Um, Mr. Pope, work on that proofreading

Responding to the last blunder he made where he assigned WUWT ownership of the “Our Climate” app, Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope makes a blunder anew, 5 times.

Heh.

See the full writeup and see if you can spot all five:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/apple-fools-day-again_b_684263.html

Blunder aside, I found this interesting:

My post on the threat of extreme weather attracted only ONE response, whose key point was: “How on earth are we supposed to ‘destabilize; the climate? Are you not careful with your words or do you really believe that the climate would become instable with more CO2? In the latter position you would find yourself rather lonely.”

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Um, Mr. Pope, work on that proofreading

  1. Watts Up That With? Seems like it’s time for a rebranding or a 101 course in journalism for Mr. Pope…

  2. I was distracted watching Star Trek … … I make mistakes when typing. Most times I catch ’em when proofing. But five times? WUTW??!!!!!

  3. From the comments on that post….
    1st comment…
    “Carl, i know Anthony Watts of WWUT and he’s a good human being, but so so wrong about AGW and climate chaos in the future. He means well, but….
    That said, Carl, could you SOON, one day ASAP, interview me about my POLAR CITIES project and do a post here at HUFFPO? see images first http://pcillu101.blogspot.com and then title your post James Lovelock’s Accidental Student and of course feel free to do a balanced story about polar cities ideas, pro and con. I don’t mind criticism or mockery. What i mind is ignoring me….email me for details at DANBLOOM in the gmail dept
    Seems like Mr Pope’s fans are almost as knowledgable as he is..
    /sarc……
    And like all these green left types.. eager for some attention….
    (and no doubt some tax payer funding)
    cheerio
    Jim

  4. Uhhh, Watt’s Up That With (WUTW) . . . . what’s wrong that with?
    Maybe Pope was aloft too long and suffered oxygen deprivation, or got dopey from sniffing that CO2-spewing contrail.
    Pope just couldn’t resist throwing out the old “tipping point” bone, and it drives me nuts. QUESTION: If CO2 is such a powerful GHG and (by itself) produces such a significant positive feedback on temp, then how did Earth recover from prior periods of CO2 > 400 ppm? Why did world temps cool 1945-1975? Why has there been no perceptible global warming over the last decade while CO2 has risen steadily?
    And, from the geological perspective, why have the last 2 million years been characterized by “unprecedented”, persistent cold punctuated by brief moderate/warm spells?
    All questions have the same answer in common: CO2 ain’t no big thing, unless you’re talking “food chain”.

  5. I had no idea it was so easy to be a columnist. Whoops – take that back. Just noticed the publisher is Huffington. Never mind.

  6. I hate these kind of quizzes, mainly because my focus is typically different than others. One thing that sticks out to me is “But I don’t apologize for my view that climate cynics are defying not only the scientific consensus but also common sense by arguing that we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate.” Given that the earth’s atmosphere has in the past contained significantly more CO2 than now, I can hardly see how he maintains we are significantly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
    I’ll come back with more in a minute or two.

  7. I would take issue with the notion that because rapid change has occurred, the climate is therefore unstable. Dramatic change may have occurred due to dramatic forcings. We can’t ensure we know what they were. Nor can we ensure chosen proxies accurately portray how quickly that change occurred.
    There was also the nonsense about a buildup of energy (from an infinitesmally small trace of gas) suddenly releasing a hurricane or other event.
    I thought you did credit Aeris also.

  8. Likely more than 5 blunders, and this one may not be what you had in mind, but
    “I was on a plane all day after my post last week… So I didn’t have a chance to respond”
    is quite a weird thing to say. It’s Tuesday, it happened last Wednesday. Was he on a plane for 6 days and calls it “all day”? His excuse for not responding till today is that he was on a plane all day. What’s he trying to convey? That he flies on airplanes? That he doesn’t read comments to his blogs for days at a time? Saying nothing would have been better. The guy is plain spooky.

  9. Can we please start an award for Mangling English and give it to Mr Pope. It’s no wonder young people find it more difficult to master the language with shining examples like him to lead the way.

  10. I too found that quote interesting too and I must admit confusing. So I went to the dictionary. Ah, instable is probably misspelled. Spelling had never been one of my strong points either. However, I think I get the writer’s point but apparently Pope did not.
    Dictionary:
    insatiable |inˈsā sh əbəl|, adjective
    (of an appetite or desire) impossible to satisfy : an insatiable hunger for success.
    • (of a person) having an insatiable appetite or desire for something, esp. sex.
    DERIVATIVES
    insatiability |-ˌsā sh əˈbilitē| |ˈˈɪnˈseɪʃəˈˈbɪlədi| |ənˈseɪʃəˈbɪlədi| |-ˈbɪlɪti| noun
    insatiably |-blē| |1nˈseɪʃəbli| adverb
    ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French insaciable or Latin insatiabilis, from in- ‘not’ + satiare ‘fill, satisfy’ (see satiate ).
    Thesaurus:
    insatiable, adjective
    an insatiable appetite for expensive jewelry unquenchable, unappeasable, uncontrollable; voracious, gluttonous, greedy, hungry, ravenous, wolfish; avid, eager, keen; informal piggy; literary insatiate.
    Dictionary:
    destabilize |dēˈstābəˌlīz|, verb [ trans. ]
    upset the stability of; cause unrest in : the discovery of an affair can destabilize a relationship.
    Thesaurus:
    destabilize, verb
    the security system has been destabilized undermine, weaken, damage, subvert, sabotage, unsettle, upset, disrupt. antonym strengthen.
    I’m not sure Journalism 101 would do much good here. Perhaps English 101?

  11. It’s like those quizzes where you have to put random words or letters into order to make a sentence or word. eg. Sense he making not is.
    No prizes for the winner (not even a gov grant as they are strapped for cash)

  12. Can’t figure out why Carl Pope is so concerned about a trace gas.
    So many land use issues and real toxins to worry about, like millions of gallons of dispersants dumped into the Gulf.

  13. Mr Pope: “increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy. Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over … More kinetic energy in the atmosphere means a less-stable climate regime”
    Logical error: Assumption that turning up the burner will always cause boiling, therefore ANY increase in radiative forcing will lead to a tipping point.
    This is an unjustified leap to the catastrophe scenario. Turning up the burner just a notch could have little or no net effect. Or a small increase could have some positive outcomes.
    What if we simply do not have sufficent fuel supply to cause boiling, no matter how far we try to increase fuel supply to the burner. This is a possible analogy to the logarithmic forcing response.
    Another way of looking at it with regard to “positive feedbacks”. Are we supposed to assume that any minor increase in the burner setting will call on some untold (unaccounted for) energy source which will amplify the increase in fuel supply?

  14. Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
    August 16, 2010 at 11:27 pm
    “Ah, instable is probably misspelled.”
    Instable is a 15th century word for unstable. “Instability” comes from it. Pope probably means to impress by using uncommon words, such as his use of “redolent”. He went to Harvard College. ‘Nough said.

  15. “There is a term for this — it’s called stealing from your children. It’s wrong.”
    Sure is Mr Pope so stop stealing my kids’ innocence and keep yer cotton pickin hands out of their piggy banks too!

  16. The CO2 from his 24 hour plane trip has undoubtedly tipped the climate. That’s one really big mistake on he made ;>)

  17. Looks like Pope didn’t read Anthony’s words here

    I had been asked to review this app. So, for “inquiring minds”, no, I earn nothing from it, just like in a scientific paper review. The app developer in Australia has put hundreds of man hours in research and software development into it. The 99 cents purchase price goes to offset his costs and time.
    Now, the tearing down begins at other websites who can’t tolerate it’s presence.

    What jumps out from Pope’s article is the effrontery of contradiction “been on a plane all day” and “the threat of CO2 destabilizing the climate was precisely my point … Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over — generates a major hurricane, alters the patterns of precipitation over Central Asia…”
    Weird Ululations, To Wit.

  18. Blunder aside, I found this interesting: My post on the threat of extreme weather attracted only ONE response…
    Two, actually — the second one (at 2:37pm on the 16th) dealt with the fallacy of trying to save energy by demanding everyone drive electric cars. His post published at 11:21pm on the 16th, so he either wrote the post with a scheduled delay before it triggered, or he didn’t bother to re-check before he wrote it.
    Why are so many people hyperventilating about the distinction between “released” and “promoted”? It’s curious.
    Because words have meanings, and “released” is not a synonym for “promoted.” “Release” implies an ownership that “promotion” does not. Pope’s statement “…a one-hundred square mile tower of ice broke off the Greenland ice sheet” is “promoting” — the press announcement from the Andreas Muenchow saying a chunk of the Petermann glacier at least 100 square miles in area and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building” was “released.”

  19. “Indeed, the threat of CO2 destabilizing the climate was precisely my point — increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy.”
    On oddly constructed sentence – CO2 doesn’t retain incoming solar radiation, it absorbs outgoing IR radiation. I suppose that is possibly correct depending on how you interpret the sentence.
    Also, he says the amount of kinetic energy is increased, but I doubt he is educated enough to be referring to temperature – I think he has no idea what kinetic energy really is.
    Is English his first language?

  20. Mr Pope: “increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy. Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over … More kinetic energy in the atmosphere means a less-stable climate regime”
    Illogical. A better analogy would be that you have a pot of water on the stove set to a very low simmer. The water is warm and stable as the heat going in equals the heat going out. Now you bring in a bunch of people into the kitchen. CO2 level goes up due to all the breathing and now the water starts boiling rapidly.
    You know, I love how scientists, statisticians, and mathematicians and economists who are not “climate scientists” are attacked when they dispute the science with the defense that they are not climate experts. Yet any idiot that can barely use a computer that spouts scientific nonsense supporting AGW is held in high esteem by this warming crowd.

  21. “What you can’t do is have it both ways by saying that feedback loops can be counted on to prevent rapid climate change and that there has been lots of rapid climate change in the past.”
    Clearly Mr. Pope knows nothing about dynamic systems. If you read this, Mr. Pope, just look up the word “hysteresis”. Within limits, there can be a lot of oscillation in a long-term stable system. Or just look up “oscillator”.
    Now this is silly; they should give him a job where he doesn’t have to utter his assumptions about weird complicated things; he starts to sound like expert geologist Dr. h.c. Al Gore.

  22. “I was on a plane all day after my post last week …”
    Yes and hypocritically expelling countless tons of evil CO2 into our precious atmosphere while you were at it. Spare a thought for our grandchildren.

  23. “I was on a plane all day last week.”
    Quite a trip, and instabling the chemical composition of the atmosphere according to prepondering scientific consensus, but let’s not be redolent.

  24. “But I don’t apologize for my view that climate cynics are defying not only the scientific consensus but also common sense by arguing that we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate. ”
    Strawman. No skeptic argues that “we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate.”. Mr. Pope; setting up a strawman and knocking it down is the most often used argumentative technique in leftist circles; that much is known; but it is still not a valid argument.

  25. I was never very good at those “find the 5 dogs in the drawing below” things, but I’ll give it a shot.
    Before I start, I’d like to note as a bonus that the sentence ‘Indeed, the threat of CO2 destabilizing the climate was precisely my point — increasing the concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that retain an increased fraction of incoming solar energy that is retained by the atmosphere has the same impact as turning up the burner underneath a pot — it increases the amount of kinetic energy.’ needs to be taken out and shot, but is not clear enough to point out a distinct blunder.
    1. ‘So WUTW seemed to be marketing “Our Climate” as its own’.
    No evidence has been presented for “as its own”, and contrary evidence is in the article Mr. Pope says he read: ‘I had been asked to review this app. So, for “inquiring minds”, no, I earn nothing from it, just like in a scientific paper review’.
    2. Five instances of typo “WUTW”.
    3. Climate / weather confusion. ‘Eventually, the system hits a tipping point where the “pot” boils over — generates a major hurricane, alters the patterns of precipitation over Central Asia, locks a high-pressure system keeping out precipitation over California’s Sacramento Valley — whatever.’
    A hurricane is definitely weather. A high pressure system ditto. Patterns of precipitation could make it into climate if sustained over decades.
    4. Simple logical fallacy: ‘you might think that under present circumstances the feedback loops are likely to work against climate instability. What you can’t do is have it both ways by saying that feedback loops can be counted on to prevent rapid climate change and that there has been lots of rapid climate change in the past.’
    Clearly, you might think that “under present circumstances” feedbacks are negative but under past circumstances they might have been positive or very small. But that’s not my real problem with this paragraph. I believe that feedbacks must be, and have been, negative over most of history, because otherwise Earth would already be an iceball or a sauna. That doesn’t rule out rapid change from strong forcings – Milankovitch cycles, for example.
    5. ‘climate cynics are defying not only the scientific consensus but also common sense by arguing that we can indefinitely continue to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere and count on avoiding serious results from a destabilized climate’.
    Not so much a blunder, rather a deliberate straw man, but I’ll go for it anyway.

  26. Is English his first language?
    He speaks “enviro-ese”. It’s like “journalese” only more obscure and better at hiding the fact that he’s talking rubbish most of the time.

  27. From the HuffPo article:
    “So WUTW seemed to be marketing “Our Climate” as its own, and the first reviewer seemed to be thanking WUTW. As a result, I made a mistake.
    A mistake? At least two in that sentence alone. I quit reading after that.

  28. Oh, the insufferable indignity of having it pointed out that one of the Cardinals of the new religion has stepped in a mud puddle. Alas.
    Well, that, and the redefinition of “pointing and snickering” as “hyperventilating”.

  29. He is a concern troll. Pope is all worried about an app for a phone.
    Last week Obama announced 2 billion dollars for coal plant in Illinois. How is he coming on getting that shut down? Since he is playing the grandchildren card, he must worry about the money and the CO2. They can sequester the CO2 or he can sequester his grand kids. The home is double CO2 than is found outdoors.
    Futuregen

  30. Released, promoted — what’s the difference indeed. He’s right you know — and here’s the proof…
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

    So there you have it…

  31. thegoodlocust says:
    August 17, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Also, he says the amount of kinetic energy is increased, but I doubt he is educated enough to be referring to temperature – I think he has no idea what kinetic energy really is.

    To be fair, ‘heat’ really is just kinetic energy of molecules, so he is in fact right. I doubt that he understands that, however, given the associated ‘trapping of incoming sunlight’ description.

  32. “Are you not careful with your words or do you really believe that the climate would become instable (sic) with more CO2? In the latter position you would find yourself rather lonely.”
    Hands down, my favourite. I had no idea that belief in CO2 caused climate instability was such a lonely position.

  33. “Its first tip on the top ten list is that the climate has, indeed, changed in major ways, and rapidly, in the past, due to forces other than human intervention. This is one of the facts on which all sides of the debate can agree. But that fact, unfortunately, is quite sufficient to establish that we cannot count on climate feedback loops yielding a ‘net sum’ that is ‘small or negative.'” (emphesis mine)
    That fact also shows that the increase in temperature over the recent 30 yrs. is not unusual. Pointing out “that fact” is, I think, a bigger gaffe for Mr. Pope.

  34. I like one of the comments on HP.
    “Carl, i know Anthony Watts of WWUT and he’s a good human being, but so so wrong about AGW and climate chaos in the future. He means well, but….”
    So Carl calls it WUTW and Danny Bloom calls it WWUT.
    lol

  35. Huffington Post, Huffpo, 2nd City; not a real website; a recent creation historically speaking, the product of one Arianna Huffington; not significantly coupled to reality …
    .

  36. Should amend to include: Will ‘publish’ anything; unabashedly on the side of wrong, incorrect, stupid countless times …
    .

  37. When preaching to the choir , the importance of the meaning of words pales in comparision to how they sound . Often , objective facts are irrelevant to the subjective “truth” – if it sounds right , if it feels fight , then it is right . Enviromental activists , beginning with David Brower , have preached this “sermon” to their followers for decades . Gullible Gaiaists aren’t particularily literate .

  38. Hey guys, give the poor fellow a break on that plane trip. Sure, he was on a plane all day, but nowhere does he say it was actually flying. In fact if he actually was on the aircraft, it couldn’t have been flying, otherwise he would have been blown off (though come to think of it, that would explain a lot).

  39. I’ve figured that the problem with huffington post is that with all their huffing and puffing they never blow any house down, they just keep on huffing and puffing, and all that collection of air in the head really can’t be all that healthy.

  40. His intentional (IMHO) misspelling of the site is an attempt to degrade the site through condescendingly coming up with an alternate meaning (that he will have to reveal himself). It serves 2 purposes.
    Take the site where he penned the alleged insult – the Puffington Host. Someone trying to do a google (or Bing) search on it will not come up with this blog as a source, so it will not feed their hit count. The same goes for stuff like moron.org, or dimunderwear.org. basically the reader will know what the writer is talking about, but the changed name is a slur against the site and the site gets no hits or promotions off the search engines.
    Now he just has to come up with some type of phrase to give meaning to his attempted slight.

  41. Make an offer to Mr. Pope to share CTM and Evan so this doesn’t happen again….for a nice price! (don’t take EU carbon credits either!)

  42. Pope must have been one of those that voted for the hopey changy thingy. Oh wait. So did I. But I learn from my mistakes. Apparently he keeps making the same ones!

  43. Well I’ll be damned before I bother with any log in on a supposed news BB like Huffington Post.
    So I will put my post here so Mr Pope can read it here; and then correct his eggregious error wherever he wants to write it.
    The only accumulation of Greenghouse Gases that absorb an increasing amount of the incoming solar energy happens to be H2O; which as we all know is NOT a green house gas but a feedback factor to amplify CO2 effects; well that’s what the scientific “concensus” claims anyway.
    So for your edification Mr Pope; it is water vapor that can absorb perhaps as much as 20-25% of the incoming solar energy in the wavelength range longer than about 760 nm in the deep red. CO2 does not have any significant impact on incoming solar energy until you get out to the 4 micron CO2 line, and at that point, less than 1% of the total solar energy remains to be caught by anything, and even there H2O continues to be a factor in absorbingincoming solar energy.
    And that atmospheric absorption of incoming solar energy has the effect of COOLING the surface; not HEATING it. Yes it does heat the atmosphere; but then at least half of the subsequent thermal emission from that heated atmosphere goes upwards towards outer space; rather than downwards towards the ground; so no matter how you slice it Mr Pope; the interception of incoming solar energy by any component of the atmosphere results in a net cooling of the surface.
    So you need some remedial 8th grade science teaching to get you up to speed on what is happening.

  44. The funny thing is that on that very Huf Post page there is a story on the right which is titled:
    “America Loves Dirty Coal: Industry Prepares For Biggest Expansion In Two Decades ”
    [“Utilities across the country are building dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry’s standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases for years to come.”]

  45. Huffiinton = 6 comments (4 from the sceptic side….I just checked)
    Currently Anthony has 55! Or am I falling into the “Who has the most supporters trap!
    Be fair Anthony, this is not ad hom! Pope is fun! He makes me laugh! EVERY TIME!

Comments are closed.