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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.”