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.
negrum says:
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.
Strawman erected, and knocked down. Very good!
Seriously, “never” is a long time. As I wrote, I do not think overpopulation is a problem at all. Resources always seem to be sufficient, despite Malthus. And of course, none of those proposing to cull the population ever volunteer to be first.
Let me repeat: overpopulation is not a problem. And yes, personal liberty is more important than ‘group’ desires. We can see how the ‘group’ thing plays out these days. You can see where “tribalism” leads, and it isn’t good.
============================
Next, Willis writes:
I agree 100% – doubled and squared.
Willis,
Of course, you’ve done it again, again. Kind of a habit with you.
Revkin does appear in the Climategate files, as the journalist not to be trusted, as he refused to go along with the Climategate criminals. Better check up on a few more sources.
You go to his blog on the NY Times and pick absolutely least significant thing, his iconic six year old intro to Dot Earth, written the first day his blog was put up, to attack mathematically, which anyone who has ever read his blog recognizes as an icon, not new writing, a truly newbie mistake, forgivable had you not decided to attack it with such sophomoric vigor. So now we have a hubristic sophomoric newbie mistake. Have you apologized? Oh no, you rant on and on. Revkin’s only error, if error it be, is leaving his beloved icon on his page where it has lovingly sat for all these years, beside his picture.
Revkins puts the nasty words “shills” or “skeptics” or “hobbyists” in quotes, because they are not his words but David Victor’s, whose speech he is discussing in his post. David Victor’s speech is so interesting, that I plan to write a Guest Essay for WUWT on it this week.
In short, you have yet again gone off half-cocked and shot yourself in the foot, and like some crazed cartoon machine gun, just keep on shootin’.
# # # # #
Let me assure the reading public here:
1. Anthony Watts has weighed in and stated above “and no I don’t agree with this post entirely. – Anthony”
2. You have not accidentally arrived at a bizzaro world version of Joe Romm or Skeptical Science. This is in fact WUWT with an unfortunate Willis E essay — proving it is a free world after all.
Cheers,
RichardSCourtney
Your latest response to my detailed post addressing your cornocupian position predicting declining population.
You state:
You do not appear to comprehend any of the the energy, efficiency or economic issues I raised.
You ignore or do not understand foundational physics of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Please read Charles Hall, Energy and the Wealth of Nations. Focus particularly on Energy Return on (Energy) Investment (EROI).
I am not bounding innovation. Solar and/or nuclear energy are major energy resources that we can draw on.
I am raising the very real massive challenges of providing LIQUID replacement fuels of 9 million barrels/day EVERY YEAR, with an investment of $1 trillion/year.
In a sustainable way with EROI > 3. Grain Ethanol only has EROI ~ 1 and is NOT sustainable.
You state:
Why is that not happening in the UK, EU, or US?
(China is converting some coal to methanol.)
Oil production in each well, region, nation, world peaks when faced with limits of recovery technology at present prices. Tverberg also highlights economic peaks caused by not being able to afford fuel at higher prices.
Try addressing the very real challenges we have of supplying liquid fuel over the next generation to keep civilization afloat.
Try reading the links I provided and show that you comprehend them.
Willis Eschenbach says:
————————–
And you keep right on saying it, Willis Eschenbach, …… because I agree 100% with what you say and with you saying it for others to read or hear.
Enough of this damnable Political Correctness whereby ONLY the bleeding heart liberals, troughfeeders, racists, sexists, bigots, hypocrites, partisan politicos, etc. have assumed they have the God given Right to DETERMINE what is PC and what is not PC.
A liar is a liar, a thief is a thief, a troughfeeder is a troughfeeder and a devious, dishonest, disingenuous, despicable person is a devious, dishonest, disingenuous, despicable person and they themselves and everyone else should be told that they are.
And especially the liberals and troughfeeders who really hate and detest any of the aforementioned persons being “outed” for what they are ….. simply because they know very well that such actions by honest people threaten their own livelihood and way of life, ….. thus they have to protect all of the aforementioned in order to protect themselves.
Josephus said it best when he said …..
“Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them”. (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)
Andrew Revkin is generally on the rational wing of the Warmist movement. However, here he is in quotes. I do hope he has moved on, we are all entitled to change our minds as the facts change.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 22, 2014 at 4:01 pm
In response to:
Roger A. Pielke Sr.
“The problem is not that I’m too outraged about these issues.
The problem is that you and your friends are not outraged enough. ”
________________________________
Nail, meet hammer.
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
All of the assertions you complain about are his.
And
I don’t agree with everything David said. But it’s important in open forums to air a range of views.
If you’re still reading this (which seems doubtful at this point), ok, so, what did David say that you agreed with? Start there. I think most of us skeptics/climate realists would find his views to be repulsive in their entirety. I most certainly do.
Agreed. Furthermore, high infant mortality pushes for more kids. And this is why as people’s wealth / standards of living, education, health improve they tend to have fewer kids. The education of girls directly / indirectly helps too.
Many people tend to think that ‘over breeding’ has always been a Third World problem. A quick peek into history reveals high birth rates in for example the UK, USA, Germany etc. As they became better off birth rates dropped. I know this is a very simple take on the issue but it is happening at varying rates.
Some people might argue that condoms are so cheap. Cheap to whom? According to the IMP the poorest country in the world “Based on Gross Domestic Product (PPP) Per Capita 2009-2013” is Congo – Kinshasa. That is $394.25 for 2013 divide by 365 days and you get an income of $1.07 per day. Now you have a stark choice: food or a condom?
David L. Hagen:
I am replying ti your (deliberately?) silly post at February 23, 2014 at 5:21 am which is here.
Firstly, my understanding is NOT “cornucopian”: it is realistic.
On the other hand, your assertions have no relation to reality.
You wrongly say to me
I do understand them.
The difference between us is that I understand these matters and explained them in my post at February 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm which is here but you don’t understand them and you armwave about them.
I said
And you ask
I answer, because the Liquid Solvent Extraction process (LSE) is a UK State Secret.
We developed LSE at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) then proved it both technically and economically with a demonstration plant at Point of Ayr, Wales. LSE product (i.e. synthetic crude oil, syncrude) can be tuned to match refinery demand. Hence, adoption of LSE would collapse the value of Brent Crude which is refinery blending stock and, thus, adoption of LSE would be an economic loss to the UK.
However, the existence of LSE constrains the true price of crude.
I have read your links. They are spurious nonsense. If oil production rate is too low then one only needs to drill more wells. And the papers about EROI display complete ignorance of energy issues.
The reality is – as I explained – for all practical purposes all resources including crude oil can be considered to be infinite.
And you persistently refuse to address the reasons for this which I have explained.
Richard
Oooops! I meant
“…According to the IMF the poorest country…”
Source
http://www.gfmag.com/component/content/article/119-economic-data/12537-the-poorest-countries-in-the-world.html#axzz2u9lg0caa
richardscourtney says:
February 23, 2014 at 2:13 am
Mods:
This is a test. Am I banned?
(Reply: No. I don’t know what is happening. ~ mod.)
——————————————————-
richardscourtney says:
February 23, 2014 at 2:21 am
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.
_______________________________
There’s a joke that us Yanks use to explain the inexplicable:
How were you holding your mouth?
… as in:
“I tried this and tried that and the blasted thing still won’t start!
How were you holding your mouth?
Willis E. has been consistently hard-hitting since day one. Not sure why Dr Pielke Sr would object now after so much time, and he has had his website forum wrecked by warmist adjutants.
The problem isn’t Revkin’s math skills so to speak.
The problem is that like so many activists…they fail to update their math/viewpoints when new data/facts become available.
Willis, in order to lose the plot, Revkin must have had it in the first place. Can you produce evidence (preferably peer reviewed) that such was ever the case, as I have seen no evidence to support this assertion.
Terry says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
The killer point, though, is that human activity stands accused of driving climate change. The win-win strategy is population reduction which mitigates both risks.
===============
“The win-win strategy is population reduction”
Are you volunteering to go first, to lead by example? To drink the Kool-Aid? Who precisely do you have in mind for this “population reduction”?
The ultimate solution to every problem throughout history has been to kill those seen as “the problem”, leaving a bigger share of the pie for those doing the killing.
Greed and fear is the motive, all dressed up in the name of “saving the planet”.
News just in – New York Times Loses The Plot.
WUWT – 23 February, 2014
NYT suggests ‘deniers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/andrew-revkin-loses-the-plot-episode-xxxviii/
Roger A. Pielke Sr. says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm
=========
Dr Pielke is right to the extent that you are more likely to influence other people’s opinions and actions by adopting a neutral tone.
However, the danger is that we no longer recognize a “neutral tone”. Instead, we have been conditioned to accept that a “politically correct” tone is neutral. We are conditioned to tell people how much we like them, even if we don’t.
Thus, it becomes “political incorrect” to call liars and cheats “liars and cheats”. Instead, we have to say they are “mistaken or misguided”. And if we do call them “liars and cheats”, then somehow we are at fault for speaking the simple truth.
This then is Willis’s crime. He has failed to follow “politically correct” speech. Which in polite society is considered worse than being a “liar and a cheat”. In polite society you are permitted to be a liar and a cheat, so long as you do it in a “charming” manner.
dbstealey says:
February 23, 2014 at 4:51 am
Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint. If I understand you correctly, you hold that the earth’s population regulates itself and will continue to do so without any necessity for intervention by humans.
If you don’t mind – one more question: what number of people (with current technology and resources ) would you consider to be overpopulation for the earth?
Andy Revkin (@Revkin) says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm
“but if you realize that much of denialism is a hobby then it becomes much clearer that denialism is here to stay. In fact, as the importance of the topic rises so will denialism.”
==============
Get a grip Andy. Your article top to bottom is an attack on people that don’t share your beliefs, lumping them into a group and equating them to Holocaust Deniers. You are simply trying to hide your role in this by quoting other people’s words. Is this due to laziness or a lack of spine?
Calling people deniers is Racism by another name. Plain and simple, you are attacking people because of what they believe.
No one with a lick of sense denies Climate Change. 20 thousand years, most of what are now the major cities of the world were buried under a mile of ice. 80 thousand years ago humans were all but extinct. There were no cavemen driving around in SUV’s, yet the climate changed.
If you want to point the finger and call people deniers, look at your hand. You have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself. You sir are a denier. You are denying that climate changes ALL THE TIME for reasons that we largely don’t understand. If you don’t understand the cause, you cannot hope to provide the cure.
negrum says:
February 23, 2014 at 9:01 am
If you don’t mind – one more question: what number of people (with current technology and resources ) would you consider to be overpopulation for the earth?
=============
Is there such a number? the long term death rate in human populations has been stubbornly fixed at 100% for some time now, and shows no sign of increasing or decreasing regardless of population levels.
The only thing we know for sure is that as we have increased the number of people on the planet, human’s have begun to live longer, and fertility rates have dropped.
Using climate science as a guide, this suggests that in the future humans will live forever and spend their days in endless traffic jams and line-ups, unable to reproduce.
To solve this problem governments need to take action today and pass a tax on long-life. This will encourage people to live shorter lives, making more room for everyone else, solving the problems of traffic jams and line-ups. This will increase the time available for sex, restoring fertility to replace those chosing to limit their taxes.
ferdberple says:
February 23, 2014 at 10:12 am
—-l
Good one – you might of course feel different if you had to share your bedroom with 10 more people 🙂
John Batchelor (correct spelling) indeed runs a most interesting show, a great source of commentary and analysis of events from all over the world, as well as often fascinating interviews with authors of books on historical subjects. However, John sometimes does fail to challenge a guest on a controversial topic, instead accepting the guest’s premises and following them to their conclusions. I suspect this is deliberate, to avoid being typed a partisan; John is more Brian Lamb than Rush Limbaugh.
I should add though, that Robert Zimmerman (host of a website called “Beyond the Black,” about space and astronomy) is a frequent guest. Bob Zimmerman is clearly a WUWT reader and he has led John into vociferous reporting on the errors of the Warmists and their camp followers. I don’t know if John agrees with Bob’s exposés of the faux science that informs the Climatist movement, but I doubt if John would identify himself with Revkin and the Climate Parasites.
/Mr Lynn
Stephen Richards says:
February 23, 2014 at 3:28 am
It’s you. The global population is growing, but not that fast:
2007, 6,673,101
2008, 6,753,643
2009, 6,834,718
2010, 6,916,185
2011, 6,997,991
2012, 7,080,072
2013, 7,162,118
2014, 7,243,782
Best regards,
w.