

    “F” him.

    Keep up the good fight.”

    I know this site is full of Eschenbach fanboys but they need to realise that actually he’s not that different from the AGW bullies.

  166. richardscourtney says:

    Mods

    Please check the bin. I have repeatedly attempted to make a post which has not appeared and not been stated as being in moderation: it just vanishes.

    If it is in the bin then please post one of the copies from there and if it is not then please let me know.

    Richard

  167. richardscourtney says:

    Mods: If this appears then it is not my post which keeps vanishing.

    Zeke Hausfather:

    I am writing to add to the refutation by Willis Eschenbach of your post at February 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm which said

    Hi Willis,

    Not to reopen an old argument, but Mann didn’t “splice two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed.” The Nature paper in question had both the reconstruction and historical temperature records as separate curves, both clearly labeled. It was Jones and others who spliced them together without labeling for the cover of a WMO report.

    Here is the Nature paper in question for reference: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

    Willis Eschenbach replied to that at February 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm here but he did not specifically address the issue of MBH98.

    In that paper it is Figure 5b which is in question. The Figure is monochrome although other Figures in the paper are in colour. The error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both indicated by broken lines which are indistinguishable.

    As you say, they are both “clearly labelled” but so what?
    The divergence of the proxy data is hidden by splicing the thermometer data on the end with a line which is indistinguishable from the proxy data. bold

    This is “Mike’s Nature trick” and it is exactly the same as the Piltdown Man misrepresentation: i.e. parts of two different items were spliced to provide a misleading indication and then presented as a scientific indication.

    Richard

  168. richardscourtney says:

    Mods:

    I have made another post to a different addressee which has also vanished.

    Richard

  169. richardscourtney says:

    negrum:

    Your post at February 23, 2014 at 12:41 am begins by saying and asking

    dbstealey says:
    February 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    I fully agree with richardcourtney’s comment @1:41 pm above. Richard quotes ‘Terry’:

    “Growth in human population is the real problem…”

    No, it isn’t. Population growth is not a problem at all.
    —-l

    Just to clarify: do you feel that population growth can never be a problem (for humans as a whole) under any circumstances?

    Well, since dbstealey says he fully agrees with my comment it is very clear that he is not talking about “never” and “under any circumstances”. He is talking about foreseeable human population (as a whole) on this planet at this time.

    And the real problem is the seemingly inevitable decline in human population (as a whole) which seems inevitable in this century.
    This is explained in my post which dbstealey says he fully agrees and is at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm and is here.

    Richard

  170. richardscourtney says:

    Strange! My post to negrum appeared but the others are still somewhere.

  171. richardscourtney says:

    Since my post to negrum appeared I will try again.

    ———————-

    David L. Hagen:

    I am replying to your post at February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm which is here in response to my serious information and considered analysis at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.
    Your reply begins by saying to me

    I read your linked post. Initial response – superficial. Wave the economic wand and presto

    Then poses a series of questions each of which was answered in my post before concluding

    I look forward to your serious response.

    If you had read my post then you would have understood the economic principles it explained which are why as my post said to Terry

    Humans do not run out of anything although they can suffer local and/or temporary shortages of anything. The usage of a resource may “peak” then decline, but the usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource (e.g. flint, antler bone and bronze each “peaked” long ago but still exist in large amounts)…

    So, my “serious response” which you request is this: read my post you have replied and try to understand it because it is NOT “superficial”. And if you cannot understand it then try reading something more at the level of your reply to me; e.g. ‘Noddy Gets A Car’ Blyton E.

    Richard

  172. Stephen Richards says:

    PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION: 7.24 billion

    Is it me or has someone been inflating this number. 3 or 4 years ago it was 5.5B then 2 yrs 6 B now 7.24B. WUWT.

  173. cba says:

    Looks like another bit of evidence indicating malthusians are nowhere close to being and as smart as they think themselves to be.

  174. richard says:

    Brilliant Blunders, by Mario Livio, is a lively account of five wrong theories proposed by five great scientists during the last two centuries. These examples give for nonexpert readers a good picture of the way science works. The inventor of a brilliant idea cannot tell whether it is right or wrong. Livio quotes the psychologist Daniel Kahneman describing how theories are born: “We can’t live in a state of perpetual doubt, so we make up the best story possible and we live as if the story were true.” A theory that began as a wild guess ends as a firm belief. Humans need beliefs in order to live, and great scientists are no exception. Great scientists produce right theories and wrong theories, and believe in them with equal conviction.

  175. dbstealey says:

    negrum says:

    do you feel that population growth can never be a problem (for humans as a whole) under any circumstances? As the statement stands, it seems a bit extreme to me.

    Strawman erected, and knocked down. Very good!

    Seriously, “never” is a long time. As I wrote, I do not think overpopulation is a problem at all. Resources always seem to be sufficient, despite Malthus. And of course, none of those proposing to cull the population ever volunteer to be first.

    Let me repeat: overpopulation is not a problem. And yes, personal liberty is more important than ‘group’ desires. We can see how the ‘group’ thing plays out these days. You can see where “tribalism” leads, and it isn’t good.

    ============================

    Next, Willis writes:

    Michael Mann is a crook. He broke the law by both deleting emails subject to FOIA, and by advising others to do the same. He stands convicted by his own words.

    Caspar Amman worked double overtime to subvert the IPCC process, lying and cheating at a rate of knots along the way. It’s all well documented.

    Peter Gleick is a crook. He is guilty of wire fraud, fraud which cost Heartland big money in donations. He passed off forged documents attacking his perceived opponents. None of that is disputed.

    Phil Jones is a damn liar. He lied to my face when I made my FOIA request, the Climategate emails revealed it all.

    Lonnie Thompson and his wife are frauds. They defrauded the taxpayers by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to collect data, and then not revealing the data. Matter of public record.

    And Andrew Revkin has been these men’s constant enabler, has spread their lies far and wide, and ignored their criminal actions. He was too pious to print the Climategate emails because in his view they were obtained illegally … but he was happy to publish the Gleick forgeries and stolen documents. His callous, uncaring attitude is evident in the fact that to this day he calls his opponents “deniers”.

    Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS. I don’t care about their personal habits or whether they are nice to their wives. I’m saying they lied and cheated and defrauded and deleted evidence and committed wire fraud and suborned perjury and broke every rule it’s possible to break.

    I agree 100% – doubled and squared.

  176. Kip Hansen says:

    Willis,

    Of course, you’ve done it again, again. Kind of a habit with you.

    Revkin does appear in the Climategate files, as the journalist not to be trusted, as he refused to go along with the Climategate criminals. Better check up on a few more sources.

    You go to his blog on the NY Times and pick absolutely least significant thing, his iconic six year old intro to Dot Earth, written the first day his blog was put up, to attack mathematically, which anyone who has ever read his blog recognizes as an icon, not new writing, a truly newbie mistake, forgivable had you not decided to attack it with such sophomoric vigor. So now we have a hubristic sophomoric newbie mistake. Have you apologized? Oh no, you rant on and on. Revkin’s only error, if error it be, is leaving his beloved icon on his page where it has lovingly sat for all these years, beside his picture.

    Revkins puts the nasty words “shills” or “skeptics” or “hobbyists” in quotes, because they are not his words but David Victor’s, whose speech he is discussing in his post. David Victor’s speech is so interesting, that I plan to write a Guest Essay for WUWT on it this week.

    In short, you have yet again gone off half-cocked and shot yourself in the foot, and like some crazed cartoon machine gun, just keep on shootin’.

    # # # # #

    Let me assure the reading public here:

    1. Anthony Watts has weighed in and stated above “and no I don’t agree with this post entirely. – Anthony”

    2. You have not accidentally arrived at a bizzaro world version of Joe Romm or Skeptical Science. This is in fact WUWT with an unfortunate Willis E essay — proving it is a free world after all.

    Cheers,

  177. David L. Hagen says:

    RichardSCourtney
    Your latest response to my detailed post addressing your cornocupian position predicting declining population.
    You state:

    usage does not peak because of exhaustion of the resource

    As I said in the real world, for all practical purposes there are no “physical” limits to natural resources so every natural resource can be considered to be infinite; ; i.e. the human ‘Petri dish’ can be considered as being unbounded. This a matter of basic economics which I explain as follows.

    You do not appear to comprehend any of the the energy, efficiency or economic issues I raised.
    You ignore or do not understand foundational physics of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
    Please read Charles Hall, Energy and the Wealth of Nations. Focus particularly on Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI).
    I am not bounding innovation. Solar and/or nuclear energy are major energy resources that we can draw on.
    I am raising the very real massive challenges of providing LIQUID replacement fuels of 9 million barrels/day EVERY YEAR, with an investment of $1 trillion/year.
    In a sustainable way with EROI > 3. Grain Ethanol only has EROI ~ 1 and is NOT sustainable.

    You state:

    Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.

    Why is that not happening in the UK, EU, or US?
    (China is converting some coal to methanol.)

    Oil production in each well, region, nation, world peaks when faced with limits of recovery technology at present prices. Tverberg also highlights economic peaks caused by not being able to afford fuel at higher prices.
    Try addressing the very real challenges we have of supplying liquid fuel over the next generation to keep civilization afloat.
    Try reading the links I provided and show that you comprehend them.

  178. Willis Eschenbach says:
    ————————–

    And you keep right on saying it, Willis Eschenbach, …… because I agree 100% with what you say and with you saying it for others to read or hear.

    Enough of this damnable Political Correctness whereby ONLY the bleeding heart liberals, troughfeeders, racists, sexists, bigots, hypocrites, partisan politicos, etc. have assumed they have the God given Right to DETERMINE what is PC and what is not PC.

    A liar is a liar, a thief is a thief, a troughfeeder is a troughfeeder and a devious, dishonest, disingenuous, despicable person is a devious, dishonest, disingenuous, despicable person and they themselves and everyone else should be told that they are.

    And especially the liberals and troughfeeders who really hate and detest any of the aforementioned persons being “outed” for what they are ….. simply because they know very well that such actions by honest people threaten their own livelihood and way of life, ….. thus they have to protect all of the aforementioned in order to protect themselves.

    Josephus said it best when he said …..

    Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them”. (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

  179. Jimbo says:

    Andrew Revkin is generally on the rational wing of the Warmist movement. However, here he is in quotes. I do hope he has moved on, we are all entitled to change our minds as the facts change.

    March 1, 2011
    David Roberts at Grist has posted a deconstruct of the machinations of professional climate deniers, the failures of the press and the staining of climate scientists’ reputations in the wake of “Climategate.”…..
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/the-east-anglia-climate-snatch-not-yet-a-crime/
    —————————–
    December 4, 2009
    …..a description of review processes undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change posted by Kevin Trenberth, whose e-mail messages were highlighted by quite a few climate contrarian-skeptic-realist-denier types (pick one depending on your worldview)……
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/roundup-copenhagen-and-climategate/
    —————————–
    June 22, 2011
    PBS NewsHour dug in tonight on Al Gore’s Rolling Stone essay blaming climate stasis on deniers, the muddling media and a hesitant President Obama. More on that in a moment.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/a-deeper-look-at-the-presidency-climate-policy-and-politics/

  180. Alan Robertson says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    In response to:
    Roger A. Pielke Sr.

    “The problem is not that I’m too outraged about these issues.
    The problem is that you and your friends are not outraged enough. ”
    ________________________________
    Nail, meet hammer.

  181. Bruce Cobb says:

    Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    All of the assertions you complain about are his.
    And
    I don’t agree with everything David said. But it’s important in open forums to air a range of views.

    If you’re still reading this (which seems doubtful at this point), ok, so, what did David say that you agreed with? Start there. I think most of us skeptics/climate realists would find his views to be repulsive in their entirety. I most certainly do.

  182. Jimbo says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    ………….
    The world population is projected to peak around 2050 and then to decline. There are several reasons for this. Of most importance is that poor people need large families as ‘insurance’ to care for them at times of illness and old age. Affluent people can pay for that ‘insurance’ so do not need the costs of large families…..

    Agreed. Furthermore, high infant mortality pushes for more kids. And this is why as people’s wealth / standards of living, education, health improve they tend to have fewer kids. The education of girls directly / indirectly helps too.

    Many people tend to think that ‘over breeding’ has always been a Third World problem. A quick peek into history reveals high birth rates in for example the UK, USA, Germany etc. As they became better off birth rates dropped. I know this is a very simple take on the issue but it is happening at varying rates.

    Health in England (16th–18th c.)
    The average mother had 7-8 live births over 15 years. Unidentifiable fevers, and the following list of diseases, killed perhaps 30% of England’s children before the age of 15 – the bloody flux (dysentery), scarlatina (scarlet fever), whooping cough, influenza, smallpox, and pneumonia.
    https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/166

    Families and households got smaller throughout the 20th century. Women in the late 19th century gave birth, on average, to 4.6 children during their lifetime. Having ten or more children was not uncommon. By the 1950s the average had fallen to 2.19 children per woman and by the end of the century London’s ‘fertility rate’ was 1.76 children per woman.
    http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/theme/home-family

    FT – June 3, 2013 11:56 pm
    Demographics: Birth rate fall and prospect of longer life cloud Mexico’s future
    …The dramatic demographic shift in Mr Velasco’s family mirrors almost exactly the wider trends at work in Mexico over the past 50 years or so. From an average of almost seven children per woman in the 1960s, the birth rate has fallen to roughly two today….
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4b531a9e-c766-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz2u9he8G8F

    Some people might argue that condoms are so cheap. Cheap to whom? According to the IMP the poorest country in the world “Based on Gross Domestic Product (PPP) Per Capita 2009-2013″ is Congo – Kinshasa. That is $394.25 for 2013 divide by 365 days and you get an income of $1.07 per day. Now you have a stark choice: food or a condom?

  183. richardscourtney says:

    David L. Hagen:

    I am replying ti your (deliberately?) silly post at February 23, 2014 at 5:21 am which is here.

    Firstly, my understanding is NOT “cornucopian”: it is realistic.
    On the other hand, your assertions have no relation to reality.

    You wrongly say to me

    You do not appear to comprehend any of the the energy, efficiency or economic issues I raised.
    You ignore or do not understand foundational physics of the first and second laws of thermodynamics

    I do understand them.
    The difference between us is that I understand these matters and explained them in my post at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here but you don’t understand them and you armwave about them.

    I said

    Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude.

    And you ask

    Why is that not happening in the UK, EU, or US?

    I answer, because the Liquid Solvent Extraction process (LSE) is a UK State Secret.

    We developed LSE at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) then proved it both technically and economically with a demonstration plant at Point of Ayr, Wales. LSE product (i.e. synthetic crude oil, syncrude) can be tuned to match refinery demand. Hence, adoption of LSE would collapse the value of Brent Crude which is refinery blending stock and, thus, adoption of LSE would be an economic loss to the UK.

    However, the existence of LSE constrains the true price of crude.

    I have read your links. They are spurious nonsense. If oil production rate is too low then one only needs to drill more wells. And the papers about EROI display complete ignorance of energy issues.

    The reality is – as I explained – for all practical purposes all resources including crude oil can be considered to be infinite.

    And you persistently refuse to address the reasons for this which I have explained.

    Richard

  184. Alan Robertson says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 23, 2014 at 2:13 am

    Mods:

    This is a test. Am I banned?

    (Reply: No. I don’t know what is happening. ~ mod.)
    ——————————————————-
    richardscourtney says:
    February 23, 2014 at 2:21 am

    Mods

    Please check the bin. I have repeatedly attempted to make a post which has not appeared and not been stated as being in moderation: it just vanishes.
    _______________________________
    There’s a joke that us Yanks use to explain the inexplicable:
    How were you holding your mouth?

  185. Alan Robertson says:

    … as in:
    “I tried this and tried that and the blasted thing still won’t start!
    How were you holding your mouth?

  186. beng says:

    Willis E. has been consistently hard-hitting since day one. Not sure why Dr Pielke Sr would object now after so much time, and he has had his website forum wrecked by warmist adjutants.

  187. harrywr2 says:

    The problem isn’t Revkin’s math skills so to speak.

    The problem is that like so many activists…they fail to update their math/viewpoints when new data/facts become available.

  188. catweazle666 says:

    Willis, in order to lose the plot, Revkin must have had it in the first place. Can you produce evidence (preferably peer reviewed) that such was ever the case, as I have seen no evidence to support this assertion.

  189. ferdberple says:

    Terry says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    The killer point, though, is that human activity stands accused of driving climate change. The win-win strategy is population reduction which mitigates both risks.
    ===============
    “The win-win strategy is population reduction”

    Are you volunteering to go first, to lead by example? To drink the Kool-Aid? Who precisely do you have in mind for this “population reduction”?

    The ultimate solution to every problem throughout history has been to kill those seen as “the problem”, leaving a bigger share of the pie for those doing the killing.

    Greed and fear is the motive, all dressed up in the name of “saving the planet”.

  190. Jimbo says:

    News just in – New York Times Loses The Plot.

    WUWT – 23 February, 2014
    NYT suggests ‘deniers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/andrew-revkin-loses-the-plot-episode-xxxviii/

  191. ferdberple says:

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
    February 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    =========
    Dr Pielke is right to the extent that you are more likely to influence other people’s opinions and actions by adopting a neutral tone.

    However, the danger is that we no longer recognize a “neutral tone”. Instead, we have been conditioned to accept that a “politically correct” tone is neutral. We are conditioned to tell people how much we like them, even if we don’t.

    Thus, it becomes “political incorrect” to call liars and cheats “liars and cheats”. Instead, we have to say they are “mistaken or misguided”. And if we do call them “liars and cheats”, then somehow we are at fault for speaking the simple truth.

    This then is Willis’s crime. He has failed to follow “politically correct” speech. Which in polite society is considered worse than being a “liar and a cheat”. In polite society you are permitted to be a liar and a cheat, so long as you do it in a “charming” manner.

  192. negrum says:

    dbstealey says:
    February 23, 2014 at 4:51 am

    Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint. If I understand you correctly, you hold that the earth’s population regulates itself and will continue to do so without any necessity for intervention by humans.

    If you don’t mind – one more question: what number of people (with current technology and resources ) would you consider to be overpopulation for the earth?

  193. ferdberple says:

    Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
    February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
    “but if you realize that much of denialism is a hobby then it becomes much clearer that denialism is here to stay. In fact, as the importance of the topic rises so will denialism.”
    ==============
    Get a grip Andy. Your article top to bottom is an attack on people that don’t share your beliefs, lumping them into a group and equating them to Holocaust Deniers. You are simply trying to hide your role in this by quoting other people’s words. Is this due to laziness or a lack of spine?

    Calling people deniers is Racism by another name. Plain and simple, you are attacking people because of what they believe.

    No one with a lick of sense denies Climate Change. 20 thousand years, most of what are now the major cities of the world were buried under a mile of ice. 80 thousand years ago humans were all but extinct. There were no cavemen driving around in SUV’s, yet the climate changed.

    If you want to point the finger and call people deniers, look at your hand. You have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself. You sir are a denier. You are denying that climate changes ALL THE TIME for reasons that we largely don’t understand. If you don’t understand the cause, you cannot hope to provide the cure.

  194. ferdberple says:

    negrum says:
    February 23, 2014 at 9:01 am
    If you don’t mind – one more question: what number of people (with current technology and resources ) would you consider to be overpopulation for the earth?
    =============
    Is there such a number? the long term death rate in human populations has been stubbornly fixed at 100% for some time now, and shows no sign of increasing or decreasing regardless of population levels.

  195. ferdberple says:

    The only thing we know for sure is that as we have increased the number of people on the planet, human’s have begun to live longer, and fertility rates have dropped.

    Using climate science as a guide, this suggests that in the future humans will live forever and spend their days in endless traffic jams and line-ups, unable to reproduce.

    To solve this problem governments need to take action today and pass a tax on long-life. This will encourage people to live shorter lives, making more room for everyone else, solving the problems of traffic jams and line-ups. This will increase the time available for sex, restoring fertility to replace those chosing to limit their taxes.

  196. negrum says:

    ferdberple says:
    February 23, 2014 at 10:12 am
    —-l
    Good one – you might of course feel different if you had to share your bedroom with 10 more people :)

  197. Mr Lynn says:

    george e. smith says:
    February 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    Well my local talk radio station, has an evening talk host (weekdays), name of John Bachelor. A usually interesting guy, with often more interesting guests, from all over the world, and news gamut.

    So just the other night (thur or fri) he has on Andrew Revkin, who, being from NYT is the world’s leading expert on climate. So Revkin spouts the usual CAGWMMCC as if he hadn’t seen any evidence for the last 17 years and five months.

    So Bachelor laps it all up, and effectively appends his stamp of credibility to Revkin’s authoritative stature.

    Sorry John; Revkin did nothing to raise his stature; but he surely did send yours right into the toilet bowl.

    So there’s another talk radio Icon; whose reputation has bit the dust. It’s getting like the WWE and MMA, are about the only things one can trust any more. But I am also saving batteries in my portable radio.

    John Batchelor (correct spelling) indeed runs a most interesting show, a great source of commentary and analysis of events from all over the world, as well as often fascinating interviews with authors of books on historical subjects. However, John sometimes does fail to challenge a guest on a controversial topic, instead accepting the guest’s premises and following them to their conclusions. I suspect this is deliberate, to avoid being typed a partisan; John is more Brian Lamb than Rush Limbaugh.

    I should add though, that Robert Zimmerman (host of a website called “Beyond the Black,” about space and astronomy) is a frequent guest. Bob Zimmerman is clearly a WUWT reader and he has led John into vociferous reporting on the errors of the Warmists and their camp followers. I don’t know if John agrees with Bob’s exposés of the faux science that informs the Climatist movement, but I doubt if John would identify himself with Revkin and the Climate Parasites.

    /Mr Lynn

  198. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    February 23, 2014 at 3:28 am

    PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION: 7.24 billion

    Is it me or has someone been inflating this number. 3 or 4 years ago it was 5.5B then 2 yrs 6 B now 7.24B. WUWT.

    It’s you. The global population is growing, but not that fast:

    2007, 6,673,101
    2008, 6,753,643
    2009, 6,834,718
    2010, 6,916,185
    2011, 6,997,991
    2012, 7,080,072
    2013, 7,162,118
    2014, 7,243,782

    Best regards,

    w.

  199. ferdberple says:

    negrum says:
    February 23, 2014 at 10:48 am
    Good one – you might of course feel different if you had to share your bedroom with 10 more people :)
    +++++
    Dr. Strangelove: “But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.”

    Turgidson: “Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”

    Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious…service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.”

    Russian Ambassador: “I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.”

  200. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Kip Hansen says:
    February 23, 2014 at 5:09 am

    Of course, you’ve done it again, again. Kind of a habit with you.

    Since you have been so boorish as to not identify what you mean by “again”, that’s nothing but mud. Quote my words or leave me alone.

    Revkin does appear in the Climategate files, as the journalist not to be trusted, as he refused to go along with the Climategate criminals. Better check up on a few more sources.

    Nearly right. He appears in the Climategate emails as the journalist who can be trusted. Then later he appears as the journalist who can no longer be trusted … so you think that somehow justifies being their go-to guy before he was no longer their go-to guy?

    You go to his blog on the NY Times and pick absolutely least significant thing, his iconic six year old intro to Dot Earth, written the first day his blog was put up, to attack mathematically, which anyone who has ever read his blog recognizes as an icon, not new writing, a truly newbie mistake, forgivable had you not decided to attack it with such sophomoric vigor. So now we have a hubristic sophomoric newbie mistake. Have you apologized? Oh no, you rant on and on. Revkin’s only error, if error it be, is leaving his beloved icon on his page where it has lovingly sat for all these years, beside his picture.

    So we agree that any numerate newbie that walks up to Revkin’s blog is likely to look at Revkin’s claim and say “wow … that dude seriously can’t add”.

    Add me to the list. I’d never read that piece of bad math in my life. You seem to think that being a newbie and having never been to Revkin’s site is either a) avoidable or b) a bad thing … but you know, some of us pay no attention to the man, and for everyone there’s a first time. We show up, we read the “About” box, and we say … huh? This guy’s lost it.

    How is that not a problem for Revkin, that anyone initially encountering his site finds such nonsense? What, I’m dismissible because this was the first time in my life to read his bad arithmetic?

    Revkins puts the nasty words “shills” or “skeptics” or “hobbyists” in quotes, because they are not his words but David Victor’s, whose speech he is discussing in his post.

    If you could quote me where I said one damn thing about shills, skeptics or hobbyists in the head post, you might have a point. Since I did not mention them, you’re just bloviating about SOMETHING I DIDN’T DO. Quote my words, Kip, your ungrounded rantings are delusional. I said nothing about any of that. You are attacking me based solely on your pathetic fantasies—I said nothing about shills or hobbyists.

    You ignore completely what I actually did object to, Revkin’s use of what you call “nasty words”, in this case “climate denialist”. That is a most objectionable term, one which he is fully aware is controversial and highly divisive … and he uses it anyhow. You will note his headline is about “climate denialists”, NOT IN QUOTES. How about you talk about that as an indication of Andy’s point of view?

    In any case I fear you’ll have to stand in line, because Andy himself made the same bogus accusation upthread that you make here. He said I was ignoring the fact that David’s words were quoted, and he was being blamed for what David said.

    I invited him to show us exactly where I’d discussed David Victor’s claim or his words in any fashion. He has not replied … so you pick up the same exact untrue accusation and repeat it? Are you following this story at all?

    Let me note also that when he commented on his web site about my post, he called me a hobbyist himself … but that’s a separate question.

    David Victor’s speech is so interesting, that I plan to write a Guest Essay for WUWT on it this week.

    Great. Will you be calling me a denialist or a denier? Or do you leave that to your man Andy, who either can or can’t be trusted? Have you noticed yet that I said nothing about David Victor in the head post? These questions and more …

    In short, you have yet again gone off half-cocked and shot yourself in the foot, and like some crazed cartoon machine gun, just keep on shootin’.

    At some point, I suppose you might actually quote whatever it is I said that has your panties in such a horrendous twist. Until then, I can’t answer that kind of vague, unpleasant mudslinging because there is no content in it, no quotations, no links … only venom.

    And after your rant about things I never said, I’ll leave it to the readers to decide whose foot has lead poisoning, mine or yours …

    Let me assure the reading public here:

    1. Anthony Watts has weighed in and stated above “and no I don’t agree with this post entirely. – Anthony”

    Amazing, huh? Two people have different points of view. Go figure.

    2. You have not accidentally arrived at a bizzaro world version of Joe Romm or Skeptical Science. This is in fact WUWT with an unfortunate Willis E essay — proving it is a free world after all.

    Actually, it’s a bizarro world where you attack me for things I never said, and ignore the things I did say.

    w.

  201. dbstealey says:

    negrum,

    Since I can’t top ferdberple’s last post, I’ll leave it at that. ☺

  202. negrum says:

    ferdberple says:
    February 23, 2014 at 11:59 am

    I empathise with the good doctor and stand corrected by this classic example – make that 10 of the most unattractive persons you feel absolutely no affinity for (and family does not count :))

  203. negrum says:

    dbstealey says:
    February 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    negrum,

    Since I can’t top ferdberple’s last post, I’ll leave it at that. ☺
    —-l
    Fine by me.

  204. Matthew R Marler says:

    b4llsofsteel: Everybody who does not agree with Willis Eschenbach will be victim of his vicious attacks.

    That is not correct. His “vicious attacks” (so called, hence the quotes) are reserved for people who misquote, insult and slander him. His post here, and his responses to people who think his language is “over the top” are examples: his insulting language toward Andy Revkin was clearly a response to Revkin’s insulting language through decades now, and Willis provided support for calling Revkin a “lap dog” — which has a clear colloquial meaning. If you disagree directly with something he wrote, quoting it correctly, you can expect a spirited rebuttal from him if he thinks he is correct, but it will be on point.

    fwiw, note that in response to Willis’ pointing out the inaccuracy in the numbers, Revkin admitted above that he ought to update his web page. On the main numerical claim in Willis’ post, Willis was correct and Revkin conceded; as others have pointed out, at one time, that was not such a severe inaccuracy.

    In my opinion, Revkin’s inaccuracy is of a piece with a lot of the “alarmist” warnings on global warming; there are a lot of inaccurate claims, at best first-order approximations but frequently untested, bandied about. As with Mann’s cavalier selection and treatment of proxy series, the “equilibrium” derivations, exaggerated claims of OHC increasing faster than ever before and so on, it frequently turns out that careful attention to the details vitiates the exaggerated claims. It is a gross, insufferable insult for someone like Revkin to engage in this admitted sloppiness and then use a word like “denier”, or “denialist” to denote those who are paying careful attention.

  205. David Ball says:

    I have a great deal of respect for both of you gentlemen. If it is all the same to you, I choose to agree with you both. Reposting for clarity.

    John Coleman says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
    Willis Eschenbach, you are super sharp mathematical analyst with an amazing life-experience build up of knowledge about the atmosphere and oceans. I learn a great deal from your posts on WUWT. Thank you and please continue with your contributions. I have great empathy with the current situation with your father-in-law. We old men who have been through these tough times have great appreciation for those who help out in difficult times. hang in there.
    Roger A. Pielke Sr. you are very powerful hero of all of we climate skeptics. I think I understand your approach to the Andrew Revkin issue. An effort to maintain professional contact and improve the personal relationship so that he might give some consideration to your work in the future seems like a good approach.
    I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
    As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
    I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
    It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
    Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling.
    Join me on the high road, please, one and all.

    “Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm
    John Coleman says:
    February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
    As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
    I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
    It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
    Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling.
    Join me on the high road, please, one and all.

    First, John, thank you for your thoughts, always welcome. However, here’s how I see it.

    Michael Mann is a crook. He broke the law by both deleting emails subject to FOIA, and by advising others to do the same. He stands convicted by his own words.

    Caspar Amman worked double overtime to subvert the IPCC process, lying and cheating at a rate of knots along the way. It’s all well documented.

    Peter Gleick is a crook. He is guilty of wire fraud, fraud which cost Heartland big money in donations. He passed off forged documents attacking his perceived opponents. None of that is disputed.

    Phil Jones is a damn liar. He lied to my face when I made my FOIA request, the Climategate emails revealed it all.

    Lonnie Thompson and his wife are frauds. They defrauded the taxpayers by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to collect data, and then not revealing the data. Matter of public record.

    And Andrew Revkin has been these men’s constant enabler, has spread their lies far and wide, and ignored their criminal actions. He was too pious to print the Climategate emails because in his view they were obtained illegally … but he was happy to publish the Gleick forgeries and stolen documents. His callous, uncaring attitude is evident in the fact that to this day he calls his opponents “deniers”.

    Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS. I don’t care about their personal habits or whether they are nice to their wives. I’m saying they lied and cheated and defrauded and deleted evidence and committed wire fraud and suborned perjury and broke every rule it’s possible to break.

    And John, because people like you refuse to call a crook a crook, and discourage those of us who do so, those men continue to be feted and honored and invited to speak and join the distinguished societies. They have not suffered the slightest opprobrium, unless you count the poor efforts of myself and a few others.

    Now, if this was a faculty tea party, who would care? Certainly not I.

    But these men’s policies are harming and impoverishing and killing poor people now, today. Not only that, but they are causing that pain and suffering under the pious rubric of maybe possibly helping the poor in 50 years …

    So despite the fact that I have the highest respect for you and your work, John, I fully intend to continue to point out that these men are not scientists. They are liars and cheats and frauds whose actions are hugely dangerous, damaging, and destructive.

    Here’s the paradox to me in all of this … why were almost all the good honest climate scientists struck dumb by the revelations of Climategate?

    I don’t understand the attraction of staying silent while your chosen field turns to shit and people are dying around us, truly I don’t, John. You’ll have to come up with a better explanation for staying schtumm than saying you won’t “stoop to name calling”. I don’t want you to stoop for anything. Quite the contrary.

    I want you to stand up for something …

    w.”

  206. Willis Eschenbach says:

    harrywr2 says:
    February 23, 2014 at 7:26 am

    The problem isn’t Revkin’s math skills so to speak.

    The problem is that like so many activists…they fail to update their math/viewpoints when new data/facts become available.

    Most excellent indeed.

    w.

  207. Willis Eschenbach says:

    ferdberple says:
    February 23, 2014 at 8:30 am

    … This then is Willis’s crime. He has failed to follow “politically correct” speech.

    And despite numerous punishments for my crime of PC, I’m a noted recidivist in this regard … slow learner, I guess.

    w.

  208. Mycroft says:

    Way to go Willis! seems some don’t like a taste of the Medicine there kind dishes out to us Skeptics.?
    Sorry Dr Pielke Sr! but Revkin is fully deserving of Willis’s ire. Remember Bad men don’t make bad things happen? Bad things happen because good men stay silent!

  209. Kip Hansen says:

    Willis ==> and you just keep on shootin’ and shootin’ and shootin’ — surprise you have any feet left at all.

    begin humorous aside/ Welcome to Bizaroo World, Ladies and Gentlemen, “What’s Down With That”, where our very own Romm-Jo, Ellis “Quote My Words” Weschenbach, will Talk Trash and Throw Mud and Road Apples at the Enemies (Real or Imagined) of Climate Skepticism for the Amusement of Climate Science WWF fans everywhere. Folks, any target will do….he fires off at any slightest sign of opposition, friend or foe, it matters not, he takes no prisoners, spares no feelings, bothers with no nuances, cares for few facts, just plows ahead, heedless of all reason. If you thought the the Real World Joe Romm was something, wait ’til you get a hold of our very own right here! A great time is guaranteed for all. Get your tickets now! Want a little fun? Give him a little poke and see what happens! Whooo-wheee! /end humor

  210. richardscourtney says:

    Kip Hansen:

    re your post at February 23, 2014 at 2:16 pm.

    Stupidity is not “humor”.

    Richard

  211. Robert in Calgary says:

    Kip, follow your own advice.

    Stop being such a D.F. – to borrow your term from yesterday.

  212. TimTheToolMan says:

    Zeke writes Mann didn’t “splice two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed.” … “It was Jones and others who spliced them together without labeling for the cover of a WMO report.”

    As shown in climategate, Jones wrote
    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”[

    Note how it was Mike’s Nature trick and not Jone’s Nature trick? There are lots of ways to split hairs on who did what for which report and McIntyre has pretty much analysed them all.

  213. gnomish says:

    many humor; much lapdoge. so kippered erring.

    dayam, ferdberple- that was a really good post up there!

  214. AB says:

    Population a problem?..hhmm
    Take my family line since fossil fuel use became the norm. As prosperity increased – although today none in my family are more than moderately well off, myself considerably less so, this is what transpired.

    Grandmother one of thirteen children
    My father one of her six children
    Me one of my father’s three children
    I have one child, now 27, currently childless, as too are his five cousins of marriageable age.

    Looks like my line is headed for extinction. I’m sure many of you have a similar tale to tell.

    The rise in global temperatures stopped when I was 46, I’m now 63…..

    BTW I live 10 mins away from Mong Kok, 130,000 person per km2 or 340,000 person per mi2 Hong Kong maintains its population with immigration. The locals are just not breeding fast enough.

  215. Kip Hansen says:

    Reply to richardscourtney and Robert in Calgary ==> As always, Opinions Vary. In my opinion, the Joe Rommish original w. post has no place here on WUWT where such behavior is rarely, if ever, found. But, I am not the host here, Anthony is. As it is w.’s right to post it here, and Anthony’s right to publish it (even if he partially disown’s it), it is my right to call it “Joe Rommish”, and to use humor to make fun of it.

    It is a bizarre reversal of roles to see middle of the road warmist, sometimes supportive journalist trashed here at WUWT with such ignorant ranting as “Don’t get your scientific info from a man who can’t add to ten … particularly when he is nothing but a pathetic PR shill for bogus science and disingenuous scientists …” This is almost identical to the kind of utter nonsense recently thrown at Judith Curry, by childish alarmist bloggers. Joe Romm is a paid shill for Climate Alarmism and does almost nothing but character assassination, often of people guilty only of associating with persons Romm feels are “deniers”. Maybe, just maybe, some of you will see that w. is just acting the reverse side of Romm’s coin.

    Sorry if I don’t seem to be wearing the right gang colors here. Some of you support this kind of stuff. I don’t. I don’t mind poking fun at those who do it, on either side of the Climate Divide.

    Wrong is wrong.

  216. ferdberple says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm
    Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS.
    =========
    This is an important point that is well worth remembering. Negotiation and conflict resolution requires that you make the distinction between the person and their actions.

    For example, I have no doubt that Revkin is sincere in his beliefs. He truly believes that he is saving the world. The question is whether his action will further his goals?

    Clearly Revkin’s approach is counter productive. He is like real Climate. Preaching to the choir, while insulting the the congregation. Pretty soon all that is left is the choir.

  217. Joe says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Kip Hansen says:
    February 23, 2014 at 5:09 am

    You go to his blog on the NY Times and pick absolutely least significant thing, his iconic six year old intro to Dot Earth, written the first day his blog was put up, to attack mathematically,
    ………………………………………………………………….
    So we agree that any numerate newbie that walks up to Revkin’s blog is likely to look at Revkin’s claim and say “wow … that dude seriously can’t add”.
    —————————————————————————————————————

    Willis, there’s a problem there.

    The piece is 6 years old. There’s no date given, but the slideshow it links to is dated Oct 2007, so it’s likely that he used 2006 figures (as the latest “complete” year)

    Using 2006 figures from FAO, as you linked in your OP, gives:

    World population: 6 593 235 000
    China population: 1 356 377 000

    World + 2 Chinas = 9.306 billion

    So, he’s not spot on (assuming he’d used the latest figures) but he’s an awful lot closer (for when he wrote it) than you’ve suggested in your post – being .3 billion out is a 3 % error, not 10%, and you claiming he’s 1 billion out is then a 300% error in his error!

    I’m willing to accept that we have different ideas about how to win hearts & minds, and possibly different levels of bullshit tolerance. I have a HUGE amount of time for your posts, for your ability to explain concepts, and for your suggestions regarding climate governors.

    I can also empathise with your frustration at the harm that climate policy is causing to individuals and society as a whole – believe me, fuel poverty here in the UK is very real indeed and I personally think the floods have been preferable to another cold, winter because at least the rain’s kept it above freezing. Another cold one would have produced far more deaths than the floods did, and the rest is only property.

    But posting aggressive opinion about someone else’s maths without using the appropriate figures yourself isn’t giving them ammunition, it’s handing them the keys to the armoury!

  218. b fagan says:

    ” the various unindicted Climategate co-conspirators.”? I guess those would be the people who hacked the computers and stole the emails.

    I’m only pointing that out because all the research by the scientists who were the target of this theft has been upheld by a number of reviews, and the same results have been verified in other studies.

  219. ferdberple says:

    ferdberple says:
    February 23, 2014 at 11:59 am
    Turgidson: “Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
    Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
    ==============
    Climate Science 101.
    Turgidson: “Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called low cost energy that makes modern civilization possible, I mean, as far as the average person is concerned?”
    Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.

  220. Gail Combs says:

    Jimbo says: @ February 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Bravo Dr. Tim Ball!
    http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/

    Could it be that the IPCC was set up to dampen or reduce the world’s population? …when in fact it is an attack on the poorest most vulnerable peoples in the Third World. Indirect genocide based on the trace gas co2.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Consider the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act and the World Trade Organizations Agreement on Agriculture not to mention the biofuel idiocy.

    Thanks to that 1996 farm act the US strategic grain reserve was killed and by 2008 the USA had run out of stored grain. Thanks to that and the Bankers deciding to use food as an investment vehicle 60 countries had food riots in 2008. ” [I]n 1999, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission deregulated futures markets. All of a sudden, bankers could take as large a position in grains as they liked, an opportunity that had, since the Great Depression, only been available to those who actually had something to do with the production of our food.” – Council on Foreign relations: How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis

    Meanwhile the movers and shakers like Clinton DECIDED to kill off the food self-sufficiency of third world nations.

    Bill Clinton Admits Global Free Trade Policy has Forced Millions Of People into Poverty.
    http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/11/01/bill-clinton-admits-global-

    Former US president Bill Clinton admits that the US `free trade’ policy has forced millions of people in third world countries into poverty and starvation.

    “Today’s global food crisis shows we all blew it, including me when I was president, by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world’s poor, Bill Clinton has told a UN gathering.

    Clinton took aim at decades of international policymaking by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others, encouraged by the US, that pressured Africans in particular into dropping government subsidies for fertiliser, improved seed and other farm inputs, in economic “structural adjustments” required to win northern aid. Africa’s food self-sufficiency subsequently declined and food imports rose.

    “Food is not a commodity like others,” Clinton said. “We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves.”

    Clinton said something similar in 2010

    President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office. The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient.

    BILL CLINTON: Since 1981, the United States has followed a policy, until the last year or so when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food, so, thank goodness, they can leap directly into the industrial era. It has not worked. It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that I was a party to. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did. Nobody else.

    (wwwDOT)democracynow.org/2010/4/1/clinton_rice

    So now the USA has no grain reserve and any excess grain is turned into bio-fuel the traders find this “Very Attractive”

    “Panic Buying” in the Grain Markets
    The agricultural sector was one of the areas we found most attractive in 2007. We expect that will remain the case. Long term global price and demand trends remain positive….

    …The ubiquitous grain is suffering poor harvests and tight supplies in some of the biggest rice-exporting and rice-consuming nations, and is expected to contribute to a protracted bout of food-price inflation for the foreseeable future in the developing world….

    In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends – and this niche – very attractive.

    In 2008 the corn (maize) prices doubled, wheat prices rose by 50 percent, and rice by 70 percent In an article in the Economist titled “The End of Cheap Food,” the magazine’s food-price index reached its highest point since originating in 1845. Food prices had risen 75 percent since 2005. World grain reserves were at their lowest, at fifty-four days.

    Analysis: U.S. bankers say, love or hate it, ethanol here to stay

    …”Ethanol demand is the linchpin of the current pricing model that we have,” said Michael Swanson, agricultural economist at Wells Fargo, the largest commercial bank lender to U.S. farmers. “It’s a completely different question whether it’s right or wrong.”

    Amid the worst drought to hit the Midwest in a half century, corn prices have nearly doubled. Howls of protests have come from livestock feeders. The government has forecast food inflation to rise.

    …The facts, they say, show that ethanol, like it or not, is now bolted onto the very core of three huge industries: energy, meat and banking.

    Farm bankers point to statistics on U.S. wealth and economic health that corn-based ethanol has driven – record-high farmland prices; a rise of some $500 billion in farm assets in the last five years; steady pay-downs of farm debt; a rise in farm assets in 2012 to an estimated $2.5 trillion dollars, based on real land not “paper,” and what those assets mean for U.S. money supply and economic demand.

    “Corn can be a national security issue for this country,” said Curt Covington, senior vice president for agricultural and rural banking at Bank of the West, the second largest commercial lender to U.S. farmers. “That’s where we are right now….

    in(DOT)reuters.com/article/2012/09/05/us-usa-ethanol-farmbankers-idINBRE88413O20120905

    Paints a rather nasty picture of GREED doesn’t it?

    The Oil Drum has a rather good analysis of the situation: (wwwDOT)theoildrum.com/node/3495

  221. Gail Combs says:

    Hari Seldon says: @ February 23, 2014 at 1:23 am

    Willis is correct, and gnomish nailed it for me…
    “the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That needs to be repeated.

    I may not agree with you on everything Willis, but when it comes to these sanctimonious crooks living their cushy lives by pushing lies that are causing others suffering, pain and death we are in complete agreement.

    Every single one of them has blood on his hands. Unfortunately they will never be brought up on charges as they deserve.

    May history shine a spotlight on their misdeeds.

  222. Gail Combs says:

    b fagan says: @ February 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    I’m only pointing that out because all the research by the scientists who were the target of this theft has been upheld by a number of reviews, and the same results have been verified in other studies.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sure Right, Upheld by those with a vested interest in the money the CAGW Hoax will generate.

    Scientists and Universities dependent on government CAGW grants. Governments drooling over another form of tax. Crony-capitalists like Lord Oxburgh who was chairman of Falck Renewables, a manufacturer of windfarms and the UK subsidiary of The Falck Group, a Milan-based manufacturer.

    More on Oxburgh: The Oxburgh Inquiry was an offer he couldn’t refuse.

    I am not going to go looking up the rest of the data for you.

    You can start your reading HERE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

  223. accordionsrule says:

    Gary Pearse @ 2:13 pm
    “Population that would fit into Lake Superior each with a square metre to tread water in is 90billion.”

    I may have a nightmare tonight.

  224. Robert in Calgary says:

    Kip Hansen,

    Poking fun?

    The problem you have here is – you’re not Mark Steyn or Willis Eschenbach.

    They’re good at it.

  225. David L. Hagen says:

    RichardSCourtney re your post
    I addressed serious issues. Hopefully you can rise to do so as well.
    Re:

    Liquid Solvent Extraction process (LSE) is a UK State Secret. . . .adoption of LSE would collapse the value of Brent Crude which is refinery blending stock and, thus, adoption of LSE would be an economic loss to the UK.

    Start with reading Adam Smith, then Charles Hall, Energy and the Wealth of Nations.

    Reality Checks: To drop the price you would have to produce more than all suppliers above that price.
    If the price were that good, the UK could license BP or other companies to convert coal to liquids and do away with all taxation. Chefio shows the errors in your assertions on LSE. See: Coal, Liquids, and Costs Posted on 4 February 2013

    See: The Techno-Economic Potential of Integrated Gasification Co-Generation Facilities with CCS Going from Coal to Biomass Energy Procedia Volume 37, 2013, Pages 6053–6061

    FT-liquids can currently be produced from coal for 13 €/GJ, which is competitive with crude oil derived fuels at an oil price of 113 $/bbl. In the long term, overall energetic efficiency could increase from 61% to 65%. The higher efficiency, lower capital costs and increased availability could reduce produce costs to 9 €/GJ. Applying CCS at a SOTA coal-fired IG-FT would results in an efficiency of 58% and production costs of 15 €/GJ. In the long term, the efficiency could increase to 63% and production costs could drop to 10 €/GJ.

  226. garymount says:

    b fagan says: @ February 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    – – –
    Could you explain to me how exposing emails between climate change “scientists” could completely and utterly collapse the international climate change negotiations.
    I know of no other non failed science in the history of the world that could be so completely discredited by revealing the discussions behind the scenes of the so called experts of that science.

  227. Willis Eschenbach says:

    As y’all may recall, Kip Hansen accused me of saying a number of things I didn’t say. I asked him for a quotation showing I said the things he accused me of. Here was what I said:

    If you could quote me where I said one damn thing about shills, skeptics or hobbyists in the head post, you might have a point. Since I did not mention them, you’re just bloviating about SOMETHING I DIDN’T DO. Quote my words, Kip, your ungrounded rantings are delusional. I said nothing about any of that. You are attacking me based solely on your pathetic fantasies—I said nothing about shills or hobbyists.

    You ignore completely what I actually did object to, Revkin’s use of what you call “nasty words”, in this case “climate denialist”. That is a most objectionable term, one which he is fully aware is controversial and highly divisive … and he uses it anyhow. You will note his headline is about “climate denialists”, NOT IN QUOTES. How about you talk about that as an indication of Andy’s point of view?

    In response, I note that Mr. Hansen doesn’t have the nerve to either quote something, or on the other hand to admit that he made it all up, and confess that he was just flinging mud with the hope it would stick.

    Instead of any answers, we get more bafflegab like this:

    Kip Hansen says:
    February 23, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Willis ==> and you just keep on shootin’ and shootin’ and shootin’ — surprise you have any feet left at all.

    Come back when you have the blanquillos to actually answer my questions, Kip. Until you grow a spine, as far as I’m concerned, you’re just another amoeba hoping that evolution speeds up …

    w.

  228. adsfour says:

    Willis., I can show you the slides from my “World Food Needs: 2050″ presentations from 1994 with a “now accurate” 9 billion population peak forecast based on nothing more than that the previous 20 years’ worth of “projections” (note., NOT predictions) from the UN Population division had always overestimated.. Thus, I assumed their low projection was slightly optimistic.. But then I realized that the UN pop div always assumed that EVERY country would stabilize at a replacement fertility rate (2.1 children per couple). Every country above would make a “soft landing” at 2.1 and every country below (the entire Western world) would rise back up to 2.1 from 1.5-1.9.

  229. richardscourtney says:

    David L. Hagen:

    re your post at February 23, 2014 at 8:55 pm.

    With one exception I have clearly refuted each and all of your nonsensical assertions in previous posts in this thread. The exception is that your post I am answering introduces yet another of your assertions. You say

    Reality Checks: To drop the price you would have to produce more than all suppliers above that price.

    I said nothing about being able “to drop that price”.

    I said

    However, the existence of LSE constrains the true price of crude.

    It does. If the long-term price of crude were to rise above the LSE syncrude price then LSE plants would be constructed to displace crude. This adoption of LSE would require additional infrastructure so is not warranted while their is abundant supply of crude.

    Indeed, so long as there is abundant supply of crude producers its producers could provide a temporary increase to production to reduce the price of crude and, thus, displace syncrude from the market.

    So, the fact is that the existence of LSE constrains the true price of crude which stabilises the market for crude but does not – and cannot – “drop the price” of crude because there are abundant resources of crude.

    As I said

    We developed LSE at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) then proved it both technically and economically with a demonstration plant at Point of Ayr, Wales. LSE product (i.e. synthetic crude oil, syncrude) can be tuned to match refinery demand. Hence, adoption of LSE would collapse the value of Brent Crude which is refinery blending stock and, thus, adoption of LSE would be an economic loss to the UK.

    However, the existence of LSE constrains the true price of crude.

    If the resources of crude were not abundant then it would be in UK strategic and economic interest to license the LSE process for use.

    In summation, there is no shortage of crude: its resources are abundant. And if in future there were to be a long-term shortage of crude then syncrude would replace it at similar cost to the present cost of crude.

    Richard

  230. Kip Hansen says:

    Reply to willis (x 2 or 3) ==> and shootin’ and shootin and shootin’ ….

    Reply to Joe February 23, 2014 at 5:13 pm ==> Thanks for your integrity….and for your support.

  231. Well now, it seems there is an “ill wind” starting to “blow”, and it is being directed right at the proponents of CAGW, to wit:

    Climate Scientist Fights Back – Calls Global Warming Alarmists “Global Warming Nazis”

    I have been told before that I have made a hard turn to the right since Obama first took office. I do not deny that, but there are reasons for my madness. The issue this post addresses is one of those reasons. Yesterday’s post about the low resources at the IRS is another. Simply put, I am sick to death of beating around the bush with these people, just for the sake of sounding pleasant. I am not an argumentative person, but I have had my fill of conservatives not being able to state their minds, for fear of reprisals by the liberals and their support system in the media. Is it not time we called a spade what it really is?

    We have given in to their rhetoric about global warming, afraid to say much because of the tactics they use. People like Dr. Roy Spencer, able to fully refute the made-up theory of global warming, are told they should shut up and sit down. I have no idea if the man is a conservative or liberal, but he knows enough about the climate to know man-made global warming is crock full of lies. Not only that, he has enough gumption about him to brave what he had to know would be a storm of rhetorical protests against him.

    Read more @ http://www.ldjackson.net/climate-scientist-fights-back-calls-global-warming-alarmists-global-warming-nazis/

  232. It has been my experience over the past many years of posting to news forums and blogs that the majority of passionate liberals and proponents of CAGW both claim to be adamant believers in/of that ole Biblical quote of “turn the other cheek”, …… but with one (1) exception, which is, they firmly believe that ONLY their opponents, deniers and skeptics are subject to “turning their other cheek” when it get “slapped” by theirs truly. They also firmly believe that when their opponent, denier or skeptics turns his/her cheek for the 1st time, then they are committed to a lifetime of “turning his/her cheek”, …….. no matter how many times it gets slapped back and forth.

    But what those passionate liberals and proponents of CAGW don’t realize is the fact that to some people, ….. said “turn the other cheek” is akin to, ….. “fool me once, shame on me, ….. fool me twice, shame on you, …… fool me the 3rd time and I’m likely to slap you inkindly-back side the head hard enough to make your ears ring like a dinner bell” ….. and your only recourse is to get all p-face n’ pouty and seek relief for your bruised ego from a high authority (webmaster) or a plead of sympathy from your likeminded friends.

    What most liberals and CAGW’ers don’t realize … is the fact that most people who are really, really good at what they do …….. can be three (3) times as bad as they are good …. iffen they are coerced into do so.

  233. Mr Green Genes says:

    b fagan says:
    February 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    ” the various unindicted Climategate co-conspirators.”? I guess those would be the people who hacked the computers and stole the emails.

    I’m only pointing that out because all the research by the scientists who were the target of this theft has been upheld by a number of reviews, and the same results have been verified in other studies.
    =============================
    Mr Fag end,

    What hack? What theft? It has undoubtedly escaped your notice but the Norfolk police failed to find any evidence to support the climate-loonies theory of theft, realised that there was no prospect of getting a result and shut the investigation down.

    Of course, if you know better, you ought to pass on all your evidence to them.

  234. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Mr Lynn says:

    February 23, 2014 at 10:54 am

    george e. smith says:
    February 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm……”””””

    I hope my message was not contingent on being able to spell “Batchelor” correctly.

    My spell checker, immediately posts that as a spelling error. In any case, my transistor radio, is one of the older types, that comes without pictures, and JB does not open his program with a vocal spelling of his name.

    In any case, if you stop at a four way stop sign, and then wait to see if any cross traffic is coming, inevitably, some will come, so why wait.

    I don’t believe in wasting air time giving space to someone that you know a priori, you have a fundamental disagreement on facts, with.

    Newt Gingrich, a supposedly erudite (three syllables; not four) political person, decided to espouse the global warming mantra, thinking it would maximize the votes in his column. No it simply confirmed for his followers, that he is willing to say anything for votes; so he has no principles to stand on.

    You get only one chance to make a first impression; or a lasting one. JB decided to leap off the cliff anyway.

  235. Joe says:

    Mr Green Genes says:
    February 24, 2014 at 10:40 am

    What hack? What theft? It has undoubtedly escaped your notice but the Norfolk police failed to find any evidence to support the climate-loonies theory of theft, realised that there was no prospect of getting a result and shut the investigation down.
    ——————————————————————————————————-

    Indeed. In fact, you could legitimately say that the alleged hackers were fully vindicated by a comprehensive (and truly independant) investigation :)

  236. Chris says:

    David L. Hagen says:
    February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm
    Richard Courtney
    I read your linked post. Initial response – superficial. Wave the economic wand and presto.
    Reality check!
    If its so easy, why did Finland lose 1/3rd of its population – to a cold snap?
    Why did North Korea lose 1 million to famine – when it lost its cheap diesel fuel and tractor parts?
    Why did China lose 60 million to famine?
    Why did US oil production peak in 1970 and then decline?
    Why has each state/region of the US except one peaked in oil production?
    What is required to replace that oil?
    Why is Shell drilling in the Arctic?
    Why is oil at $110/bbl instead of $10/bbl?
    Study the graphs and data at Actuary Gail Tverberg’s Our Finite World.
    Yes I believe there are solutions, and I am working on them. However poor planning could easily result in a billion people dying from famine on the way.
    May I encourage you to grapple with the issues and practical engineering magnitude and task of what needs to be done.
    What does it cost and how long does it take to install a coal to liquid fuel plant?
    See Robert Hirsch, The Impending World Energy Mess.
    Try reaching a credible understanding of the issues and how to grapple with them.
    How do we supply 10%/year replacement fuel to get form here to there?
    Typical cost is $110,000/bbl/year.
    World consumption is 91 million bbl/day.
    10%/year is 9 million bbl/day.
    You “only” need ~ $1 trillion/year.
    Saudi Arabia only produces 9.8 million bbl/year of oil.
    How do you go about adding a Saudi Arabia of oil about every year?
    (Besides having a wand and a black hat)
    See Charles Hall, Energy and the Wealth of Nations.
    I look forward to your serious response.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    A great post David.

    I read a reply from Richard S Courtney on Feb 22nd 1:41pm to Terry (original post 1:01pm on that same day).

    When I got to the part about flint and antler bone I had given up the will to be honest. Richard seems to have this odd view that we have infinite resources on this planet – we do not.

    Many of his posts seem to be religious in nature and based on some kind of view that man will survive and prosper, even in the face of current problems that we are encountering.

    All our current available fuels are finite. Even nuclear material is in short supply.

    Nothing is infinite, and I find his opinions extremely worrying. But hey, in his world you can synthesize oil from coal. What he doesn’t consider is that many of the coal pits have been forced to close, as have many coal fuelled power stations under EU rules. But he discussed his ideas with little regard to reality and talks of available coal piles, knowing full well that we cannot use them. He also claims that a population reduction is more of a threat than an increase in population. How on earth did we cope in the 1950’s when the population was more like 1.5 billion?

    Add to this he makes many references to the Club of Rome, which as far as I can tell seems to be some kind of attempt by him to assert his view that the destabilisation of the population is occurring from some conspiracy theory that derived itself from the theories of a long departed theorist, Malthus.

    I have referenced Malthus myself – not because I believe he held the view that he wanted the population to reduce, but only because he predicted that the population would peak owing to economic constraints. I certainly believe he was along the right lines, which at that time did show a very good foresight to a potential problem.

    Now, if the Club of Rome or whichever other crank organisation decides to interpret what Malthus said into some kind of mass extermination plan, that is up to their own pitiful selves. Malthus would be turning in his grave if he knew how his theory had been used as a tool by other organisations.

    I don’t believe the threat of man made climate change was derived from some conspiracy theory about depopulation as has been suggested on here before. I ‘believe’ it is all political, and mostly done to support the growing renewables industry. The cause is frankly irrelevant, the impact however is relevant.

    The last time I had dealings with Richard Courtney he was comparing me to something that you scrape off your shoe, whilst claiming that I am in support of mass extermination!!

    The danger of the internet hey.

    Anyway, good post David.
    Chris.

Comments are closed.