New bear species discovered: Ursus Bogus

The source image linked in the post also has an impossible-to-miss copyright water mark. Whoever bought that image could not have missed that. So, we know not only that Science magazine was professionally negligent, but that whoever chose that picture was intentionally lying.
We can suppose that the letter published by Science did not include the picture. Here’s the full text of the acknowledgment of error by Science, complete with citation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Science 7 May 2010:
“Vol. 328. no. 5979, pp. 689 – 690
“DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5979.689
“Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
“P. H. Gleick et al.
“Correction
“Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it. The original image has been replaced in the online HTML and PDF versions of the article with an unaltered photograph from National Geographic.
“The original image published in error can be seen here (credit: iStockphoto.com).”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An “editorial error,” indeed. Science is very kind to itself. It is impossible that the editor who chose that picture didn’t know it was a composite image. We know that editor consciously composed a lie. Whether others on the editorial staff knew of the lie remains unknown outside of the editorial office of Science Magazine.
Composing and publishing a deliberate and factual lie in a magazine devoted to science ought to be a firing offense. The fact that Science has chosen to excuse itself, twice passing off a deliberate lie as an “error,” shows how far this magazine has descended into corruption.
The fact that Science has compounded its original lie with a second and self-exculpatory lie, all under the banner of “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science” (bolding added), is a bitter irony not to be overlooked.

Adding to my comment above, the editorial behavior of Science, including partisan editorials indulging “denialist” slurs, lying to heap discredit on AGW critical scientists, and possibly partisan rejection of AGW critical climate manuscripts, can be legitimately described as making a “political assault” on honest scientists.
Science magazine, in other words, is very likely guilty of the very charge made in the “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science” letter.
Adding: this comment in the letter, “climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.” is a slander, followed by a lie, followed by a straw man.
Those skeptical of the science supporting AGW are very obviously neither arguing nor denying “climate change” — nor global climate warming, for that matter — nor are they driven by special interests or dogma. They are not “deniers.” The strongest critics of the science underlying AGW, people such as Steve McIntyre, Chris Essex, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and many others, have made their strongest criticisms in the peer-reviewed literature. The letter authors must certainly know this.
The straw man argument is asserting the need to provide an alternative theory in order to level a legitimate objection to current theory. This imposes a false limit on the bounds of science. It is entirely legitimate to criticize a theory as inadequate. It is a strict scientific necessity to show when arguments made in light of that theory are cavalier with uncertainty. The science underlying AGW has been shown severely wanting in both these regards.
The fact that the authors have ignored this demonstration in their letter is silent testimony to their own dogmatic blindness.
REPLY – Well said. ~ Evan
[Concur ~dbs]