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.
By 2050 the US will have lost its Baby Boomer population of 79 million. Birth rates here are down to 63 per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
Does anyone believe that by 2100 there won’t be at least one nuclear war that greatly reduces world population?
John Coleman says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
“Despite all of this I will not stoop to calling Gove, Mann, et al names and being personally abusive. Only fifth graders who have run out of reasonable arguments stoop to name calling. Join me on the high road, please, one and all.”
I agree with you. I love Willis to bits, but sometimes he gets carried away with the rhetoric. I’ve always been impressed by your civility even towards those who disagree with you. Civility costs nothing and has a habit of making people with no axe to grind listen to you. Even if you are right, using invective tends to make the undecided suspicious, because invective is often what the poorly-informed reach for to compensate for their ignorance.
I’m not suggesting Willis is ill-informed, far from it, only that a certain kind of language might cause some to dismiss him out of hand, which would be a great pity. In fact, it’s one of the reasons that an average bod like me who sometimes gets lost in some of the technicalities of climate science is so suspicious of warmists. I say speak softly and carry the big stick of data, which IMO on good days, Willis does very well. In the long run, I believe it pays big dividends. Steve McIntyre understands better where you are coming from, I believe, and Willis maybe needs to bite his tongue a little more; I can usually read past his occasional invective to the data, but not everyone might be so inclined.
All my best to you, sir: I think you are a wise gentleman and I urge Willis to listen to you.
John Coleman says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
First, John, thank you for your thoughts, always welcome. However, here’s how I see it.
Michael Mann is a crook. He broke the law by both deleting emails subject to FOIA, and by advising others to do the same. He stands convicted by his own words.
Caspar Amman worked double overtime to subvert the IPCC process, lying and cheating at a rate of knots along the way. It’s all well documented.
Peter Gleick is a crook. He is guilty of wire fraud, fraud which cost Heartland big money in donations. He passed off forged documents attacking his perceived opponents. None of that is disputed.
Phil Jones is a damn liar. He lied to my face when I made my FOIA request, the Climategate emails revealed it all.
Lonnie Thompson and his wife are frauds. They defrauded the taxpayers by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to collect data, and then not revealing the data. Matter of public record.
And Andrew Revkin has been these men’s constant enabler, has spread their lies far and wide, and ignored their criminal actions. He was too pious to print the Climategate emails because in his view they were obtained illegally … but he was happy to publish the Gleick forgeries and stolen documents. His callous, uncaring attitude is evident in the fact that to this day he calls his opponents “deniers”.
Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS. I don’t care about their personal habits or whether they are nice to their wives. I’m saying they lied and cheated and defrauded and deleted evidence and committed wire fraud and suborned perjury and broke every rule it’s possible to break.
And John, because people like you refuse to call a crook a crook, and discourage those of us who do so, those men continue to be feted and honored and invited to speak and join the distinguished societies. They have not suffered the slightest opprobrium, unless you count the poor efforts of myself and a few others.
Now, if this was a faculty tea party, who would care? Certainly not I.
But these men’s policies are harming and impoverishing and killing poor people now, today. Not only that, but they are causing that pain and suffering under the pious rubric of maybe possibly helping the poor in 50 years …
So despite the fact that I have the highest respect for you and your work, John, I fully intend to continue to point out that these men are not scientists. They are liars and cheats and frauds whose actions are hugely dangerous, damaging, and destructive.
Here’s the paradox to me in all of this … why were almost all the good honest climate scientists struck dumb by the revelations of Climategate?
I don’t understand the attraction of staying silent while your chosen field turns to shit and people are dying around us, truly I don’t, John. You’ll have to come up with a better explanation for staying schtumm than saying you won’t “stoop to name calling”. I don’t want you to stoop for anything. Quite the contrary.
I want you to stand up for something …
w.
Willis, I agree entirely with the fact that the climate fellows impoverish the poor, causing the deaths of many, like in the UK.
Andrew Revkin has always kept his blog open to discussions and opinions of every kind.
It is the only main newspaper blog with such a record.
Moreover Revkin has brought up controversial topics for discussion – in particular those you mentioned – when few others did. His own opinions didn’t interfere with the choices of topics and with his printing of answers.
In emails, he also taught me how to be opinionated without risking to be libelous.
This is no mean achievement, and should be recognized.
Willis + 10
I have to agree with Willis on this one. Forever now we have been expected to turn the other cheek and give the benefit of the doubt when the other side behave in increasingly abusive, dishonest and unscientific fashion.
One of our leading lights has recently decided that he is sick of being called a ‘denier’ and he has a point.
Now Willis decides to tell it like it is.
I am also tired of always being treated like a punch bag by vacuous ignorami who we seem to have elected as politicians or appointed as academics. I do not see any point politely ‘engaging’ with people who just want to waste your time and play games. These people are using fake science as cover for political agenda. Real scientists do not have to be forced by FOIA requests to release data and, more importantly, the ONUS is on them to prove, not on us to disprove. We have been jerked around long enough. From now on I am going to make a point of NOT accommodating lies. I will remain civil but I will be very blunt.
Revkin and many others are dishonest and we should say so.
Well done Willis.
Typo: I am going to make a point of NOT accommodating lies.
[Fixed. -w.]
this exhibition of his hierarchy of values neatly defines the character of each individual in a conclusive way.
some are insisting that political correctness supersedes survival. to them the disapproval of their destroyers is means more than survival itself.
some would rather be raped than rude – hey- it worked for dan pearl but not for rational people.
hatred of evil is directly proportional to love of life.
and that’s how i know that willis is a man – nothing less.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/andrew-revkin-loses-the-plot-episode-xxxviii/#more-103648
dbstealey says:
February 22, 2014 at 6:01 pm
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.
—-l
Just to clarify: do you feel that population growth can never be a problem (for humans as a whole) under any circumstances?
As the statement stands, it seems a bit extreme to me. I feel that some are too intent on “culling the unnecessary ” (amongst which I assume they don’t include themselves or their offspring) but from a group perspective I think that when the ratio of humans to resources in a certain area climbs, a point could be reached where the amount of people are the problem. One solution is to expand to new areas, but this presumes that there are always new areas available and raises the issue of who should go and who should stay. Another solution is to control the birthrate, which leads to the question of personal liberty.
If there were a consensus (since I don’t think it is so much a scientific as a political issue) as to how much resources each person is entitled to (minimum and possibly maximum) and the number were used as a guide (to be adjusted according to eternal factors such as war), do you think it would be a better solution (for the group) than letting the individual decide?
I do not support the idea of the current socialist state or the CAGW hypothesis and I feel that this issue goes beyond the current battle.
Adrian O says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:52 pm
OK.
OK.
Since truth is an absolute defense against libel in the US (unlike the UK), I just tell the truth as best I know it and never give libel a thought.
OK. Make it so.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, how does any of that change the fact that Revkin spent years carrying the water for men who lied, cheated, destroyed evidence, and generally flouted every norm they could find?
And what does that have to do with his calling me and other skeptics a “climate denialist”? That’s a nasty, ugly term that I and many others have protested has no place in a scientific discussion. It’s just a raw appeal to bigoted emotion … and yet your hero not only uses it, he uses it over and over despite requests that he stop.
Now to me, that disqualifies him right then and there to any claim of being an honest broker. Honest brokers don’t go around repeatedly calling people a name that they’ve told him they don’t like, and given reasonable explanations for why they don’t like it.
So you can go on all you want about how he saved you from getting busted for libel, and I won’t deny it. But for me, he’s an unpleasant and vindictive man who goes out of his way to torment his fellows by deliberately doing things he knows they don’t like.
More to the point, he is complicit in deceiving the public and causing huge damage to the environment, the economy, and the poor. When he comes to grips with that, get back to me. I’m not holding my breath.
w.
PS—You notice that Revkin dropped in here to make an untrue claim about what I’d said … and when I asked him to quote what he claims is objectionable, he vanished? Go figure.
Willis is correct, and gnomish nailed it for me…
“the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”
These ‘people’ are despicable, contemptible. They know their work is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of poor people yet they still push their poison into the mouths of politicians.
Revkin and other apologists are like the local townspeople near the concentration camps in WWII.
“We didn’t know what was happening in the camps”,(but we could smell the flesh burning)
This is not some senior faculty common room.
This is a dirty lowdown street fight where the opposition will use any tactic to gain advantage.
Their mentality is aptly displayed in the famous 10:10 video where they promulgate the elimination of all opposition.
My very best wishes to you Willis, and keep kicking them in the balls and gouging their eyes.
I see he didn’t have the last of the three monkeys in the photo so it alright to speak evil for him then! As you have pointed out some of that speaking evil has to do with numbers.
James Bull
David L. Hagen:
I am replying to your post at February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm which is here in response to my serious information and considered analysis at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.
Your reply begins by saying to me
Then poses a series of questions each of which was answered in my post before concluding
If you had read my post then you would have understood the economic principles it explained which are why as my post said to Terry
So, my “serious response” which you request is this:
Read my post you have replied and try to understand it because it is NOT “superficial”. And if you cannot understand it then try reading something more at the level of your reply to me; e.g. ‘Noddy Gets A Car’ Blyton E.
Richard
Mods:
This is a test. Am I banned?
(Reply: No. I don’t know what is happening. ~ mod.)
Joe says:
February 22, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Joe, actually Eschenbachs use of “lapdog” gave me the inspiration. Everybody who does not agree with Willis Eschenbach will be victim of his vicious attacks. His narcistic behavior does not really help the skeptic side of the discussion.
So I’m over the top according Moddy… And this comment by Lancifer just above mine is perfectly ok?
“F” him.
Keep up the good fight.”
I know this site is full of Eschenbach fanboys but they need to realise that actually he’s not that different from the AGW bullies.
Mods
Please check the bin. I have repeatedly attempted to make a post which has not appeared and not been stated as being in moderation: it just vanishes.
If it is in the bin then please post one of the copies from there and if it is not then please let me know.
Richard
Mods: If this appears then it is not my post which keeps vanishing.
Zeke Hausfather:
I am writing to add to the refutation by Willis Eschenbach of your post at February 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm which said
Willis Eschenbach replied to that at February 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm here but he did not specifically address the issue of MBH98.
In that paper it is Figure 5b which is in question. The Figure is monochrome although other Figures in the paper are in colour. The error limits of the deduced proxy data and the indication of the thermometer data are both indicated by broken lines which are indistinguishable.
As you say, they are both “clearly labelled” but so what?
The divergence of the proxy data is hidden by splicing the thermometer data on the end with a line which is indistinguishable from the proxy data. bold
This is “Mike’s Nature trick” and it is exactly the same as the Piltdown Man misrepresentation: i.e. parts of two different items were spliced to provide a misleading indication and then presented as a scientific indication.
Richard
Mods:
I have made another post to a different addressee which has also vanished.
Richard
negrum:
Your post at February 23, 2014 at 12:41 am begins by saying and asking
Well, since dbstealey says he fully agrees with my comment it is very clear that he is not talking about “never” and “under any circumstances”. He is talking about foreseeable human population (as a whole) on this planet at this time.
And the real problem is the seemingly inevitable decline in human population (as a whole) which seems inevitable in this century.
This is explained in my post which dbstealey says he fully agrees and is at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm and is here.
Richard
Strange! My post to negrum appeared but the others are still somewhere.
Since my post to negrum appeared I will try again.
———————-
David L. Hagen:
I am replying to your post at February 22, 2014 at 7:21 pm which is here in response to my serious information and considered analysis at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here.
Your reply begins by saying to me
Then poses a series of questions each of which was answered in my post before concluding
If you had read my post then you would have understood the economic principles it explained which are why as my post said to Terry
So, my “serious response” which you request is this: read my post you have replied and try to understand it because it is NOT “superficial”. And if you cannot understand it then try reading something more at the level of your reply to me; e.g. ‘Noddy Gets A Car’ Blyton E.
Richard
PRESENT GLOBAL POPULATION: 7.24 billion
Is it me or has someone been inflating this number. 3 or 4 years ago it was 5.5B then 2 yrs 6 B now 7.24B. WUWT.
Looks like another bit of evidence indicating malthusians are nowhere close to being and as smart as they think themselves to be.
Brilliant Blunders, by Mario Livio, is a lively account of five wrong theories proposed by five great scientists during the last two centuries. These examples give for nonexpert readers a good picture of the way science works. The inventor of a brilliant idea cannot tell whether it is right or wrong. Livio quotes the psychologist Daniel Kahneman describing how theories are born: “We can’t live in a state of perpetual doubt, so we make up the best story possible and we live as if the story were true.” A theory that began as a wild guess ends as a firm belief. Humans need beliefs in order to live, and great scientists are no exception. Great scientists produce right theories and wrong theories, and believe in them with equal conviction.