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.
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.
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
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.
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
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.
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.
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?
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.”
Charles Battig says: @ur momisugly 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:
(Biolex is located in Pittboro NC)
Just to make you feel all safe.
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
Enjoy your corn chips, corn flakes and Mexican food guys.
u.k.(us) says:
February 22, 2014 at 5:00 pm
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.
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 …
jorgekafkazar says:
February 22, 2014 at 5:21 pm
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.
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
pokerguy says: @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
cynical_scientist says:
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.
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.
Zeke Hausfather says:
February 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm
He did exactly that, Zeke. The clearest explanation I know of is on ClimateAudit, here (emphasis mine):
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.
u.k.(us) says:
February 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
w.
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
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.
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.
Kip Hansen says:
February 22, 2014 at 6:22 pm
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?]
Dude- you need to seriously get a life.
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.