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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
More to follow………………….
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.
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.
http://youtu.be/QpdyCJi3Ib4
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
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
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”?
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 …
.
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.
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 😉
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.
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 …
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.
There is plenty of land for us until 2100. Most populations of the world are around the coasts.
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
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 …
.
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.