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:
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.
Kip Hansen,
Poking fun?
The problem you have here is – you’re not Mark Steyn or Willis Eschenbach.
They’re good at it.
RichardSCourtney re your post
I addressed serious issues. Hopefully you can rise to do so as well.
Re:
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
b fagan says: @ur momisugly 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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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
I said nothing about being able “to drop that price”.
I said
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
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
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.
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 @ur momisugly http://www.ldjackson.net/climate-scientist-fights-back-calls-global-warming-alarmists-global-warming-nazis/
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.
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.
“””””…..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.
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 🙂
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.