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:
February 23, 2014 at 10:48 am
Good one – you might of course feel different if you had to share your bedroom with 10 more people 🙂
+++++
Dr. Strangelove: “But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.”
Turgidson: “Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious…service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.”
Russian Ambassador: “I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.”
Kip Hansen says:
February 23, 2014 at 5:09 am
Since you have been so boorish as to not identify what you mean by “again”, that’s nothing but mud. Quote my words or leave me alone.
Nearly right. He appears in the Climategate emails as the journalist who can be trusted. Then later he appears as the journalist who can no longer be trusted … so you think that somehow justifies being their go-to guy before he was no longer their go-to guy?
So we agree that any numerate newbie that walks up to Revkin’s blog is likely to look at Revkin’s claim and say “wow … that dude seriously can’t add”.
Add me to the list. I’d never read that piece of bad math in my life. You seem to think that being a newbie and having never been to Revkin’s site is either a) avoidable or b) a bad thing … but you know, some of us pay no attention to the man, and for everyone there’s a first time. We show up, we read the “About” box, and we say … huh? This guy’s lost it.
How is that not a problem for Revkin, that anyone initially encountering his site finds such nonsense? What, I’m dismissible because this was the first time in my life to read his bad arithmetic?
If you could quote me where I said one damn thing about shills, skeptics or hobbyists in the head post, you might have a point. Since I did not mention them, you’re just bloviating about SOMETHING I DIDN’T DO. Quote my words, Kip, your ungrounded rantings are delusional. I said nothing about any of that. You are attacking me based solely on your pathetic fantasies—I said nothing about shills or hobbyists.
You ignore completely what I actually did object to, Revkin’s use of what you call “nasty words”, in this case “climate denialist”. That is a most objectionable term, one which he is fully aware is controversial and highly divisive … and he uses it anyhow. You will note his headline is about “climate denialists”, NOT IN QUOTES. How about you talk about that as an indication of Andy’s point of view?
In any case I fear you’ll have to stand in line, because Andy himself made the same bogus accusation upthread that you make here. He said I was ignoring the fact that David’s words were quoted, and he was being blamed for what David said.
I invited him to show us exactly where I’d discussed David Victor’s claim or his words in any fashion. He has not replied … so you pick up the same exact untrue accusation and repeat it? Are you following this story at all?
Let me note also that when he commented on his web site about my post, he called me a hobbyist himself … but that’s a separate question.
Great. Will you be calling me a denialist or a denier? Or do you leave that to your man Andy, who either can or can’t be trusted? Have you noticed yet that I said nothing about David Victor in the head post? These questions and more …
At some point, I suppose you might actually quote whatever it is I said that has your panties in such a horrendous twist. Until then, I can’t answer that kind of vague, unpleasant mudslinging because there is no content in it, no quotations, no links … only venom.
And after your rant about things I never said, I’ll leave it to the readers to decide whose foot has lead poisoning, mine or yours …
Amazing, huh? Two people have different points of view. Go figure.
Actually, it’s a bizarro world where you attack me for things I never said, and ignore the things I did say.
w.
negrum,
Since I can’t top ferdberple’s last post, I’ll leave it at that. ☺
ferdberple says:
February 23, 2014 at 11:59 am
I empathise with the good doctor and stand corrected by this classic example – make that 10 of the most unattractive persons you feel absolutely no affinity for (and family does not count :))
dbstealey says:
February 23, 2014 at 12:42 pm
negrum,
Since I can’t top ferdberple’s last post, I’ll leave it at that. ☺
—-l
Fine by me.
b4llsofsteel: Everybody who does not agree with Willis Eschenbach will be victim of his vicious attacks.
That is not correct. His “vicious attacks” (so called, hence the quotes) are reserved for people who misquote, insult and slander him. His post here, and his responses to people who think his language is “over the top” are examples: his insulting language toward Andy Revkin was clearly a response to Revkin’s insulting language through decades now, and Willis provided support for calling Revkin a “lap dog” — which has a clear colloquial meaning. If you disagree directly with something he wrote, quoting it correctly, you can expect a spirited rebuttal from him if he thinks he is correct, but it will be on point.
fwiw, note that in response to Willis’ pointing out the inaccuracy in the numbers, Revkin admitted above that he ought to update his web page. On the main numerical claim in Willis’ post, Willis was correct and Revkin conceded; as others have pointed out, at one time, that was not such a severe inaccuracy.
In my opinion, Revkin’s inaccuracy is of a piece with a lot of the “alarmist” warnings on global warming; there are a lot of inaccurate claims, at best first-order approximations but frequently untested, bandied about. As with Mann’s cavalier selection and treatment of proxy series, the “equilibrium” derivations, exaggerated claims of OHC increasing faster than ever before and so on, it frequently turns out that careful attention to the details vitiates the exaggerated claims. It is a gross, insufferable insult for someone like Revkin to engage in this admitted sloppiness and then use a word like “denier”, or “denialist” to denote those who are paying careful attention.
I have a great deal of respect for both of you gentlemen. If it is all the same to you, I choose to agree with you both. Reposting for clarity.
John Coleman says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
Willis Eschenbach, you are super sharp mathematical analyst with an amazing life-experience build up of knowledge about the atmosphere and oceans. I learn a great deal from your posts on WUWT. Thank you and please continue with your contributions. I have great empathy with the current situation with your father-in-law. We old men who have been through these tough times have great appreciation for those who help out in difficult times. hang in there.
Roger A. Pielke Sr. you are very powerful hero of all of we climate skeptics. I think I understand your approach to the Andrew Revkin issue. An effort to maintain professional contact and improve the personal relationship so that he might give some consideration to your work in the future seems like a good approach.
I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
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.
“Willis Eschenbach says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm
John Coleman says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
I align myself with all of my fellow skeptics who have been highly offended by Revkin’s frequent attacks on us and his very abusive name calling while he gives unwavering support for the climate alarmists.t
As a Journalist and a Professional Meteorologist I feel it is important to never stoop to name calling and personal attacks on those who take the other side in scientific debate.
I am professionally convinced there is no significant man-made global warming, has been none in the past and is no reason to fear any in the future. I am convinced that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas, not a pollutant, and not a significant greenhouse gas. I will debate Revkin and all of his alarmist friends as long as I am alive.
It is a very difficult situation and very frustrating that the issues have become political, almost religious in its fervor, a key environmentalists agenda driven debate and an issue that is funded by billions of tax dollars that entrap major organizations and institutions into accepting the alarmists positions.
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.
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.”
harrywr2 says:
February 23, 2014 at 7:26 am
Most excellent indeed.
w.
ferdberple says:
February 23, 2014 at 8:30 am
And despite numerous punishments for my crime of PC, I’m a noted recidivist in this regard … slow learner, I guess.
w.
Way to go Willis! seems some don’t like a taste of the Medicine there kind dishes out to us Skeptics.?
Sorry Dr Pielke Sr! but Revkin is fully deserving of Willis’s ire. Remember Bad men don’t make bad things happen? Bad things happen because good men stay silent!
Willis ==> and you just keep on shootin’ and shootin’ and shootin’ — surprise you have any feet left at all.
begin humorous aside/ Welcome to Bizaroo World, Ladies and Gentlemen, “What’s Down With That”, where our very own Romm-Jo, Ellis “Quote My Words” Weschenbach, will Talk Trash and Throw Mud and Road Apples at the Enemies (Real or Imagined) of Climate Skepticism for the Amusement of Climate Science WWF fans everywhere. Folks, any target will do….he fires off at any slightest sign of opposition, friend or foe, it matters not, he takes no prisoners, spares no feelings, bothers with no nuances, cares for few facts, just plows ahead, heedless of all reason. If you thought the the Real World Joe Romm was something, wait ’til you get a hold of our very own right here! A great time is guaranteed for all. Get your tickets now! Want a little fun? Give him a little poke and see what happens! Whooo-wheee! /end humor
Kip Hansen:
re your post at February 23, 2014 at 2:16 pm.
Stupidity is not “humor”.
Richard
Kip, follow your own advice.
Stop being such a D.F. – to borrow your term from yesterday.
Zeke writes Mann didn’t “splice two datasets together and spread peanut-butter on the splice so no one noticed.” … “It was Jones and others who spliced them together without labeling for the cover of a WMO report.”
As shown in climategate, Jones wrote
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”[
Note how it was Mike’s Nature trick and not Jone’s Nature trick? There are lots of ways to split hairs on who did what for which report and McIntyre has pretty much analysed them all.
many humor; much lapdoge. so kippered erring.
dayam, ferdberple- that was a really good post up there!
Population a problem?..hhmm
Take my family line since fossil fuel use became the norm. As prosperity increased – although today none in my family are more than moderately well off, myself considerably less so, this is what transpired.
Grandmother one of thirteen children
My father one of her six children
Me one of my father’s three children
I have one child, now 27, currently childless, as too are his five cousins of marriageable age.
Looks like my line is headed for extinction. I’m sure many of you have a similar tale to tell.
The rise in global temperatures stopped when I was 46, I’m now 63…..
BTW I live 10 mins away from Mong Kok, 130,000 person per km2 or 340,000 person per mi2 Hong Kong maintains its population with immigration. The locals are just not breeding fast enough.
Reply to richardscourtney and Robert in Calgary ==> As always, Opinions Vary. In my opinion, the Joe Rommish original w. post has no place here on WUWT where such behavior is rarely, if ever, found. But, I am not the host here, Anthony is. As it is w.’s right to post it here, and Anthony’s right to publish it (even if he partially disown’s it), it is my right to call it “Joe Rommish”, and to use humor to make fun of it.
It is a bizarre reversal of roles to see middle of the road warmist, sometimes supportive journalist trashed here at WUWT with such ignorant ranting as “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 …” This is almost identical to the kind of utter nonsense recently thrown at Judith Curry, by childish alarmist bloggers. Joe Romm is a paid shill for Climate Alarmism and does almost nothing but character assassination, often of people guilty only of associating with persons Romm feels are “deniers”. Maybe, just maybe, some of you will see that w. is just acting the reverse side of Romm’s coin.
Sorry if I don’t seem to be wearing the right gang colors here. Some of you support this kind of stuff. I don’t. I don’t mind poking fun at those who do it, on either side of the Climate Divide.
Wrong is wrong.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:30 pm
Now, you say I’m calling these men names. I’m not. I’m describing their ACTIONS.
=========
This is an important point that is well worth remembering. Negotiation and conflict resolution requires that you make the distinction between the person and their actions.
For example, I have no doubt that Revkin is sincere in his beliefs. He truly believes that he is saving the world. The question is whether his action will further his goals?
Clearly Revkin’s approach is counter productive. He is like real Climate. Preaching to the choir, while insulting the the congregation. Pretty soon all that is left is the choir.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm
Kip Hansen says:
February 23, 2014 at 5:09 am
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,
………………………………………………………………….
So we agree that any numerate newbie that walks up to Revkin’s blog is likely to look at Revkin’s claim and say “wow … that dude seriously can’t add”.
—————————————————————————————————————
Willis, there’s a problem there.
The piece is 6 years old. There’s no date given, but the slideshow it links to is dated Oct 2007, so it’s likely that he used 2006 figures (as the latest “complete” year)
Using 2006 figures from FAO, as you linked in your OP, gives:
World population: 6 593 235 000
China population: 1 356 377 000
World + 2 Chinas = 9.306 billion
So, he’s not spot on (assuming he’d used the latest figures) but he’s an awful lot closer (for when he wrote it) than you’ve suggested in your post – being .3 billion out is a 3 % error, not 10%, and you claiming he’s 1 billion out is then a 300% error in his error!
I’m willing to accept that we have different ideas about how to win hearts & minds, and possibly different levels of bullshit tolerance. I have a HUGE amount of time for your posts, for your ability to explain concepts, and for your suggestions regarding climate governors.
I can also empathise with your frustration at the harm that climate policy is causing to individuals and society as a whole – believe me, fuel poverty here in the UK is very real indeed and I personally think the floods have been preferable to another cold, winter because at least the rain’s kept it above freezing. Another cold one would have produced far more deaths than the floods did, and the rest is only property.
But posting aggressive opinion about someone else’s maths without using the appropriate figures yourself isn’t giving them ammunition, it’s handing them the keys to the armoury!
” 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.
ferdberple says:
February 23, 2014 at 11:59 am
Turgidson: “Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?”
Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
==============
Climate Science 101.
Turgidson: “Now, wouldn’t that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called low cost energy that makes modern civilization possible, I mean, as far as the average person is concerned?”
Dr. Strangelove: “Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
Jimbo says: @ur momisugly February 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Bravo Dr. Tim Ball!
http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
Could it be that the IPCC was set up to dampen or reduce the world’s population? …when in fact it is an attack on the poorest most vulnerable peoples in the Third World. Indirect genocide based on the trace gas co2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Consider the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act and the World Trade Organizations Agreement on Agriculture not to mention the biofuel idiocy.
Thanks to that 1996 farm act the US strategic grain reserve was killed and by 2008 the USA had run out of stored grain. Thanks to that and the Bankers deciding to use food as an investment vehicle 60 countries had food riots in 2008. ” [I]n 1999, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission deregulated futures markets. All of a sudden, bankers could take as large a position in grains as they liked, an opportunity that had, since the Great Depression, only been available to those who actually had something to do with the production of our food.” – Council on Foreign relations: How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis
Meanwhile the movers and shakers like Clinton DECIDED to kill off the food self-sufficiency of third world nations.
Clinton said something similar in 2010
So now the USA has no grain reserve and any excess grain is turned into bio-fuel the traders find this “Very Attractive”
In 2008 the corn (maize) prices doubled, wheat prices rose by 50 percent, and rice by 70 percent In an article in the Economist titled “The End of Cheap Food,” the magazine’s food-price index reached its highest point since originating in 1845. Food prices had risen 75 percent since 2005. World grain reserves were at their lowest, at fifty-four days.
Paints a rather nasty picture of GREED doesn’t it?
The Oil Drum has a rather good analysis of the situation: (wwwDOT)theoildrum.com/node/3495
Hari Seldon says: @ur momisugly February 23, 2014 at 1:23 am
Willis is correct, and gnomish nailed it for me…
“the way for evil to conquer is for good men to say nothing”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That needs to be repeated.
I may not agree with you on everything Willis, but when it comes to these sanctimonious crooks living their cushy lives by pushing lies that are causing others suffering, pain and death we are in complete agreement.
Every single one of them has blood on his hands. Unfortunately they will never be brought up on charges as they deserve.
May history shine a spotlight on their misdeeds.
b fagan says: @ur momisugly February 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure Right, Upheld by those with a vested interest in the money the CAGW Hoax will generate.
Scientists and Universities dependent on government CAGW grants. Governments drooling over another form of tax. Crony-capitalists like Lord Oxburgh who was chairman of Falck Renewables, a manufacturer of windfarms and the UK subsidiary of The Falck Group, a Milan-based manufacturer.
More on Oxburgh: The Oxburgh Inquiry was an offer he couldn’t refuse.
I am not going to go looking up the rest of the data for you.
You can start your reading HERE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Gary Pearse @ur momisugly 2:13 pm
“Population that would fit into Lake Superior each with a square metre to tread water in is 90billion.”
I may have a nightmare tonight.