UPDATE: 5/30 8:45AM After we pointed it out Romm has now snipped the ugly part of the comment seen in the screencap below, it only took him five days to notice it with our help. The original post in entirety is preserved here http://www.webcitation.org/682NzGF0b – Anthony
UPDATE2: 5/30 3PM Reuters has issued a correction, removing the 2050 reference and replacing it with (towards the end of this century) See http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/co2-iea-idUKL5E8GO6B520120530
UPDATE3: 5/30 4:3oPM In response to being called out, Romm issued one of his usual jihads, insinuating with the help of Eli Rabett aka Dr. Joshua Halpern that everybody else is stupid but him, and that we really will all roast. He trots out his favorite predictive Wheel-of-Climate! again.
It’s a laugh riot. But Romm didn’t start questioning the story until AFTER other people started to question it, and he passed it on with no caveats in the original post, archived here. He did make a note in comments saying “I meant to post that 2050 is obviously a mistake by the reporter.” but never actually did make any caveat in the main body of the post until he found himself embarrassed by it all. He also deleted (5 days later after we pointed it out ) the ugly commentary about death wishes for “coal/oil people” (see below).
The level of noise today is telling, much like the “voodoo science” claims of Pachauri. – Anthony
This is sad. Joe Romm promotes another overt fabrication, and some poor kid writes in despair, hoping all the “oil/coal people” here die “a horrible death, preferably caused by climate disasters”. If that were sent to somebody at ANU, it would by the Appell/Stokes rule, be declared a “death threat”. Since it’s on Romm’s site, the poster gets sympathy and counseling instead of admonishment. See below.
First, Romm’s reporting of an overt fabrication of 11°F temperature rise by 2050 by Fatih Birol.
The claim of 11°F comes from this Reuters news article . It cites Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the IEA, who says:
“When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol, IEA’s chief economist told Reuters.
Of course 6°C =11°F, and given the climate sensitivity figures bandied around by the IPCC, there doesn’t seem any way these numbers can pencil out.
Hans von Storch writes on Die Klimazwiebel that this is “pure alarmism”:
A forth interesting issue is that climate science has become irrelevant; it shows up in passing, when “limit devastating climate effects like crop failure and melting glaciers” is mentioned, and the quote “the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050)” is made.This is a pretty bold prediction, given that we have so far less than 1 degree warming since pre-industrial times, so that the warming must be more than 5 degrees/38 years, i.e., about 0.7-0.8 deg/decade. I consider this pure alarmism, which is related to the timing, and a misuse of scientific analysis for creating some unsustainable short term drama for the Bonn-negotiations.
I wonder if this 6-degrees claim is really from IEA, or just an addition by Fatih Birol, because is no not mentioned in the IEA’s announcement.
Even Joshua Halpern, aka “Eli Rabbet”, says in comments the claim by Birol makes no sense:
Not having a BS detector that works on himself, Romm runs with it, embellishing it with this bit of propaganda:
As Birol said of 11°F warming late last year, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only school children ran the country.
And following his rant, we get this comment first up from a school age child:
And not one person in the thread following that comment, not Halpern, nor even Romm himself, says anything about the death wish, or even suggests to the poor kid that saying such things are unacceptable. There’s agreement in the silence. There’s no significant disagreement with the feelings of doom espoused either. It is really depressing for the lack of reality based discussion.
I have to wonder though, if this kid has ever driven or ridden in a car, or used electricity made from coal. Maybe he/she thinks such things are powered by the grace of the green energy fairy.
If the situation were reversed, Romm, Appell, Halpern, and the whole cast of haters would be all over it as yet another example of how terrible skeptics are.
Their double standard behavior is disturbing. Romm should be ashamed of himself, but he won’t be, because he’s paid a six figure salary to promote this garbage.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gail Combs says:
This same type of crap is going on in the schools in regards to CAGW. PETA is just easier to find examples of because it is more closely knit.
Yet one more reason I homeschool.
All those multi degree warming projections rely on the strongly positive water vapor feedback built into climate models. The empirical data on global atmospheric water vapor, like most climate data, is pretty sucky which means this is another area which is like Alice’s Restaurant i.e. “You can get anything you want” in terms of interpretations. This
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/21/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature-part-2/
is from a number of years ago, but I just did a quick search and it popped up fairly early in list and somewhat surprisingly there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that is more current and/or definitive on the subject. A strongly positive water vapor feedback claim is, on its face, so counterintuitive that, to my mind at least, it falls under the metric of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. From what I’ve seen not only do the proofs presented fail to rise to the “extraordinary” level, they don’t even approach the level of proof at a vary ordinary level. For most of the “science” it requires an act of epistemological charity to credit it with providing a basis for more than weak suspicion. There has been some works from the skeptic side which suggest the H2O feedback is either small or even negative and I tend to be more sympathetic to that view although I must admit that sympathy may be driven their agreement with my personal prejudices. BTW, being self aware enough to monitor one’s thoughts for intrusions of personal prejudices seems to be an aspect of modern analysis that is becoming as obsolete as buggy whips, but I’m just an amateur at this so what do I know.
At any rate the strongly positive H2O feedback seems to be the fundamental footing upon which the edifice of CAGW is built. Absent it the rest is pretty much a house of cards. Given that the science, other than tautological model runs, has never really supported it and, if anything, the trend of evidence seems to run in the opposite direction, the fact that school’s across the planet are using this nonsense to terrorize their charges to the point that many are candidates for therapy because of it, is a crime against humanity ( I’ve been seeing stories of children requiring therapy because of this since AIT was a new release)
There are many hypotheses which have been put forward to explain the vagaries of our climate. Probably at least 6-8 have attracted enough acolytes to be considered as a semiplausible possibility. Most are serious longshots, but even the betting favorites are far enough from getting it right that they don’t justify anything like the confidence that is commonplace in this phony crisis. While evidence from the science is incredibly weak, the evidence from history is almost incontrovertible. Doing the things demanded by the scaremongers pushing this hype has a history of its own and the record demonstrates that the results of doing so have never been good for humanity in the long run and in fact have almost always been incredibly bad. Embracing these supposedly”planet saving” mandates means essentially returning humanity to the state of existence that prevailed when the world was ruled by hereditary monarchs. The only real difference being that in that sweep of history we occasionally had a “good king” who could be, however briefly, benevolent. The misanthropy of our new overlords suggests that expecting any benevolence from any of them is an incredibly naive hope.
REPLY: Except, the quote exists, so obviously your “no one was talking about 6C by 2050″ is just another rabett tale. BTW, Hr. Halpern, my name is not Tony, its Anthony.
That quote doesn’t exist, Reuters reported: “When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (by 2050), which would have devastating consequences for the planet,” Fatih Birol. Unfortunately ‘(by 2050)’ was not part of the quotation but an insertion by Reuters, perhaps that’s their normal practice to indicate an inserted note, but it seems liable to lead to misunderstanding as it has in this case. As pointed out by Eli they have now replaced the contents of the bracket with ‘towards the end of this century’ which more accurately represents the context of Birol’s remarks.
REPLY: Sorry, Phil, not buying it. 2050 was there, no matter who inserted it, and people were in fact talking about it. I’m fine for blaming Rueters for making up/bollixing a quote, but it did in fact exist in print, and the 2050 date existed in the IEA press release. End of discussion. – Anthony
Eli, Could you summarize the evidence that a 6C increase in temperature would be a disaster? Before you answer, without actually knowing how much sea level rise will occur how fast with a 6C increase over 100 years, who could seriously predict disaster based on sea level rise? As you probably know there have been several recent studies in which no trend could be detected in extreme weather events during late 20th century warming, so extreme weather is not a credible basis for predicting disaster. Anything else? Plants should be happier with more CO2 and we are nowhere near the point at which CO2 causes any problem for animals. All other things being equal, longer growing seasons in temperate zones should increase, not decrease crop yields. Finally, CO2 has been several times current levels in the distant past and life was never extinguished, and there is no indication of a tipping point. If anything, very high levels of CO2 associated with conditions still suitable for a wide variety of organisms should raise serious questions about the positive feedbacks built into climate models, which probably should yield a tipping point (if they were real). So even if there was a 6C increase (which is unlikely), the predictions of disaster seem to me to be almost entirely conjecture. If you know of observation-based information to the contrary, I would be interested.
I keep thinking about a paper in PNAS in which output from regional GCM models (which don’t seem to work very well) was fed into a model for crop yield and output from that model was fed into a model for human migration. The result? Near certainty that the US will be flooded by millions of climate refugees from Mexico (Published online before print July 26, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002632107). This paper epitomizes much of what is wrong with climate science to me. It wouldn’t be taken seriously in any other field, but if it predicts disaster due to warming, it’s in.
Watts Obession with Joe Romm is scary. Watts has this great web site. But he pomotes Joe Romm.
He defends the Heartland billboard. Watts up with Watts?
This used to be a great site for skeptics. Turning into a sleazy attack site.
Please get back to Science.
REPLY: Digging for the truth is never sleazy, but embellishing the truth is. I will continue to call out Romm on his embellishments and fabrications, as will others.
Another good example is the story yesterday that Romm ran with saying :
Extreme Weather Roundup: Earliest Second Named Tropical Storm, Record-Smashing Heat Wave, Widespread Drought
“Beryl is Earliest “B” Storm on Record The chart shows the date of formation for the second named Atlantic tropical cyclone of the season from 1950 through 2012. The average date through 2011 was August 1, so Beryl is nearly 10 weeks earlier than average.”
That’s TOTALLY false, Steve Goddard writes:
========================================================
According to Hansen, 1907 was the coldest year ever. The following spring had a 100 MPH category 2 hurricane during Early March. A second hurricane formed on May 24 and hit the US. Only three hurricanes have hit the US during May, the most recent one being at the peak of the ice age scare in 1970.
Hurricane Two
Category 1 hurricane (SSHS)
Duration May 24 – May 31 1908
Intensity 75 mph (120 km/h) (1-min), 989 mbar (hPa)
This hurricane hit the U.S. in May, causing minor effects. It was one of only 3 May hurricanes during the 20th century in the Atlantic Basin; the others were Able in 1951 and Alma in 1970. It marked the earliest date for the season’s second hurricane to form in any Atlantic season on record, and it was the earliest hurricane to hit the U.S. in recorded history.
Source: 1908 Atlantic hurricane season – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
=============================================================================
Romm couldn’t be bothered to check the data prior to 1950, and thus he lied with his claim.
As for the Heartland Billboard, perhaps you didn’t read what I said about it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/10/on-the-climate-the-holocaust-denial-billboards-and-all-that/
So if shooting down Romm’s embellishments and fabrications, which often make it into other publications, bothers you, you are welcome to skip over those entries – Anthony
Yeah well, it’s Prof. Dr. Rabett, but Eli’s friends call him Bunny. The “quote” included an insertion by the reporter of “2050” that was not uttered by Dr. Birol so your uberquet REPLY: Except, the quote exists, so obviously your “no one was talking about 6C by 2050″ speaks for itself.
REPLY: it does, because people WERE in fact talking about it, including Dr. Bunny Rabett, pointing out that it made no sense, without suggesting at that time that Reuters inserted it. Reuters has retracted the error and issued a correction, likely due to all the attention we and other skeptics gave it, and that’s a good thing.
Now you only have to explain how we’ll get 6C/11F by the end of the century, when the last century worth of CO2 -vs- temperature doesn’t support that slightly less ridiculous number either. Can’t get there without feedback, and feedback isn’t cooperating, and absorption bands are getting saturated. What’s a snark bunny to do? Make stuff up? – Anthony
Whether the claims are 2050 or 2100 are irrelevant when we know the models are the only things that have based this by 2100 and on the worst-case scenario. We know this is a grasping at straws model guess completely relying on positive feedback and not supported by any scientific evidence/observations demonstrated on the planet whatsoever for years. It has failed the test of scientific method even with many billions of funding, but some people not interested in science want to ignore this and continue their money grabbing agenda. They just won’t let the failed models lie and doing whatever means possible to change supposedly global observational data to reflect this. Unfortunately the 17 year old is just an example of a victim with this propaganda, without knowing the science facts.
Anthony – unless I’m missing something I think Reuters accurately reported the first time – the IEA PR quote your provided:
“We have a responsibility and a golden opportunity to act,” said IEA Deputy Executive Director Ambassador Richard H Jones. “Energy-related CO2 emissions are at historic highs; under current policies, we estimate that energy use and CO2 emissions would increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher. Such an outcome would confront future generations with significant economic, environmental and energy security hardships – a legacy that I know none of us wishes to leave behind.”
Reading the IEA quote gives a very clear impression IMO:
“… we estimate energy use and CO2 emission’s would …. almost double by 2050. This would likely send global temperatures at least 6°C higher.”
There is zero indication in the IEA quote that they meant “by the end of the century” – it clearly states they expect a doubling by 2050 and “THIS” would likely lead to a 6°C increase.
It is IEA fear mongering, repeated by alarmists like Romm, that is the real problem. Reuters reported IMO accurately according to info provided by IEA. Interestingly the “Press Presentation” link on the Press Release page goes to a dead link.
More troubling to me is this quote from the IEA release:
Exactly what does level playing field to reflect true cost mean? Sounds a lot like Obama’s mission to destroy coal even if it means increasing cost of energy, or his energy Czar’s idea we should vastly increase to cost of gas to encourage energy efficiency.
The alarmists have much to be proud of.
Causing depression and mental illness in young gullible people is a sure fire way to promote success in their lives.
These people show the signs of radical activist thinking that leads to acts of terrorism because they have been brainwashed into thinking society is basically evil anyway and their actions can be considered as “noble” in their twisted thinking.
Well done guys – another fragile individual’s life catastrophically ruined – and this person will live a hateful life and die waiting for the “holocaust” of global warming,climate change or climate disruption or whatever the new buzzword becomes.
So,
Scientists didn’t claim an ice age was coming in the 70’s… it was the media.
Scientists didn’t deserve grief for “Hide the Decline”… it was the media.
Scientists didn’t claim they received death threats…it was the media
and now…
Alarmists never said 6 degrees by 2050…it was the media
Like all good Staple’s customers, I think they’ve found a great time-saver…
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/me2ha
My comment on Romm’s site that I posted a copy of here is *still* waiting for moderation yet he has now added some words under the kid’s post to advise against “death wishes like those on denialist sites”! What a joke!
Come on guys. Stop with the teacher bashing. I have never experienced that type of indoctrination you accuse teachers of in my district. What I have witnessed is unfettered access to the internet. Teens can, all on their own, read about and buy into whatever they read on the net. No classroom required. No teacher encouragement needed. They can do it entirely on their own devices.
Pamela Gray
Come on guys. Stop with the teacher bashing. I have never experienced that type of indoctrination you accuse teachers of in my district. What I have witnessed is unfettered access to the internet. Teens can, all on their own, read about and buy into whatever they read on the net. No classroom required. No teacher encouragement needed. They can do it entirely on their own devices.
Pamela, YOU may not have witnessed it, but others certainly have. What else would you call it when a student presents accurate, factual, information in class (with citations) that contradicts the teachers position, and the teacher simply dismisses it as fantasy and refuses to even entertain the subject? This is exactly what has happened with my daughter many times.
Yes, they may have access to the internet, but students are taught to bow to authority – and to accept the party line as taught in class. There is no room for independent thought.
Back when I was a naive, passion inflamed undergrad, I imagined that “The Empire” was run by the oil companies, Ronald Reagan was Darth Vader and LA was that Rome-like Imperial center of power. I had it all figured out. The Ecotopian rebels would defeat the Empire, and peace would reign in the Galaxy.
I have since grown up.
To be fair…there probably were responses that did take issue with this and the student-aged commentor, but none of those comments make it onto the blog. I’ve posted there with facts and links that contridict them and my replies never show up.
Romm seems to allow all sorts of strange comments, without a bit of remorse.
Such as this gem (from poster “Wonhyo”, made on May 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm):
“…On behalf of the generations who preceded you, please accept my apologies for our utter failure to pass down a stable, moderate, and livable climate for you and your children to live in…”
And as PART of that generation that preceded you, there should be a hearty thank you to the REAL scientists – the ones who used their gifts and created vaccines.
Vaccines for:
Anthrax
Cervical Cancer (Human Papillomavirus)
Diphtheria
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Influenza (Flu)
Japanese encephalitis (JE)
Lyme disease (no longer available in the United States)
Measles
Meningococcal
Monkeypox (the smallpox vaccine is used for this disease)
Mumps
Pertussis
Pneumococcal
Polio
Rabies
Rotavirus
Rubella
Shingles (Herpes Zoster)
Smallpox
Tetanus
Typhoid
Tuberculosis (TB)
Varicella (Chickenpox)
Yellow Fever
Just a few years ago, that student might not have made it to 17. Global warming wasn’t the fear.
Infant mortality in 1850 was about 216.8 (per 1000 births), while in 2000 it dropped to about 5.7 (per 1000 births).
“…An utter failure to pass down a stable, moderate, and livable climate for you and your children to live in…”?
If he really wants to be scared, pray that those diseases aren’t released from their cages.
Dear 17andscared,
I know this will be difficult to believe about people who have protected and nurtured you your whole life, but–there’s no easy way to put this–grownups don’t know everything. Yes, I’m afraid sometimes they’re completely wrong, don’t realize they’re wrong, and do the wrong things with the utmost sincerity. But worse than that–and I hate to be the one to break the news–sometimes they outright lie for their own gain, exploiting the unquestioning trust of, well, people like you. FYI, some examples of grownup liars are criminals, politicians, and climate alarmists–but I repeat myself.
Your only defense against the sincerely wrong and the sincerely mendacious is knowledge, something very hard to get, but well worth the effort. When confronted with apocalyptic predictions, for example, you should seek out opposing views, compare the evidence offered both pro and con, and make up your own mind. I confidently predict that you’ll find the situation is seldom as clear-cut or alarming as initially presented. Bear in mind also that the doom of the human race has been predicted constantly for about the last 200,000 years and–surprise!–we’re still here. I remember my own sainted grandmother regularly declaring “The country is going to the DOGS!” when I was young. I’ll probably tell my own grandkids the same thing.
If that doesn’t help, I offer these words of wisdom from contemporary popular culture:
PS Also, there’s no Santa Claus.
BTW, exploiting kids for alarmist purposes isn’t new. Anybody remember this?
I found another interesting post slightly further down the thread:
That’s all too plausible. Years ago, I read a book by ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning,
What is an ecopsychologist??? Do they counsel the climate? Perhaps tell ENSO how to better acclimate?
Eli Rabett says:
May 30, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“Yeah well, it’s Prof. Dr. Rabett, but Eli’s friends call him Bunny.”
Oi. A professor who speaks of himself in the third person. And you gotta pay for that kind of education. No wonder the US is seriously effed.
I perused over some of the responses to that child’s juvenile rant. Wow.
The posters are supposed adults and OBVIOUSLY climatologically void, weather cherry-pickers (You know, like NASA!).
Yet a majority go on to FEED this kid’s delusion.!
Sad. NOT ONE rebuttal suggested reading as much as possible from BOTH spectrums of thought. Don’t hitch your ideology to one but instead read furiously if you’re truly interested.
In the process that person may discover TRUE science and be the better for it. Then again that kid may come to realize how big of, albeit nice, scientific ethos-void kooks they are.
I perused over some of the responses to that child’s juvenile rant. Wow.
The posters are supposed adults and OBVIOUSLY climatologically void, weather cherry-pickers (You know, like NASA!).
Yet a majority go on to FEED this kid’s delusion.!
Sad. NOT ONE rebuttal suggested reading as much as possible from BOTH spectrums of thought. Which is sid quo pro for ALL sciences. To NOT hitch your ideology to one star but instead read furiously if you’re truly interested in the subject matter.
In the process this person may discover TRUE science and be the better for it. Then again this kid may come to realize how big of, albeit nice, scientific method-void kooks they are.
Dear 17andscared (assuming you’re posting is sincere and not a troll),
There’s no crying in science. Crying is an emotion. Science is a dispassionate endeavor. It’s supposed to be highly circumspect about it’s own conclusions. You’ve had the misfortune of being influenced by people who are activists and advocates, PRETENDING to be scientists. You need to learn this difference, because apparently, this lack of knowlege is harming your well-being.
I don’t want you to feel bad, and I certainly don’t want unbalanced young men wishing mass death on productive members of society. You’re feeling things that are way out of proportion to your life. You’re too young to have a decent perspective on whether civilization is “screwed” as you so eloquently put it. Remember, if you’re living in the U.S. or Europe, you’ve had a kingly life when compared to the lives of people from the past. Ask yourself whether you’d enjoy toiling under the hot sun in a agrarian society? A lot of people like you probably think the answer is an obvious ‘yes.’ So do something productive. Go prove it to yourself. Hire on as a farm laborer one summer. I guaran-damn-tee you that after 3 months of laboring in the sun you will have a different perspective. You may discover that you enjoy air-conditioning.
As for your hatred of oil and coal “people,” well, I’m not sure how best to get through to you how misguided such hatred can be. Do you ever enjoy the benefits of driving or riding in a car? In a bus? Is your home heated in the winter? Have you ever given any serious thought to what would happen to society if there were no oil and coal (and natural gas)? It would not lead to a society that we’d recognize. It would NOT be a utopia. There would be lack, suffering and decline. And people would be burning wood. People without wood to burn would be freezing in the winter. Please study the difference between the nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic for a case study of what happens when wood from trees is the primary fuel for human beings. And then maybe you could thank the people who allow your life to be one of abundance, convenience, and for a lifestyle that affords YOU a wider opportunity of options.
Here’s a wonderful message and perspective for a young person who’s been brainwashed into hopelessness by the modern Progressive movement, from Bill Whittle, from PJ Media. It’s about 10 minutes long, but well worth the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83P11kZuMtQ Please watch it and try to feel better. And don’t be so scared.
Good luck, 17andscared.
Mickey.. Best rebuttal ever.
Hat tip to the Bill Whittle as well. Love pjmedia as well.
~Cheers
[Moderator’s Request: Paul, I’m sure you are not intending to be deceptive, but you have commented here with two different screen names today and three overall. Site rules prohibit using multiple screen names. Please select one and stick with it. Thanks. -REP]
henrythethird says: @ur momisugly May 30, 2012 at 7:59 pm
…..And as PART of that generation that preceded you, there should be a hearty thank you to the REAL scientists – the ones who used their gifts and created vaccines…..
_______________________________
Yes in my grandparents time most families expected to lose children. I remember losing classmates to Polio.
____________________________
Pamela Gray, There are good teachers out their in decent school systems. There are also those that allow in the crap. It depends on state mandates and the school system. The school system where I am stinks and I know this despite not having any kids because I and my husband end up tutoring a lot of the kids gratis. My Husband substitute teaches too.
May 30, 2012 at 8:54 pm
I found another interesting post slightly further down the thread:
That’s all too plausible. Years ago, I read a book by ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning,
What is an ecopsychologist??? Do they counsel the climate? Perhaps tell ENSO how to better acclimate?
__________________________________
I could not let that pass without checking.
So who is ecopsychologist Chellis Glendinning?
If this is they type of help available for this kid no wonder he is mixed up in the head!
Yes DirkH, Eli finds it quit amusing to see the harumphing regalia being donned to ensure proper protocol. Engenders much eye rolling. When he was about to graduate, an old professor took Eli aside and told him of the traditional pre-doctorate ceremony where the candidates are helped to stuff a bunch of their papers under their shirts (evidently more of a chemistry thing than physics, but tastes differ). Skipped that one.