From the UK Telegraph 26 June 2009
Christopher Booker
POLAR BEAR EXPERT BARRED BY WARMISTS
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission, will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with the views of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching into the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause.
The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the ‘wind-sculpted ice’ they were standing on made such a striking image.
[Added by Anthony: Please follow this link to the original photographer. See the bottom right photo.
She just wanted a photograph more of the “wind-sculpted ice” than of the bears. Byrd writes:
“[You] have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”
]
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: ‘it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition’.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running ‘counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful’. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as the radiation of the sun and changing ocean currents – was ‘inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG’.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of ‘ scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice’. But check out also on Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. Average temperatures at midsummer were still below zero – the latest date this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping – and after last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time, The bears are doing fine.
(Note – this was sent to me via email as an advance copy. Also I should add that the photo was not originally part of the story sent to me, I added the photo since I know the reference. – Anthony)
Related WUWT story here
Lindsay H (01:45:57) : “Carl Popper would be turning in his grave at some of the rubbish which is published in the name of Climate Science !! ”
Judging from what I’ve seen, I doubt there are many people involved in the pro-AGW side of this who even have a clue who Karl is. Certainly no politicians.
Another of his contemporaries who would be spinning is E. T. Jaynes.
How old were you in 1958, Anthony? After all, the science of the time drove that film clip I provided.
I still don’t get the obsession with what the media reports and the state of the actual science.
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”, by Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1) is the definitive source.
REPLY: I was 2 years old, but I’m not commenting on that film like you are on the 1970’s, so I’m not citing any firsthand knowledge of the event surrounding that film. William Connolley and Petersen have an agenda BTW. Connolley deletes views on Wikipedia on a regular basis. He’s a censor.
Your turn to answer or deflect again. Two simple questions.
-Anthony
Some UCAR financial statement excerpts:
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is a nonprofit membership corporation engaged in scientific and educational activities in atmospheric research and related fields. UCAR operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and also operates other scientific projects funded principally by other United States government agencies.
2008 Total assets: $144,357,000
2008 Total revenues, gains, and other support: $203,898,000
2008 Total expenses and losses: $211,741,000
And where did the money come from in 2008?
National Science Foundation: $104,546,000
Other government agency funds: $16,671,000
Other government award funds: $97,124,000
Other contract funds: $20,673,000
Donated property: $0
Membership fees: $56,000
License fees and royalties: $332,000
Proceeds from sale of assets: $12,000
Investment (loss) income: ($5,739,00)
Taxpayer supported to the tune of over $200 million per year. Your tax dollars at work, or at something.
I’ve already provided a definitive reference, Anthony. Please feel free to read it.
My age in 1978 is a red herring.
REPLY:I read it when it was first published. Last chance Gary, I’ve given my age. Why can’t you. You tried to turn the argument around on me in 1958. I answered, at your request. Yet you cannot seem to bring yourself to do so. Are you so bereft of the ability two answer two simple questions?
The issue goes to first hand observation, and observation is what scientists do. By not answering you’ll be saying that first hand observation has less value than post facto research, which is what Connolley and Petersen did.
Two simple questions Gary, your turn to answer directly or to deflect again.
– Anthony
“Nobody here is trying to dismiss the current climate science, we only point out that then, the science, and popular press went another direction.”
Not true. Read Peterson et.al.
“Yet there are people who write whole papers trying to argue that historical event didn’t happen.”
Peterson et.al. don’t just “try”, they succeed in showing that the popular media’s presentation of the state of the science was flawed. The focus on what and how the popular media reports about science isn’t terribly relevant, if what the science was actually doing is quite different. The subject is far more the popular media than it is the science, and last I checked, WUWT wasn’t a blog about the popular media – at least, that’s not its pretension.
REPLY: Two simple questions Gary, why can’t you answer them? – Anthony
Gary: You aren’t doing yourself any favors by continuing to post deflections to the two simple questions asked. I’ve given you the floor why can’t you answer directly? True scientists don’t fear answers to questions, or the questions themselves. – Anthony
Still no answer, from Gary Strand. It appears he just isn’t capable of direct question and answers. He asked me the same question reversed, and I answered immediately. Then he goes on to say the question and answer is a red herring. Yet he employed the same question.
a reader (09:30:34) :
“I was reading a book called “Champlain’s Dream” by David Hackett Fischer”
Interesting comment.
Bears are very opportunistic consumers and from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticosti_Island
we have this:
“For thousands of years, Anticosti Island was the territory of the indigenous peoples who lived on the mainland and used it as a hunting ground. The Innu called it Notiskuan, translated as “where bears are hunted” and . . .”
I know, it doesn’t mention the type of bear.
Hope you get good responses to this reference.
Because my age is irrelevant, and how the popular media reports on science isn’t a good indicator of the actual state of the science.
Do you think that a story in “Newsweek” is the best way to learn the state of an issue in science? It’s a simple question.
REPLY: More deflections Gary. Do you fear the question and the answer? Apparently not, since you turned the same question around and I answered immediately.
The question is relevant because it goes to direct observation of events versus observation by proxy post facto. I observed the events in situ, with full understanding of them then. Why is it so hard for you to tell us if you observed the same events in situ or not? Not looking good for your integrity. – Anthony
Gary – Since your forte is computers/programming and not climate science per se, you might have something constructive to add to the deconstruction of Mann’s hockey stick or Steig’s Antarctic temperature re-construction.
See
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/hockey-stick-cps-revisited-part-1/
and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/
Anthony, if you had “full understanding of them”, you would have known that Peterson et.al. are correct and that “Newsweek” was reporting on a minority view. That is, unless your “full understanding” consisted of “Newsweek” and not much more.
REPLY: OK then, let it be known that Gary Strand won’t answer simple questions posed to him about the relevance of in situ observations, but employs deflection at each turn, and when turning the same question around on the person asking the question, upon getting an immediate answer, still refuses.
On the question of Petersen et al, I haven’t blogged about that here yet, so I’m going to elevate you and your argument to a front page post, because I think this question is highly relevant. Does post facto research trump direct observation of historical events, especially when written by people whom have a vested interest in the outcome?
– Anthony
May want to check your acceptable use policy at UCAR to be sure you can participate during work hours, since I’ll post it during the week.
Jim (10:56:48) :
“Gary – Since your forte is computers/programming and not climate science per se, you might have something constructive to add to the deconstruction of Mann’s hockey stick or Steig’s Antarctic temperature re-construction.”
I have nothing to add to either, since neither are my areas of expertise.
REPLY: Along those lines, is the media your area of expertise? – Anthony
“REPLY: OK then, let it be known that Gary Strand won’t answer simple questions posed to him about the relevance of in situ observations, but employs deflection at each turn, and when turning the same question around on the person asking the question, upon getting an immediate answer, still refuses.”
Do you also think eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial is unassailable, and that the practice of forensic science (necessarily after the fact) is therefore suspect because of the ΔT involved? After all, (say) the coroner didn’t witness the events; her work is therefore questionable. Correct?
“[…]Does post facto research trump direct observation of historical events, especially when written by people whom have a vested interest in the outcome?”
You’re accusing Peterson et.al. of somehow not telling the truth? That’s a fairly serious allegation, one that would require compelling evidence. But of course, that would be *post facto* evidence, so by your own standards, that alone would make your research questionable.
REPLY: It goes back to the two simple questions. Which you won’t answer. I figure if the questions are indeed a “red herring” as you say, then it would be easily refuted, yet you continue to deflect the question. Since you are a modeler, I’m really not surprised that historical examination post fact by proxy is more palatable to you than direct observation. This is the central problem with climate science today. There is more value given to the models than to direct observation, and even the direct observations, such as the surface temperature records are adjusted. Confirmation bias is rampant in models, the surface record adjustments, and yes in Petersen et al
BTW I would add since you mention “Do you also think eyewitness testimony in a criminal trial is unassailable” Well you won’t even provide an opportunity, since you won’t answer the question of whether you had any eyewitness experience with the issue or not. I think at this point it is safe to assume that you don’t, or you’d be forthcoming with an answer. – Anthony
“REPLY: Along those lines, is the media your area of expertise? – Anthony”
I’ve interacted with some members of the media on a few occasions. I’m not a media expert.
[answer the question Gary and stop posting deflections]
Peterson .. He once made results showing UHI in the US only to be 0,05K.
When Steve McIntyre finaly got the data from Peterson, the very same data gave 0,7K..
That is until McIntyre found out that the stations considered “Rural” and “Urban” respectively where not correctly catagorized.
After correcting the catagories For “Rural” and “Urban” respectively, the data gave McIntyre 2,0 full degrees Kelvin.
I will be more direct than Anthony:
These errors are so grotesqe and abnormal in size that ANY “scinece” hereafter in ANY way connected with “Peterson” MUST be dealt with and interpreted with highest degree of caution.
The revealing of Peterson is one of the worst cases of data manipulation i have seen in the whole climate debate.
[answer the question Gary and stop posting deflections]
Gary in the interest of fairness, you posed the same question to me, that I posed of you, I answered immediately yet you won’t answer it.
I simply want to know if you had any cognizant first hand experience with science and the media around 1978. Your refusal to answer and your continued posting of deflections seems to indicate that is a weak point with you. So unless you say otherwise, we’ll say that you had no experience with science and the media then.
Wait, I may be wrong, when was this photo taken? http://www.facebook.com/gary.strand
– Anthony
RE: Global cooling in the 1970’s, new Ice Age, etc.
I am submitting my comments strictly from memory. At my age it is possible (almost a certainty) that the mind may wander. The key points, however, should be accurate.
During the1970’s I was in my 20’s. Part of my professional activities had me deeply immersed in air pollution, pollution control, etc. Occasionally you will see me comment on how the government, specifically the EPA, forced the use of catalytic converters too soon. They did this despite the pleas of many scientists to wait a year, perhaps two, so late some issues with the device could be resolved. As a result the EPA was to some extent responsible for the acid rain problem.
I recall the EPA telling people the ‘rotten egg’ odor coming from their car exhaust was nothing more than sulfur dioxide….. a harmless gas. Anyway, with millions of cars now belching out concentrated volumes of SO2 acid rain came to a peak. The EPA was then responsible for the closure of our nation’s copper industry as it generated SO2 in the smelting process. The industry could not remain competitive in the world market and pay for necessary modifications to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. Improvements in automotive catalytic converters eventually was a big part in curing the acid rain problem.
That is an event I lived and was part of. First hand life experience.
Also during that era was the talk and media coverage of potential for an approaching ice age. I don’t recall their being a “consensus of science” but I do recall some scientists in agreement. How many would, without doing research on it, be hard to say. Without easy access (Internet) at the time to large portions of the scientific community I don’t think many knew how many stood in support of cooling or against it. To say there was a ‘consensus’ then would be no more accurate than the present claims regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Some did … yes. Others did not. Just like present times.
I also recall the existence of a CIA report stating that the desert southwest (my neck of the woods) would become the agricultural center of the nation, more fertile, more wet, etc. I remember media fanfare about the CIA report and also a number of people who gave it great weight as a statement that a coming ice age was a certainty. If I am not mistaken the CIA used information from scientists in creation of their report. I don’t recall them citing the media as their authority behind the potential scenario.
That is a brief recollection of a time, an era, I lived through and experienced with my own eyes and ears.
Heres Mr Peterson in the hands of Steve McIntyre.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859
Climate AUDIT is certainly needed, sadly.
By the way, this is one of the “urban” areas, according to Peterson:
http://www.trainmuseum.org/Trains/Snoqualmie_Falls.jpg
“If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts.”
(supposed to be a quote from Einstein, but what he meant by this is anyone’s guess)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/702.html
I think this is de facto evidence that this organisation is religious not scientific.
It wishes to issue a report with pre-determined conclusions, rather than record fairly the diversity of views currently prevalent in their research community.
That’s a position.
But it’s not a scientific one.
IMHO.
Gary Strand (10:59:23) :
Oh, I see Gary. Unless one has a PhD in a given subject and is “officially” in the field in question, one can’t understand it. You are just promulgating the BS that “only scientists in the global warming field can understand global warming.” That’s a convenient excuse not to look at the facts, Gary. The truth is that there is much that can be comprehended by the common man. I dare say even you could understand the material in the links I cited. More and more, you appear to be nothing more than a common troll.
As much as they’ve been used by some as poster animals, I’m not sure the polar bears are really the primary concern with accelerated holocene climate change. Even if that’s the case, I thought the claim was that populations would be endangered once sea ice reached a critical point. That is, not the winter sea ice extent (subject to a fair amount of short-term fluctuation from wind and precipitation), but the thickness and minimum summer extent (an indicator of what’s happening with the PERENNIAL ice).
“Warmists deny Copenhagen access to polar bear scientist”
As long as they have the power, they will be silencing the voice of science. It’s evident there is censorship of truth.
Make of this what you will…
“Scientific projections of effects of climate change on sea ice in the Arctic vary— sometimes widely—and so we recommend that model-averaged projections, such as those presented by the 2007 report of the IPCC and 2004 Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment (ACIA), be used to anticipate effects of climate change on the distribution and abundance of polar bears. Projected changes in sea ice in the Arctic as outlined by the IPCC are presented in the chapter of Christensen et al. (2007). In summary, the Arctic is very likely to continue to warm during this century in most areas, and the annual mean warming is very likely to exceed the global mean warming. There will be an increase of 5°C in annual temperature from now to the end of the 21st century (as estimated by the MMD-A1B ensemble mean projection of the IPCC); however, there is a considerable across-model range of 2.8°C to 7.8°C. Warming is projected to be greatest in winter and smallest in summer. Annual arctic precipitation is also very likely to increase in winter. Arctic sea ice is very likely to continue to decrease in extent and thickness, but it is uncertain how circulation patterns in the Arctic Ocean might change.”
Taken from page 16: “COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada”
And guess who’s one of the authors… (page 75)
Dr. Mitch Taylor has devoted the past 30 years of his life to the scientific study and management of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is author to over 40 peer-reviewed journal articles on the species, largely presenting results of his own field-based research program. Mitch is also an author of the 2002 COSEWIC update on the status of polar bears in Canada. Mitch is the Manager of the Wildlife Research Section of the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Environment, and a long-term member of both the PBTC and IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
Lee Kington (11:33:03) : I recall the EPA telling people the ‘rotten egg’ odor coming from their car exhaust was nothing more than sulfur dioxide….. a harmless gas.
I believe the rotting egg smell is hydrogen sulphide.
Frank Lansner (11:28:51) :
Frank Lansner (11:48:23) :
Frank, considering the new WUWT posted article below, I wonder if Peterson ever worked with NOAA? Oh wait, he has. 8^)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%E2%80%9Ccorrections%E2%80%9D/
I find it interesting that Francis as well as Gary Strand cite Peterson et.al as “definitive” science on the 70’s cooling not being a “crisis”, since only Peterson seems to be the only “scientist” in that paper. According to Comment from:
Gordon Robertson September 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus/ ,
[i]One author, William Connolley, is a contributor to realclimate. He’s a computer programmer who works as a computer modeler. He moonlights at Wikipedia making sure any articles on climate follow the peculiar logic of RC. He talks down his nose at Fred Singer, a real scientist who knows far more about the climate than Connolley will ever dream of knowing.
Then there’s John Fleck. He’s a science writer for the Albuquerque Journal. That leaves us with Peterson, who seems to be a legitimate meteorologist. Why would he want to put out a paper with a computer programmer and a writer for a newspaper?[/i]
My comment would be that if Peterson et al itself was included in their research, which pile would it have been placed on? That very paper used a member of the media as one of its authors. So that is the “definitive” paper that is used to separate science from media hype? REALLY? I think Peterson et al proves Anthony’s point that science and media feeds off of each other.
Methinks Anthony has acquired a real fan of his surfacestations project here-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/24/ncdc-writes-ghost-talking-points-rebuttal-to-surfacestations-project/#more-8837