Former NYT climate author Revkin gets Pwned by fake photo from another climate alarmist

From the “confirmation bias breeds delicious irony” department comes this hilarious moment when one climate alarmist gets pwned by the fake predictions of another.

Back in 2012, Andrew Freedman was working for “climate Central” and published a ridiculous story about sea level rise and New York LaGuardia airport.

I pointed out immediately how ridiculous and wrong his story was…
Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman

Freedman was trying to show that LaGuardia was susceptible to sea-level rise, and beclowned himself in the process with the faked-up photos depicting what it looked like. I commented then:

This is a ‘jumped the shark’ moment for Climate Central. Read the whole story here: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coastal-us-airports-face-increasing-threat-from-sea-level-rise-16126

Gosh, I never knew that sea level rise was so abrupt that it would catch those speedy airliners off guard so fast they couldn’t move out of the way. The climate change onset was so fast…that maybe future archaeologists will find fossilized passengers with half chewed peanuts still in their mouths.

The problem with Freedman’s article depicting 5 and 10 foot sea level rise is that LaGuardia is 21 feet above mean sea level:

KLGA_MSL

Source: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA

I added then: (with a slight grammar/spell correction added today)

So one wonders if there will be a retraction for the statement “What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise” and of course the photo.

…yet it remains published at Climate Central today, and traps the unwary and the confirmation biased.

Today, it came full circle, and trapped former NYT Climate and Environment editor author Andrew Revkin, when he retweeted this:

The photo, when enlarged, is this:

It wasn’t even the right city.

NYT’s former climate and environmental editor author Andrew Revkin, pwned by Climate Centrals former writer Andrew Freedman over a fake image. It doesn’t get any more hilarious than that.

ADDED about 5 mins after publication…

But Revkin at least has the good sense to own up to the mistake:

Now if only Andrew Freedman can convince Climate Central to get rid of that ridiculous article with the faked images.

UPDATE: Other news sources were taken in by the faked up image as well:

newsinflight-pwned

They write on their website:

Note: Initially Wrong Photo was posted without knowing. We got the photo from the tweet news. After sharing the news on AeroChapter we came to know that the photo is a wrong one. So we changed it on the website, but couldn’t change what posted on FB because FB has no option to change photos. Also the posting couldn’t deleted because within minutes there are hundreds of shares.
Sorry for misleading. Actually it was not our intention to mislead

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “Former NYT climate author Revkin gets Pwned by fake photo from another climate alarmist

  1. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy! Revkin still hasn’t smartened up after being on the cutting edge of all this stuff for years.

    • Interesting given that the height of the airliner in the foreground places the water depth there at 18′,… 5′ of water would barely be licking at the underbelly

      • Since there was no impact, if the doors were closed, the fuselages would float. “China Airlines 744 over shot the runway at Kai Tak and was floating in the Bay for a few days. They had to blow the tail [off] the 744.” –Tom Walker, on airliners.net forum.

        The image is all too typical of Fake AGW news. Unfortunate that Revkin got misled. Maybe a little more skepticism, Andrew? :)

      • The photo shown in this WUWT article is not what Climate Central said would result from 5 or 10 foot sea level rise, but 25 foot sea level rise. They have other photos showing lesser (but also incorrect) degrees of the airport being underwater for 5 and 10 foot sea level rises.

    • “Actually it wasn’t our intention to mislead”.
      A great example of an statement that negates its own meaning by being stated.

  2. Those planes should be United, not Delta. IAH is a major United hub. Of course, they have to get the correct city in the background first. 😄

    • That is Houston Hobby which is south central Houston. IAH is some 35 NM north of Hobby. And about 50 ft higher in elevation.

      • Steve, please re-read the article and focus on the “Update.” Then you’ll understand why Hobby was referenced.

      • No, no we don’t. And it’s just the roads around Hobby that are flooded, not the fields themselves. It’s in an old part of town and the streets are fairly low.

  3. Not quite as silly as the National Geographic illustration of the Statue of Liberty half-submerged.

    • For the extremists/alarmists, it’s 99% about tugging on emotions, and a tiny kernel of actual science twisted beyond recognition.

    • C’mon, we’re in the age of ‘post-modern reality’ where everyone is privileged to have their own, personal ‘reality’.

    • Reminds me of the answer given to a maths question that talked about the pilots of a VC10 observing the sun on the horizon, asking how high was the VC10? Answer: about 42ft to the top of the tail when standing on the tarmac.

    • The water level depicted on the plane in the foreground is about 18′.
      The underbelly is between 5 – 6′ off the ground

  4. Tried posting a comment earlier but hasn’t shown up. Indeed, I was taken in by confirmation bias and too-swift RT return key. I tweeted to clarify: https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/902239672772038658 And I will add this to my Medium post on communication in a fake-news world as a great fresh case study: https://medium.com/@revkin/to-see-how-information-flows-online-try-a-backtrack-journal-e5e65e56bf6c p.s. I was never a New York Times editor. I was author of Dot Earth from 2007 through 2016 and a staff reporter from 1995 through 2009.

    [Cleared you comment, but sent the first to Trash since it didn’t seem like you needed both. If you want both for the record, feel free to let us know. -mod]

    • This appears to be Mr Revkin, posting here! again acknowledging his error, good for you. He says he was never a NYT editor, which I believe because he is acknowledging a substance error (NYT doesn’t play that way, only acknowledge meaningless errors). I hope Mr. R. will continue to read here, and maybe even begin to wonder why propaganda photos are necessary to promote CAGW if it’s “real, it’s here, blah blah blah.”

      • I concur with your comment. I’ve followed Andy Revkin for many years, and have found him to be objective and fair-minded. And I didn’t always agree with him. His recent articles in ProPublica have been very good, IMHO.

    • Hey, we Watts fans need to appreciate the grace and civility Mr. Revkin’s reaction to this episode. I, for one, say Thanks.

      • no, hell no.
        you can catch more flies with sugar than vinegar, sure- if you love you some fly infestation.
        he has to fix the harm he causes, not just say ‘oopsie’.
        i suppose next you’ll be advocating admiration for a water color painter that just happened to run the reich?

    • Mr. Revkin: Again you have shown a readiness to acknowledge errors which makes you stand out among other journalists on the climate and environment beat.

      • nope. that is not his distinguishing characteristic.
        let me refer you to mr macgregor and his goat.
        he’s not ready to acknowledge anything he can’t lie about – it’s that he can’t get away with lying this time.
        if the unabomber said oopsie you’d be all over him with praise, too?

    • One thing I have to saw about Revkin is, he does at times seem to point out or admit weaknesses in climate science. Gotta respect him for this. But he should be careful, if he points out too many truths, he could end up banished from “the cause” like Roger Pielke Jr.

    • Andrew,
      Kudos for owning up to it. We don’t see that much these days…if ever.

      I’d love it even more if you wrote an article stating that it is a FAKE photo, of LaGuardia and not Houston, and indicate the actual author of the fake image and why it’s inaccurate even as a prediction…:)

  5. Not only is La Guardia 21 ft above sea level, but those planes are under 15 feet of water (that’s 36 ft for those keeping score at home). All in a day’s work for 5 ft of sea level rise.

      • The yardsticks are shrinking because the water is rising so fast; its one of the effects mentioned in Einstein’s General Relativity theory.

    • but that 36 ft is easy to get if you just concentrate the water over a small area! 18 ft over half the area equals 36 ft! Easy arithmetic!

  6. I suspect that it’s easier being a skeptic than an alarmist. The alarmists have to have the creativity to make things up. All the skeptics have to do is shoot down the more creative crap. It’s like the jokes write themselves.

    • no,all the alarmists do is look at the world through their eco telescope and simply describe what they see.

    • The hard part, for a lot of them, would be to admit that they were wrong.

      For that lot, it is easier to continue to make shit up, rather than have their doctor alter their prescriptions.

      For the stupid or lazy members of the lot … they just use other peoples made up shit.

      (No offense intended Mr. Revkin)

  7. I notice that someone Photoshopped out the polar bears clinging to the wings of the stranded aircraft..

  8. Proper last sentence, Now if only WUWT can convince Andrew Revkin to get rid of that ridiculous AGW-alarm baked on with pseudo-science.

  9. A sealed aircraft would float. When they sink, it’s leaks coming through the damage. If nothing else, they would not neatly maintain their positions as the water flowed in — who need the elevation data to know that?

  10. Now if only you could get all of the media to stop using pictures of water vapor coming from cooling towers to accompany their articles on the supposed threat of CO2.

      • By the time water rises 35 feet, people will have adapted to breathing under water.

        It puts a new slant on the old question, “How many gills in a noggin?”

    • Hey…they said connecting flights….they didn’t say where, or in what condition, those connections would be made in. They DO provide seat/flotation devices…you were warned.

      My pity goes to the luggage handlers….water logged luggage is a hellofalot harder to load than dry luggage.

  11. Lots of BS “flying” here.
    “So we changed it on the website, but couldn’t change what posted on FB because FB has no option to change photos.”

    This is, of course, wrong.
    You can remove and replace FB pictures by editing the post.
    You can also add words to an existing post.

    • And very poor grammar:

      “Also the posting couldn’t deleted because within minutes there are hundreds of shares.”

      Notice they also say WRONG photo instead of FAKE photo.

  12. Come on now! WUWT is better than this. LaGuardia may be 20ft above mean sea level, but what is local sea level? Or just search “Flooding at La uardia” and see that a 5ft increase from current levels would have a significant impact.

    • Are you able to comprehend what you just wrote? Have you ever stood on the runway at LaGuardia, under an airliner? I have. The picture is a cock-up, as is your comment, because you’ve really not gotten your mind around the numbers.

      • Anthony – Do you think the picture from Gloateus at 3:39pm represents a 20+ft surge? I know the Revkin picture is fake, but again, do you know the actual (relative to MSL) sea level height at LaGuardia? I’m also aware that it’s just as likely that LaGuardia will see 5ft of sea level drop before it sees 5ft of increase, but that’s not the point I’m making either.
        The point is that the runways at LaGuardia are clearly not 21ft above the local sea level, and I like to think that WUWT cares about that kind of accuracy.

    • At present rate of sea level rise, it will take 762 years to get even five feet of flooding, let alone up to fuselages.

      Previous flooding at La Guardia:

      • Here’s a storm surge map to go along with the photo

        Maybe 6 ft? Does Long Island Sound normally have 15ft tides?

      • Rebar,
        That was caused by local rains that temporarily ponded on the runway because the storm surge had already saturated the areas where the water would normally run off. A 5 foot rise in sea level would make local flooding like that a little more likely, but would not cause the airport to be permanently under water.

  13. “…Actually it was not our intention to mislead…. ” Really? What is the intention when posting a photo shopped picture?

  14. “We got the photo from the tweet news.” At last someone has admitted the source of ‘fake news’.

    • Repeating crap you read on twitter is NOT journalism. It’s a damn shame that Revkin and his cohorts think it is.

      • Yes, “we got the photo from the tweet news” in an era when “senior writers” of 25 report to “senior editors” of 30…not a good mix.

  15. Plus 5 feet, SLR wouldn’t reach up that high on the airliners even if the LaG was at sealevel.

  16. Yes – It was a photo shopped, alternate reality picture of LaGuardia, but it could have been Houston!
    This isn’t ‘fake news’. It’s alternate reality news, provided once again by the AGW alarmists.

    • Of course it is. If ever the citizens of OZ are convinced that they are the victims of a seriously bad hoax they just may rise up and lynch their political leaders and then their climate scientists.

  17. I read an article saying that air traffic congestion and delays around NY City would be greatly reduced if LaGuardia were closed. It doesn’t handle that much traffic, but the aircraft circulation cone for it cramps those for JFK & Newark airports and complicates routing for controllers.

    The article said that elites who frequently commute to Washington DC like it because the driving time to/from Manhattan is much less than that to the other airports. So that’s why it’s still here.

    BTW, the Airbus plane that landed in the Hudson (after taking off from LaGuardia and having a bad bird strike) had a feature on the undercarriage to block the inflow of water. It sank only because a passanger opened the rear door.

  18. I have my plane (a Piper Comanche 250) at Palo Alto airport (KPAO). The highest elevation of the runway is 6.8 feet MSL. The airport has been in existence since the 1930’s. We are still above sea level!

  19. Laguardia is 21 ft above sea level and those planes are sitting in about 15 feet of water.Sea level has been rising close to 6″ per century for a long time with no acceleration.

    So, actual sea level will reach the level depicted in the picture in 7195 years…assuming the steady rate continues.

    I suspect, however, that someone will be smart enough to move the planes by then.

  20. I’m sorry what was his mistake ? Because when he “owned up to it” he didn’t articulate just what he did wrong. He didn’t admit to not following any procedure or process that would have revealed his mistake BEFORE publishing it … I suspect he DOESN’T have any process to ferret out fake news/photos … this is what happens when religious followers make things up on the fly … there is a reason every potato with the face of Jesus on them isn’t declared a “miracle” by the Church …

    So no, he didn’t own up to anything … he got caught with his pants down around his ankles and wants to act like it could have happened to anyone … if he wants to get off with AGW porn at least he should do it in the privacy of his own home and mind …

  21. “fossilized passengers with half chewed peanuts still in their mouths.”

    Not allowed surely due to peanut allergy risk?…..

    Elf n safety would have a conniption fit…

  22. Revkin visiting WUWT may be very good for his knowledge, and perspective. For example, Andrew, sealevel rose about 130 metres from the last glacial maximum just over 20,000 years ago, and the planet did that all on its own without any influence from CO2.

    The well known sealevel curve at that link shows most of that sealevel rise happened over 10 000 years. 130 m in 10 000 = 13 mm / year.

    Church & White 2011 estimate global average sealevel rise from 1900 to present at 1.7 mm / year.

    So, natural variability demonstrated by the planet 10 times greater than present rates of change. And of the present measured rate of change, how much can be attributed to CO2?

    Where is the alarm?

  23. Fact check, fact check and fact check….. and before you publish…. Fact check one more time…. You would think that in this day and age of the Internet and photoshop that major media out lets and journos would be a wake up to simple jests and joke photos…. But apparently not.

  24. And if you’ve ever been to Houston, you’d know that’s about a year’s supply of Delta planes for either airport…

Comments are closed.