Guest essay by Jim Steele,
Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Suggesting impending climate doom, headlines have been trumpeting polar bears are “barely surviving” and “bears are disappearing” prompted by a press release hyping the paper Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline (hereafter Bromaghin 2014), which based on an ongoing US Geological Survey (USGS) study. Dr. Susan Crockford rightfully criticized the media’s fear mongering and failure to mention increasing bear abundance since 2008 here. She also pointed out that modelers have consistently failed to account for the negative impacts of heavy springtime ice here.
I want to reinforce Crockford’s posts, plus argue the problem is much worse than she suggested. Bromaghin 2014’s purported 25 to 50% population decline is simply not real. The unprecedented decline is a statistical illusion generated by the unrealistic modeling of polar bear survival from 2003 to 2007. The highly unlikely estimates of low survival were made possible only by ignoring the documented effect of cycles of heavy springtime sea ice which forces bears to hunt outside the researchers’ study area. Although several of Bromaghin’s co-authors had previously published about negative impacts of heavy springtime ice, they oddly chose to never incorporate that evidence into the USGS models. The following demonstrates how the statistical illusion of “disappearing polar bears” was generated and I urge you to forward your concerns about USGS fear-mongering via subjective modeling to your congressmen and push them to fully investigate these USGS’ polar bear studies.
Perhaps polar bear researchers are just victims of confirmation bias. Co-authors of Bromaghin 2014 have long tied their authority, fame and fortune to predictions of impending polar bear extinctions due to lost summer sea ice. In a 2008 Dr. Andrew Derocher predicted, “It’s clear from the research that’s been done by myself and colleagues around the world that we’re projecting that, by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone from their current populations”. Dr Steve Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bear International and the USGS researcher that initiated the Beaufort Sea studies, previously published “Declines in ice habitat were the overriding factors determining all model outcomes. Our modeling suggests that realization of the sea ice future which is currently projected, would mean loss of ≈ 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by mid-century.”1 Furthermore the USGS’ political reputation is on the line because their studies led to the listing of polar bears as “threatened” due to decreasing summer ice they attributed to CO2 warming. But why do USGS model estimates differ from Inuit experts and the Nunavut government who have steadfastly claimed it is the time of the most polar bears. And why does the USGS’ models differ from numerous surveys (i.e here and here) that support the Inuit claims?
There are 2 major flaws in USGS models:
1) USGS Polar bear researchers tirelessly point to hypothesized stress due to lost summer sea ice, yet they completely ignore much more critical cycles of heavy springtime ice. As previously documented by Bromaghin’s co-authors, the condition of springtime sea ice determines the abundance and/or accessibility of ringed seal pups. Eighty percent or more of the bears’ annual stored fat is accumulated during the ringed seal pupping season that stretches from late March to the first week of May. At that time female bears emerge from their maternity dens to feast on ringed seal pups, and accordingly USGS mark and recapture studies focus virtually all their efforts during the month of April. Yet not one model has incorporated known changes sea ice during that same period. Is that data purposefully omitted because heavy spring time ice does not support their CO2-driven extinction scenarios?
2) Furthermore heavy springtime ice forces movement outside the study area because it prevents local access to seal pups. Any movement outside the study area prevents subsequent recapture and can erroneously cause models to assume emigrant bears are dead. That false assumption creates lower survival estimates which then dramatically lower population estimates. Misinterpreting a temporary or permanent exodus away from a stressful local environment was the same critical error that led to bogus extinction claims for the Emperor Penguins. Coincidently one modeler, Hal Caswell, created both models falsely suggesting Emperor Penguins and Polar Bears are both on the verge of extinction.
1) Why Spring Ice Conditions Are More Critical than Summer Ice.
South Beaufort Sea bears increase their body weight primarily by binging on ringed seal pups, and the bears’ springtime weight gains are huge. Researchers reported capturing a 17-year-old female, with three cubs-of-the-year, in November 1983 when she weighed just 218 lbs. Her weight would have continued to drop, as it does for all bears, throughout the icy winter. Weights do not increase until seal pups become available in late March and April. But after gorging on seal pups, she was recaptured in July and weighed 903 lbs, a four-fold weight change in just 4 months. 2 (her picture is below). The ability to rapidly gain weight, hyperphagia, evolved as a crucial survival strategy to take advantage of abundant but temporary food sources. Springtime ice conditions govern their access to the fleeting availability of ringed seal pups.
In 2001, Bromaghin 2014 co-author Stirling described the negative impacts of heavy rafted springtime ice. “In the eastern Beaufort Sea, in years during and following heavy ice conditions in spring, we found a marked reduction in production of ringed seal pups and consequently in the natality of polar bears.” Stirling noted it took about 3 years for both seal and bear populations to rebound. Stirling also reported the South Beaufort Sea undergoes ~10-year cycles of such heavy ice, and those stressful cycle had been observed in the 70s, 80s and 90s. 5 The most recent cycle of heavy ice is well documented and occurred precisely when bears increasingly exited the study area from 2003 to 2007.
In 2008, Bromaghin 2014 co-authors Stirling, Richardson, Thiemann, and Derocher published Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions. 10 Those researchers had observed that “unusually rough and rafted sea ice extended for several tens of kilometers offshore in the southeastern Beaufort Sea from about Atkinson Point to the Alaska border during the seals’ breeding season from 2003 through 2006”, precisely when their models calculated low survival and a rapid decline in the polar bear population.
Those researchers reported “heavy ice reduces the availability of low consolidated ridges and refrozen leads with accompanying snowdrifts typically used by ringed seals for birth and haul-out lairs.” And they observed, “Hunting success of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) seeking seals was low despite extensive searching for prey. It is unknown whether seals were less abundant in comparison to other years or less accessible because they maintained breathing holes below rafted ice rather than snowdrifts, or whether some other factor was involved.“ (Forcing bears to claw through rafted ice gives the seals ample time to escape.) Polar bears never defend territories. Instead polar bears are highly mobile. Dependent upon seal pups for most of their annual energy supply, a supply that varies annually, bears simply migrate to regions with greater seal abundance.
After giving birth and completing their annual molt by late June, most ringed seals migrate out to sea to fatten and are no longer available to the bears. After late June the amount of sea ice is no longer important habitat for ringed seals. So any correlations with summer sea ice extent from August to November have a relatively insignificant impact on survival. In fact, more open water benefits seals. In a previous essay, Why Less Summer Ice Increases Polar Bear Populations, I explained why ringed seals avoid thick multi-year ice, and why more open water later in the season benefits the whole food web. Bromaghin 2014’s co-author Stirling previously co-authored a paper reporting ringed seals must feed intensively in the open waters of summer in order to store the fat needed to survive the winter, and that seals suffer when sea ice is slow to break up. 4 He pointed out that in 1992 when breakup of sea ice was delayed by 25 days, the body condition of all ringed seals declined resulting in declining body condition of bears. To supplement their diet, bears will feed on a wide array of alternative items from whale carcasses, walruses to geese eggs. Despite the 2nd lowest extent of Arctic summer ice in 2007, researchers on Wrangel Island reported fatter bears than they had previously documented.6 All the evidence suggests summer ice is far less critical than the condition of springtime ice. So is the erroneous focus on summer ice conditions merely driven by researchers predictions that rising CO2 will cause widespread polar bear extinctions in 30 years?
2) Movement Lowers Survival Estimates which Lowers Population Estimates
Bromaghin 2014 authors acknowledged that the observed movement could bias model results, but simply dismissed the observed transiency of wandering bears writing, “The analyses of movement data suggested that Markovian dependency in the probability of being available for capture between consecutive years remains a potential source of bias. However, we view these results with some caution because of the small sample sizes and prior evidence that bears prefer ice in waters over the narrow continental shelf. Further, there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation.” But their dismissal is nothing less than dishonest. Bromaghin 2014 authors had indeed observed that heavy springtime ice resulted in reduced hunting success and reduced body condition and would force bears to hunt elsewhere.
Bromaghin 2014 authors were denying their own evidence. A subset of bears had been radio-collared in order to track their movements. Between 2001-2003 when their study area experienced normal springtime ice conditions, researchers estimated high survival probability and high abundance, and only 24% of the radio-collared females had wandered outside their study area making them unavailable for recapture. In contrast during the years of heavy springtime ice between 2004 and 2006 researchers estimated unprecedented low survival, low abundance and observed an increased number of collared females outside the study area doubling to 47% in 2005 and 36% in 2006. 7,9 Yet Bromaghin 2014 argue “there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation.”
A previous study by Amstrup had mapped the range over which radio-collared bears travelled each year. From his 3 examples illustrated below it is clear that polar bears are not always found in the same place each year. Furthermore in accordance with the changing availability of seal pups due to cycles of heavy springtime ice, he reported polar bears exhibited their lowest fidelity to any given area during the spring pupping season. Finally Amstrup’s map shows bears naturally wander outside the boundaries of the study areas searching for food. Because researchers restricted their search efforts to the east of Barrow Alaska, bears moving in and out of the Chukchi sea area have a far less recapture probabilities. Likewise bears that wander between Alaska and Canada will have different recapture probabilities because different amounts of effort were expended in each country.
Due to movement of bears in and out of the Chukchi Sea region, Amstrup had determined those movements heavily biased previous survival and abundance estimates. 8, 12 Bromaghin 2014 also report that the Chukchi Sea region is more productive than the Beaufort Sea. So it is highly likely that bears migrate between the Beaufort Sea study area and the Chukchi Sea in response to varying periods of localized heavy springtime ice and seal pup availability. So why does Bromaghin 2014 dismiss observed movement bias by arguing “there is no reason to suspect behavior leading to non-random movement during the spring capture season changed during the investigation” and contrary to their own evidence suggest bears would remain in the more productive Chukchi Sea region.
In 2001 Amstrup had previously estimated survival rates of South Beaufort bears as 96.2% and natural survival rates were 99.6% and a population could be more than 2500 bears in 1998. 3 Amstrup reported “polar bears compensate for a low reproductive rate with the potential for long life” (i.e high survival). Because movements of bears into and out of his study area had greatly biased his results he warned, “models that predict rapid increases or decreases in population size would not mirror reality.” Curiouser and curiouser he no longer heeds his own advice. Amstrup and his colleagues suddenly embraced the unprecedented low survival rates of 77%, and a rapid 25 to 50% decline in the population between 2004 and 2008 as seen in their graph of estimated abundance.
In order for their model to generate that unprecedented low survival rate of 77%, (despite no observed change in the trend of body condition for 95% of Beaufort Sea bears) 11 modelers had to dismiss the observed movements outside their study area. Once Bromaghin’s authors had dismissed the significance of springtime movement, their models would interpret a lack of recaptures as an indicator of dead bears which then produced the illusion of a rapidly declining polar bear population.
Below is a table illustrating the simplified effects of historical survival estimates on abundance calculations (assuming no additions from new births and immigration). The numbers listed in the gray columns on the left are the USGS study’s actual number of bears captured annually, and the number of that total capture that were previously marked bears. As the study progressed and newly captured bears are marked, the pool of marked bears increases. If the study area was a closed system, we would expect each year’s total number of captures to consist of an increasingly higher percentage of marked bears once the pool of marked bears was large enough. But each year the number of previously marked bears made up only ~50% of the total captures, suggesting a larger population was more likely than what was currently estimated, and that the length of this study was not yet long enough.
In the simplest models, abundance is determined by dividing the total number of bears captured each year by the percentage of captured marked bears from the pool of previously marked bears. (Read How science Counts Bears for a further discussion of mark and recapture studies) However the size of the pool of marked bears depends upon the bears’ survival probability. To illustrate, for each year I generated 3 different pools according to different historical survival estimates. The resulting change in abundance calculated from those 3 different survival probabilities are highlighted in yellow.
If researchers assumed 100% survival, which is close to Amstrup’s 99.6% in his original study, (but with no additions from birth or immigration) then Bromaghin’s data would estimate a 2010 growing population of 2,255 bears. An estimate that is remarkably similar to Amstrup’s 1998 estimate of ~2500 bears.
If the researchers assumed Amstrup’s 96% survival, a lower survival estimate due to the impact of hunting, then the 2010 abundance would be calculated at 1865 bears. Again remarkably close to Amstrup’s suggested abundance of 1800 for a hunted population.
In the 2006 USGS analyses, 7 the authors interpreted fewer recaptures as an averaged lower survival rate of 92%. A 92% survival rate would produce a stable 2010 population estimate of 1664 bears, which is also 70% higher than Bromaghin’s results.
The only way to generate a tragically declining bear population was to employ much lower survival estimates. And as evidenced by their graph below, that is just what they did for the period of heavy springtime ice with low seal availability and much greater movement out of the study area. When the springtime ice returned to normal so did the bears, and their estimated survival rates likewise returned to the expected high ~95%. The huge error bars in Bromaghin’s survival probabilities (see graph below) during those heavy ice years, illustrates the great uncertainty regards the actual fate of marked bears that were never recaptured.
So we must question why these polar bear researchers ignored their co-author’s earlier warning, “models that predict rapid increases or decreases in population size would not mirror reality.”
Were polar bear researchers blinded by climate change beliefs, or acting dishonestly?
Literature Cited
1. Amstrup (2007) Forecasting the Range-wide Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the
21st Century USGS Science Strategy to Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear
Listing Decision
2. Ramsay, M, and Stirling, I. (1988) Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar
bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology (London) Series A 214:601–634.
3. Amstrup, S. et al. (2001) Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea: A 30-YearMark–Recapture
Case History. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, Volume
6, Number 2, Pages 221–234
4. Chambellant, M. et al. (2012) Temporal variations in Hudson Bay ringed seal (Phoca
hispida) life-history parameters in relation to environment. Journal of Mammalogy,
vol. 93, p.267-281
5. Stirling, I. (2002)Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen
Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three
Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76
6. Ovsyanikov N.G., and Menyushina I.E. (2008) Specifics of Polar Bears Surviving an Ice
Free Season on Wrangel Island in 2007. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Odessa, pp.
407-412.
7. Regehr et al 2006, Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006
8. Amstrup et al (2000) Movements and distribution of polar bears in the Beaufort Sea
Can. J. Zool. Vol. 78, 2000
9. Regehr, E., et al. (2010) Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort
Sea in relation to sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 2010, 79, 117–127
10. Stirling, I. et al. (2008) Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in
the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions.
Arctic, vol 61, p. 14-22.
11. Rode, K. et al. (2007) Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea III: Stature, Mass, and
Cub Recruitment in Relationship to Time and Sea Ice Extent Between 1982 and 2006.
USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Administrative Report.
12. Amstrup, S. and Durner, G. (1995) Survival rates of radio-collared female polar bears
and their dependent young. Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 73. P. 1312‑1322.
Yes, and it worked because they were published.
Thanks so much Jim. That helps a lot.
My answer to your final question, I think, is here:
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-researchers-knew-s-beaufort-population-continued-to-increase-up-to-2012/
By 2012, USFWS data indicates the population DID recover completely.
So why did they stop collecting data in 2010?
They’ve got a IUCN polar bear assessment due in June 2015 that demands them showing a decline of at least 30% within 30-36 years – they need at least one population that shows such a decline. Now they have it.
And we know that this is what they intend to use because the press release said that the 2010 estimate of ~900 bears (range 606-1,212) [from the Bromaghin et al. 2014 paper] will be included in the next Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) for the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) assessment.
The PBSG have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the models used by Amstrup to get polar bears listed as ‘threatened’ in 2008 by the US FWS won’t cut it for this assessment.
See here: http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/29/amstrup-knows-his-polar-bear-predictions-are-flawed-but-continues-to-promote-them/
They are doing what they have to do to keep polar bears listed as ‘vulnerable’ by the IUCN – anything else would be a huge embarrassment.
I would say “desperate” is the appropriate word.
Dr. Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience
+10
Jim and Susan,
Your contributions to my understanding of polar bears and arctic life in general is greatly appreciated.
It is absolutely sad that seemingly everything in modern times has become politicized to the point that the truth is a much revered nugget in a sea of deceit.
Now to be just a bit sarcastic, when will the polar bears be dropped as an icon to global warming and the baby ringed seals take their place. Baby seals look really cute and cuddly and are less vicious and dangerous.
I mean no disparaging remarks for a polar bear as it is truly the monarch of the arctic.
Thanks again.
Thanks for your clear words, Dr. Crockford.
I have placed links to polarbearscience.com in my climate and meteorology pages.
nest time someone says that global warming is bad for polar bears, ask them why polar bears hibernate in the winter and not in the summer.
if polar bears prefer cold, why do they not hibernate in the summer when ice is at a minimum and remain active in the winter when ice is at a maximum?
the simple facts is that the hibernation pattern of polar bears tells that they prefer warmth to cold.
I don’t think you can tie temperature to their hibernation period. I think the period would reflect availability of food. I can’t imagine them hibernating during the period of most available food.
Jeff,
You sort of make Ferd’s point.
I thought that they don’t actually hibernate. As I understand it, the pregnant females will den for several months while giving birth (but not true hibernation), while males and non-pregnant females stay active throughout the whole year.
SteveT
Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
This is a great post, ….
Just stumbled upon this site, and wish it could of been earlier …
To do what the perps did in this case would require dishonesty aforethought, but it’s possible that some other “researchers” might merely be blinded by their beliefs.
“Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?”
Yes.
I agree–I don’t see any difference in the options. Gruberization comes to mind, too.
Excellent post, thank you! You have reminded me why I was attracted to the field of biology 40 years ago. Nature is remarkably resilient.
The belief of polar bear “researchers” is a Faith not an Empiric study or a Therory of Science thesis analyzed,,,
Personally I am still asking the same question I have done for many years: Where have all the money gone….
Question: Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?
Answer: Noble Lie – done for the better good.
Rationales:
1. Even If Polar Bears are not threatened (.e. threatened status), the limit on resource extraction in the Arctic that will come from a Public’s false belief in threatened status will be the end that justifies the means.
2. A current example of a “Gruberism.” The People are too dumb to know what is best for them. They must be lied to in order to achieve what is in the their interest even if they would conclude otherwise if they knew all the facts. Hiding of facts and costs are thus necessary.
Or ignoble lie, to preserver their funding from big government.
Excellent take-down. How does such crap get through review? You should send your post to the editors.
Thomas I intend to submit an official rebuttal to Ecological Applications but I am not optimistic that the politics will allow it to get published. I sought an retraction from a blatantly deceptive article( http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html ) but to no avail.
It gets through “review” because “review” has been so hopelessly and politically corrupted that in almost every mainstream journal, it is little more than a sick joke. If anyone gives a “bad” review to a Politically Correct article, the only response is that this reviewers comments are tossed, and he (or she) will be blacklisted from performing any more “reviews”.
What happens out here, on the net, is the only Review that means anything anymore. The journals are nothing but highbrow tabloid trash, and should be treated as such.
And that’s why I have cancelled those journals
Belief against demonstrated evidence is not rational.
Thus, it is clear, such “scientists” are:
1. Irrational to the point of insanity.
or
2. Lying.
(a third option, a pitiably low IQ, is impossible (unless senility is the cause) given their academic achievements).
That is, to answer your question, Professor Steele, they are NOT blinded by sincerely held, rational, beliefs. They are simply either psychotic or cynical l1ars in the pay (ultimately) of windmill and or solar panel promoters.
*!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!**!*!*
And, since it is December 1st…. and we are near the North Pole here….
MERRY CHRISTMAS and a song!
In the spirit of Christmas…
even those rotten l1ars can change!
Come on, you corrupt ol’ money-grubbers, you! #(:))
Put One Foot in Front of the Other (sung by Mickey Rooney)
Yes! The Virtual Advent Calendar is back!
(and NO, not by popular demand…. not by minority demand…. not by …. any…. demand……. at all….
just me, sua sponte… hope you can stand it….)
Love you guys!
Janice
#(:))
“(a third option, a pitiably low IQ, is impossible (unless senility is the cause) given their academic achievements).”
I wouldn’t jump too fast to that conclusion considering the current output of the climate science and related communities. It apparently no longer takes intelligence, just being a ‘true believer’, to dream up and publish most of the drivel that comes out of government funded climate related research, just using proper buzz words with the right catch-phrasing earns passing ‘reviews’ and fast publication. And, when the professors get away with it they can’t exactly dock their grad students for doing the same. Thus, year by year, it has all slowly evolved from what might have at one time been a budding science into nothing more than the ‘junk science’ of today.
Are you a judge? I’ve only seen sua sponte (on the court’s own initiative), in legal cases.
No, dear Mr. Mitchell. I have sat on many benches, but not that one. While sua sponte is, indeed, used almost exclusively in the U.S. in court pleadings, as you no doubt know, the phrase is much older than either English or American or any Western jurisprudence… and judges are not the only ones who many use it… .
Are you in Quality Control… you remind me of someone….
or, perhaps, you are just a jester about the court?
#(:))
The fact is scientists like everyone else are human. When one’s pet theory is in jeopardy it’s natural to resist counterfactuals especially when said theory that has been years in the making is threatened. Science has always operated like this. Nobody pours their life into something then says “well I guess I was wrong” and walks away.
So to answer your question I’d say both.
My perception is that Science hasn’t always been this obviously venal. I think there has been a gradual change contemporaneous with the flooding of academia with egotistical pseudoliberals. The first things these liberals liberate themselves from are truth and logic.
Jorge:
“The first things these liberals liberate themselves from are truth and logic”
To which could be added:
“And the first thing they liberate for themselves is taxpayers money .”
I agree. There’s definitely been a change over the past 3-5 decades.
I’d say you’re right but neither.
Nobody pours (very few people would pour) their life into something then says “well I guess I was wrong” and walks away. But that is OK.
Fighting for ones viewpoint makes the corrections more certain. The corrections need to be good to overcome the entrenched position. It is the duty of the scientist to stand by their position until it becomes completely untenable – and few things are that. Exceptional results happen all the time but then they don’t pan out. Polar Bears aren’t robots. They can’t be excepted to be 100% predictable.
The model still may be right most of the time.
Admittedly having been caught put with the Emperor Penguins in the past is a trifle embarrassing but…
Yes.But mainly the latter.
The ones up here, NWT Canada are on par with the bureaucrats who hire and protect them.
Donna Laframboise has described them in the past.
Proudly activists first and biologists never.
Policy based data manufacturing being the required skill set.
Retributive justice may be served by releasing these leeches into the wild.
Could be the reason they never seem to do field research… be a real shame if the plane never returned.
“Could be the reason they never seem to do field research” ? ???
I seem to remember some ship – or other – freezing in – in Antarctica some Southern summertime ago.
Nice work Jim. Three weeks ago, a show aired on one of the “outdoor” channels featuring an Alaskan Polar Bear hunt, Adventure hunter Jim Shocky is always deferential to aboriginal populations that assist him on his hunts. Long story short; the native elders were complaining that the increasing Polar Bear population made for hard luck when it came to killing seals.
Perhaps an enterprising scholar might consider qualitative research based on indigenous reports of bear and seal sightings?
The poley bear fable was repeated Saturday on the CBC “science” show Quirks and Quarks. You can treat yourself to this story by clicking on http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Quirks+and+Quarks/ID/2619828532/
Ian M
And listen to how Andrew Derocher skillfully implies, for all the CBC listeners, that the population “crash” was caused by summer sea ice declines.
In what universe is that scientific integrity?
I am a biologist and I am appalled. I’ve been on that show – I am a peer of Derocher.
And this morning, I wrote to Bob McDonald at Quirks and Quarks and told him so.
Susan Crockford, PolarBearScience
Dear Dr. Crockford,
Good for YOU. Thank you for all that you, a genuine scientist, are doing for the truth. Don’t give up. Truth wins out in the end. Always. Whether we will live to see the end of the war really doesn’t matter, just so we do our part, in the roles we are handed, in the battles to which we are assigned. What matters is that we aid the side of Right to the best of our ability with whatever weapons we are given. You are doing MAGNIFICENTLY.
Gratefully,
Janice
Quirks and Quarks used to be one of my favourite shows but their repeated failure to look critically at anything to do with global warming has turned me away forever. If they are so obviously biased on this topic, on what else are they biased? They used to respond to my letters with a standard party line but now they don’t even do that. I fear I may be blacklisted. Would be happy to hear what sort of response you get. I’m afraid CBC ain’t what she used to be.
+ 100
Wow, just wow. Two if my favorite posters on WUWT commenting in the same thread. Double WOW!!!!!
@ Stan Stendera — you are so cool. Whether or not I’m one of those two, your greathearted praise is A JOY TO READ. You do much, month after month, to brighten the pages of WUWT, dear Stan. And that is very much needed around here… . Your sweetness and light does much to dispel the arrogant, truth-choking, smoke of the occasional self-satisfied, gloweringly gloomy (and unfairly inaccurate, to boot) writer… (both in my personal In Box and on WUWT) .
Your grateful WUWT pal,
Janice
P.S. Please say “Hi” to Libby, sing a cheery note or two to the little birds on the rail, and tell Schmidt “Merry Christmas” (shudder) :).
Ole McDonald is still good for a laugh even though he is a shameless Global Warming promoter. A few years ago he walked across the shot right in front of His Highness Peter Mansbridge, the anchor of CBC TV’s The National. What a Dufus!
Dr Crockford, I look forward to your next Quirks and Quarks interview. I hope you haven’t been blacklisted.
I don’t think I have ever listened to a Quirks and Quarks episode in my life, and I’m a Canadian. Then again, I have never watched a professional hockey game in my life either, except on TV and two games between “amateur” teams at the winter Olympics in Calgary (when pros were still not allowed to participate), one of them being the East German team.
Of course you can tell a lot about skill in science by studying skill (or otherwise) with language:
“In a 2008 Dr. Andrew Derocher predicted, “It’s clear from the research that’s been done by myself and colleagues around the world that we’re projecting that, by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone from their current populations”.”
With the animal’s expected life span of a little more than 30 years in the wild it would be quite true to predict that ALL the polar bears will be gone from their current populations 40-years on.
Yes, the borderline between duplicity and lying can be a very narrow one.
1. Again, good work Jim.
2. I am waiting for the wizards to model the Arctic Hare, Arctic Fox relationship. They will either come up with the foxes going extinct or the rabbits going extinct.
3. It would not surprise me if the Polar Bear, Ringed Seal relationship, has some similar cyclicity to to the fox, rabbit relationship.
They are dishonest and should go to jail.
Don’t they have to sign some paperwork to get the grants that they won’t lie and they will do quality work? Is this a fraud perpetrated on the Federal Government? Perhaps someone should file a Whistleblower lawsuit.
“ won’t lie and they will do quality work”
Not that I’ve seen. Mostly they just promise to produce a report.
If the funding is private, perhaps they do promise to lie.
“ won’t lie and they will do quality work”
Dang, if that was the requirement every government employee in the northern hemisphere would be tossed!!!
wws, most people don’t lie. If only because it is too high risk if they are caught.
And most people do work of the quality that is required. If only because they want to be employed again.
The problem comes when the quality that is required is not high enough to distinguish sloppiness from deception.
In this case the quality that is required is obviously low. Why wouldn’t it be?
If the polar bears aren’t all dead or endangering anyone – well, that’s all that any Government really needs to know.
I would like to do something meaningful to counter this. I would like to vote for someone who will work against CAGW waste. Can you identify any prospective candidates in any upcoming elections I and others can support and vote for to reverse this continuing problem? Anyone? It is in the voter’s booth that this problem will be reversed yet it is so very difficult to know who our leaders should be. After 40 years of climate debate I don’t understand why this should be so. We are not working on the solution.
Jim, my rule of thumb is, never ascribe to dishonesty what is adequately explained by noble cause corruption. The problem is well expressed in the song that says;
Noble cause corruption is one of the most seductive things I can think of. You see, if you truly and fervently believe that you are acting in the best interest of the [pick one ] polar bears / the environment / future generations / bonobo chimpanzees / whatever floats your boat, then minor transgressions are perfectly acceptable. You hear what you want to hear and disregard the rest. It starts with something small, like not mentioning some fairly insignificant adverse result … but one step over the line leads to a larger one, and before long, the noble corruptee is up to their ears in Climategate—lying, and subverting the IPCC, and packing the peer-review boxes, and destroying evidence sought by a Freedom of Information act, and committing mail fraud, and the like.
Heck, it’s so common that we have a folk saying about it:
In other words, the fact that our adversaries are trying to lead us down the totally wrong road is NOT evidence that they have bad intentions.
Unfortunately, far too much of the climate science establishment thinks that’s all just fine. Peter Gleick was feted for committing mail fraud, because you see, he was Saving The World™.
So I would be very cautious about claiming that the polar bear researchers are dishonest. I’m sure that they would strenuously, and likely correctly, say that was not true.
Unfortunately, however, some of them are very clearly the victims of noble cause corruption.
Next, your headline sucks. You can’t accuse an entire group of people of wrongdoing, even in a headline. You can accuse the authors of a certain paper, or you can accuse certain people by name, IF you have damn good evidence. But not “polar bear researchers”, that’s far too broad.
Next, in my world an accusation of dishonesty is one of the very worst accusations you can make. I grew up with cowboys who had little but their pride. If you accused a man of lying, as my momma used to say, “Them’s fightin’ words”.
So if you made that accusation, you damn well better have indisputable proof of the person lying. And it was certainly not something to get all coy about. Saying “Either you are mistaken or you are lying.” is the same as accusing a man of lying. That’s the “lie with circumstance”.
Nor is mine an unusual view, just an anachronistic one. Giving a man the “lie direct” was the worst offense back in the day. Here’s Shakespeare on the subject:
And in the day, the “lie direct” was grounds for a duel. I learned this from my grandmother, who used to quote her own father, “The Captain”. He said it, and us grandkids believed it:
Now, I’m not that radical, he was a man of the 1800’s … but truly, Jim, accusing an entire group of people of dishonesty doesn’t advance your arguments in the slightest.
In fact, almost all speculation about your adversaries’ motives is counterproductive. I often don’t understand my own motives until well after the fact, if at all … so I’m reluctant to speculate on the motives of others.
Finally, attacking your adversaries’ motives just makes you look weak. The assumption has to be that if you start attacking motives, you’re out of scientific arguments … and while that may not be the case, it sure does look like the case to anyone looking in from the outside.
Best regards,
w.
Nice
Willis,
You ignore the politicization of science. The USGS has been heavily politicized under the present administration, and indeed been turned into a tool of the alarmists. Dr. Steele and Dr. Crawford are to be commended for exposing this politicized science for what it is. Politicized science leads to impure motives.
What on earth do you imagine is meant by “Noble Cause Corruption?
Your censorous, sermonizing condemnation of Dr. Jim Steele, Dr. Susan Crawford is wrong, and has sullied the motives of those two.
So climb down off of your high horse.
You might wish to consider an apology for your comment because as Shakespeare also says:
“It is a long worm that has no turning.”
Where did Shakespeare say that?
Not attributed to Shakespear but possibly what you meant: “It is a long road that has no turning”
Shakespeare didn’t write that, but in Henry VI, Part 3, Lord Clifford says, “The smallest worm will turn being trodden on”.
Exactly right.
And also consider this – if you attack motives you attack the psychology of another person.
You can’t know as much about their motives as they do – they know themselves inside out.
Plus you are limited by the uncertainty in the science of psychology.
Better to stick to the polar bear numbers. Make the science your home ground.
Courtney,
“Make science your home ground.”
#####
Show us where Dr. Jim Steele did otherwise, I pray you.
Lots of science there. That’s why I urged him to stay on that ground. But this conclusion:
This conclusion is not science.
Apart from the excluded middle it relates to motivations – not observations.
Perhaps you think more highly of psychology than me?
But even if you do – would you analyse an individual from their papers published in collaboration?
M Courtney I did not come to a “conclusion” . I asked a purposefully provocative question seeking an explanation to why some polar bear researchers are ignoring their own evidence, so I asked “Were polar bear researchers blinded by climate change beliefs, or acting dishonestly?” I can certainly accept most researchers are simply blinded by their beliefs. Yet there is ample evidence of dishonest comments, Call it noble cause corruption but the point is we must call into question headlines those researchers are promoting that claim the polar bear is going extinct because the science does not support it.
So do you think think the researchers faithfully represented the evidence i presented?
jim Steele, I think you have a good point on the science.
I think they have made a right poop of the evidence. Not proving that the polar bears don’t roam away when the food gets scarce is a bit of a faux pas.
The evidence – the science – I like that. Repeatedly I have said “stick to the science”.
But is it dishonesty or self-deception? It may not be either.
So why raise such a purposefully provocative question that sounds like “have you stopped beating your wife”?
Help the beaten wife, yes. Prove who beat the wife, sure. But don’t start making accusations because she could have just tripped over the cat.
As I said elsewhere, most people try not to lie because it’s too risky and wrong.
Most people try to do work that’s good enough because they want more work.
But in this case, what level of work was good enough? They got published. They hit their deadlines. They haven’t been proven wrong yet (keep going – you soon will). They have done good enough work.
And if you don’t keep going – instead diverting onto shame before forcing acknowledgment of the blame – their work will always be “good enough”.
If they make statements or research decisions (what to include or exclude in the studies) which they should know are false or misleading, even if it is due to willis’ noble cause corruption, it is still dishonest. It is impossible for a reasonable person to believe that they can publish research conclusions at one point in time and then ignore them without explanation in follow on research, and not be aware of the contradictions. The only other possibility is that they are of exceptionally poor intellect. I would think the odds of the latter being quite low.
Willis, normally I agree with you in such spats, but i don’t think your problem with the title is correct in this case. The logic of the title is A or B? Therefore Not B implies A. Since you’re asserting A then it doesn’t matter the value of B. Of course if this is intended as an exclusive or, then we can say if A then Not B. In either case, there’s no definitive claim of dishonesty. Finally the question format of the title can simply be considered as a whole and answered with a “yes” or “no”, though the comma in the middle may obviate that possibility.
Willis, you are correct of course, he painted with too broad of a brush, not all of the climatologists are lying and making fraudulent claims. I have actually read a few who didn’t, of course they were either fired or lost their funding. I suppose though that the exception proves the rule.
Willis, your notion of victimization through noble cause corruption as you state it is interesting;
“In other words, the fact that our adversaries are trying to lead us down the totally wrong road is NOT evidence that they have bad intentions.”
“So I would be very cautious about claiming that the polar bear researchers are dishonest. I’m sure that they would strenuously, and likely correctly, say that was not true.
Unfortunately, however, some of them are very clearly the victims of noble cause corruption.”
From position of “looking in from the outside” it seems as though your vision of polar bear researchers as a “victim of this or a victim of that” (Eagles) is an attempt to excuse biased behaviour, whatever the motivation may be for it, by modifying Jim’s attributions. However, noble cause corruption, the flaming juggernaut of anthropogenic climate change, is not a statutory category as suggested by your cautionary statement “Peter Gleick was feted for committing mail fraud, because you see, he was Saving The World™”, it is merely an idea, and therefore subject to the the suggestion and evaluation of motives by all of those who are skeptical of its’ premise.
Might I suggest in active contrast to your Simon and Garfunkel ditty, that in regards to your noble corruption notion;
“You drag it around like a ball and chain
You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
Got your mind in the gutter, bringin’ everybody down
Complain about the present and blame it on the past
I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass
Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin’ and moanin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it, get over it ” (Eagles: Get over it)
If there is any issue I have presented which causes you concern please list it and “I’ll give it a shot” at clarification.
Well said, Willis, thanks. Noble cause corruption is most probably a better description of the cause of this problem.
But your “Next, your headline sucks. You can’t accuse an entire group of people of wrongdoing, even in a headline. You can accuse the authors of a certain paper, or you can accuse certain people by name, IF you have damn good evidence. But not “polar bear researchers”, that’s far too broad.” goes right overboard and was lost to me.
Dr. Steele does name names and shows evidence. The headline is just a headline, details follow.
An improved headline might read
Otherwise we would include Susan Crockford!
Some polar bear researchers are not blinded by belief. They are aware of what thick springtime ice does to polar bear feeding. If they make a conscious decision not to input this information into their models then they are being dishonest. If they are not aware of the effects of thick spring ice then they should get out of polar bear research, but we know that they are aware which makes them dishonest.
How’s about a bit of good old Ockham real-life simplicity:
‘Polar Bears migrate when ice levels become too thick for feeding holes.’
Why go any further to inflate wordy science-egos?
Willis, some of your comments tend to baffle me. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to follow them. But allow me to quote from your above comments and explain why they perplex me. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood your intent.
Quote:
“So I would be very cautious about claiming that the polar bear researchers are dishonest. I’m sure that they would strenuously, and likely correctly, say that was not true. Unfortunately, however, some of them are very clearly the victims of noble cause corruption.”
Would you rather be accused of being “corrupt” or “dishonest”? I fail to see much difference. Corruption is a form of dishonesty. “Noble cause” is simply the motive for the corruption. But isn’t it pretty much the same thing as being “blinded by belief”? It is “belief” in a noble cause that blinds someone to their own corruption over time. So I fail to see a real difference between your accusation of “noble cause corruption” and Jim’s suggestion that they may be “blinded by belief.”
Quote:
“Next, your headline sucks. You can’t accuse an entire group of people of wrongdoing, even in a headline. You can accuse the authors of a certain paper, or you can accuse certain people by name, IF you have damn good evidence. But not “polar bear researchers”, that’s far too broad.”
Perhaps he should have written, “Are ‘These’ Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?” to avoid painting all researchers with a broad brush. But it is clear from the context of the article who he is referring to.
If you had quoted the headline, you would have noticed that it contained an “or” and ended in a “?”. Jim was not making a direct accusation, he was asking a question. Anyone, including the researchers themselves, is free to answer the question. You gave your own answer, Willis, which was “noble cause corruption.” But to me, that is just a form of being “blinded by belief.” So I fail to see what the disagreement is.
Quote:
‘Saying “Either you are mistaken or you are lying.” is the same as accusing a man of lying. That’s the “lie with circumstance”.’
I find it interesting that when you finally get around to quoting something Jim said, it isn’t something he actually said. I’ve seen you get very upset with people who do that to you, Willis. You always insist that they quote you exactly. But be that as it may, accusing someone of making a mistake is not the same as accusing them of lying. Mistakes can be inadvertent. Lies are deliberate. People make mistakes all the time, even scientists with advanced degrees. But honest people want to be told when they have made a mistake so they can correct it. Jim presented the evidence for two possibilities. Either they made an inadvertent mistake that they should correct, or they did it deliberately to support a cause. The reader can decide for themselves.
Yes, Jim could have worded the headline better, but why not point it out in a friendly manner instead of being so caustic? Trying to organize a circular firing squad is not productive.
I like the articulation of distinguishing between falsehood (simply untrue) and a lie (a falsehood intended to deceive). Being wrong isn’t necessarily a lie. Also, determining motive is not necessary to prove a statement is a lie. The proof or answer to the headline question is shown when the researchers named do or do not correct their error.
I feel it is important to know if they are lying or not. If they are lying on the polar bear issue, they can’t possibly be doing it for our own good. They have stated that polar bear populations are in trouble. If that is not true, there is no point to lying since no harm will come to the animals, and no behavior of ours will change that unless we start over hunting them.
I believe that knowing what the motive is, is also important. With the climate change alarmists, it seems that as each of their premises’ are destroyed, they make up new even more irrational claims which are inconsistent with the science, so I think it is clear that something other than our own good is motivating these people. As Willis has pointed out, motivations are a bit tricky In Tim Ball’s essay on the big lie and how it is propagated, he might have pointed out that motivations for various groups may differ. In differing they still can be united under a single policy if it appears to accomplish their objectives. Thus a coalition can be formed, get the policy instituted, then be split up and discarded after the damage is done.
IF it was clear that polar bears were not in trouble at the moment and they are OK, what do you think would happen to polar bear research funding? ONE of the motives in CAGW research is MONEY. We don’t say ‘FOLLOW THE MONEY‘ for nothing. PS is following money Ignoble Cause Corruption or Noble Cause Corruption?
Well put Louis.
Willis does tend to think his world is the one we all should live in.
Willis,
Doesn’t your cowboy upbringing tell you that corruption is corruption, no matter the cause? My upbringing was of a son of an immigrant coal miner. My dad passed on the advice from grandpa that there are three things you never want to give people cause to call you. A liar, a cheat or a thief. And in the case of the researchers named by Dr Steele, there is evidence they are either lying or cheating. Which one doesn’t really matter.
Definition of dishonest.
Omitting information which you know has bearing on your research is being dishonest. An honest person would include it. A liar is being dishonest. A person who omits known relevant data is being dishonest. Some polar bear scientists are NOT lying, but are being dishonest. Papers have been retracted for such kinds of behaviour.
An important requirement of “noble cause corruption” argument is the lack of monetary interest; because “noble” like the gases, requires a certain detachment from base causes.
The capture of Science by the Government, a threat Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell Address (in addition to the more famous Military Industrial Complex) through becoming predominant providers of grant money has had many negative effects on Science, foremost though is that it automatically brings Venal Corruption into the equation of any outcome. The Government’s near monopoly on these grants (particularly for discipline’s that do not have commercial application), because they become the main requirement for publication, and publication is necessary to receive tenure, and tenure leads to lifetime employment and fiscal security (a benefit in its own right worth millions of dollars (as well as freedom from anxiety), automatically raises questions about corruption whenever the results closely align to what the government wants them to be.
This may be unfair for the Scientists, however it is a natural outcome of the situation. What is more likely? That they are so naive and pure not to understand where the butter from their bread is coming from, or that they act like most humans and go with where their material interest is flowing?
An argument of “noble causes” would require the person to be detached from this flow, or at least to show some willingness to sacrifice (which again is what made nobles “noble”) themselves to stand against it. When material benefit is so strong, the case of nobility is extremely weakened, and should not be assumed without some independent evidence. Show me a Scientist who has given up tenure or funding because of their adherence to wrong information, and I would conceded that the person may have “noble cause” rather than being dishonest. This isn’t only true of Scientists, but of all occupations, ranks, and people. Scientists like to assume integrity (they only search for the “truth”) but that coin has to be earned not assumed, as such they should not be grant indulgences without reason.
In all honesty the title of this piece should have been “Researchers acting dishonest, or are merely blinded by belief”, because for most people the former is generally more likely than the latter. Why should Scientists be treated differently?
So your attack on the writer is very misplaced, the title was extremely fair, your attack less so, and indeed misplaced. I understand that we “deniers” want to be superior to the fanatics who use such terms, but this desire should never interfere with making simple declarative statements. Researchers who overlook their own evidence, or ignore evidence they should have been aware of, are acting dishonestly, whether for noble causes or not. This dishonesty is heightened because a Scientist (or Historian) generally has implied integrity, which in turn demands a higher form of honesty.
The whole belief in the integrity of Science was summed up by T. Huxley that a Scientist should sit down before a fact like a child and let it take you where it will. When a Scientist allows themselves to be swayed, they are being dishonest, that the cause is “noble” is only a mitigating circumstance.
Your comment was pretty intense. You have my agreement. 😉
Well said Takuan!
Brilliant post but I am disgusted by the authors of the Bromaghin 2014 study. This appears to me as criminal fraud for personal gain. Thanks also to Dr. Susan Crockford, I am sure challenging the orthodoxy requires substantial professional sacrifice.
Jim Steele and Susan Crockford should not only be commended for their work; they should be featured prominently in the MSM. instead the german news agency, dpa, is spreading the following story, which Gulf Times has picked up in the english version, tho no doubt it’s been published elsewhere in german:
2 Dec: Deutsche Presse-Agentur: UPDATE NEWS FEATURE Polar bear fights to survive, and climate politics do little to help
By Georg Ismar
The polar bear has become the standard bearer for the threat. In 2004, there were still 1,500 polar bears in Alaska and in north-western Canada, but more recently they were down to only about 900.
“The summer pack ice in the sea has been shrinking for years, and without ice, bears lack a platform from which to hunt seals. That makes survival increasingly difficult, especially for young animals,” said Sybille Klenzendorf, of the Global Arctic Programme run by the environmental organization World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)…
Half of the carbon dioxide emissions directly caused by humans since 1750 have been produced since 1970. Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam-based Institute for Climate Research, has a chart that shows the warmest summers in Europe since 1500: 2010, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2007…
http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/updatenews-featurepolar-bear-fights-to-survive-and-climate-politics-do-little-to-helpby-georg-ismar-dpa-a-43440503.html
Yesterday I caught an ad on a UK TV channel from an organisation apparently linked to the WWF , since an icon for it appeared in the ad. It was a plea, accompanied by pictures of polar bears stranded on shrinking ice floes, for people to “adopt ” a polar bear cub for just £3 / month. I assume that you do not get to take it home, but perhaps they harpoon the poor starving mite with a tag with your name on it – or maybe they “sell” the same cub many times over.
No doubt many thousands of people will donate £36 /year . Nice little earner as they say.
I think the ads are from WWF they have been pushing them really hard on several commerical TV channels on the lead up to Christmas (tiz the season to milk the Christmas Spirit).
The video Images in the ads include:
a ‘mother’ bear with 3 cubs all lying down on ice looking ‘forlorn’,
a group of penguins all huddling together on a tiny iceberg.
and another about Snow Lepoards.
For only £3 per month …
What does WWF do with all these £3s, do they go out and feed the bears, penguins?
Or ship in fresh ice for them?
I get weekly emails from Amstrup’s Polar Bear International asking for donations to save the polar bears and WWF made similar TV adds. The “endangered” polar bear has been gold mine.
Get on my back honey.
Eschenbach’s willy waving with his cowboy background is quite tedious. Once more, Mr.Eschenbach, it’s not about you but polar bear science…
Hoi Polloi December 1, 2014 at 11:39 pm
I do love a man who refuses to deal with the ideas I’ve put forth, and instead simply deals in shabby attempted character assassination … clearly Hoi is an honorable man in the best Shakespearian sense.
w.
Willis I feel you “refused to deal with the ideas I’ve put forth”
Thanks, Jim. You identified your main issue in your headline, “Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly”. I’ve certainly dealt with that issue in some detail, so I fear I don’t understand your objection.
In any case, what other issues did you want me to deal with? I’m happy to deal with other issues as well as with your main issue, so give me a list and I’ll give it a shot.
w.
If we were dealing with honorable and respectable people, then your advice would be necessary. But the evidence has convinced me, and many others, that we are not, and furthermore, the evidence has convinced me that our enemies trade on their veneer of “respectability” and faux “honor” in order to push their cause among the public. A public which will pay NO attention to anything that takes more than 140 characters to explain – that is the reality of the world we live in today. The public will never hear, or pay attention to, nicely reasoned articles which point out that the methodology is incorrect.
Therefore, it is NOT enough to just show that they are scientifically wrong – that has been done, and done, and done to death. It’s nice, but ineffective under the current circumstances. We have to attack the entire idea and image of these as “respectable” and “honorable” people, which they are not, and we must destroy their public personas and reputations, as they seek to destroy ours. Our enemies are flooding the public with “POLAR BEARS ARE DYING!!!” We have to strike back with “RESEARCHERS ARE LIARS!!!” That’s the state of public discourse today, like it or not. And that is why I find Jim Steele’s headline perfectly appropriate. Never forget, every message to the public today has got to be 140 characters or less, if you want to break through the noise. More words than that and you disapear into the clutter of modern life.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, this is a war to the death, for all of us. Our enemies know it, and we better know it.
And this acknowledgement may cause many people to drop out of the fight altogether – that’s unfortunate, but naming the truth of things doesn’t add or detract from the reality. It Is what It Is.
wws, the problem with that call is that it would apply even if the scientists aren’t lying. It is just a strategy to win the argument. That is a wrong action if they aren’t lying.
But as you say you are convinced that they are lying I’ll run with that fort the sake of argument and think it through.
Is it easier to persuade someone that scientists are dishonest or mistaken?
Pointing out that polar bears wander off and may not actually drown out of sight is quite funny; that is easy to explain.
Suggesting some nefarious collusion to get the chance to publish papers that nobody but the colluders will read (and a few people here but…); that is not an easy sell.
You can’t throw mud without getting muddy. And that isn’t welcome in polite society.
But stick to the science and you will be listened to, if you are heard.
MCourtney uses the words lying three times in his comment at 7:54 am and insinuates that Dr. Steele used this word in his post. In fact, Jim Steele neither used the word lie, liar, lying, nor lied nor any such phrase. Then MCourtney insinuates that Dr. Steele is throwing mud in his post. Now isn’t that something?
Likewise Willis e in his first comment above uses the word lie or lies or lying eight times and insinuates that Dr. Steele used such terms when in fact he did not.
But will Willis apologize for such sleazy tactics? Probably not.
mpainter December 2, 2014 at 9:18 am
Look, m, if you say something and I accuse you of dishonesty in the saying of it, that’s accusing you of lying. You can put all the pretty faces on it you want, you can argue all of the shades of meaning you want. But in this context, saying a person’s words are dishonest is the same as saying that they are lying.
That is, unless Jim Steele has a new definition for “dishonesty”, in which case I’ll stand corrected … but I’ll have to hear that from him, not you, along with a cogent explanation of how calling someone’s words dishonest is not accusing them of lying …
w.
You will continue to hear from me on this issue.
If a journalist attributes certain expressions to a person, by insinuation or directly, he has violated the code of decency.
Jim Steele never used the words that you have insinuated to him. He owes you no explanation.
You, however, owe him an apology and a retraction. That you will not do this is your measure.
Jim Steele, thank you for this excellent post and I wish you success in your endeavor to get your study published.
I encourage you in your very worthwhile work and I hope to see more of your thoughts posted here. It is refreshing viewpoint that you present from the life sciences, concerning the dubious alarmist science that we all deplore, or most of us, anyway. Do not worry about the censorious, moralizing types, these are not to be taken seriously.
mpainter, if you accuse someone of “acting dishonestly” then you are accusing them of deliberately trying to mislead. That is an accusation of lying.
You can lie through words.
Or you can lie through actions.
The accusation was made that these scientists were “acting dishonestly”. Acting implies actions. To quibble that he didn’t say that these words were lies is irrelevant. He made the accusation of lying by actions.
Here is a definition of the word dishonest for those who have English as a second or third language.
If you want to claim that an accusation of “acting dishonestly” isn’t an accusation of lying then… well, your welcome to your opinion.
Shakespeare created new words too, after all.
@ Willis
Please detail why arguing “noble cause corruption” is any different from my suspicions of dishonesty.
My choices were 1) blinded by beliefs implying unconscious bias that manipulate data. That blindness is something we all fall victim, and perhaps that is what you prefer “Nobel corruption”. Nonetheless you are implying dishonest results as well. 2) My 2nd choice of “acting dishonestly” implies a more conscious effort to distort the facts. And although most people may not consciously lie, we would be naive to ever argue such things do not happen, and more naive to put scientists on a pedestal of “always honest” as has been done. Simply read the Retraction Watch blog about how many articles, data, images and reviews have been falsifies consciously. I reported substantial evidence that was being withheld and consciously avoided. I would be naive to suggest it was purely an honest mistake, although the newbie lead author may indeed be naive. BUt I do indeed want to cast suspicion on their conclusions, conclusions that have gone viral arguing 40% of bears have been extirpated by global warming.
If you truly take issue with my choices, and it boils down to more of a case of semantics as your terms also imply dishonesty, then discuss the evidence that I presented that raised those suspicions and discuss why my suspicions were unwarranted or justified. You answered my question with “noble corruption”. Done! Although your answer implies motive, and all court cases exaine motive, you take issue with my questioning of the purity of their motives, despite ample evidence that raises such suspicion. You then extend that to give me a sermon that suggests your post is more about promoting Willis’ righteousness than it is about the examining truthfulness of the facts and conclusions being discussed by “some” polar bear researchers.
@M Courrtney “You can’t throw mud without getting muddy.”
True. But sometime we muddy in a knockdown brawl because we must fight for what is right!
M Courtney,Your definition does not include the words lie, or lying, or liar.
It is a mystery how you imagine that you can stretch the meaning and ignore the actual definition.
Your problem is that you cannot admit to overreach. Your credibility suffers.
Do you still say Jim Steele is a mudslinger? This comment of yours stinks.
mpainter. I stand by my comment.
Yes, I think JimSteel is slinging mud. I think he is foolish to do so. But he thinks it is worthwhile. He is responsible for his actions as I am for mine.
I would point out that your semantic objection to the difference between an accusation of dishonesty and an accusation of lying is misplaced, As you point out I used the word lying for dishonesty in my reply to wws who wrote:
I still don’t think we should.
MCourtney
I hate to say this but you are slinging mud in a most distasteful manner. Steele never used any of those objectionable words that you attribute to him by insinuation. Your refusal to acknowledge this is inexcusable.
Willis,
How is it you can state that accusing someone of being dishonest is the same as calling them a liar (which I can agree with) yet claim that being guilty of noble cause corruption is not the same as being dishonest?
Living and working in both Oregon and Washington, I am pretty sure a short drive over the mountains will have me finding plenty of “cowboys” who would have little problem seeing the researchers Dr Steele mentions as possibly guilty of dishonest behavior. Care to tell me how the intent to rely on a single study which supports a desired conclusion, while ignoring the large amount of contradictory evidence is not dishonest?
MCourtney,
If you are going to pick nits over the meaning of words, you might want to pick a different definition. The one you use makes no mention of the word lie or lying.
Jim,
How did the peer reviews go ?
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”
I’d like to put forward a third option; they’re simply incompetent (at least wrt statistics and sampling methodologies, perhaps more).
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen ‘Scientists’ following this agenda demonstrate an abject lack of skill in these areas. Chances are they just don’t know any better. though of course it helps knowing the answer before you start your research too….
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Well ignoring the evidence is one of your best traits.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
@ icouldnthelpit:
Re: “Summer arctic ice is disappearing.” (you today at 1:16am)
You have been misinformed.
Evidence here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Ignorance of the facts is something you CAN help.
#(:))
Helpit,
The actual evidence is that polar bears are flourishing. They have survived & thrived during decades, indeed centuries & millennia, of lower summer sea ice than now. They happily hunt & forage on land, They’re omnivores.
Ringed seal pups help them store up fat, but, if you had ever studied the Arctic, you’d know that the bears hunt the pups in their snow dens in late winter or early spring, not the summer.
http://www.arkive.org/ringed-seal/pusa-hispida/
“The females give birth to a single pup between March and May, with most pups born in early April, although in Lake Saimaa and in the southern part of the Baltic Sea pups are born earlier, in late February or early March (1). The female moves the pup between a system of usually four to six lairs, to prevent the pup being located by predators. However, ringed seal pups learn to dive when they are very young and are soon able to move between lairs independently (1). The female lactates for about six weeks after birth, when both the mother and the pup are active, and spends considerable time making short feeding dives. The pups are weaned prior to the spring ice breakup in June.”
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Helpit,
Arctic sea ice is not disappearing. It has gotten larger the last two years & is now higher than in over a decade.
Satellites only started viewing Arctic sea ice in 1979, when it was near its high for the century. With the AMO & PDO flips around then, it’s only natural that it would decline, as it did in the 1920s-40s. But when CACA was hatched “climate scientists” didn’t even know that those oceanic oscillations existed. If climatology is in its infancy now, in 1988 it wasn’t even born yet.
But there have been long centuries & millennia when it did practically “disappear”, without causing polar bears to go extinct.
This year, Antarctic sea ice was at an “all-time” (satellite era) high, & Arctic ice was growing, so 2014 was the top ice extent year since satellite records began in 1979. And of course Antarctic ice is of far more importance to the climate than Arctic, due to its much greater affect on albedo.
Helpit,
Your claim is not only not uncontroversial, but plainly false on its face.
The fact is that polar bears survived millennia of effectively no summer sea ice during the Holocene Optimum & Eemian Interglacial, not mention decades or centuries during the Minoan, Roman & Medieval Warm Periods.
They don’t need summer sea ice, as has repeatedly been shown here. The ice that is most important to them is land fast ice in the spring, when ringed sell pups are born & weaned. They can & do swim long distances in summer to find seals on floes, & of course can also get fat on the land. Please read & learn from Dr. C, a real expert whose interest is science, not funding.
@ ICHI — for the record: you are either lying or badly mistaken. Fortunately, anyone who wants to verify this statement can easily do so… at the link I provided.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Helpit,
You are mistaken. All you have to do is look. This year was the highest since 2004. The trend is reversing, just as real scientists predicted it would, thanks to the shift in the PDO & especially AMO. Warmer water has a far greater effect on sea ice than warmer air, especially in the Arctic winter night.
Long-term in climate is not 30 years. That’s the shortest possible unit of climate time. The trend in summer maximum sea ice allegedly, ie within reliability of satellite observation, was down from its century high of 1979 until 2012. It has now reversed. Obviously we need more than two years of gains to confirm the new trend, but the AMO argues for it, as does the fact that the build has been enormous both years, such that we’re now at the highest in a decade.
Add that to record high Antarctic (& thicker than imagined) sea ice, & the skeptics’ case is well made. CO2 going from 300 to 400 ppm has no detectable effect on sea ice extent.
Facts are stubborn things. Sorry about that.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
There are various sea ice records from before 1979. That year came at the end of a long cool cycle, from about 1944, which ended the prior warm cycle in which the Arctic in summer looked as it did around 2000. Extent might have been greater early in this century, before the then much-remarked warming of the 1920s to ’40s. So 1979 might have been equaled or exceeded in 1909 or even 1919.
If you go to the Sea Ice pages of this bl*g, you’ll see that indeed 2014 exceeds 2006 for where it is now, if not in every data set for minimum extent. In all sets, it’s back well within the normal range for the satellite era. The trend is reversing, just as skeptics had confidence & predicted it would, when the AMO flipped back. It had just flipped the other way in the late ’70s.
There is no evidence of a CO2 component in polar ice extent. Indeed, the best fit is not correlation, but contrary, given the Antarctic. What excuse will you make in 2015, 2016, et seq? Skeptics make & stand by predictions. CACA advocates make excuses.
@ ucanhelpit Milodonhalani is correct. As illustrated in this graphic Danish Sea Ice record from August 1937 show near identical areas of open water as satellite data from August 2013
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/83589096.png
[More wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
I’m pretty sure from your prior comments that I’m more familiar with polar bears than you are, so no, I don’t suppose that they dine on penguin or Antarctic seals.
I would have thought the relevance of Antarctic ice to be obvious, but for your benefit I’ll spell it out. If CO2-caused global warming of the air were the cause of Arctic sea ice retreat, then why isn’t the Antarctic behaving the same? But if, as all the evidence suggests, ocean currents & oscillations are the main driver of sea ice extent in both hemispheres, then it should come as no surprise that the Antarctic is waxing while, until the past two years, the Arctic was generally waning.
As for 2006 v. 2014, recall that 2013 came off a record low in 2012, caused by the same sort of August storm that produced the prior low in 2007. That the Arctic is now gaining ice more rapidly than it did in 2006 is noteworthy. That is, as I mentioned, while in most data sets the low in 2006 was higher than 2014, the fact that we’ve already caught up with the late Nov/early Dec condition in 2006 is just more evidence that the trend has reversed.
Now maybe another late summer cyclone will hit next year or the next, producing a new low, possibly even a record. But the statistical fact remains that for two years running we’ve been back in the normal zone for the post-1979 period. Time will tell.
To what will you point in support of your faith when the Arctic indubitably swings back to waxing too?
Data before the ’50s is not “very” patchy. You must not be aware that both the Allies & Germans kept weather ships off Greenland in WWII, & that the US, USSR & Japanese had good reason to study conditions in the Bering Sea & northwest Pacific. There are some holes in the Danish record cited by Dr. Steele, but you should study the many surviving maps yourself before jumping to the conclusion that that one is one off.
There are good data for many years besides the cited one. Also whalers’ & explorers’ accounts. Arctic exploration goes back centuries. My 1939 atlas shows winter & summer sea ice extent about the same as recently.
Have you really not the read the famous 1922 article about the disappearing ice in the Arctic? Or accounts of the Soviets’ use of the northern sea route during WWII?
(Another long comment, now wasted, by a banned sockpuppet. Comment now DELETED. Cheers. -mod)
I think you got it now.
(Another wasted effort posted by a banned sockpuppet. Comment now DELETED. Cheers. -mod)
Jimbo and Jim Steele:
Here’s another interesting observation from the Danish Met Institute, but so recent it’s still going on:
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Greenland has gained a record amount of ice so far this Fall. Thanks to “Steve Goddard”.
You did say:
I thought you had something there, but maybe you didn’t understand where I was coming from. See these.
HockeySchtick
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extent demonstrates the bipolar seesaw theory of climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice-extent.html
icouldnt,
In your case there is truly a third possibility to blinded by belief and dishonesty – you aren’t intelligent enough to understand what is being written.
Did you miss the part about the bears putting on ~ 80% of their maximum weight during a 1 – 2 month time period? Or maybe you couldn’t grasp the part about April – May occuring before the summer ice melt?
If you truly believe global warming is a grave threat, at least try being smart enough to pick defensable examples of why it is a threat. Choosing polar bears, sinking islands and millions of climate refugees are examples of a poor or stupid thought process.
(Another very long screed posted by a banned sockpuppet. Comment now DELETED. Cheers. -mod)
icouldn’t,
I am not saying is that everything is fine now so it will be in the future. In fact i said nothing at all about what condition polar bear populations are in. From what i’ve read, it varies from group to group, with some groups stable, some growing and others diminishing. And this is using the reports of the researchers being called into question. I also understand that researchers lack information on an estimated 50% of all polar bear populations. In other words, one has to be very careful in drawing any conclusions for polar bear viability.
I see you make quite a few assumptions in your response. Some don’t make sense. For example, asking if cubs have enough fat to make through the next winter. You assume less summer sea ice means less food. That is not a proven fact. Then you assume young bears are not putting on enough weight to make it through their first winter. Where is the field data showing this? It is speculation. Then you assume that the bears being forced to move to new territory is problematic, as if they were some roving band of humans and after being provided with information saying they are not particularly territorial and have great variation in roaming territory from year to year. In other words you build a house of cards and expect us to consider you as a master builder.
So, with regard to polar bears and those researchers who claim they are threatened, I am saying the following:
To date insufficient evidence has been provided to indicte any threat exists.
The evidence which has been provided is looking rather suspect.
Given the above two points, the use of polar bears as justification for policy & economic decisions related to climate change is the result of poor thinking or borderline dishonesty.
icouldnthelpit,
Give it up my friend. Polar bear numbers are up from 5,000 in the 1950s to over 20,000 now. All this in a warming world and warming Arctic.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.04.007
They survived the Holocene Hypsithermal’s ‘ice-free’ summers, yet you go on about the importance of summer sea ice and cubs. Think about your position compared to observations and the paleo evidence. Read the links fully before responding please.
Polar bears get fattest fastest in Spring and early summer. Check out the word ‘nursing’. As you can see thick spring ice is not so kind.
In ‘climate science’, there is only a very small pot of money for reporting the truth and saying, “not much change here, the usual natural cycles explain just about everything.”
However, there are huge troughs of money for manipulating, or distorting the truth to come to unfounded scary conclusions like, “The polar bears will disappear in our children’s lifetimes, because of rising CO2 levels.”
The problem is grant addiction and those grants not being made available unless the conclusion of the study is previously agreed with the grant provider – and that conclusion has to be scary..
I think noble cause corruption has led them to lie. (Knowingly tell a falsehood.)
I think good rhetorical use could be made of Polar Bear Science as an microcosm of what’s wrong with all of alarmist climate-related science. That’s because it is simple enough to see the falsehoods that have been promoted, and because there is no wiggle room for the falsifiers.
Most importantly, it could illustrate an unspoken “conspiracy” in action among a fairly small number of experts. (E.g., by excluding an expert from their meetings because he was a CAGW heretic a few years ago.)
I urge contrarians to press for a congressional panel to request that the NAS conduct an investigation of this microcosm. I also urge them to harp on what’s going on in this research area as a typical and understandable instance of what’s wrong with climatology.
Noble cause corruption, moral hazard, rent seeking, etc. Who can easily check on their work? Polar bears are very lucrative as symbols. Read Huhne on how the deep thinking of the climate obsessed operates. Not a pretty sight.
Here is some food for thought from a poster, E. Smiff, at Bishop Hill blog:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/11/27/bob-misrepresents-the-science-again.html?currentPage=3#comments
“It is from his book, quoted here http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/rRD110FZLZRMS9
see also
http://www.workersliberty.org/blogs/paulhampton/2009/09/26/significance-and-meaning-climate-change
Hulme extends this treatment to what he calls the “four myths of climate change”, which he links to the “human instincts of nostalgia, fear, pride and justice”. The term ‘myth’ is used in “the very specific anthropological and non-pejorative sense of revealing meanings and assumed truths”, not as a falsehood. (2009 p.340) The four myths are: lamenting Eden, presaging apocalypse, constructing Babel and celebrating Jubilee.
The religious overtones are deliberate (Hulme confesses his Christian faith), but actually the arguments work perfectly well as secular myths too.
In lamenting Eden, “climate is viewed as a symbol of the natural or the wild, a manifestation of Nature that is pure and pristine and (should be) beyond the reach of humans. Climate becomes something that is fragile and needs to be protected or ‘saved’”. On this view, by changing the climate humans believe they are diminishing not just themselves, but also something beyond themselves. (2009 p.342-43, p.344)
**
from his own website
http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/three-meanings-of-climate-change.doc
see also
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/resources/Hulme.pdf
Presaging apocalypse draws upon categories such as ‘impending disaster’, ‘approaching tipping points’, ‘species wiped out’, billions of humans at risk of devastation, if not death’. This view has widespread purchase, first because of “the enduring human fear of the future which fuels these descriptions of a physical climate on the point of collapse”. Second it “draws strength from the new paradigm of Earth system science with its ideas of complexity, thresholds and tipping elements”. A third reason is “the frustration experienced by some campaigners and policy advocates due to the failure of international measures and agreements to start slowing down the growth in carbon emissions”. However, numerous studies show that fear may change attitudes but not necessarily increase active engagement or behaviour change. (2009 p.345, p.346, p.348)
On the other hand, constructing Babel, “this confident belief in the human ability to control Nature”, is “a dominant, if often subliminal, attribute of the international diplomacy that engages climate change”. This myth of climate mastery and control reaches its apogee with proposals for geo-engineering. Hulme dismisses this approach: “What is therefore proposed is a new, but now deliberate, great geophysical experiment with the planet. The only difference between this purposeful experiment and our ongoing inadvertent one is that we now have the ‘wisdom’ of Earth system models to guide us.” (2009 p.352-53)
Finally, celebrating Jubilee mean that “climate change is an idea around which their concerns for social and environmental justice can be mobilised. Indeed, a new category of justice – climate justice – is demanded, and one that attaches itself easily to other longstanding global justice concerns.” (2009 p.353)
Dec 1, 2014 at 5:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff”
What is a bit of dodgy work on polar bears everyone loves and no one sees in the context of selling a big fat mythos? We are to keep this stuff in context. Just because it is false does not mean it is not true.
……please accept my apology for the spelling typo: my comment is about Mike Hulme
Willis
I quote ‘ but one step over the line leads to a larger one, and before long, the noble corruptee is up to their ears in climategate, lying and subverting the IPCC and packing peer-reviewboxes, and destroying evidence sought by a Freedom of Information act, and commiting fraud and the like’.
Isn’t this supporting Jim’s headline?
The headline aside, the rest of Jim’s article is what the beef / blubber is about. Some polar bear researchers are dishonest by omission. They are aware of the omission, yet chose to omit. That is not being honest, is it???
Omitting important information has got a lot of medical researchers into trouble over the years. Some call it scientific fraud.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329864.100-its-time-to-criminalise-serious-scientific-misconduct.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1853.short
Ignoring the alternatives, omitting evidence, or any confirmation bias in general is making a mockery out of modern “science”. And it starts with the very act of searching through the literature itself. If you’re only searching for anthropogenic causes, that’s what you will find (as the IPCC shows us again and again).
Jim Steele’s polar bear example as well as the Golden Toad one are excellent examples of how these scientists have been straying from the objective to the subjective. It’s almost as foolish as a high school clique. Their “team” has been preaching a theory for years which is proving again and again to be false.The cognitive dissonance must be difficult to deal with.
The two party system could take a large chunk of the blame for all this. Does anyone have a link to any articles on this at WUWT? It would be appreciated.
Brilliant!
How unusual to have a truthful researcher.
Many thanks, but the wrong people will read it unfortunately.
An excellent article. But very sad, it seems there is no limit that some scientists will descend to. Willis’ quote: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” is perfect.
But I think the heading:
“Are Polar Bear Researchers Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?”
is fine. Perhaps the phrase “some Polar Bear Researchers” would be more accurate, but this kind of usage is very common. People have the intelligence to realise that it doesn’t necessarily apply to every single polar bear researcher.
Chris
Stupid or dishonest, whats the difference when people are put in a position of authority. Would you rather your finances be in the hands of someone incompetent or someone dishonest. In either case, your finances are screwed.
For climate science, polar bears are an obvious Gruberism to manipulate public sympathy. That’s what politicians do, they tell big lies, little lies, medium lies in order to meet objectives, the primary one being to get themselves elected. Getting people to feel good about saving Polar Bears by electing them is what they do. They could give two squats as to what is really going on with Polar bears. Science however should, it should care about what is really going on with Polar bears.
Politics is not a court of law, there are no standards of evidence, and there are little or no rules, there is no judge to keep the legal discussion in line. Science is similar, an explicitly defined approach to get as close to objective truth as possible. There are numerous scientific disciplines that relate to climate, there is no such thing as climate science, climate science itself is a Gruberism, political activism using science as window dressing.
The issue is not the speculation on the horrific consequences of climate change, but the horrific consequences of science becoming the lapdog of politics.
The answer is yes; to both parts of the question.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/
Pointman
“Stirling also reported the South Beaufort Sea undergoes ~10-year cycles of such heavy ice”
Why is there a ~10 year cycle?
John,
Have a look at this:
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/28/why-is-it-that-every-decade-eastern-beaufort-sea-ice-gets-really-thick/
Susan
likely the researchers were given a political directive. there is a huge problem with US science because the political parties have taken positions on scientific matters, making it a matter of party line as to which theory is correct.
imagine for a moment that one of the political parties in the US made the speed of gravity (instead of climate change) one of their policy planks. Suddenly we would have billions of dollars in funding to prove whatever speed either party was backing, with tons of corruption of science.
this is what has happened to US science. the political parties have turned science into a form of politics and corrupted science in the process. the exact same thing that happened to religion in the past, which is why the US constitution requires the separation of church and state.
what is required in the US is a constitutional amendment that separates science and state.
what we are seeing isn’t noble cause corruption. it is political corruption.
” there is a huge problem with US science because the political parties have taken positions on scientific matters, making it a matter of party line as to which theory is correct.”
Not quite so. There is only one theory.
What I see is one party saying CO2 emissions are causing GW/climate change so we need to shut down coal fired generating plants and subsidize wind and solar electrical generation.
This is of course using a proposed theory to support a course of action.
The other party says that supposed theory is unsupported by the data, and opposes the proposed fixes as unwarranted (CO2 not ruining climate), ineffectual (would not reduce CO2 anyway), and detrimental to society (makes energy less available and more costly).
Only one party has made a (supposed) theory a matter of party line.
The other party has only opposed the proffered cures for it. Opposing costly fixes for an unsupported theory is not offering an alternate theory.
It looks to me like one party has adopted a known faulty scientific premise for purely political gain. This is indeed a problem. That another party opposes their actions is not a problem.
If you object to a political party making a faulty theory a matter of party line, vote for the party that opposes that party.
SR
Steven,
“The other party says that supposed theory is unsupported by the data, and opposes the proposed fixes as unwarranted (CO2 not ruining climate), ineffectual (would not reduce CO2 anyway), and detrimental to society (makes energy less available and more costly).”
I wish to see a real world test. I’ve suggested we offer “renewable energy” like subsides to companies such as Exxon to install carbon scrubbers for the interim years until “renewables” are market competitive. Eventually, our energy sources will have to change so I’m not advocating removing the renewable subsides (yet). If Exxon installs scrubbers, they could then market as “saving the planet”, plus we could then determine the efficacy of mitigation. Exxon, of course, is a proxy for any energy provider.
This thinking should satisfy those who say “follow the money” when referring to the so called behind the curtain funding of “skeptics”, as it would involve the fossil fuel industry. Plus, as the subsidies would be voluntary this makes implementation more palatable. The left gets their scrubbers, the right keeps fossil fuels supported, we get more information and it’s voluntary. This removes some of the vitriol and one can vote for whomever starts thinking for us all instead of against those of opposing parties.
I’d love to hear your thoughts.
What I find sad is that it has apparently gotten as far as the USGS. I recall them being considered as one of the best scientific organizations in the country, by acadamia, industry and other govt agencies. But then I’m a bit biased. I did a 6 month intership there while in grad school. One of the best groups of people I’ve ever worked with.
question: what would happen to polar bear, seal and whale populations in the Arctic if the Arctic was 100 percent iced over year long? Wouldn’t this lead to almost 100% elimination of mammal populations from the Arctic?
Don’t polar bear, seal and whale populations in the Arctic require that some of the Arctic remain ice free, even in the depths of winter, so that marine mammals can breathe? And if these ice free areas are eliminated, the marine mammals would retreat from the Arctic to more southern oceans, and the polar bears would lose most of their food supply, leading to massive die off.
Wouldn’t the polar bears be forced to retreat southward to survive as well, into what is now grizzly bear territory? Isn’t this likely what happened during the Ice Ages, explaining why polar bears and grizzly bears can mate successfully?
So, it seems more likely that heavy ice, not ice free areas are the biggest threat to polar bears. which is consistent with the Arctic being mostly ice free 1000 years during the Holocene Optimum, about 8000 years ago.
How do the polar bear researchers and modellers reconcile this long ice free period with the continued survival of polar bears? If the polar bears didn’t die off then, why should reduced ice cause them to die off now?
Not just polar bears but their favored prey species, the ringed seal, enjoy healthy populations now, under lower summer sea ice extent. They also tolerate well intervals of heavier ice. The seals maintain breathing holes, exploited both by Eskimos and polar bears, who famously cover up their black noses while waiting. The seals also hang out near cracks in the ice. Sea ice is rarely continuous over any very large area. Fifteen percent coverage is usually the standard for ice v. “open water”.
Bowhead whales can surface through thinner ice by breaking it, but rely on polynyas in thicker ice.
Polar bears have survived millennia of much less ice than now, as during the Eemian interglacial & the Holocene Optimum & of much more, as during the Wisconsin glaciation.
Hope Dr. Crockford will correct me if wrong.
Absolutely right.
As far as I’m aware, polar bears can’t eat ice!
Chris
Is there any conclusive evidence that polar bear populations went extinct during the ice free periods of the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why then would models be constructed which assume this to be true? Expect as a matter of political expediency.
ferdberple,
Nothing on the Optimum, but there is info on the last Interglacial (the Eemian, ca. 130,000-115,000 years ago).
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/11/12/eemian-excuses-the-warm-was-different-then-polar-bears-were-fine/
“Today I’ll discuss the response by Polar Bears International representative Steven Amstrup to a comment submitted during their recent “webchat” at The Guardian (Wednesday, November 6), which had to do with the fact that polar bears survived warm periods in the geological past, particularly interglacials.”
The only data from the Optimum comes from archaeological data from an island north of Siberia, ca. 8,200 years ago
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/18/the-ancient-polar-bear-hunters-of-zhokhov-island-siberia/
Susan,
Here is something on the Optimum.
Here is another Susan.
Jimbo,
Actually, I meant *polar bear* data from the Optimum period – yes, there is climate data but not so much to tell us what polar bears were doing.
Susan
There is no evidence that they went extinct. Quite the opposite.
Time and time again this point has been made, and time and again Warmists worry. Don’t worry, be happy.
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears.asp
“Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world,” says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Government of Nunavut. “There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past.”
“Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock, who has worked with polar bears for the Government of Nunavut and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Politics in action. The Climate of Fear preached by US researchers. “what’s frightening is what might happen”. Not what is happening. What might happen.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/
The Polar bear population has grown from 5,000 in the 1950s to about 25,000, according to testimony submitted in 2008 to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and it’s still growing. In other words, the bear population has increased five fold.
the only conclusion that can be drawn from increasing polar bear populations during a time of global warming is that polar bears are like people. they like warm weather better than cold.
which is easy to see. polar bears hibernate during the cold arctic winter, when ice is at a maximum and remain active during the summer, when ice is at a minimum.
if polar bears truly liked cold and ice, they would be active during the winter when ice was at a maximum and hibernate during the summer when ice was at a minimum.
the fact that researchers fail to take this into account shows that they really don’t know very much about polar bears. the hibernation pattern of polar bears is conclusive proof that they prefer warm weather to cold.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
Actually other than the females giving birth in maternity dens, polar bears do not hibernate but remain active all year although will seek shelter dens in bad weather. It is common for Bowhead whales, Narwhal and Beluga to get trapped in ice. Several studies detected significant levels of Beluga fat in the bears suggesting there is reason to hunt in the winter.
Nonetheless the winter is the most stressful time for bears and their weight steadily drops until ringed seal pups arrive. More interesting is the evidence that female bears in the South Beaufort improved their body condition during the same time period these researchers claim they were starving to death. The females begn entering maternity dens in October and November and fast until late March. Despite feeding their cubs, to improve body condition the females must have had adequate food in both the spring and summer. They just had to move to find it.
How can you justify using Markov modeling for something with a memory? I’d love to see the science that backs Polar Bear migration being a random walk.
In their earlier models they argued there was no Markovian bias in an attempt dismiss the radio-collared data. Although the years in question about bears leaving the study area are restricted to 2003 to 2007, they compiled data from 1984 to 2006 to show statistically, although bears temporarily leave the study area they eventually return. But that was a totally meaningless analysis, that only obscured the fact movement outside the study area had indeed biased survival and abundance estimates. One plus of Bromaghin 2014 is at least they now note movement caused “potential bias”, but unfortunately they again dismiss the evidence with “no reason to believe” the bears would move.
Thanks. I thought Polar Bears have an incredible sense of smell. If there were a lot of seals over the horizon, the bears would move in that direction (which is not random movement unless seals exhibit brownian motion). If the seals are moving between their feeding zones, then the bears movement would oscillate as well. It sounds to me like they assumed stochastic behavior to make the mathematics easier.
I don’t know about random but this bear could certainly swim.
If you’re a polar bear researcher you follow the money.
If you’re a polar bear you follow the blubber.
If you’re a blubber producer….. (This is getting too deep.)
Willis, I’m going to impute a motive. In general, I agree that we can’t really know motives of our complex species but, in specific cases, potential motives are few. Indeed a motive for murder is very highly sought after in an investigation. If you had a strong motive (just took out a million dollar insurance policy on the victim), the means and the opportunity, you are close to being toast in that field.
If Jim’s narrative is basically correct, something changed with the guy who thought bears were fine to start with. He is a civil servant – I tried that and know many issues are more important than the truth when it comes to government work. Not ‘going along’ and not ‘being a team player’ quickly puts a firm ceiling on promotion and makes you vulnerable to the next job cuts. Hmm, not using the official departmental model, eh? This gets into your annual performance review. The change is exactly what one might see if one received the memo. It has been remarked on in numerous posts – the fear of not going along with the herd is fear for your paycheck. He was going along practicing his science properly and suddenly he stopped doing this and waffled over to the official position. Now what would make a fellow do that?
” Now what would make a fellow do that?”
Good question, Gary Pearse. Let’s hope that someone doesn’t insinuate that you are attributing lies to the fellow.
“what is required in the US is a constitutional amendment that separates science and state”
“Presaging apocalypse”. Yes. Western Civilization collapses under the thrall of “science as religion” instead of Christianity. The Victorian clockwork society winds down as the rent-seekers crush all “truth-seekers” under their heel. Humans are hard-wired for religion (Faith). Science will never replace actual Faith, because…. think about it.
We already have a constitution that provides for limited government and we ignore that. What we need is to elect different people who don’t see politics as a way to power, fame, wealth and influence and an electorate who no longer votes to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Good luck with all that.
BTW: What was the second part of Eisenhower’s famous remarks on the military-industrial complex? You know, the part that’s even more important but ignored?
Some ideas put forth by Jim:
1) Some polar bear researchers are either blinded by bias or dishonest. (by Title)
2) Some polar bear researchers have focused on summer sea ice.
3) Some polar bear researchers have suggested that less summer sea ice is detrimental to polar bear survival.
4) Some polar bear researchers have suggested massive declines in polar bear survival rates.
5) Evidence suggests that summer sea ice is not nearly as relevant to polar bear survival as spring ice conditions.
6) Evidence suggests that less summer sea ice is actually beneficial to polar bears through being beneficial to a major food source: the ring seals.
7) Evidence suggests that low polar bear counts were due to polar bear movements in response to spring ice conditions rather than low survival rates.
8) Evidence suggests that some polar bear researchers are either blinded by their own belief system or dishonest. (by Conclusion)
While “some” is not explicitly expressed, I took it as understood that Jim was not referring to all polar bear researchers but rather this particular cabal of collaborators.
On the one hand: I agree with Willis. It’s definitely an “idea” put forth by Jim that’s open for criticism and possibly too confrontational for polite discourse.
On the other hand: Jim makes the case. It’s difficult not to conclude that these polar bear researchers are either blinded by their own belief system or dishonest.
Furthermore, Jim doesn’t attribute a motive to the possible dishonesty. One can be dishonest for a noble cause, greed, ego, etc. Therefore the original objection by Willis to “never ascribe to dishonesty what is adequately explained by noble cause corruption” depends upon taking “dishonesty” as a personality trait or motive per se which is not necessarily the case and I think obvious in Jim’s post in context not his intent to imply. Jim has basically made the case that these researchers are either consciously (dishonest) or unconsciously (blind) misrepresenting the evidence to support the CAGW scaremongering campaign. He’s neither ascribing Noble Cause Corruption nor any other motive to these actions.
Exactly. Thank you!
No, Jim, Thank You! It must be incredibly frustrating for you to see your field going down this path of scaremongering with any convenient species like the various frog and butterfly scare stories you’ve torn apart here for our benefit. Having an engineering/chemistry background I have little difficulty with evaluating the physics side of the debate for myself but the biology side is certainly outside of my box. I find your posts to be highly informative and for me much needed. Thank you for your time and effort and if you need to vent a little by calling a misrepresentation a misrepresentation I don’t see the harm in doing it here. Personally, I thought it was rather generous of you to leave out the third option of them being blinded by incompetence.
Thanks again John. Indeed it is incredibly frustrating to see my field going down this path of scaremongering. The virtues of ecology and conservation science can provide great benefits to guide policies that would be a win win for both humans and the environment. When the politics of climate change and other agendas hijack the science, we have missed a tremendous opportunity to educate people about all aspects of climate and ecology. However I remain optimistic as several colleagues who were once global warming believers, have acknowledge the validity of the arguments I published in my book and became skeptics themselves. They admit they simply never examined climate change assertions critically before.
But all scientific hypotheses are mere personal opinion until they are thoroughly vetted and tested. Unlike more readily tested hypotheses, climate change requires many decades before we can truly test predictions from competing theories. I just hope I am still around by 2050 to see the spin when we observe that the predicted “loss of ≈ 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by mid-century” was all a statistical fairy tale!
Hey Jim, I know that SOME of these folks could ONLY be acting dishonestly. They know better than most of us about what thick spring ice can do yet they, the experts, made a decision. That is being dishonest.
Excellent summary.
Thanks, Dr. Steele. It’s good to learn about polar bears from a safe distance.
I’d say: Blinded by the light of money and fame.
Could the problem be as simple as the researchers have no real understanding of polar bears, polar bear behavior, their natural environment, the natural history and climate history of the polar bear environment and how the bears react to changes in their environment? Could be problem be they have no realistic understanding of what they are studying?
flat out lying………
Noble Cause Corruption … is still corruption.
Victim of Noble Cause Corruption …. now I would have to mull that one a bit. Perhaps a victim of circumstance? If that being the case then we need to address the purveyors of this circumstantial victimization.
In a court the said victim, while being charged with corruption, would have the opportunity to testify against the perps. That would make for a reasonable assumption that it would be in the best interest of the said victims to bring them to task to allow them the opportunity to escape future victimization. That would also be good for science as well as the taxpayers.
It is the case of Self v. Self. I would advise taking the 5th immediately.
Exactly, corruption is corruption….no matter its style is always based in greed and self interest. The Devil’s corruption is ALWAYS a “noble cause”. That is what gives it the power over others.
If “noble cause corruption” was actual “nobility”, the doer would break down in remorse at the beaconing of truths relent. The fact that this rarely happens shows that there is “noble cause CORRUPTION”, not “NOBLE CAUSE corruption”.
“Blinded by Belief, or Acting Dishonestly?”
Well, lessee – are the “the polar bears are all gonna die and so are we” clowns breathing? Then they’re lying.
Next question?
“SpiderMan, Threat or Menace?” Comic book portrayal of a biased publisher’s headline, just SLIGHTLY worse than “Blind or Dishonest?”
Hmmmm. Based on ypur point of emphasis does that mean you are OK with the researchers’ data manipulation and disregard for contrary evidence that would lead to an alternative interpretation of a healthy bear population?
No.
“OK with data-manipulation or close-minded regarding the obvious alternatives?” is NOT a valid headline to a biographical article on me, either.
I’m rather for a free press that aggressively and skeptically investigates all claims by all groups that issue press-releases. But if, after such an investigation, the key take-away is a question — and an “either-or” question at that — rather than an answer, I suggest the free press has failed of the responsibilities attaining to the privileges. J Jonah Jameson isn’t a villain, but a clown.
I find that CACA advocates often ask, “How dare you impune the work of disinterested scientists?” I reply, “I know lots of scientists, & like anyone else, some are honest & others aren’t”. You are a distinguished scientist in a relevant discipline who has come to the same conclusion about his colleagues as have I. Unfortunately many in the general public have a higher regard for today’s “scientists” than is warranted.
For one thing, there are too many of them in government & academia instead of in business or teaching high school, which is what most of the lower rung would have had to do before the gigantic growth in the academic-government-Green Industrial complex.
Thanks again!
“Are ALL headlines phrased as questions Fraudulent ‘Click-Bait’, or merely those on the World-Wide-Web?”
All such headlines. The print versions are just the same.
Except it’s not “click-bait” but “pickup-bait “.
Which is not a phrase to Google.
And here is how far they can go according to the peer review. In 2008 a radio collard polar bear was clocked making a continuous swim of 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently swam and walked on the sea ice surface an additional 1,800 km.
Thanks Jimbo, I enjoy the quotes you find. We can always count on you to uncover relevant facts that always seem to be ignored by alarmists in their zeal to convince us we are rapidly heading for disaster.
We know that polar bears survived an ‘‘ice free’‘ Arctic during the last 11,000 years. We know they don’t only eat seals. When they have to they will eatarctic charr, vegetation, beluga whales, scavenge on Svalbard reindeer, Fourhorn sculpin, narwhals, small rodents, seabirds, waterfowl, fish, eggs, vegetation (including kelp), berries, and human garbage. Polar bear numbers have also risen since the 1950s – during our dangerously warming world.
What else can I say?
Thanks very much. Never realized the importance of April sea ice before. Never heard any alarmists mention this critical phase in the polar bear feeding cycle before either. But somebody must have known? Instead, all focus has been on the few weeks of summer minimum. Again, we have been cheated.
Yes, that was new to me, as well. Now it has been explained, it make sense that spring ice is much more important to polar bears than summer ice when seals are back in the water anyway. If that mother bear was able to triple her weight during the spring months, she can likely survive the coming winter regardless of how much ice sticks around through the summer.
From a book chapter by Ian Stirling and Nick Lunn published in 1997:
“From the results presented above, it seems clear that the most critical factor affecting reproductive success, subsequent condition and probably survival of polar bears is the availability of ringed seal pups from about mid-April through to breakup sometime in July.”
They knew then, so they know now.
Thanks for the quote Susan. I had read that long ago and it is that understanding that made me very suspicious of the addiction to summer ice and the complete avoidance of springtime ice. We need the public to be equally suspicious as well, and demand a more critical evaluation of these dooms day extinction claims.
As I noted above.
IMO it is possible to impute motive when the facts support a conclusion as to it. As has been commented here before, in the counter-spy business, possible motives are abbreviated MICE: Money, Ideology, Coercion & Ego, not mutually exclusive, of course (although those four classes of driving force aren’t exhaustive).
Thanks again.
“Search for truth”, it appears, not so much.
Therefore omitting what you know, and know will affect your presented ‘evidence’, is being dishonest. There is no way round this, even if it’s dishonest noble cause CORRUPTION.
Here are some examples of ‘HONEST’ Noble Cause Corruption. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at such mincing of words.
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #2
Snow Beauty
…. and (y–a—w——-n) … since it is bedtime in Europe….
“…. sleep in heavenly peace.”
#(:))
How do polar bears fall under the purview of the US Geological Survey? Did anyone notice that polar bears are animals, not rocks?
When the USGS was formed by Congress in 1879 under the Department of the Interior, it was given the mandate of “classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain”. That doesn’t include polar bears.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (also under the Department of the Interior) deal with wildlife, like, you know, polar bears. When did Congress authorize the USGS to broaden their stewardship…or did they?
Lauren,
My understanding is that it’s because they are considered “migratory”. USGS also does geese and ducks, for the same reason – and walrus.
Susan
‘Perhaps polar bear researchers are just victims of confirmation bias.’
That would be more than willing ‘victims ‘ when polar bears became one of poster boys for ‘the cause ‘ is brought a shed load of money and opportunities to those working in this area. And what is endangered is not polar bears but these opportunities and cash should ‘the cause ‘ fall for people will remember who where its poster boys and how often and loudly they where told that these poster boys where all going to die because of climate doom , something they knew to be BS but had no intention of saying this in public.
So for some they are affectively all in , having no choice but keep claiming ‘its worse than we thought ‘ because the risk of claiming otherwise is to high for their own careers.
jim Steele December 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Jim, first, thanks for your reply. I have greatly enjoyed your work in the past, and I’m glad to see you continuing the conversation.
Next, if you see no difference between dishonesty and noble cause corruption, I’m not sure that I can clarify it. But perhaps a definition from the web would help:
Many people are dishonest for a variety of reasons, personal gain being perhaps the main one. Noble cause corruption, on the other hand, is justifying ones actions based on the idea that the actions serve a greater good. See the Peter Gleick affair for an example.
This in turn is different from “blinded by belief”, which has nothing to do with either dishonesty or noble cause corruption. “Blinded by belief” means that you avoid, consciously or not, looking at facts that don’t support your ideas.
For me, a quick distinction between the three is that dishonest men know that they are doing the wrong thing, but people involved in noble cause corruption think that they are doing the right thing … and those blinded by belief don’t notice that they’re doing anything at all.
I have no problem at all with you “examining the truthfulness of the facts and the conclusions”. That is science at its finest. What I object to is:
1. Claiming in your headline that all polar bear researchers are either “blinded by belief” of “acting dishonestly”. In addition to containing the “fallacy of the excluded middle”, it is far too broad-brush a claim.
2. Mixing an attack on the motives of your opponents into a discussion of their scientific results. While I certainly believe that many climate scientists are victims of noble cause corruption, I don’t mistake that for a valid attack on their scientific conclusions. Those conclusions have to stand or fall on their own. In addition, I’m clear that speculation about their motives is just that, speculation, and that I’m often unclear about my own motives. As a result, I don’t place much weight on my speculations in any given case, and I make every attempt not to mix a discussion of their motives with a discussion of their science.
3. Claiming that you can discern a persons motives by examining, not their actions, but their writings. If people could do that, the courts would be out of business. There’s a case right now going to the Supreme Court about that subject, whether someone was serious or “just kidding” when making online threats … and as the courts have realized, the truth is, from his words, there’s no way to know what his motives were.
4. Weakening your own case by feeding into the “Us Versus Them” narrative through accusations about their motives. As I mentioned above, that just makes you look like you are out of scientific arguments, whether or not that is true. It is much, much stronger to just do what you did, point out the obvious lacunae in their logic and reasoning, and then simply let the readers draw their own conclusions.
Jim, let me be clear. In my opinion, and that’s all that it is, you wrote a very good, very strong scientific case regarding the malfeasance of the polar bear researchers. And if you’d have left it there, we wouldn’t be having this distracting discussion. But then you badly weakened your own case by moving the focus from their actions (which are demonstrably without scientific justification) to the motives for their actions (which in general are unknown). As a result, instead of discussing how bad their science was, we’re here discussing, of all things, unknown motives …
Finally, I’m sorry, but those are practical and tactical considerations that have nothing to do with the “purity” of my own motives or the lack thereof. Like all men I think my motives are indeed righteous … but then I’m sure that both you and the polar bear researchers would say the same thing.
Best regards, and my thanks for the scientific part of your post, which was clear, detailed, and excellent.
w.
let me be clear. In my opinion, and that’s all that it is, you wrote a very good, very strong scientific case regarding the malfeasance of the polar bear researchers. And if you’d have left it there, we wouldn’t be having this distracting discussion. But then you badly weakened your own case by moving the focus from their actions (which are demonstrably without scientific justification) to the motives for their actions (which in general are unknown). As a result, instead of discussing how bad their science was, we’re here discussing, of all things, unknown motives …
You make a good point here Willis. The problem, however, is that this IS a political battle. Science related to global warming (and let’s not forget that is what it is all about) has long been subordinated to self-interest and ideology, not to mention large government funds and electoral votes.
The scientific case is strong, but this is not about science; it is about political control. The authors of this bad science are just the servants of those who pay them.
It is beyond time when we should start questioning the motives of those who enable this LIE.
Until we start to question possible motives will the purveyors of apparent academic fraudulent schemes begin to consider that they be on the line for exposure. When in the spotlight a decision would need to be considered, if I get called out on this error will it be viewed as; 1) incompetence, 2) malfeasance, 3) embezzlement, or 3) outright fraud? Will I lose my credentials? These considerations would likely lead to some “researchers” being a little less brazen with their conclusions.
There is no outcry as to holding engineers to high standards. I’ve never heard any such talk of an engineer not being held responsible for his/her work based on some noble cause theory.
If one gains an academic status such as phd, dr, etc and wants to play it for what it’s worth then they should most certainly be held to account. These type of titles should be a hallmark of responsibility, not one of sophomoric high school pranks. No more calls for victim-hood for those who should know better and probably do.
Willis,
A very well written comment that exhibits your skill at how thinly you can slice a point.
In otherwords – why waste that skill on making a point that in the end has very little relevance.
timg56 December 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Thanks for the comment, Tim. However, I disagree about the relevance and importance of not mixing speculations about motive with science.
I suspect it’s so important to me because I get this kind of nonsense all the time. The attacks on motives have been relentless since I first started posting, and continue up to this very thread. Heck, Jim Steele has wasted lots of electrons, not disputing my claims and issues, but questioning and speculating about my motives. He’s happy to claim all kinds of things about my motives, going on endlessly about my so-called “personal struggles” and which “universe I live in” and how I’m “promoting Willis’ righteousness” and the like. What on earth does any of that have to do with the issues I’m raising?
So yes, this is an important issues to me. I’m tired of having my ideas dissed and ignored because of what I did in 1966, or what my degree is, or what Jim Steele’s fantasies are about my “personal struggles”.
Finally, including this one there have been two posts recently ascribing bad motives to the mainstream climate scientists. The first one, by Tim Ball, has resulted in a whole lot of very negative opinions about WUWT being put forwards in the blogosphere … and rightly so, in my opinion. This is a SCIENTIFIC blog, not a place to make unsupported accusations about motives. We are often not sure of our own motives … and speculating about the motives of our opponents is both unwarranted and very bad tactics. All it does is give people a valid reason to diss WUWT … and on my planet, that has a lot of relevance.
Best regards,
w.
willis,
I just tried replying to another response of yours back to me and it got lost. If I can recall it well enough, the short hand is that headlines are unimportant except to get the readers attention, that I’m betting the odds are good that most of the people who paid attention to the headline took the trouble to read the entire article, and that anyone who didn’t really isn’t worth consideration, as they self choose to be ignorant. There was some other stuff, but I think the above was my most important point, other than to say I agree with a lot of what you said, only am not as convinced it is as critical to this discussion as you do.
I also can understand some of the frustrations mentioned. I would respond with it being water off a duck’s back. Among your talents is an ability to get under people’s skin. I feel it from time to time. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a personal problem. My problem, not yours. Just look at those types of responses as proof you retain that particular talent.
Acting dishonestly.
Good article. Requires a thorough read. And my assessment still stands. Acting dishonestly.
Are Polar Bear Researchers Acting Dishonestly?
a. Yes, they do it for fame and money, because science is the way to fortune.
b. No. Steele is a fool. As is Ball.
I mean, why do you attack working people? You poor sick excuses for humans..
trafamadore says:
You poor sick excuses for humans.
It must be nice to be able to look down on everyone else from your ivory tower perch.
Too bad your moral compass doesn’t seem to work when it comes to the taxpaying public, who have to pay unwillingly for self-serving ‘research’ from rent-seekers.
The whole Polar bear scare started when your fellow academics tried to sell their nonsense to the public. I firmly believe they knew they were wrong. The beginning of the narrative was when Algore used pictures of “stranded” Polar bears on ice floes — their natural habitat. Then four (4) Polar bear carcasses were spotted after a storm, out of tens of thousands. The media took it from there with the willing connivance of scientists, who decided they liked to see their names in lights more than they liked the Scientific Method.
If the climate alarmist clique spent a little time trying to be honest, the whole ‘carbon’ scare would have fizzled out from the get-go. But money & power, etc.
There really aren’t very many honest scientists on your side, traf. You would be helping “working people” a lot more if you called some of your pals to account, instead of making holier-than-thou comments like the one above.
@ trafamadore
Ahhhh, the absence of trafamadore personal attacks was palpable for the past 18 hours.
But let’s assume I am a fool. In fact I hope people never take my word for it. My motto is the same as the [oldest] scientific institution “Nullius in Verba.” “Take No One’s Word. ” But as the saying goes even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
So prompted by the very real possibility that I am just a complete ignoramus, I would expect a sincere “seeker of the truth” to have examined very carefully all the evidence I presented. Now the real question is do you trafamadore, believe it was justified to omit evidence of springtime ice and movement, evidence documented by the researchers themselves, to create a model predicting polar bear extinction, when if that contrary evidence was incorporated then a completely different scenario would be concluded?
“oclesst” should be “oldest”
[You have now set the record for the oclesst (er, oddest) misspelling correction possible. .mod]
mod, I am sure I will beat that record when I again forget to read what i tpeyd, uh typed.
And yet, it was totally readable.
We see this in genetic transcription all the time.
Prof. Linzen et al have NEVER been attacked. You poor sick excuse for an animal. 😉
trafamadore,
If you were paying attention, Jim Steele was attacking the quality of their work. Unless you can refute his case, calling into question what could lead to such poor work is the next logical step.
I have no idea what kind of a person you are, but I suspect being referred to as Numbnuts is in the realm of your experiences.
@ willis
Thank you for endorsing the scientific content of the article. And I totally understand the pitfalls of a defense that simply calls someone a liar, as well as the the possibility that it may falsely smear their character. Yet I do not regret asking the question about motive, when their assertions are so far from the evidence, evidence that you agree was “clear, detailed, and excellent”. I agree that we can never no for sure what someone’s motive’s were, But by questioning motives, it forces those who truly want to understand to examine that evidence more meticulously, which was my sole intent. And after a thoughtfully and meticulously perusing the evidence, how shall we describe publications that venture so far from the evidence?
I am also troubled by your persistent assertion that I was questioning “all polar bear researchers.” Undoubtedly in hindsight I could have added the word “some”, but anyone who read the essay would have little problem understanding I was referring to the authors of the Bromaghin 2014. I praised Crockford and here rebuttals, so clearly I was not attacking “all”. But you too it a step to the worse and based on your misinterpretation added the word “all” to write I branded “all polar bear researchers are either “blinded by belief” of “acting dishonestly”.
As you agreed, the science was “clear, detailed, and excellent” When that evidence so greatly contradicts the assertions of Bromaghin 2014, I do not regret in the least questioning their motives. My question did not mean there were other possibilities. If there was a kinder and meaningful explanation for Bromaghin 2014 keeping “half the information off the books” so to speak, I was eager to hear it.
I wasnt seeking a sermon over when is the right time to call someone a liar, I was seeking an explanation as to why these scientists publicized such biased results that resulted in climate doomsday headlines across the globe. And based on all the evidence I had painfully scrutinized, there was no kind explanation. As many posters have complained, I did not offer the possibility of “stupid”. If your “noble cause corruption” leads to dishonesty, it is still acting dishonestly, and if you do not understand that, then there is not much more to say. So as an analogy, the Enron executives kept half the information off the books via a legal loophole. They were convicted of dishonesty because they created an illusion that promoted their belief that ENRON was a thriving corporation. In there eyes they believed in ENRON and were nobly corrupted. BUt that illusion created economic misery for thousands. How would you label those ENRON execs? Should we be afraid to question their motives and honesty? I really dont care how you label their motives. The fact remains they created a harmful illusion.
Likewise should we be afraid to question the honesty and motives of “some” polar bear researchers? Did they create a harmful illusion?
Seriously, did anyone else here besides Willis imagine that you meant all polar bear researchers, to include Dr. C.? Obviously there is a number of good PB scientists who have struggled against the prevailing false order to discover the truth.
Ridiculous interpretation of your superb essay. Thanks.
Specifically those “researchers” who produced the “research” which you so thoroughly destroy.
Maybe if Willis knew more actual “scientists” in academia, he would get it.
“Seriously, did anyone else here besides Willis imagine that you meant all polar bear researchers, to include Dr. C.? ”
Nope.
Maybe somebody did, but to me the accusation seemed false on its face, since there are obviously polar bear researchers whom Jim Steele admires as neither blind nor dishonest, to include Dr. C.
Besides which the accusation is illogical, as “all” is not implied. But let’s not rehash that discussion. Including “these” or “some” in the title would have helped clear up any doubt, as Jim acknowledges.
However IMO it can be appropriate to question the motives of “scientists”, if the evidence to do so exists, although maybe it isn’t always the right strategy. As demonstrated though, Jim’s comments weren’t necessarily about motive.
And as Jimbo commented, the Team certainly feels free to calumniate skeptical scientists & lie about their presumed motives.
jim Steele December 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm
Jim, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Inter alia, you say:
The problem is that far too often, people practice “science by headline”. Yes, I understand that in the body of your piece you make distinctions. But news aggregation sites collect and display headlines, not nuances. And as a result, some people will say “Jim Steele? Isn’t he the guy that claimed that polar bear researchers are dishonest?”
I note that milodon has chimed in on your side of the discussion, which should worry you greatly, as he’s a very reliable bellwether for the wrong side of any argument. As usual he uses the opportunity to attack me rather than my ideas, saying that “Maybe if Willis knew more actual “scientists” in academia, he would get it.” Now, that’s odd given that I know a fairly large number of scientists in academia, and in any case it says nothing about my ideas.
However, I’m not concerned with what milodon’s “scientists” in scare quotes might think. I am concerned with what people will think who are reading the headlines on some site or another, and then they come to your headline …
Heck, I almost skipped your post entirely because of the headline. I’m sick of people casting aspersions on everyone, tarring everyone with the same brush. I see that all the time, accusations that “skeptics are this” and “deniers are that”. To my surprise, Judith just did it over on her site, and I was among those tarred. So I’m sensitive to this issue, and yes, Jim, you did accuse all polar bear researchers in your headline.
Now, I’ve hesitated to propose the following course of action, not really my place. But you say that you didn’t mean to accuse all polar bear researchers, and I believe you … so … how about you just change the dang headline and be done with it?
Or not, your choice …
Best regards,
w.
Logic I see is not your long suit, along with math, science, English & other relevant disciplines.
Saying “polar bear researchers” does not imply “all” polar researchers. The “some” is understood to apply to those whose work is referenced in the article.
To anyone with a rudimentary understanding of both English & philosophy this distinction would be obvious. So no wonder it escaped your ken.
That Dr. C, a noted polar bear researcher, understood this elementary distinction should be all the evidence you need to realize the magnitude of your error.
About what I’d expect from a Sonoma State University psych grad. Not that you’re doing poorly in dealing with your on paper intellectual betters here.
That goes double for draft dodgers who weaseled out of the Vietnam War on Army Regulation 635-200, formerly known as Section 8.
Seriously, Willis, in my professional career as a military neurologist and psychiatrist I’ve seen a lot of personnel with your affliction. You compulsively crunch numbers without trying to understand what might lie behind them.
I wasn’t surprised, for instance, to see that you didn’t comprehend that the Milankovitch Cycles work all the time. Your lack of basic education in the disciplines which you have chosen to analyze is shocking. And yet you have made contributions, as in your recent analysis of buoy data. But purely arithmetic, not conceptual.
Your attempt at understanding climatic processes in the tropics wasn’t far off the mark, but was old hat. Yet your lack of formal education in climatology shows in your failure to grasp how to account for solar inputs into the system.
Your late in life attempt to make a contribution hasn’t been a complete waste, and for that I salute you. But please be more self aware in future.
Thanks.
Catherine Ronconi December 2, 2014 at 8:33 pm
Jim, Catherine’s ugly fact-free rant is a perfect example of why you want to stay away from trying to figure out people’s motives. She offers up something no ethical psychiatrist would ever dream of doing, a long-distance psychological analysis of someone that she’s never met, based on the curious claim that she has a lot of experience with “compulsive number crunchers” … and she obviously thinks that her blinding lack of insight into my character has something to do with the issue at hand.
Sadly, this is what happens when you open the door. Since you think it’s ok for you to attack people’s motives, she’s emboldened to try the same slimy nonsense out on me, attacking her fantasies about who I am and what I am, and all the while totally ignoring the issues I raised. She’s the undisputed queen of ad hominems, and has some kind of fixation on me that makes her start foaming at the mouth every time I post.
But of course, she never gets around to pointing out any actual problems with my scientific claims. Instead it’s always mudslinging about my history, or my education, or my style, anything but the science.
Ah, well, as much as I would like to, I can’t cure her bitterness. I wish her well, and I do wish she’d turn her keen psychological insight towards the question of why she’s obsessed with attacking me … surely she must have better, more productive things to do than abusing someone she’s never met. What does she think she’s gaining? My scientific claims stand or fall on their own merit, not on who I am, what I’ve done, or what my motives might be.
Anyhow, Jim, she’s a perfect example of the logical extension of your desire to attack the motives of those you disagree with … not pretty.
w.
milodonharlani December 2, 2014 at 8:15 pm
Gosh. So if someone puts out a headline saying “Skeptics Are Dishonest”, you think that everyone automatically assume that the speaker is only talking about SOME skeptics?
Not on my planet, they don’t assume that. Making such sweeping statements is done all the time without any intention to tacitly include “some”. It’s one of the more ugly tactics of far too many alarmists, making exactly that kind of statement.
I know, because I used to make such statements, until I was called on it by people who said hey, not all of us do that … and since then I’ve been much more careful to not overstate my case. Yes, in my mind I meant “some”, but despite your claims, the folks reading my words didn’t see it that way, and were quite upset.
The problem is, you’re talking about theoretical readers and what they might do, and I’m talking out of my actual experience of people objecting to me making exactly those kinds of sweeping, all-inclusive statements. Folks are clearly not as insightful and understanding as you think.
If everyone were as insightful and understanding as Dr. C, you’d be right … but we’re talking about the polloi, the casual readers, the folks that see the headline on some news aggregation site and go “Wait a minute, that’s a bridge too far” …
Finally, your claims would be much more believable if you weren’t spraying spittle in your haste to call me names. You think that calling me stupid and saying that I can’t follow logic gains you votes … but in fact people see that kind of snark and laugh. If you truly had valid objections, you wouldn’t need the accusations …
w.
It’s just so reassuring to know, as one of the green unwashed, that my “hoi polloi” understanding of Jim’s blog is being moderated by the quintessential skepticism of Willis.
I didn’t call you stupid. You aren’t. You just haven’t sufficiently studied the disciplines relevant to this discussion. Well, maybe English & math. I take those back. Sorry.
You can do the math requisite for the analyses you undertake, but sometimes lack the scientific background to figure out how to conduct the analysis, IMO. For instance, try the time integral of sunspot number against a valid temperature data set (if you can find one) instead of just SSN, as the First Law of Thermodynamics would suggest to be the proper procedure.
Your buoy discovery however is IMO an excellent contribution to a scientific endeavor, showing the mishandling of a temperature “data” set, so-called. Thanks for that.
Your apology was manly, if I may use the term in such a quaint way, since you embrace 19th century standards of behavior passed down from your ancestor the Captain.
In the same spirit, I apologize for intemperate language, for which I offer no excuse.
Catherine Ronconi December 3, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Thank you for your most gracious comment, and your apology is both honest and strong. Much appreciated.
w.
Willis and Catherine,
Everyone gets hot-headed sometimes. But your apologies to each other were class acts, and you both deserve major kudos. I was so impressed that it makes me want to go out and start apologizing, just so I can be in the same league… ☺
Seriously, that means a lot, even to bystanders.
It amazes me, that these people come to this conclusion. Why? If it is wrong, why promote a hypothesis, that other scientists can actually dissect and question. Maybe the whole point of their research was to prove polar bears were being affected negligently by AGW. Or just their numbers fluctuate dramatically, and quite honestly if they are only using one point of reference, and bears migrate how can they come to a correct conclusion. it was a lost opportunity to compile accurate data and the bigger picture of polar bear numbers and migration habits.
By now, I think all scientists are under the microscope for academic mistakes. Who pays them with grants to do these research projects? A long term research project, say over 10 years, should give them some idea about growth, migration and obviously life spans of polar bears. We know that male bears will kill baby bears and eat them, and as a female only has one or two cubs in a breeding cycle, it is probable that some do not survive for various reasons, not just climate change that will impact on their food supply and migration habits. These scientists are getting tiresome, and one eyed when compiling research projects and their conclusions.
“Were polar bear researchers blinded by climate change beliefs, or acting dishonestly?”
Not that I think it really matters. It could be both! Any way you cut it though, these people are not “researchers”. They’re advocates! And as such any “data” they produce and the conclusions they publish based on the “data” they produced in the future should be considered tainted until proven otherwise.
Y’all see this dandy?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/02/the_last_time_there_was_this_little_arctic_ice_modern_humans_didn_t_exist.html?wpsrc=fol_fb
” *Correction, Dec. 2, 2014: This post originally misstated that the Arctic is facing a gap in sea ice. This gap is expected by scientists to occur by midcentury, but is not occurring now.”
There is abundant evidence detailing there was much less ice in the Arctic just during the past few thousand years of the Holocene Optimum and polar bears survived jus fine. Jimbo has posted several links above and I can provide many more. I would have to conclude the authors of that paper and at Slate have grossly exaggerated their claims.
What utter rubbish.
Anatomically modern humans have existed for around 200,000 years, ie two glacial cycles.
That means that our subspecies has lived while the Arctic has had less ice than now many times. For starters, there was the interglacial before the Eemian, then the Eemian itself, then our current interglacial, the Holocene, for the majority of which there has been less ice than now.
Ya see these dandys?
Peer reviewed evidence of an ‘ice-free’ Arctic ocean during the last 11,000 years. CLICK HERE.
By 164,000 years ago modern humans were collecting and cooking shellfish and by 90,000 years ago modern humans had begun making special fishing tools. CLICK HERE
Can you see how wrong you are to post that erroneous link?
Can you see how wrong you are to assume that I posted it because I believe it and not to poke fun of it? Why do you think I copied and pastes their correction? On your side here, guys.. sheesh. I even have a copy of Steele’s excellent book on the shelf and visit this website daily. Be chill, sillies.
It’s amazing how editors from Slate and so many others let these kinds of pathetic articles slide through. Well, I suppose it is Slate, after all. There are mistakes throughout that, as you all and I caught right away. Here’s another great example. This time from Scientific American. It’s not about Arctic ice, but the error is even in the title itself and should have been caught right away by anyone with a few brain cells: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
How does this stuff slide? Because so many people are eager to believe anything that parallels their Big Oil or Big Coal conspiracy theories. And we are supposedly the conspiracy theorists? lol.
Designator,
Sorry for my challenge but it helps to be clearer. The ‘correction’ concerns the future while my point was about the past.
Designator I must confess I wasnt sure if you approved or not to the article to which you linked, so I was careful just to criticize Slate. And I agree that it is totally baffling at the articles they let slide. So I am glad to hear you did not approve and very pleased to hear you enjoyed the book. Happy Holidays!
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO GAIL? What a dedicated, thorough, enthusiastic, researcher she always was.
This is for you, dear Gail, hope all is well back there on your farm in North Carolina … . Please, come back to WUWT — soon!
Take care,
Janice
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #3
“Sleigh Ride” with Jet (a war horse breed now doing much happier duty)
…. aaaand…. if the CO2 Society for Windmills and Solar Panels Subsidized by Taxpayers Society gets its way…. we can ALL jog to work in an old sleigh… get there in about 10 hours….. meh, just kidding. That won’t happen…. there won’t be any job to go to. You’ll be working a little plot of ground next to your hovel, digging up the potatoes to store inside your Silverado cab… thanks to the Renewable Energy Tax on Fossil Fuels, there hasn’t been any gas under $50/gal in years…. might as well use it as a root cellar.
Gail is over at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/why-ncdc-is-making-fraudulent-claims-about-hottest-year-ever/#comments all the time …. see her latest comments on the link I provided … drop her a quick note at Real Science.
Oh, Stewart Pid — THANK YOU! I left her a note. Hope she sees it… .
Over at Climate Depot and just posted today: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/co2-as-a-coolant/#comment-465225
Thanks, rah. I just left ANOTHER note (same one, actually) at your link — both are in moderation… grr. btw: are you RAH the truck driver for whom I pray nearly every day of the year?? Hope all is well.
#(:))
One too many “society’s” (lol, understatement of the year, huh?) 🙂
Wow! Could this discussion lead to a complete review of all “researchers” of various mammals (i.e. polar bears, walrus, etc.) in the arctic region and for good measure include the antarctic penguins for evidence of objectivity in the results of their research?
A public listing of those that have followed scientific principles vs. those that may be afflicted with a disease framed as Noble Cause Corruption could help develop treatment for those victims afflicted with this dreadful burden. At the least, it could be confirmed if this affliction is truly a plague or just only showing up in a few victims. Treatment could be administered accordingly.
timg56 December 3, 2014 at 10:54 am Edit
Tim, thanks for your well-reasoned comments. I agree that corruption is corruption, no matter the cause. But I see my writing is not clear. My objection is not to saying that someone is dishonest (although to do that you need much more evidence than Jim has amassed).
My objection is to mixing motives with science. If you can show that someone’s scientific claims are wrong, then you should STOP THERE. Speculation as to the person’s motives which led them to wrong conclusions just weakens your case. It makes you look like you think that your scientific evidence is insufficient, so you have to attack the motives of the messenger as well.
As I’ve said several times, motives are slippery things—I’m often not aware of all of my own motives for my actions, even well after the fact. Trying to guess someone else’s motives for a given action is a fool’s game—they may be doing it for a reason that you haven’t even considered. As an example, more than once people have pointed out to me that in some post from four years ago that I’d totally forgotten about, I said something that totally contradicts a current statement of mine.
Now, from Jim Steele’s point of view, that’s prima facie evidence of “dishonesty” on my part … but in my world it’s just my slowly failing memory combined with the fact that I’ve written almost 500 posts for WUWT, and I don’t remember every detail of every one.
In addition, I get my motives speculated about and criticized and abused all the time … and approximately 97.3% of the time, the people writing have no clue about what motivated me. I often play a long and deep game, and I make statements for reasons that people don’t even dream of.
As a result, I say that mixing our fantasies about someone else’s motives with an analysis of their scientific claims is always a mistake. It can only harm the argument that you are advancing. One thing I’ve learned in writing for the web is to keep my claims to a minimum, because people will always seize on the weakest one … and reasonably so. When you widen the field from science to motive, you provide all kinds of escape hatches for people to justifiably disregard your scientific claims.
And this post is a perfect example of that. If Jim had stuck to the science, there would be no debate about his post, and we’d all be discussing how the scientists were ignoring their own data … but sadly …
Finally, as to whether Jim Steele has shown that the researchers are “either lying or cheating”, to misquote the Bard “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy”. I’ve had people do what you just did, accuse me of lying, when in truth I’d just forgotten … do you think that advanced their cause, or made me look favorably on their scientific arguments?
I suspect that your dad and your grandpa would not accuse a man of lying without having irrefutable proof in hand, it’s an extremely serious charge … and regarding the polar bear researchers, in my opinion we simply do not have such irrefutable proof.
My best to you,
w.
No Willis, We could still be talking about the evidence I presented, but you have chosen to use the title to argue about Willis’ pet peeves. A simple to be more accurate, ” next time insert the word some”, would have sufficed. Done and criticism understood.
But then you go on and on. Now you suggest that the reason Catherine attacked you was because I thought “it’s ok for you to attack people’s motives, she’s emboldened to try the same slimy nonsense out on me” What universe do you live in Willis? Its all right for you to ascribe Catherine;s motives? I suspect you and Cartherine have a history, and her motives, and her attacks, had precious little to do with the title of my essay giving her permission. Dont use my essay to grandstand and deflect your personal struggles!
jim Steele,
I think if you adjusted the title now it should end this conversation about motivation. You have every reason to question SOME polar bear researchers motivations. Imagine if they reported that polar bears were just find! What the heck do you think will happen to their funding?
Climategate, Glieckgate, deleting FOIA emails, hide the decline, etc. This is just science and nothing else. No need to ask any questions, just ignore their motivations and just talk about their science. I don’t think that tactic brought WUWT to the top of the climate blogs.
Jim, you’re right. Catherine’s piling on might have nothing to do with your foray into ascribing motives. I retract that comment entirely and completely, I was 100% wrong to say it. It comes from my frustration, because I truly don’t know why Catherine attacks me so vehemently, it’s always been a mystery.
However, I have noted that when one person starts attacking motives, others often join in and the crescendo gets very loud … as has been the outcome here, including with my own words, mea culpa.
Coincidence? Perhaps.
In any case, you seem to think my objection was simply to your title. It was not, and I’ve made that perfectly clear by listing my four main objections above, so I don’t understand why you are so focused on the title. I thought we’d agreed that the title was misleading … can we move on?
My objections were mostly to your attempt to ascribe motives to your adversaries in the midst of a scientific discussion. You still don’t seem to have grasped that you are doing your argument huge damage by mixing science with guesses about people’s motives. All that does is gives people an excuse to ignore the science.
As to the title, I have indeed said you should “insert the word some” as you suggested that I should have said … but you haven’t done changed the title yet. Why not?
Finally, you keep trying to deflect the subject from your attack on the unknown motives of the polar bear researchers and how that has harmed your post … but unfortunately, you’ve tried to change the subject by talking about my motives, like my so-called “personal struggles” and which “universe I live in” and how I’m “promoting Willis’ righteousness” and the like. How about YOU stop the personal attacks on my motives and deal with the issues that I raised? I haven’t made any corresponding claims about your damn motives, I haven’t gone on about your “personal struggles” and your “righteousness”, so how about you leave your fantasies about my motives out of the discussion as well?
You see what happens when you start attacking people’s motives, Jim? Both of us got sucked into the vortex … not good. Stick to the science, and let people draw their own conclusions. The readers are not fools. If you can show the facts, you don’t need the commentary.
w.
That is a simple summary of my complaint about this article.
If the article’s science was rubbish then we would just scorn it.
But the science is really good (polar bears may move to follow food and thus avoid counting).
Yet the article claims the flaws in the science are not sufficient for comment – or even criticism.
The article claims that a reason for the motivations of the ‘scientists who made the errors’ is required (even before the scientists are forced to provide an admission of the proven errors). That isn’t required.
Maybe when the science has moved on it would be worthwhile – so as to provide a history. But it is not the science.
Stick to the science.
Did the polar bear researchers adhere to the following advice from Prof Richard Feynman? You decide.
“you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated”
Jimbo that is exactly the standard all scientists must be held to.
Willis says “You still don’t seem to have grasped that you are doing your argument huge damage by mixing science with guesses about people’s motives. ”
I completely understood the very first time it was brought up. What I don’t understand is why you have persisted ad nauseum to bring it up time and time again. How stupid do you think I am? You have left an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth, I am not changing the title now because its already out there in the ether. I will accept the consequences of my grammatical carelessness and trust most people who bother to read the essay will know exactly what I meant. Those who hijack that mistake for their own personal agenda says more about them than me.
I also think you are wrong to assert that there is never a place to discuss motive. Attributing motives with out any evidence is indeed meaningless and detrimental. But when the evidence presented so clearly and demonstrates someone purposefully chose not to include critical evidence, it naturally begs the question why?
It is clear by there own statements that they chose to purposefully dismiss the transiency issue. Why?
Most of the authors had published about springtime ice and is negative effects, but purposefully chose to eliminate it from the model chosing summer ice instead. Why?
Damn right I question their motives. If you think it was their honest mistake, then prove me wrong. Don’t give me sermon after sermon about never questioning motives, especially when you quickly do so yourself.
jim Steele December 3, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Jim, it’s quite possible that you “completely understood the very first time it was brought up” … but so far, you haven’t discussed anything but the title. You haven’t said a word about how it damages your argument to speculate on the motives. So perhaps you understood it … but you haven’t commented on it. Instead, when I brought it up, you immediately attacked my motives … funny how that works. And you have continued to attack my motives, right up to your most recent comment.
My advice? IGNORE ME COMPLETELY, forget your fantasies about my motives, and instead, take the excellent advice of MCourtney and others who have said …
Can’t say it plainer than that …
You go on to say:
Since I never asserted that, it’s just your straw man. What I said was that it was a mistake to mix speculations about motives into the middle of a scientific discussion. There are lots of places to discuss motives … but a scientific exposition isn’t one of them.
If you truly wanted an answer to the question in your title, the only way to get even close to it is to ASK THE RESEARCHERS why they left out the part you say should be in there. Report back to us what they say. Because until then, you’re just guessing. You say:
“Prove you wrong”? I know as little about their motives as you do, which is nothing. How could I “prove you wrong” when neither of us are privy to their motives? Ask the dang researchers, and see what they say.
w.
PS—I note that your reason for not correcting the wording in the title is that you already made the mistake, viz:
… so what? Are you saying you only correct your mistakes when they are private, but not when they are public? How does that work? I admitted and retracted my mistake with Catherine, specifically BECAUSE it was “already out there in the ether”… but you stick to your mistakes because they’re public?
Willis, as a writer you know how hard it is to get a sentence exactly right.
Now you’re putting this guy on the defensive and giving no quarter.
I know, but give him an out,…….. but that’s not your style.
So here we are.
Where are we after all this ?
Nowhere.
Thanks, u.k. Jim has a number of outs, starting with simply changing the title as I and others suggested. Then he could write the authors and ask them why their model lacks what he thinks should be in there. Then he could engage meaningfully with the question of whether ascribing motives in a scientific discussion is good tactics, regardless of whether it might be justified for other reasons. He could talk about the fallout from Tim Ball’s similar excursion into ascribing bad motives. He has lots of options.
Instead of any of those, he’s concentrated on attacking my motives … but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a lot of outs.
w.
u.k.(us) December 3, 2014 at 4:44 pm
u.k. I neglected to answer this question. I’d say that the discussion has actually been very valuable. It has highlighted the dangers of mixing science with our guesses about what motivates our opposition, and I think that’s a good thing.
My only regret, which is unavoidable, is that as is generally the case, mixing speculation about motives with science has led to the science taking second place … and in Jim’s case, that’s a real loss, because the science in his piece was both clear and compelling.
w.
Years ago you put up a bloody picture of life in the arctic, polar bear vs seal or something, and I said it might not really help the “cause” (it was really bloody).
You said something like “what cause”.
Now you say:
“It has highlighted the dangers of mixing science with our guesses about what motivates our opposition…”
So, now I’ll turn the tables and ask you who the opposition might be ?
In the current case, the opposition are the polar bear researchers who Jim Steele disagrees with.
w.
Willis said, “My advice? IGNORE ME COMPLETELY”
You are absolutely right and I will now do so!
Excellent … now you are free to deal with the issues I raised, without getting all confused by your ideas about me and my claimed “personal struggle” and the like.
w.
Jim Steele you have said many accurate, many informative, and many useful, things on this thread. Nothing, however was WISER than the above statement. We would all do well to emulate you. Nothing else will work with a narcissist. Nothing. They cannot see what a mirror actually reflects, no matter how many times you place one before their eyes.
Oh, wonderful. Now Janice Moore is attacking my motives, claiming I do what I do because in her fatuous world I’m a “narcissist”. Janice, you’re as pathetic as the rest of the folks who would rather attack motives than deal with issues.
Are we seeing a pattern here? It appears to be open season for ad hominem attacks on Willis. Anyone else want to step up to the plate to ignore the issues and attack what they fantasize about my motives?
w.
“Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.”
milodonharlani December 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm
I’m not sure if that’s praising with a faint damn, or damning with a faint praise, but it is appreciated either way.
You could start by asking if I’ve done that analysis … and yes, I have. From memory, I compared it to HadCRUT4, but if you have another dataset you’d like me to look at, I’m happy to do so.
I haven’t found any statistically significant results, which is not surprising. The problem with that approach is that the cumulative sum (time integral) is so highly autocorrelated that you need very, very good correlation to achieve statistical significance.
Finally, if you look at say the daily variation in temperature, it correlates with the solar input, NOT the cumulative sum of the solar input. And if you look at the frequencies in the solar variations, they show up in the temperature.
Which is why I’ve looked at both the sunspots and the cumsum of the sunspots … and I haven’t found much either way.
You are most welcome. The shenanigans of the various temperature datasets are the source of unending amusement.
My best to you,
w.
And to you at this season. Please keep up your good work.
May you & yours thrive & prosper in the New Year.
Even in the darkest, coldest, winter, there is somewhere warmth and light.
Here, in candlelit King’s College chapel, Cambridge, England:
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #4
“In the Bleak Midwinter”
It’s a bit early for Christmas, so here’s some background on the fight to save it:
Hey, U.K. (US) — thanks for a riff from one of my favorite groups! I could barely decipher the lyrics (and the video) BUT, LOVED the music. EIGHTIES ROCK RULES!
#(:))
Sigh. Yes, there will, unfortunately, be a perpetual need for the military strength that preserves and restores peace in the streets of the earth. How wonderful that Christmas makes it possible to have peace in our hearts … always.
Take care (and how about favoring us with your name, or at least, part of it? hard to relate to a UKUS… :)),
Janice
I somehow came up with that stupid moniker when making my first comment here.
Now I guess I’m stuck with it (lest I confuse everyone).
James Colbourne
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
(the rest of the info is easy to find ).
Dear James,
Thank you for that. That was very generous-spirited of you. And of COURSE I will not be digging into your personal life. Just nice to be able to use your real name! And it is a fine one (several members of my family, two very dear to me, one who goes by “Jim,” have borne that distinguished name).
Re: being “stuck” — perhaps not… I quite easily made the switch from “Luther Wu” (lol, I thought that was a real person 🙂 and always pictured ALAN ROBERTSON as looking like gifted, late, comedian Jack Soo (detective on “Barney Miller”). You could just add “f.n.a. UK (US)” for awhile. Those who matter (that is, those of us who respect and value you) will learn. Remember, this is a pretty bright bunch of people, here! Go for it, James!
Janice
#(:))
[Janice: You forgot to remind your uk reader to make absolutely sure that he gets all of those letters in “f n a UK US” in exactly the right order. 8<) .mod]
Make no mistake, I was not being generous-spirited.
I was seduced.
“Remember, this is a pretty bright bunch of people, here.”
Yep, and they’re not afraid to remind you of that fact 🙂
In status quo.
(just HAD to post this next right away — JAMES TAYLOR)
#(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #5
Now, dear boys and girls, don’t open the door before the 5th of December.
In the Bleak Midwinter — sung by James Taylor
Not even winter yet, let alone mid-, but definitely bleak here in frozen, icy, snowy Eastern Oregon. This is our second blast of early winter. In Central Oregon, Redmond broke records for cold last month, around 15 below zero F.
Migrating to Chile in a few days. Stayed too long in the NH this year.
Safe travels, and vaya con Dios, Señor Harlani.
De FACTO winter (though not de jure) has set in!
Thanks to human CO2, no doubt (eye roll).
#(:))
Chile is high on my list of places to visit.
I guess Oregon is as well, as I have a home there. Try to get down every weekend.
Sra. Janice,
Gracias! Y a ti igualamente. Pero entonces siempre vas con Dios.
Tim G,
Most of Oregon is presently pretty nasty to visit. Lots of white global warming on the ground where I live.
Chile is great to visit if your schedule permits staying long enough to make the long trip from North America worth it. It has just about every climatic zone. Imagine the Pacific coast of NA, flipped, with a country starting at Cabo, Baja & running up to SE Alaska, but only about 109 miles wide, but with bigger mountains closer to the coast most of the way, without the big central valleys, so that the westward-flowing rivers are more like those of out Coast Ranges, only bigger & longer. Also, the current off the coast is even colder. The Atacama Desert in the north is the driest place on earth, as you may know, while the south is a temperate to boreal rain forest. The center, where most people live, is like California.
Very good wine, if you like wine. Despite lots of Germans, many beer snob visitors find the beer only so-so, but I like it. Good seafood, not surprisingly, & beef, lamb & pork, with fresh vegetables & bread, although processed & junk food are making their insalubrious appearance.
As in New Zealand, some Chilean & Argentine Patagonian glaciers are growing, along with Antarctic sea ice. The Andes are generally lower in the south, where the biggest glaciers are, than in the north, or there would be more of them emptying into the sunken valleys. Aconcagua, the highest mountain in the world outside a fairly small area of Asia, lies on the border with Argentina. It’s not a volcano, but most of the other giants are. I live near where the Aconcagua River enters the Pacific, about in the latitude of San Diego, same as Santiago, the main city, named for the same saint.
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #6
This one’s for you, James. 🙂
“Carol of the Bells” — METALLICA
While the lighter, classical, arrangements are lovely,
this pounding rock version is especially apropos,
for always and always,
even while a newborn baby slept in his mother’s loving arms
under a starry sky…
ahead loomed the cross where only gut-wrenching courage and flint-hard resolution kept a man who could have called 10 legions of mighty angels to rescue him at ANY moment
going —
one
agonizing
step
at
a
time.
Selah.
**************************************
******************************************
@ James (a.k.a. U.K. (US)) re: “seduced” (in the non-physical sense) — by ME?? You must be confusing me with someone else…, but, if not, I’ll take that as a very generous compliment!
#(:))
@ “Mod” — Tsk. Tsk. — glad to “hear” from you, anyway (smile).
Still too early for xmas, no matter how hard the seductress tries.
Ha! The game is up, James! (smile)
If I WERE a seductress, I would be irresistible!
😛
Related topic: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/03/3598755/noaa-ringed-seals-biggest-critical-habitat-proposal/
I find the following rather curious:
1) that NOAA sees it as within its mandate to recommend protection of seal habitat
2) that NOAA sees the loss of sea ice as detrimental to seals — after all, wasn’t the argument “du jour” that the lack of sea ice meant fewer seal lunches for the polar bears? (i.e., low ice was supposed to be bad for the bears, which should, in theory, mean better survival rates for seals) — unless I’m missing something…
(like high levels of spring ice / sarc off).
I’d be interested in the viewpoint of a biologist actually studying ringed seals.
Please explain the relationship between ice extent, seal health / survival and polar bear health / survival.
Kurt in Switzerland
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #7
“Carol of the Bells/God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen”
— youtube video published by Matt Riley
(a repeat from last year, but so beautiful! — click exploded square in lower right for full screen!)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #8
A lullaby…
“Candlelight Carol” — Cambridge Singers
(pub. on youtube)
…. and an Irish blessing:
(imagine standing at the edge of a freshly plowed field beside the sea at twilight)
Deep peace of the running waves to you…………
Deep peace of the flowing air to you……..
Deep peace of the smiling stars to you……..
Deep peace of the watching shepherds to you…………
Deep peace of the Prince
of Peace.
Ah, I can’t Believe it’s Not Rutter – but it is!
Thanks for this. I know we aren’t on the best of terms and so expect no reply but, please be cognoscente that I appreciate these things.
It’s been a hard weekend (very hard) and this blessing and music was balm for the soul.
Keep up the good work.
But back to the Metallica would, more usually, be nice for me
Dear Matthew,
Thank you, dear English ally for truth, for saying so. I am SO glad you enjoyed that beautiful song. What a gift to me your thanks is — hard to keep on posting when it appears that only I am listening. Good to know someone else is.
I am so sorry to hear that the path has gotten very steep and uphill of late. Even if life in general is going well, the weight of a heavy heart can make even the easiest terrain a grim, one-step-at-a-time, ordeal. If the pain is caused by someone very dear to you misunderstanding you and, thus, saying very hard and unfair things to you, as I have been experiencing for the past two weeks, my heart goes out to you. That hurts.
If there is fear of the future clouding your present, try (if I may be so bold as to offer unsolicited advice which recently encouraged me) to just do as C. S. Lewis advised a friend in a letter: (paraph.) Do the present duty. Enjoy the present pleasure (for me, that will be hot chocolate and cheese and nuts, presently :)). Endure the present pain (it WILL pass).
Whatever is troubling you, may God soon give you relief. The following verse encouraged me much recently as my hopes for a professional job were once again dashed. I hope it will comfort you: “May the God of hope fill your heart with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Romans 15:13.
Let it go…. be at peace….. and just
TRUST.
God sees.
God knows.
God cares.
He will work it all out, in the end, for good. (Romans 8:28)
Your sister in Christ (who just prayed and will pray for you),
Janice
P.S. And for Matt Courtney’s ears only (a disclaimer to prevent being castigated for promoting religion here), a song I listen to often — back to rock (albeit soft, heh :)… I’ll bear in mind your preference in the days to come…)!
“No Doubt” — Petra
Thank you, Janice Moore.
This has not been an easy weekend. Grabbing the “now” when the future is being planned by people who think (and report) the very worst of me is very difficult.
Fortunately my fiancées parents know me better than to believe the allegations but.. Nah.
The failing was mine in being cowardly; Crazies are everywhere; .
Of course – this would be overcome.
Thank You for helping me be calm and not rock the boat while things worked themselves out logically, without my needing to charge in to the fray – like a self-serving Zorro.
Dear Matthew (if I may call you that),
Being the victim of slander (I have been and deeply sympathize) is very hard. There is little the victim can do. Time. It will just take time for the truth to shine out as the mud slides off and falls to the ground. You are wise to, given the impossibility of your making any kind of defense on your behalf, just quietly lay down your sword and simply stand your ground and
watch
God
work. God often waits until we come to the end of our trying … and then steps in. Wait. All will be well.
Those who respect and value and love you know the truth,
and that is what matters.
As to the others, who do not really know you … “Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest.” Prov. 26:2.
Praying for you (do let me know (in general terms) how God steps in — He will),
and do call me “Janice,”
Janice
Dear Janice,
The truth has outed.
But the slander that worried me so much has gone back into a scorn pocket.
I don’t know what a scorn pocket is but the allegation is certainly there, yeah.
And OK I know we have our disagreements but I hope we can work together to promote the truth (ignoring where we disagree with what the truth is).
Politics is a subject to avoid (it seems) but promotion of science/empiricism and the study of Creation as a means to finding the greatest Truth and the Way to the Life… the best Life… we seem to be able to be alongside
Yes, you may call me Matt. I only use M because being a sceptic harms my employability and I need my Googol search to hit me on LinkedIn rather than here.
Dear M #(:)) (to be on the safe side),
Glad to know the truth IS out. Hand the “scorn pocket” (what-EVER that is, lol) to God and go on your merry way, down the aisle, into a “happily ever after” with “her.”
Congratulations (for next spring)!
Best wishes for much JOY …. and prayers,
Janice
P.S. re: politics…. #(:)) So…. how’s the weather over there…, heh, heh. ….
Well, since MCourtney is apparently the only one (besides, you, dear Mod, but, I only know one Mod’s preference for one group, and not knowing whether YOU are THAT Mod… I’ll just go with MC’s request) opening the virtual advent calendar doors, his preference for rock music will be honored!
#(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #8
“Messiah” — Handel — Sung by Petra (youtube vid)
Yeeee—aaaaah!
Long live rock and roll — the soul of FREEDOM!
Freedom bought
nearly 2,000 years ago
at a very high price.
Hallelujah!
#(:))
#9!
Janice, I’ve held my tongue as long as I can. Your incessant attempt to turn a scientific discussion into religious witnessing is sad. The last time you came around, you most unpleasantly used the occasion of my father-in-law’s death to tell me that everything I believe is wrong, and to try to convert me to Christianity … and when I protested loudly that a eulogy was no place to try to convert the person giving the eulogy to your particular religious beliefs, you disappeared entirely.
Could you please do the same again? The disappearing part, I mean. There are many places for religious witnessing, but this isn’t one of them. Look, I’m sure you think you are just spreading the Good News™, but for some of us, your endless attempts to bring religion into the conversation are misguided, ludicrous, ultimately pathetic, and indicative of how weak your faith actually is … strong faith doesn’t require such actions.
I have no problem with religious witnessing in church. I have a big problem with people who think it is appropriate at any time and place. It is not. In many places, it is pushy, intrusive, repulsive, and needy.
Can I ask you politely to take it somewhere else? We’re not heathens, we’ve heard your religious claims all of our life, it’s not news of any kind to us, good or otherwise, and some of us have no use for your “news”. Please stop trying to sell your religion here. If nothing else, it is unseemly and counter-productive.
Finally, let me say that I’m sure you’re a good person, who does good deeds … but this is not the place for those deeds. If I want religion, I go to church. I implore you, take it elsewhere. Your heedless, unpleasant actions here make people LESS willing to put up with Christians.
w.
PS—Yes, I’m sure there are people here who think what you are doing is jes’ fine, and who may jump up to defend your right to be pushy and aggressive about Jesus wherever you see fit … I just want to point out that some of us find your actions wildly inappropriate.
Now that Willis has moved on – and everybody else save those who want to see this advent calendar – let me say that this not inappropriate.
Putting it as the first comment and so thread-jacking would be inappropriate. This is a science blog (primarily). Yet other pieces of Opinion are permitted. And in my opinion this opinion is not the most regrettable to have been seen here recently. Even for Dr Ball it never occurred to me to ask for censorship of anyone by anyone. If you don’t like it say your piece and move on.
Using a space for a debate that is not required (as the debate is long over) to give gifts that you think are of value… Kindness.
And it can be ignored by those who want to ignore it.
And those who do want to see it can find it.
MCourtney, you’ve just proven what I said above, which was:
There are religious blogs all over the web. It would be highly inappropriate for me to try to hijack one of them to endlessly post about climate change, even if the discussion had slowed.
And if someone, anyone at that blog said “Hey, please take climate change elsewhere”, it would be the height of arrogance for me to continue after that … but arrogance is a Christian specialty, Janice thinks her ideas are appropriate anywhere, even at a eulogy for an atheist.
So yes, as I predicted, for some folks like you it’s fine … but as I said, for some of us it’s just more Christian arrogance, trying once again to jam their ideas in when the discussion has nothing to do with religion.
w.
One more thing, MCourtney. You said:
I have not “asked for censorship of anyone by anyone”. I’ve asked Janice to kindly post where it is more appropriate. Please confine your accusations to reality …
w.
Don’t know about that. Not talking about that. That’s not happened here, online.
There is no discussion here – now. Nothing is being suppressed or displaced. The thread has finished about polar bears.
Religion is not being forced anywhere as there is no meaningful resistance.
You are offended at spiritual offerings on this site. OK.
But no-one is being shown these offerings excepting those who are wanting them. You have to look to find a WUWT thread from 2 weeks ago. And then you need to click on a YouTube link.
Why seek such things to be offended by? It helps you nought. It helps Janice nought. And the rest of us are not affected either way.
But my statement on censorship still matters. This webspace is not consecrated ground for irreligion anymore than for religion. Let every voice be heard by those who wish to listen. And if you don’t want to hear, don’t listen.
Don’t demand silence, please.
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #10
“Hallelujah” — A Soulful Celebration (youtube video)
“For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”
(btw: GREAT DANCE MUSIC! — oh, yea!)
#(:))
In todays Vancouver Sun :
But a new study modelling melting sea ice shows that won’t likely be the case, says the University of Alberta professor and Canada’s foremost expert on polar bears.
“It’s pretty clear, by the end of the century all those areas will have problems sustaining a population of polar bears,” Derocher said Sunday.
http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/High+Arctic+melt+threatens+polar+bears+Study/10452409/story.html
Good find, Gary Mount.
Advent calendar doors don’t need to be about Christmas all the time — just fun or pretty things, so, to effectively say, “I’m sooo worried about Arctic melt — NOT!” and also remembering what a kick you said you got out of this little ditty…. here it is!
The HAMSTER DANCE SONG! #(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #11
Yeeeeeeeee — haw!
#(:))
Global warming is such a problem…… lololololololollolol
*************************
Remember to get up from that desk and staring at all those IF — THENS and REPEAT – UNTILS (etc… etc… :)) and have some FUN! Writing code IS fun? Oh, I forgot. LOL, you software engineers are so cool. 🙂
Reblogged this on Globalcooler's Weblog and commented:
I had always heard that the polar bear counts were flawed estimates but this article explains how the counts are made in basic terms. The authors failed to heed their own precautions. And of course the models don’t work. It’s kind of like in a murder mystery,”The Butler did it.” Some things are a constant. Just not Polar Bears.
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #12
“White Christmas” — sung by Bing Crosby
Sigh. Where I am at this Christmastime is making this song real for the first time in my life. And that is a good thing. Something new to experience!
“May YOUR days be merry and bright,” all of you wonderful WUWTers!
#(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #13
On this day (December 13th) in history…
(Source: http://www.historyorb.com/day/december/13)
So….
“Let It Snow” — sung by Dean Martin (youtube video)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #14
On this day (Dec. 14th) in history…
(Source: http://www.historyorb.com/day/december/14)
News travelled slowly in 1287. Thus, up in Sweden (Stockholm at ~ Lat. 59 N), they were blissfully unaware of the “weird weather” event happening to the south (NW Nederlands at ~ Lat. 52 N)… .
“Sancta Lucia” — Swedish Girls Choir (YouTube video)
Background information about Medieval Warm Period:
1. (2,000-year Northern Europe land surface temperature reconstruction)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-really-looks-like/
2. (meanwhile, back in the Arctic…)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #15
And in the Early Middle Ages (A.D. 500 – 1050)…
“Good King Wenceslas” — Performed by The Irish Rovers (YouTube video)
(video gives a fair idea of what Envirostalinist taxes and regulations will give us all the joy of doing once we are all using windmills to generate electricity… picking up sticks to cook our gruel, vainly scanning the horizon for a Wenceslas….. )
[WhencestSlav’s? Right them they are! Jest east of the Chechoslavs and a bit south of them there Polaslav’s! 8<) .mod]
lol, com’st thou to mine humble calendar, dear Mod?
Goody! #(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #16
Enough! (of doom and gloom!)
This is a season to REJOICE! #(:))
“God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen” — perf. by Jethro Tull (YouTube vid)
“God rest ye, merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay… . ”
Stop frowning, get up (or, if you are not able, just chair dance),
and DANCE!
#(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #17
(a partial repeat from last year…)
Today (Dec. 17th) was THE DAY!
Wright Brothers Flight at Kittyhawk, NC — Dec. 17, 1903
“Hold on Tight to Your Dream” — ELO (YouTube video)
Don’t give up. “Never, never, never, never give up.” (Sir Winston Churchill)
TRUTH (about human CO2) WILL WIN!
#(:))
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #18
~*~*~Dedicated to all you Science Giants of WUWT`~*~*~
Before the Superbowl last January, virtually NO “expert” thought the Seahawks could win the Superbowl. (paraph.) “They just don’t have the offense”…. “their defense is good, but not that good”….. “97% of all of us sports guys say Seattle will lose”….. “we know”…….. “no way”……… “projections”…… blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…… .
But! LOL — LAUGH — OUT — LOUD! — >
—–> The Seattle Seahawks WON the SUPERBOWL!!!!! #(:))
And you Science Geeks of WUWT — you, too, are bad-mouthed and scoffed at by the “experts”…. “97% of scientists agree anthropogenic global warming is happening”…… “skeptics are losers”…… “ev1l den1ers… hisssssssssssssss……..” and on and on.
But! LOL — IN THE END, TRUTH WILL WIN! (and it already is!)
Hang in there, guys (and gals)! You ARE making a difference — you have the AGWers playing defense and they are falling back…… that’s no “pause” in that propaganda blitz — Ha! — AGW F-R-A- U D is heading doooowwwwn.
And there is no turning back.
AGW is over. Just a matter of time!
GO, WUWT TEAM! #(:))
*******************************************
Please, indulge this loyal Seattle fan with this post…. I am so homesick… waaaaa.
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #19
JUST — FOR — FUN!
@ All you men (and there are a lot of men around here…): that wonderful woman you’ve been dating for YEARS is still waiting……. consider this a video from HER to YOU.
ASK HER!! She deserves that, you know… . If you are afraid… when will you NOT be? Hm? Logic, dear fellow, use your logic!
Dedicated to all the single women who have been waiting ……. and waiting…… and… sigh……
“All I Want for Christmas Is You” — sung by Mariah Carey
…. if she is worth waiting for at all, she won’t wait forever…. . (more logic :))
Go for it, guys! #(:))
************************************
Post Script:
@ Any man who’s best girl has been putting him off (for a long time, now…) — JUST ASK HER …. AND TELL HER: “It’s now or never.” Gaze into her eyes with your “I’m dead serious” look for 5 seconds……. then, turn and walk toward the door….. and (if it’s meant to be) she will run after you.
She will!
If she really loves you, she doesn’t want to lose you no matter how much she talks about her career… . She knows she can do both. She is just afraid.
Some people need a boldly painted picture of the stark reality of what they will lose if they stay where they are before they will gather up the courage to make a big change.
It’s ULTIMATUM TIME!
Yes, she may call your bluff. So be it. Walk away. Your heart will be heavy, but, you can still walk. And you will, you really will, get over her.
It wasn’t meant to be.
I know that is very hard (believe me, I know….). Weep and mourn the loss of your dream, but, walk on.
Life’s too short to spend it waiting for “someday.”
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #20
Dedicated to An-thony Watts, Persevering, Heroic, Champion of Truth Down in the Trenches Where There Is Very Little Glory
(and to a dear friend of mine who recently stepped out of his hero costume to take up the harder life of the toughest heroes: the ones who get very little glory … always my hero)
You, both of you, are one of that rare breed who are: “the richest man in town.”
(It’s a Wonderful Life — Ending — YouTube video)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #21
Dedicated to all our wonderful ENGINEERS!
No digital tech… just pure mechanical genius.
“Hark the Herald Angels Sing” — Rita Ford Music Boxes (YouTube vid)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #22
Santa’s sleigh’s being test-driven as we speak… listen….. hear it?
Believe!
#(:))
(ending of movie “Polar Express” — YouTube video)
And… a song!
No one does “Jingle Bells” better than
The Mills Brothers (YouTube video)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #23
“Cantique de Noel” (O Holy Night) — sung by Placido Domingo (YouTube vid)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #24
(“A Charlie Brown Christmas” — YouTube video)
Virtual Advent Calendar Door #25!
Crew of Apollo 8, December 24, 1968
And we are STILL doing GREAT things (thanks to all the wonderful real scientists and engineers around the world) — AND GREAT THINGS LIE AHEAD.
Climate change is a NON-issue.
A silly discussion,
but for our having to refute the Enviro-profiteers’ l1es.
Never underestimate the capacity of the human mind. Human ingenuity in a brain connected to a tenaciously persevering heart like a Galileo…. a Harrison….. a Wright…. an Edison…. an Einstein…. a (an)…….. (many names out there, some have not even turned 30…. we could put into this space)…. has an ENORMOUS capacity to solve problems.
Inspired by God, it can do ANYTHING.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
With love,
Janice
#(:))
MCourtney December 13, 2014 at 4:18 pm Edit
In fact, it did happen here on WUWT, online.
Of course there’s no discussion, Janice has totally hijacked the thread. And now she has posted so many videos that the post takes all day to load, and as a result any time anyone wants to refer to the post in future, it’ll be a long slow wait.
Some are offended, some are not, but who elected you to speak for “the rest of us”?
Censorship? What are you babbling about? There has been no censorship nor any attempt at censorship. As I pointed out before and you pointedly ignored, I am demanding nothing. Stop exaggerating.
I have asked Janice politely several times to take her beliefs to somewhere more appropriate. There’s thousands of Christian blogs where her comments would be perfectly appropriate. But noooo … she’s as arrogant now as when she tried pushing her religion at the eulogy for an atheist, she seems impervious to polite requests and totally lacking in common decency. She just loves to express her religion while “standing on the street corners to be seen by others” … seems she either never heard of Matthew 6:5, or she thinks she knows more than Matthew.
No surprise … she’s a Christian, and while many Christians are most wonderful folks, a sizable minority of them think that aggressively pushing their beliefs is appropriate anywhere, at any time, in any context, and regardless of what anyone thinks about their intrusion.
w.