Friday Funny – Paul Ehrlich's review of Steyn's book on Michael Mann's work

Paul Ehrlich (yes THAT Paul Ehrlich) recently posted a review about Mark Steyn’s book A Disgrace to the Profession on Amazon, and after reading Ehrlich’s review, my irony meter pegged, the needle flew off the scale and embedded itself in the wall of my office, nearly missing our resident member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

You just have to read it, apparently Mr. Ehrlich has no self awareness whatsoever when it comes to evaluating his own massive folly in predicting the future. Here is the screencap:

ehrlich-review

That is rich. Steyn compiled the critical opinions of dozens of scientists about Mann’s work on The Hockey Stick, and yet Ehrlich, says things like this:

“Mike Mann is admired by all real climate scientists, even those who may have same disagreements with him…”

Well, perhaps he’s right, I assume everybody at his own echo chamber website Real Climate does admire Dr. Mann, the rest of science, eh, not so much. Otherwise, they would have come to his aid and filed amicus briefs in his court battle with Steyn. The thunderous silence of science in support of Mann speaks volumes.

Mann can’t even be bothered to use current data is his slide show, leaving data on display to stop in 2005. What sort of “admired scientist” does that sort of sophistry? The kind that push an agenda and can’t ever let data point to them being wrong, illustrated in Ehrlich’s big list of failures. For example, he said in the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

Instead, U.S. population increased:

US_Census_Population_Graph_from_1790

Source: U.S. Census Bureau data, image from Wikimedia

Gosh, it looks like a hockey stick, doesn’t it?

But, despite that massive failure of his scientific predictive skill, Ehrlich couldn’t help himself and got in another forecast of impending doom in that review:

Unhappily the “triumph” may prove doom for many of our descendents.

Right. OK then.

The egos on these folks must be so large that the department of transportation must set out orange road cones ahead of them when they travel, so that they have a wide lane of their own.

orange-road-cones

Your best pushback against these people? Buy the book and decide for yourself.

Order it on Amazon here.

amazon-disgrace-styen

Click to order

Note: about 5 minutes after publication, this article was updated to fix some spelling and formatting errors.

Advertisements

177 thoughts on “Friday Funny – Paul Ehrlich's review of Steyn's book on Michael Mann's work

    • Unfair! You know that Real True Scientists like Paul “Often Wrong, but Still Quotable” Ehrlich get major cooties when they read things that don’t fit into their paradigm. How can you ask him to risk cooties?

    • I think your question can be answered by inquiring if Mark Steyn was from Stanford or Berkeley.
      sarc/:-)

    • One can speculate as to whether or not Ehrlich read the book. However, what requires no speculation is that Ehrlich points to not one instance of “quotes-out-of-context.” Neither does he identify a single example of these so-called “hacks and has-beens.” His review is as pathetic and vacuous as climate science itself.

      • David, UK, I’ve pointed out a multitude of out-of-context quotes, as well as misquotes and even a quote misattributed to a guy’s kid. I didn’t compile the notes I posted into an organized review because whenever I tried to discuss these issues, nobody seemed to care about them. I got tired of “skeptics” not caring about misdeeds because they liked the guy who did them and decided it wasn’t worth repeating the same points over and over when they’d just get ignored.
        But if you want to argue the issue, it’s trivially obvious Mark Steyn took quotes completely out of context to distort their meaning. It’s not even a challenge to show this. As in, the best thing to do is to just not talk about the issue because anyone who looks at it will see how obvious it is he did it.

      • Apparently that link got mangled due to WordPress not accepting links without http in front of them. I don’t know why it doesn’t accept ones that just start with www, but here’s what should be a working link.
        And for people who want an example of Mark Steyn taking quotes completely out of context, you need look no further than the first sentence of the first page of the book. Steyn starts the book off with the quote:

        Over the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than today 65 per cent of the time.

        As I said of this, Steyn offered this quote pretending the quoted individual:

        was talking about the planet’s temperatures when the guy was really just talking about the temperatures as estimated via three glaciers in one mountain range. Steyn then immediately turned around and in, a stupifying fit of hypocrisy, condemned Michael Mann for drawing conclusions about the planet’s temperatures via a small number of trees from one portion of North America.

        That’s right. Mark Steyn took a person’s quote out of context in order to do exactly what Michael Mann did – draw conclusions about the planet’s temperatures from a tiny amount of data from one small part of the world.

      • dbstealey:

        Maybe it’s not 65%, I don’t know. But the Holocene has been warmer than now many times:

        Whether or not the Holocene was warmer in the past has no bearing on this issue. Mark Steyn portrayed a quote as speaking about the planet’s temperatures when it only spoke about temperatures for a small region. Not only does this mean Steyn misrepresented what was said in this quote, which he begins his book with, it also means Steyn has effectively used a tiny amount of data from one area to draw conclusions about the planets temperatures – exactly what he condemns Michael Mann for doing.
        There is no justification for this. Skeptics should all agree this was wrong. People could perhaps argue as to how important this error is, but… come on. This was the first sentence of Steyn’s book! How is nobody saying, “Hey, that’s wrong”?
        (Incidentally, the results you posted are not global temperatures. You’re taking a small maount of data from a single area as though it represents global temperatures – the very thing people have condemned Mann for doing.)

      • Maybe some warmistas should occasionally point it out and condemn it when other warmistas make ridiculous claims.
        Until that happens, telling skeptics what they should do is just more of the same one-sided crap we have been getting, nonstop and for several entire decades, from every single alarmist propaganda-spewing “climate scientist” that government grant money can buy.

      • dbstealey,
        I already told you that that graph represents temperatures in central Greenland and contains a significant error because they have not been corrected for layer compression, yet you keep using it as if it represents Holocene temperatures. It does not.
        Do you still don’t know despite being told or is it that you don’t care if you are in error? You are an easy target to alarmists.
        Here, you can use instead this one:
        http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Holocene%20temp%20recons_zpsxqxeetab.png
        It is a global reconstruction from 72 proxies published by Marcott et al., 2013, but averaged by differencing to correct for proxy drop out at the end, and without the Montecarlo averaging that eliminates most variability. The temperature scale has also been corrected by me because the original was clearly incorrect in representing the temperature difference between the bottom of the LIA and 1961-1990 average (zero anomaly).

      • Brandon S says:
        Not only does this mean Steyn misrepresented what was said in this quote, which he begins his book with, it also means Steyn has effectively used a tiny amount of data from one area to draw conclusions about the planets temperatures – exactly what he condemns Michael Mann for doing.
        Well, that’s flat wrong. Mann deliberately misrepresented, while your example shows Steyn mistakenly saying something in error. Big difference.
        Next, Javier says:
        I already told you that that graph represents temperatures in central Greenland and contains a significant error …
        Thanx for you opinion. But your Marcott chart doesn’t show a whole lot different from the one I posted, and they both support Steyn.
        You also need to do a keyword search in the searchbox here for ‘Marcott’. His paper isn’t nearly as error-free as you’re assuming.

      • dbstealey:

        Well, that’s flat wrong. Mann deliberately misrepresented, while your example shows Steyn mistakenly saying something in error. Big difference.

        I don’t go off mind-reading like you do so I won’t address your hand-waved claims offered without any evidence as to what people did and did not know. What I will say is the quote I provided from Mark Steyn was from a presentation entirely devoted to one mountain range, meaning there is no way anyone could view it and think it was about global temperatures.
        If you want to say Mark Steyn was stupid enough to look at a discussion which was obviously about temperatures for one area and somehow conclude it was about temperatures for the entire planet, fine. If you want to say Mark Steyn is just too lazy to look at what the quotes he puts in his book are actually about, simply grabbing any that look good, fine. Either way, it’s a damning criticism of Steyn and his book.

        Thanx for you opinion. But your Marcott chart doesn’t show a whole lot different from the one I posted…

        YOu’ve repeatedly posted an image claiming it shows the planet’s temperatures were warmer in the past than they are now. You’ve apparently been informed, numerous times, of the same thing I’ve informed you of – that it’s not a global record, it’s a regional record. And despite this, you keep doing it…?
        This is flat-out dishonest. You are deliberately misrepresenting what the graph you post is. At this point there is no way you could possibly be unaware of the fact that graph is not a global record, but you keep posting it as one. It’s not an innocent error. You are lying. Stop it.

      • Brandon me boi,
        It’s not polite to label someone as being dishonest, when their view isn’t the same as yours. And you say:
        YOu’ve repeatedly posted an image claiming it shows the planet’s temperatures were warmer in the past than they are now.
        I’ve posted more charts than you can possibly count. I have literally thousands of them in various folders. If there’s one in particular you’d like to see, ask politely rather than calling me a liar.
        And since you mentioned it, I’m curious: are you now claiming that past global T was not warmer than now?

      • Brandon is right, too bad many refuse to acknowledge it.
        I would also add that pretending a single line on a graph of temperature represents anything global is either delusional or dishonest, perhaps both.

        • Brandon is flat wrong. He is supposedly a mind reader who mysteriously knows the difference between someone like Mark Steyn being mistaken, and being deceptive. Brandon is presuming to know the difference, when he obviously doesn’t. If we had mind readers like Brandon we wouldn’t need juries.
          And IMOH Mark Steyn wasn’t far off when he said the Holocene has been warmer most of the time:
          http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
          Or, we can accept Javier’s assertion that Marcott was right:
          http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
          That’s such a bunch of self-serving nonsense that it’s surprising people want to nitpick what Steyn knew, while ignoring the preposterous straight upward ‘hokey stick’ produced by Marcott’s deceptive shenanigans (the red line).
          But Marcott has been so thoroughly debunked here that there’s no need to waste more time on it. A keyword search is there for anyone who wants to revisit his alarmist propaganda — or, they can just look at his bogus chart above.
          Finally, I note that Brandon never answered my question: “are you claiming that past global T was not warmer than now?”

      • dbstealey,

        But Marcott has been so thoroughly debunked here that there’s no need to waste more time on it.

        You are so biased that you are incapable of looking at the data if it has the name of Marcott on it, and you keep using a regional graph saying that it represents global climate when it does not and you know it.
        Marcott’s publication has a number of issues. They changed the dates of some of the records, used an averaging method that exaggerated the final warming, and run a montecarlo that eliminated most of the variability. But the 72 proxies the reconstruction is made from are the best proxies available and have a global nature. Correcting the issues is very easy by using the original dates, and averaging by differencing. The result is the best global Holocene reconstruction available today, based on published literature, that I have provided to you.
        Whether it supports or not what Steyn says is beyond the point. You cannot extract global conclusions from a regional graph and pretend that you are science-based.
        And if Marcott is an alarmist, Alley is even more alarmist, but that is irrelevant, what is important is what the data says. And the data from Alley that you display as a truthful representation of Holocene temperatures has also an issue. As Vinther et al., 2009 demonstrated, delta18O data from ice cores in Greenland has to be corrected for elevation changes.
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7262/abs/nature08355.html
        They corrected Agassiz and Renland ice-core data in their publication. To my knowledge Alley’s GISP2 remains uncorrected and thus it shows lower values before 5000 BP that what were probably the temperatures in Central Greenland during that part of the Holocene.
        You have been told, you should learn. Otherwise you have confirmation bias, and cherry-pick and miss-represent data and are therefore irrelevant.

        • Javier says:
          You are so biased…
          Projection from Javier, nothing more. And:
          You have been told, you should learn.
          But Javier never learns. He could not have read all the Marcott articles and comments, but his confirmation bias tells him he shouldn’t. Otherwise his head might explode from the cognitive dissonance.
          Its amazing that people like ‘Javier’ still believe, when the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, is making a fool of those beliefs. And of the true believers.

        • “Javier” says:
          You have been told… I already told you… …& etc.
          That gets tedious from a know-nothing. <–[that's you, “Javier”]
          You are not even aware of your strong confirmation bias, are you, “Javier”? Amazing.
          You never did a search to find and and read all the Marcott articles and comments, did you? No, of course not. Marcott has been so thoroughly debunked here that if you had read them, you would have tucked tail and run away instead of making your preposterous claims. Anyone who accepts this Marcott chart at face value has no clue about the real world:
          http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
          Until you identify yourself, "Javier", you're just another know-nothing anonymous screen name, and your opinions are no more credible that a Scientologist's.

      • dbstealey:

        Brandon is flat wrong. He is supposedly a mind reader who mysteriously knows the difference between someone like Mark Steyn being mistaken, and being deceptive. Brandon is presuming to know the difference, when he obviously doesn’t. If we had mind readers like Brandon we wouldn’t need juries.

        I explicitly acknowledged the possibility Mark Steyn wasn’t trying to be deceptive, so I’m at a loss as to how you can claim I “mysteriously know[] the difference between someone like Mark Steyn being mistaken, and being deceptive.” Maybe Mark Steyn didn’t mean to completely distort the meaning of a quote which was obviously not about the topic he claims it was about. Maybe he’s just an idiot who can’t read simple sentences. Maybe he’s just so lazy
        I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter. Either Mark Steyn is a liar, or he’s so intellectually vapid as to be indistinguishable from one. Either way, he grossly distorts the meaning of numerous quotes he offers in his book, including the one he uses as the very first sentence of his book. That’s a huge problem every skeptic should be bothered by.
        Look, it’s simple. If Mark Steyn didn’t know he was misrepresenting this quote, he must not have looked at where the quote was taken from. That means the only way Steyn could not be a liar is if he simply saw a sentence he liked the sound of and used it without bothering to check what the sentence was in reference to, not even reading the page he copied the quote from. Cherry-picking words to that extent requires a level of willful blindness that would be staggering.
        And he does it multiple times. This is just one example. If you want to claim Mark Steyn is just so incompetent he can manage to repeatedly cherry-pick people’s words to distort their meanings without realizing it… fine. Okay, whatever. That’s not any better than being a liar.
        In fact, it’s worse. At least if he’s lying you can respect his cleverness and intelligence. If he’s not lying, you’re championing a bumbling buffoon who makes a mockery of every one of you.

        • Brandon S,
          I’ve heard that calling someone a liar in Parliament is forbidden. It’s an extreme attack that must be incontestable, IMO. But you throw out that term constantly, five times at least in that one comment, and not including your writing that Steyn is ‘indistinguishable’ from being a liar.
          I don’t agree that “the only way Steyn could not be a liar” is limted to your examples. I can think of others. And you are not the arbiter of what examples are acceptable, and which ones are not.
          It almost seems like you’re trying to defend Michael Mann, who has, shall we say, ‘fabricated’ some things in order to support his hokey stick chart. THAT is the central issue, not hair-splitting over what Mark Steyn may or may not have meant. I know you’ll say something like ‘but back on _____ I said “_____”.’ You are attacking Mark Steyn in a pretty reprehensible way, based on what you perceive. But your perception isn’t necessarily reality.
          You would get a lot more sympathy for your views if you didn’t tar everyone with the same brush, as when you say:
          If he’s not lying, you’re championing a bumbling buffoon who makes a mockery of every one of you.
          So that’s our choice — according to you: We are either accepting the word of a liar, or we are accepting what a “bumbling buffoon” says.
          Sorry, but no. I don’t accept your characterization. You seem a little less than rational. Certainly less rational than Mark Steyn (who I haven’t much supported, except for pointing out that he is a stand-up guy who didn’t fold like a house of cards when Mann’s lawyers attacked).

      • Oh, and as for the rest of what dbstealey says, this is nonsense everyone on this site should be embarrassed by. Look at this:

        And IMOH Mark Steyn wasn’t far off when he said the Holocene has been warmer most of the time:

        dbstealey is relying on the tried and true defense of Michael Mann’s hockey stick, that any errors Mann/Steyn made don’t matter because he reached the right conclusion. And then he goes with another common defense play:

        That’s such a bunch of self-serving nonsense that it’s surprising people want to nitpick what Steyn knew, while ignoring the preposterous straight upward ‘hokey stick’ produced by Marcott’s deceptive shenanigans (the red line).

        This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book. Like many of Mann’s defenders, when confronted with the glaring problem in the work he likes, dbstealey is quick to change the subject and express outrage at anyone who dares stay on topic. He is so devoted to this tactic he actually says:

        Finally, I note that Brandon never answered my question: “are you claiming that past global T was not warmer than now?”

        Leaving aside the fact he just misquoted himself, which is all sorts of funny given this exchange began as a discussion of how quotations have been misused, this remark is absurd. This blog post is not about Marcott et al or its conclusions. My criticism of Mark Steyn’s book is not about whether Marcott et al is correct or whether some other conclusions are correct. My criticism is simply that Mark Steyn took a quote which was obviously about one thing and falsely presented it as being about another. I contend he did this multiple times, but I’ve focused on the time involving the first sentence of his book.
        dbstealey’s observation I didn’t answer a question is a transparent effort to change the subject from this simple point because he doesn’t want to deal with it. The question he asked has nothing to do with the issue I raised. It’s nothing more than a red herring designed to divert the discussion in order to avoid discussion of the fact Mark Steyn grossly distorted the meaning of quotes he used in his book.

        • Brandon S says:
          This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book.
          I like seeing how Brandon is so fixated on what I write. He said:
          This blog post is about Mark Steyn’s book, but dbstealey is complaining that people want to talk about… Mark Steyn’s book.
          Aside from the fact that everyone writes their opinions here, and Brandon isn’t a self-appointed arbiter of those parameters as he seems to think, I was just commenting about Steyn’s guesstimate that 65% (IIRC) of the Holocene was warmer than now. I don’t know the exact percentage (and no one else does, either).
          When I posted a chart, Brandon went into his usual nitpicking mode, taking time out from constantly labeling Mark Steyn a “liar”. (And it does not help Brandon’s credibility to say to me: “You are lying. Stop it.” If Brandon S wants to be that kind of despicable vermin, it reflects on him, not on others. I don’t lie, and I very much doubt that Mr. Schollenberger would have the balls to say that to my face. Internet cowards like Brandon are a dime a dozen, writing from the safety of their keyboards.)
          But it’s nice to know that Brandon reads my comments, no doubt cracking his knuckles and grinding his teeth, while desperately looking for some phrase or other that he can impotently attack. I’ll just consider Brandon a part of my personal entourage. ☺
          (More comments in this sub-thread by KJ and Paul Murphy, at 2:27 pm below, near bottom.)

    • He doesn’t need to. With his amazing predictive powers he is able to discern that all of the scientists quoted in the book are “hacks and has-beens”. ‘Cause he knows anyone who doesn’t agree with him is by definition a hack or has-been. The man is a god! \sarc (only in bizzaro land) Thanks for the laugh!

  1. Good for Steyn, being able to spin off books from the research for his law suits.
    Mann will regret picking on Steyn, if he doesn’t already.

      • Well, I hope he meant “nearly hitting” because nearly missing to me means a hit.
        (Nit picking again. Oh well, gotta have a little fun occasionally.)

      • Well, we all have heard of a “near miss”; meaning “almost hitting”. Maybe this is just a derivative form.

      • You forget this is the “Friday Funnies”, which Brandon is unwittingly or something similar, contributing so ably to. As in, bringing us a good laugh.

  2. Yeah funny, but people really do think that, and my students think they’re all the ones who are right.
    So not funny enough!

  3. Has Mann issued a writ against Steyn for this book and – if it’s wrong, it’s obviously libellous title? If not why not? Oh, let me guess….

  4. Mr. Paul Ehrlich has a proven track record of being so horrifically wrong, that this review serves as both praise for skeptics and an indictment for Mr. Mann.

  5. By coincidence, I just ran across an old sci-fi book:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50441/50441-h/50441-h.htm
    For some reason, I thought of Ehrlich when I read this:
    “By the 23rd century Earth’s population had reached seven billion. Mankind was in danger of perishing for lack of elbow room—unless prompt measures were taken. Roy Walton had the power to enforce those measures. But though his job was in the service of humanity, he soon found himself the most hated man in the world.
    For it was his job to tell parents their children were unfit to live; he had to uproot people from their homes and send them to remote areas of the world. Now, threatened by mobs of outraged citizens, denounced and blackened by the press, Roy Walton had to make a decision: resign his post, or use his power to destroy his enemies, become a dictator in the hopes of saving humanity from its own folly. In other words, should he become the MASTER OF LIFE AND DEATH?”

  6. Does anyone listen to Ehrlich any more? I can’t even work up the necessary curiosity to go to amazon and read the full review.

  7. Ehrlich wrote review on 9/11 !!! and the Stanford professor can’t spell:
    “propioganda” and “propoganda” – a word he ought to know by now

    • Good catch. I’ll bet the irony of that is lost on him. I like his first sentence with ends with “outrageous (he actually spelled it right!) lies.” It makes no sense unless it’s a Freudian slip.
      Best wishes.

  8. Erlich, in a 2004 Grist Magazine interview (thanks Wikipedia):

    … I have always followed UN population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau — so we never made “predictions,” …

    Where have I heard something like this lately?

  9. Some of Paul Ehrlich’s earth day 1970 predictions:
    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
    “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
    • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
    Lifted from this WUWT link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/

    • Ehrlich missed his calling to be a science fiction writer. There is more money to be made in fiction writing, and he should have chosen the climate science path.

      • L. Ron Hubbard wrote the manual on how to turn science fiction into a cult religion.
        The first step is to convince your followers they are special and “more evolved” because they follow your teachings.
        Sound familiar ?

    • Paul Erlich is a biologist? Well then, according to AGW doctrine, he is NOT a climate scientist, and has zero credibility or authority to speak as one, or on behalf of one, let alone “all real climate scientists. ” And none of the stupid things he said in the past can be held against them today. Neener neener.

    • He also completely missed the dual crescendo of rock and roll and big hair in the 1980s.
      This guy could not predict sunrise if he had a Farmer’s Almanac glued to his eyelids.

  10. Let me see if I understand this:
    A scientist who has been discredited by his own statements is coming to the defense of another scientist whose work has also been discredited?
    Two discredited scientists walk into a bar…

  11. I would think he would welcome massive depopulation as a solution to what he considers the worlds biggest problem. (Human beings)

    • That is exactly what he would welcome.
      This is what surprises me about the Pope. How is it he fails to realize that many of the people he listened to regarding climate change are firm believers in the concept of a fixed carrying capacity for the planet. Ehrlich is one of the longest serving deacons in that belief system. Somehow Pope Francis isn’t making the connection that the solutions his science advisors are advocating involving making the poor go away. When they think no more poor, they are not thinking of raising their condition up to developed world standards. They are thinking no more as in no longer existing.

  12. Paul Erhlich is just another Timothy Leary whose brain went FFZZZZTT in the 60’s. There was a lot of them.

  13. Ehrlich’s review does not contain a single phrase from the book indicating that he has read it. It is just the usual puffery and empty claims repeated so frequently at SkS and RC.
    The emptiness of the charges against the book is clear. There is nothing in the review that informs. He is just sticking pins into a kewpie doll of his own making. While I hold that a man wrong 1000 times can be right once, it is not in evidence in the diatribe. Hollow claims, empty accusations, ‘Believe me I am a scientist.’
    Yawn…

  14. As I recall, Ehrlich’s predictions in his ‘Population Bomb’ went through the stage where he predicted catastrophe by a certain date, then when those dates came and went, he pushed the catastrophe back, THEN he tried to spin current non-catastrophic events as evidence of his failed predictions, and NOW says none of it was ever true, but it didn’t matter anyway because it was all about bringing about ‘awareness’.
    Of what? That you were totally full of it from the beginning?
    Now does this pattern sound familiar, or am I just crazy?

  15. I love Ehrlich’s misuse of commas; “… Micheal Mann, one of the true heroes of climate science, outrageous lies.” He just unwittingly described M the Mann as a unrepentant liar! Delicious!

  16. Paul Ehrlich desperately needs an editor. Didn’t he at least give a quick glance at the review he wrote? It’s embarrassing.
    But, more to the point, I thought people acquired wisdom as they got older. Apparently, however, there’s a certain kind of fixated individual who thinks he knew absolutely everything there was to know back when he was 22 years old, and because his life from that point forward was so luxuriously sheltered from the normal vicissitudes of life, he had no experience through which to learn that he did, indeed, not know everything there was to know. Paul Ehrlich is a case study in that phenomenon.

  17. “It is sad that with humanity facing catastrophic climate disruption as part of an existential threat ”
    “…(there is no certainty in science…”
    Obviously, Ehrlich has a ‘certainty’ in his science

  18. Paul Ehrlich never read the book. Also, he didn’t write a review of the book. He visited the the book’s review page, read OTHER peoples’ responses to Mark Steyn’s work, and talked about that instead from the POV of a CAGW alarmist, populist and kool-aid drinker.
    Typical seagull mimicker.
    Why not actually read the book and be critical? Here is why. Facts don’t matter to the progressive left. They just want wealth redistribution at all costs and Mark Steyn’s personality as well as his book is more influential than Michael Mann (the ex Nobel Prize winner) to the American voter and lobbyist.
    So Ehrlich is speaking in terms that he is most comfortable with,…. politics and propaganda.
    Fortunate for me, a nobody. I can objectively ridicule and ostensibly smart man with ease.

  19. I read all 80 and some comments to Ehrlich’s review and every single one of them was critical, especially about his numerous failures at prediction. Some are saying he never had a single prediction come true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    • Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      But not one that’s a little slow; slow clocks are always wrong.
      And that’s Ehrlich’s problem. He’s never able to catch up with the world.
      Ehrlich believes that Malthus (18th century philosopher) hasn’t been debunked by history. So he keeps on assuming that people cannot adapt and cannot become more efficient. But we do.
      Time and again he’s proven wrong.
      But he can’t catch up because he’s tied to an 18th century mindset.

      • Hmm…slow clocks aren’t always wrong. They just need to build up to an almost 24-hour lag to get the time right once.

      • A clock set 10 (or other) minutes behind the real time is never right as is a clock that is set ahead.

      • catcracking, it’s just a question of patience. No clock is precise, so eventually it shows the right time. But the better the clock, the rarer event it is.

  20. Paul Ehrlich is probably obsessed with his supposed legacy, just like Obama.
    Well, being an intellectually sad individual, notorious for getting things wrong, is not the sort of legacy most sane people would seek.
    Yet, he still keeps on advertising the fact that his opinion is worth absolutely zip?

  21. It’s always biologists and social scientists who write ‘limits to growth’ nonsense. They fail to account for the overwhelming factor of human ingenuity that confounds the helpless petri-dish limits envisioned by dystopian linear thinkers. Malthus’s forecast that major cities would be buried in horse manure many metres deep failed spectacularly because of spectacular human ingenuity. These ‘disciplines’ that somehow feel competent to speculate on the future of mankind are totally unschooled and unskilled to engage in this. Biology is essentially dealing with ‘static’ organisms that have limitations and social scientists of the ceteris paribus kind are clearly defining themselves as linear disciplines. We will only be free from this ideologue evil stuff when the population reaches its 8-9B – we are already 80-90% there – and poverty is further reduced and economic wellbeing expanded to cut these unhappy people off.

    • Biologists and social scientists (and, climateers) exhibit a complete failure of imagination. I recall one commenter opining that we must immediately begin to develop sustainable energy sources that can see us through 1,000 years! I don’t think humanity has had a sustainable energy source since we first discovered fire. Yet we’ve lasted the past 20,000-30,000 years. How does that commenter know we won’t be mining energy sources from the moon, Mars, asteroids, or comets within the next 1,000 years? As a philosopher said; our children live in the future which we cannot visit, not even in our dreams.

      • Borrowed from Rosa Korie’s websites:
        ‘Sustainability’ and ‘Smart Growth’ and ‘High Density Urban Mixed-use Development’ (watch out for these terms in your local governments) – They are policies adopted in your local governments from “officials” that were never elected.
        In 1992 The UN called it Agenda 21 because it is the Agenda for the 21st century.
        According to UN’s Maurice Strong, in 1992, the ‘affluent middle class American lifestyle is unsustainable.’ That includes single family homes, private vehicles, appliances, air conditioning, & meat eating. They are a threat to the planet, according to Strong

      • Yes. A good example is Moore’s law for semiconductors, which holds that the number of transistors on an IC doubles every 18 months or so. For the past 20 years or so people have been predicting the end of Moore’s law, but the semiconductor industry actually plans on it. Not only do the engineers keep coming up with new ways of making smaller features, they keep developing new kinds of transistors that can be packed tighter and tighter.
        The biggest barriers to human prosperity are political ones. Nearly ever famine for the past 200 years or so has been politically induced, not naturally.

  22. Just an fyi.
    A horse named “Kenjisstorm” is gonna run at Del Mar in about 20 minutes.
    Right now the odds are 10-1.
    Go Kenji !!

  23. Mark Steyn noted that he was surprised by the negative comments on Mann from the scientific community. When I read the book, I was astounded by the frank comments of many of Mann’s fellow scientists (although I admit that calling Mann a scientist, based on his behavior, could be considered an affront to true scientists.) However, I am not surprised that well respected scientists would object to the way that Mann cherry picked data by using a statistical selection algorithm which was never meant to be used to select a subset of data and then weighting certain data sets far more than others solely because they aligned more closely with his conclusion.
    Conclusions are supposed to be developed based on objectively evaluating the data – all the data – not a tiny sub-set. Mann, selected a miniscule sub-set of data which would reduce past warming and enhance recent warming. Then for years he kept his data and algorithms hidden from view except to his chosen team. This is the sort of statistical smoke and mirrors that occurs in DC, but it is certainly not science.
    Ehrlich, by putting himself on Mann’s side and calling those who question Mann’s methods propagandists has put himself on the side of the Inquisition forcing Galileo to deny the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

    • “This is the sort of statistical smoke and mirrors that occurs in DC, but it is certainly not science.”
      When your “science” is funded mostly by DC, that is indeed the “science” you get.

    • … (although I admit that calling Mann a scientist, based on his behavior, could be considered an affront to true scientists.) …

      A real scientist should dispassionately follow the truth. Once a scientist becomes an activist, that scientist has lost the credibility to be called a scientist.
      Michael Mann is an activist not a scientist. He is clearly trying to prove a point and isn’t following the evidence. At best, he is suffering from bias and is cherry picking the evidence that supports his chosen point of view. At worst, he is a craven fraud.
      There is always a silver lining in every cloud. Until Dr. Mann tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period I believed in AGW. So, he has created at least one skeptic.

  24. Ehrlich’s review ..”Rupert Murdoch and his ‘False News’ network”
    I’ve never seen that before. Whenever someone is trying to denigrate Fox News, it’s always been transformed to ‘Faux News’,

  25. Already have my signed copy. Nobody that is sane that read the book could claim what Ehrlich has said unless they’re just an our right liar. I believe the later is the case for him. But then again that probably goes for most of the alarmists “scientists”. They have sold their souls to the almighty dollar.

  26. This fool really should go back to his nursing home. His lack of awareness is stunning

  27. Harold Camping predicted – not for the first time – that Jesus would return to Earth in 2011, and certain folks would be taken to heaven in the rapture, ….
    Paul Ehrlich looks a lot like the late Harold did, and Ehrlich’s predictions are equally wrong.
    A strong belief based on nonsense is still nonsense.

  28. Hasn’t anyone noticed that he called all those scientists critical of mann ‘hacks and has-beens’?

  29. It looks as though the people of Paris may not be entirely focused on the fate of sea ice in the Hudson Bay this month. Unfortunately this is because the alarmism of Mark Steyn has shown itself to be more immediately prescient than that of Michael Mann:
    “Such would be the delusion, that when the evil day came, as come it would, the people would start up, as from a dream, and ask themselves if these things could have been true. All his eloquence was in vain. He was looked upon as a false prophet, or compared to the hoarse raven, croaking omens of evil. His friends, however, compared him to Cassandra, predicting evils which would only be believed when they came home to men’s hearths, and stared them in the face at their own boards.”
    Charles Mackay, on the predictions of Walpole concerning the South Sea Bubble.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/11/13/multiple-deaths-reported-after-shootings-explosions-paris/75727746/

  30. “nearly missing our resident member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.”
    Did you have to take your dog to the vet to get the wound taken care of?

  31. *All real climate scientists* are the scientists who agree with his opinions. Anyone who doesn’t agree with his opinion aren’t, obviously, *real climate scientists.*

    • Ehrlich would probably want to rescind First Amendment rights for those that don’t agree with “real climate scientists”, too.

  32. really amazed at the audacity of ehrich.
    paul ehrich -> fear of human population -> zero population growth movement -> low birthrates in the developed countries -> population growth stagnation -> demand for migrant workers -> migrant crisis
    -> end of european civilization as we knew it
    saving the planet from human beings may a well-meaning, innocent, and benign diversion
    but it can go horribly wrong.

  33. I find it amusing that he claims that “humanity is facing catastrophic climate disruption as part of an existential threat” as abject truth. But then goes on to say that “there is no certainty in science.”
    But then again, for the likes of him, it never has been about the weather, it has always been about excessive population.

    • Bloke,
      That he gets away as Ehrlich apparently does, of talking flat-out lies and bs unchallenged, says more about the failed big media model of mass communications than just about anything else could.

  34. ‘..there is no certainty in science..’
    Er, well, except ‘climate science’ where everything is settled. Other than those little papers that slip out saying ‘oooh, we didn’t know that’.

  35. Step it up a notch, folks; the warmists are fanatical
    about throwing the virgin into the volcano. If it
    works, they are heros, if it doesn’t, it was too late!
    Facts and reality are useless, They BELIEVE!!!!

  36. Better screen capture that review.
    “There is no certainty in science”? I thought the science was settled and certain.

  37. Brandon Shollenberger
    November 13, 2015 at 3:38 pm
    ==============================
    Logical fallacy. Not only tou quo que, but also a non sequitur.

  38. “Ehrlich” in German mean “Honest”, which would make his contribution doubly curious. So curious in fact that I surmise that the “Ehrlich” writing the comment is not Paul but a false flag imposter.

  39. “Mann can’t even be bothered to use current data is his slide show, leaving data on display to stop in 2005.”
    I’m guessing he figures the science was declared settled by the referees around then so there’s no need to include later data.

  40. Posted my comment on the Ehrlich review on Amazon.com:
    “This review is a joke, right?
    The man is beyond ridiculous. I think most people would see this, so no point in wasting any more words here.”

  41. Is there any more notorious has-been “futurist” than Paul R. Ehrlich? Given his own past success as a fiction author, it can be no surprise that he would ardently admire Mann.

    • I am pretty sure it is a pretended review. There is nothing in it indicating he read the book.

  42. Anyone out there know where to find cold hard facts on the real state of the parameters that people say are indicative of climate change? I hear of ice caps melting or growing, tornados and hurricanes either more or less frequent or intense. Droughts, wild fires, the list goes on. This should be a lot easier than it seems with all the Galileo-like atmosphere surrounding the issue.

  43. Interesting that Erlich actually admits “there is no certainty in science …” Except for the “consensus” on catastrophic warming.

  44. Brandon Shollenberger wrote:
    “That means the only way Steyn could not be a liar is if he simply saw a sentence he liked the sound of and used it without bothering to check what the sentence was in reference to, not even reading the page he copied the quote from.”
    No, there’s another pretty obvious possibility (likelihood): Steyn rightly assumes there’ a correlation between regional and global temperatures and he felt it’s the perfect quote to start his book even if it wasn’t perfect from a scientific point of view.
    And your attempt to hold Mark Steyn, someone who literally identifies himself as an entertainer, to the same principles as a professional scientist whose (faulty?) work has been used as the basis of international treaties and government climate policy around the world is laughable. Steyn is defending himself from an attack by a professional scientist; it’s not two professional scientists debating each other. There is no reverse onus on Mark Steyn to hold himself accountable to the highest scientific standards. That standard *only* applies to Mann in this case. Your analogy is the equivalent of comparing John Stewart or Stephen Colbert to a network news anchor.

  45. uh? Guys?
    The appropriately initialed B.S. started the word fight claiming that Mr. Steyn mis-represented the words:
    “Over the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than today 65 per cent of the time”.
    So do a quick google search for them and you find:
    “Over the last 10,000 years it has been warmer than today 65 per cent of the time…”
    Climate change 25 May 2012

    That is, according to Dr Gernot Patzelt of the University of Innsbruck (see http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/24/multiple-glacier-studies-show-wide-ho …). Glaciers in the Alps have grown and retreated on a number of occasions. Forests existed at elevations higher than they do today. A similar pattern emerges from glaciers in the Russian Altai.”
    See: http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/over-last-10000-years-it-has-been-warmer-today-65-cent-time.htm
    Steyn was right.
    The lesson? Never believe a believer without checking the facts first.

  46. I’m not sure why I bothered, but I briefly checked out Brandon Shollenberger’s blog (sorry, comment section only he can post in) supposedly dissecting Steyn’s book. I didn’t get past this gem: .
    “Anyway, I got it in the mail yesterday, and I started reading it.”
    Ummm, is this genius actually publicly announcing he pirated a copy of Steyn’s book? Way to take the high ground Brandon. What a goof.

  47. I would say that Steyn is near the truth. We have been in an interstadial/interglacial for the last 10,000 years. Bar some shorter mini ice ages. After the second world war, my mother (RIP) blamed England’s colder summers and winters (1947, 1963 particularly) on H Bomb tests and the number of bombs going off.
    Without sufficient rain fall and warm seasons we could not have developed agriculture and domesticated animals. So why nit pick?

  48. Something to really cheer Mr Ehrlich up (it’s ‘premium’ paywalled but I don’t think any of we rational folk need bother going past the lead in)
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=AAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/change-trees-in-landscape-to-boost-bushfire-survival-chances-academic-says/story-fni6uo1m-1227611363305&memtype=registered
    Comedy central from academe but I feel our learned perfesser may be donning a suicidal vestment here. Still you never know nowadays and perhaps he’s got the inside running and the Green loons have secret plans to replace all the Oz gum trees with some wonder fireproof ethanol plant.

Comments are closed.