More Polar Non-Science

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen



Good Grief!  Enough already with the Polar Bears!

The folks at the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science**,  whose motto, proudly displayed on their website, is “Science for the Benefit of Humanity”, have managed to embarrass themselves with a little ad that appeared in my news feed from the New York Times Science section:


Down at the bottom, after all the highlights of today’s news, was an advertisement – you know, those ads that Google or someone throws into your emails and web pages – outside of the influence of the email sender  or the website itself.

Here’s the ad as it appeared (I admit, that Weizmann gets a bit of free advertising here…):



I hope the irony is not wasted on any reading here….that you all know that if this image was not a fake, the photographer would have to be arrested for endangering a child.

Luckily, the image was created by the very talented Per Breiehagen and is sold by Getty Images.


It is also available as a holiday card from Psaris Productions.

The questions that sprung to my mind are these:

How could a group dedicated to science use an image that is not only–not merely–a fake, but is also so ridiculously hypocritical coming from an “institute of science”?

followed by:

How could they think that anyone who might be  interested in supporting science by donating would be taken in by such an image? 

This is what happens when the public outreach from scientific organizations is put into the hands of modern college graduates who have been indoctrinated but not educated.

The true essence of the image [had it been real] would be:


I recommend Susan Crockford’s book, Eaten, a novel that will set you straight about cuddly polar bears and what they do with little girls.

**CORRECTION:  The first line has been corrected to make it clear that the ad was placed on behalf of the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science, not the Weizmann Institute itself, which is in Israel, whose website states that “The Weizmann Institute is assisted by a network of international associations of friends [of which the American Committee is one]  that secure its future by providing essential financial resources for continuous development and inform their constituencies about the vision and accomplishments of the Weizmann Institute and its scientists.” 1300 hrs Eastern Time, 14 Dec 2016  (h/t Pat Frank)

# # # #


Author’s Comment Policy:  Sorry, but I just couldn’t take yet another “cute polar bears” money-pitch from an alleged scientific organization.  I have no prior experience with the Weizmann Institute before seeing this ad.  I can only hope that the ad was produced without their editorial input.

I have no financial interest in Susan Crockford’s book, but I do own a copy and have read it.  I do really recommend it.  It is available from major booksellers online in eBook editions for as little as three bucks.  It is not suitable for children – it contains graphic natural violence.

I do not know much about polar bears but  I do have strong opinions about misusing science and science images for propaganda purposes – including fundraising.

I’d prefer that Climate Warriors fight the Climate Wars in the comments of other posts – there are plenty here at WUWT where it is more appropriate.   I would like to read your examples of non-science being used to raise funds for organizations that ought to know better.

# # # # #





366 thoughts on “More Polar Non-Science

  1. The polar bears very much regret Clinton’s loss. They were looking forward to having some of those half a billion solar panels around to light up the long dark night.

    • Just waiting for Oprah to chime in with something like
      “Their Giant thinks he won, well Now it is time for our side to take the streets!”

      • …”And loot the businesses. Don’t forget to burn the Quick-Trip. Polar Bear lives matter! Just to show that I’m serious, I’m buying this studio audience to take a trip to the melting arctic where they will be able to hug the remaining few miserable remnants of a once burgeoning population of cuddly oafs who enjoy human contact.”

    • Kim, I believe their regret is much greater for all the adventurous climate researchers and eco tourists who won’t be coming up their way anymore. With the AGW industry coming to a halt there goes snack time.

  2. Well, according to posts from last year on Susan Crockford’s website, breeding bears from the Svalbard population need ice to be present around Svalbard by December so they can reach their denning areas…
    There isn’t any ice extending to Svalbard so far this year, and it hasn’t quite reached Novaya Zemlya either, another place the Barents sea population dens…
    also I learn from Susan about when the Hudson Bay population needs to get out on the ice… but so far less that 20% of Hudson Bay is ice covered.
    I’d say the bears are in trouble this year…
    BTW: does Susan actually have any qualifications to speak about bear populations?
    She does not research or publish (scientifically) about bears, nor is she involved in the biology of arctic populations, so far as I know.
    What she says is surely just opinion? any biologist who has read the papers surely has a view just as valid??

    • You don’t make much effort to find out anything, do you griff?
      I am a zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. I am currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia and work full time for a private consulting company I co-own with two colleagues, Pacific Identifications Inc.
      Crockford 08_21_2011_0056b
      Like Ian Stirling, grand-daddy of all polar bear biologists, I earned my undergraduate degree in zoology at the University of British Columbia. Polar bear evolution is one of my professional interests, which I discuss in my 2006 book, Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species (based on my Ph.D. dissertation earned in 2004 at the University of Victoria, B.C. Canada), see
      You’ll find a list of my publications (with a brief introduction) further down, after the list of my most popular posts (with links). At the bottom of this page is a brief bio for posting elsewhere.
      Zoogeography, paleoecology, archaeozoology and ostemetry papers
      **Crockford, S. J. 2012. Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world. Electronic resource, available at http://polarbearscience/references ISBN 978-0-9917966-0-1.
      *Crockford, S.J. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 years of subsistence history in the central Aleutians. Pg. 109-145 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, L. Gualtieri and C. Lefevre (eds), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford, pg 109-145. ISBN 978-4073-0905-7
      *Nishida, S., West, D., Crockford, S. and Koike, H. 2012. Ancient DNA analysis for the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) from archaeological sites on Adak, Aleutian Islands. Pg. 147-165 in D. West, V. Hatfield, E. Wilmerding, C. Lefèvre, L. Gualtieri (eds.), The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2322, ISBN 978-4073-0905-7.
      *Wilson, B.J., Crockford, S.J., Johnson, J.W., Malhi, R.S. and B.M. Kemp. 2011. Genetic and archaeological evidence for a former breeding population of Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia) on Adak Island, central Aleutians, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 732-743.
      **Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg.65-91 in T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific. U. California Press, LA.
      *Baichtal, J.F. and Crockford, S.J. 2011. Possibility of kelp during the LGM in SE Alaska and implications for marine mammals. Poster 5-12, 19th Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL. Nov. 28-Dec.2.
      **Crockford, S.J. 2008. Be careful what you ask for: archaeozoological evidence of mid-Holocene climate change in the Bering Sea and implications for the origins of Arctic Thule. Pp. 113-131 in G. Clark, F. Leach and S. O’Connor (eds.), Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Terra Australis 29 ANU E Press, Canberra.
      **Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17(6):699-706.
      *Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26(3):152-174.
      Martinsson-Wallin, H. & Crockford, S.J. 2001. Early human settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Asian Perspectives 40(2):244-278. (Includes an analysis of fish remains & a comprehensive list of modern Rapa Nui fishes).
      Crockford, S.J. 1997. Archaeological evidence of large northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in coastal waters of British Columbia and northern Washington. Fishery Bulletin 95:11-24.
      Domestication, speciation and evolution papers
      Crockford, S.J. and Kusmin, Y.V. 2012. Comments on Germonpré et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes”, and Germonpré, Lázkičková-Galetová, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 “Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Předmostí site, the Czech Republic.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2797-2801.
      **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.” Science 336:344-347. Follow link and click on “# comments” under the title
      **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment, with references (May 1) to Edwards et al. 2011. “Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline.” Current Biology 21:1251-1258. to view comments, go through the host website, and find the paper at the Current Biology website.
      Ovodov, N.D., Crockford, S.J., Kuzmin, Y.V., Higham, T.F.G., Hodgins, G.W.L. and van der Plicht, J.. 2011. A 33,000 year old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS One 10.1371/journal.pone.0022821.
      Crockford, S.J. 2009. Evolutionary roots of iodine and thyroid hormones in cell-cell signaling. Integrative and Comparative Biology 49:155-166.
      **Crockford, S.J. 2006. Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species. Trafford, Victoria [for a general audience, polar bear evolution discussed];
      **Crockford, S.J. 2004. Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria (Canada), Interdisciplinary Studies. [filed at the National Library under Zoology; polar bear evolution discussed] Pdf available, just ask.
      **Crockford, S.J. 2003. Thyroid rhythm phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A Vol. 35 (#1, May issue):105-129. [an invited submission; polar bear evolution discussed]
      **Crockford, S.J. 2002. Thyroid hormone in Neandertal evolution: A natural or pathological role? Geographical Review 92(1):73-88. [an invited commentary]
      **Crockford, S.J. 2002. Animal domestication and heterochronic speciation: the role of thyroid hormone. pg. 122-153. In: N. Minugh-Purvis & K. McNamara (eds.) Human Evolution Through Developmental Change. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. [polar bear evolution discussed].
      Crockford, S.J. 2000. Dog evolution: a role for thyroid hormone in domestication changes. pg. 11-20. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford.
      Crockford, S. J. 2000. A commentary on dog evolution: regional variation, breed development and hybridization with wolves. pg. 295-312. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeopress S889, Oxford.
      Northwest Coast dog studies
      Crockford, S.J., Moss, M.L., and Baichtal, J.F. 2012. Pre-contact dogs from the Prince of Wales archipelago, Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 9(1):49-64.
      Crockford, S.J., 2005. Breeds of native dogs in North America before the arrival of European dogs. Proceedings of the World Small Animal Veterinary Congress, Mexico City. [invited lecture] available online at:
      Koop, B.F., Burbidge, M., Byun, A., Rink, U, & Crockford, S.J. 2000. Ancient DNA evidence of a separate origin for North American indigenous dogs. pg. 271-285. In: S. Crockford (ed.), Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective. British Archaeological Reports (B.A.R.), Archaeopress S889, Oxford. (collaborative research with Univ. of Victoria (Ben Koop, Biology) & National Science & Engineering Research Council, Canada (NSERC) [first published analysis of ancient dog DNA]
      Crockford, S.J. 1997. Osteometry of Makah and Coast Salish Dogs. Archaeology Press, Publication 22, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.
      [A comprehensive analysis of cranial & postcranial remains of adult dogs from 20 coastal archaeological sites]
      Crockford, S.J. & Pye, C.J. 1997. Forensic reconstruction of prehistoric dogs from the Northwest Coast. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 21(2):149-153 [the story of the wool dog/village dog sketches done by RCMP forensic artist CJ Pye]
      Seal and sea lion diet studies
      Tollit, D.J., Schulze, A., Trites, A.W., Olesiuk, P., Crockford, S.J., Gelatt, T., Ream, R. & Miller, K. 2009. Development and application of DNA techniques for validating and improving pinniped diet estimates based on conventional scat analysis. Ecological Applications 19(4):889-905. [This study compares my bone ID of prey species to DNA analysis]
      Olesiuk, P.F., Bigg, M.A., Ellis, G.M., Crockford, S.J. & Wigen, R.J. 1990. An assessment of the feeding habits of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, based on scat analysis. Canadian Technical Reports on Fisheries & Aquatic Science. 1730.

      • Oh! Oh dear! How embarrassing!.
        Griff, to use modern English idiom… do one!!! Your presence is no longer required.
        Please post an apology to the learned lady and, please, make it your last post.

      • I’m afraid such difficult research is above and beyond Griff’s admittedly awesome cutting and pasting skills.
        As I’ve said, the bench strength of the green fanatics is getting a bit thin.

      • SLAP DOWN !
        Maybe you should have tired to answer your own question before posting it and making a total prat of yourself, Griff. Just saying.

      • Ironically, you burned Griff so badly that the resulting heat melted all the polar ice and wiped out the polar bears. (I’m being sarcastic….don’t go after me like you did Griff…please.)

      • I guess that answers that question. On to the next one: Is Griff actually competent to speak on anything more difficult than how to crack an egg? I have not seen any evidence of it.

      • “You don’t make much effort to find out anything, do you griff?”
        He doesn’t make any effort whatsoever to find out anything at all.
        He simply makes stuff up off the top of his head to attack any post that doesn’t adhere to the “Green” agenda in the hope that someone will take him seriously because that’s what he’s paid to do.
        Of course, with the exception of one or two of the most egregious sub-bridge-dwelling types, no-one does.

      • Could be the beginning of a new euphemism: Griffed the bed. Griffed himself. Griffed his pants….

      • oeman50 December 14, 2016 at 9:26 am
        Don’t feed the troll, I’m just sayin’.

        The Troll wasn’t fed. It got a smack down by a polar bear claw.
        (Which made him, as Caligula Jones put it, “Griff himself”.)

      • Yes, I see a lot of research on arctic populations I was not previously aware of.
        I do not see current studies or a history of studies on polar bear populations, field studies etc like the AGU tracking studies.
        While an informed zoologist, I submit you are not an active researcher in polar bear populations.
        This matters: I am an amateur offering opinions on a blog/website…
        you have established yourself as a prominent advocate of a position on climate change based on the prospects of the flagship arctic species.
        I think your climate position leads you into error: I know you are the big cheese in this world, but I think even experts must be challenged.
        I submit that there is a situation on Svalbard and in Hudson bay up till the last week which by your own account impacts polar bear populations potentially and this is part of a continuing trend which will impact them in the future.
        and you are dissembling on this.

        • “This matters: I am an amateur offering opinions on a blog/website…”
          No, you are a professional propagandist tasked with attempting to discredit any commenters who your paymasters have identified as being possibly capable of damaging whatever portion of the AGW narrative they are profiting from, by any means whatsoever, including posting unfounded personal attacks on highly qualified individuals such as Dr. Crockford.
          And you are a coward, without even the common decency to apologise when your mendacity has been spectacularly exposed.
          Worse, you even double down by attempting to justify your unpleasant, untruthful attacks.
          All in all, you are a totally unprincipled, dishonourable and dishonest creature, and hopefully, one day you will be called to account for your deceit.

      • (additional, now I have another 5 minutes)
        I am of course basing my opinions on what polar bear researchers have said of your work/published articles, especially the polar bear experts contacted by the authors of this article:
        “The scientists we spoke to tell us Crockford has never led any research on polar bears, nor has she published any papers on the topic. Amstrup tells Carbon Brief:
        “[The GWPF report] is a collection of statements [Crockford] has made and conclusions she has drawn without any support from the refereed literature.”
        Derocher points out Crockford’s specialism is not, in fact, in the field of polar bears:
        “[Crockford’s] expertise is the archaeology of dead dogs and the identification of animal remains â?¦ In general, her views are tainted by a lack of understanding of polar bear ecology, Arctic marine ecosystem, and sea ice.” ”
        I would be happy to hear your refutation of these claims of which perhaps you are unaware.

      • Griff, that carbon brief site is basically wrong. Their map of polar bear populations is a distortion of the Canadian Environmental site. Here is the real one:
        Basically, the site uses half-truths and twists those to change reality. For instance, they say,

        “As an example, Crockford cites a 2014 study that was the first to collect data on polar bears in the Kara Sea, one of the least studied polar bear habitats. The GWPF report says: ‘A first-ever Kara Sea population estimate completed in late 2014 potentially adds another 3200 or so bears to the global total.’
        “The study in question counted polar bears sighted from icebreaker ships between 1997 and 2013. From this, the scientists estimated that the number of bears in the Kara Sea has been between 3,100-3,300 in recent years.
        “It’s worth noting the study estimates the number of polar bear in the Kara Sea by scaling up the number of sightings from less than one per cent of the total area. In fact, between April 1997 to May 2013, the scientists in fact only counted 277 individuals.”
        The problem is all population estimates are made from sampling the area. Also, prior population estimates listed the Kara Sea as “unkown” and counted that area as zero. Which is Crockford’s point — no matter how many polar bears are in the Kara Sea, any numbers mean that the total population is higher than prior estimates. She doesn’t claim that the Kara Sea is specifically rising because Russia has never provided such information.
        The article then goes on to a spate of rote ad hominem attacks which are standard in these circles (she received funding from the Heritage foundation, so she is a liar.)
        The article’s conclusion, “There are polar bear populations about which scientists still know very little, and the total number of polar bears worldwide remains uncertain. But the populations for which there is data together clearly point to a species in decline.” Except, this is a bald-faced lie. You can see from the populations, there are only two populations of the eleven studied which are in decline — The Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) and Baffin Bay (BB). While neither of these are well understood, the SB population decline is most likely due to excessively thick spring ice rather than climate change. The newest BB population estimate was due in 2014, but it has not yet been provided. If there is a decline, it is most likely due to hunting by the Nunavit, not climate change.
        Either way, the populations which are best understood and are stable include all of the more southern populations. Shouldn’t those be the ones most at risk from climate change?

      • Griff is merely a troll, and he/she/it succeeded in making you do unnecessary work. If he doesn’t know who Susan Crockford it, he is so abysmally ignorant, and obviously lazy, to boot, that educating him would be like emptying Lake Superior with a teaspoon. Do not feed the troll.

    • In Canada there is a “voluntary” quota allowing 600 Polar Bears to be hunted by the Inuit and other “natives”.. It probably ends up being more. The pelts end up in Asia.
      I bet that if given a choice the Inuit shoot the largest Polar Bears they can find. Not good for genetic diversity.
      Griff “I’d say the bears are in trouble this year…”
      If Polar Bears are in trouble it is because humans shoot them a lot.

      • Ads like that are directed at little old cat ladies in trailer parks who “think” with their emotions and write out $20.00 checks in exchange for a calendar. Most people with more information than that are not taken in by the antics of grifter dot-orgs.

      • Goldrider ==> Maybe, the ad was placed specifically on my email from the New York Times Science section — not likely to be the habitat of too many little old ladies in trailer parks.
        However, I agree in general that these types of fundraising ads are placed extract money from the gullible and uninformed.

      • Reality Check,
        Shooting the larger bears might give the smaller bears a better chance at breeding. But, the question really should be, “What characteristics will give the species a better chance for survival?” Genetic diversity tends to be most advantageous when there are changing environmental conditions. Perhaps shooting the bigger bears would result in traits that gave the species more adaptability to changing sea ice conditions. But, it is all speculation.

      • “Wouldn’t shooting the alpha male actually increase diversity because the lesser males will now be able to breed the females?”
        You are possibly right. Genetic diversity might increase. but maybe polar bears would get smaller.

    • does Susan actually have any qualifications to speak about bear populations?

      She’s got the facts right, which is more than can be said about most people talking on this issue.
      Polar bears have been increasing their numbers ever since their hunting was regulated and limited, and at least since the 70’s. So during the entire global warming period they have been doing better, not worse.
      Their inclusion in the endangered species list is due exclusively to hypothetical future dangers from a changing environment. That position undermines the credibility of the list, as hypothetical future dangers can affect any species, so the reason for being in the list dilutes.

      I’d say the bears are in trouble this year…

      I say you have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.

      • Absolutely correct, their populations have been increasing since widespread hunting was abolished. There is this older article, while it does contain the usual future climate ‘disclaimers’, it covers the facts in words most people can understand.
        The Truth about Polar Bears – Canadian Geographic.
        Except below:
        The current scientific consensus places the worldwide polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 animals. Prior to the 1973 worldwide restriction on commerical polar bear hunting, that number was dramatically lower, so low that a meeting of polar bear specialists in 1965 concluded that extinction was a real possibility. Some reports even estimated the number of bears as low as 5,000 worldwide. Yet by 1990, Ian Stirling — at the time, the senior research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service and a professor of zoology at the University of Alberta; basically, one of the most respected polar bear scientists on the planet — felt comfortable answering the question as to whether polar bears are an endangered species by stating flatly: “They are not.” He went on to say that “the world population of polar bears is certainly greater than 20,000 and could be as high as 40,000 … I am inclined toward the upper end of that range.” Although old studies are sketchy, clearly more polar bears are alive today than there were 50 years ago, an essentially heartening fact that has not managed to pierce the public consciousness.

      • Keep in mind that the,

        “current scientific consensus”

        quote and the 20,000-25,000 bears number has been used for over a decade.
        Also keep in mind that the consensus opinion has admitted making some of their numbers up, completely.
        Just try and name an expedition out to see polar bears, that failed to see bears, all over the Arctic. That amazing example of animal availability over such a huge area implies a very large number of animals.
        Perhaps griffiepoo will go count the bears, since gp is so full of polar bear nonsense. He’ll need to spray numbers on the bears to prevent double counting; That is allegedly, griffiepoo is capable of numbers greater than 10.

    • Well Griff, if you went to her website as your comment indicates you did, you would have easily found out if she has any qualifications to speak about bear populations.
      Dr. Susan J. Crockford is a zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. Susan Crockford earned her undergraduate degree in zoology at the University of British Columbia. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, B.C. Polar bear evolution is one of Dr. Crockford’s professional interests.
      BTW: does Griff actually have any qualifications to speak about anything?

      • Griff’s highest qualification appears to be Court Jester. For that, I’m grateful to have such a Clown making a continuing fool of himself in the public arena, and I *always* look forward to his next buffoonery to keep me amused.
        Keep up the good work, Griff!

      • ddpalmer December 14, 2016 at 7:37 am

        BTW: does Griff actually have any qualifications to speak about anything?

        Yes – “Cranial Rectal Syndrome” – although it appears one symptom is that one will not know they have the affliction.

      • I’m betting Griff’s qualifications are the checks he recieves from some Soros funded organization to troll sites like WUWT. He probably has a whole slew of different emails and UIDs on different sites and blogs, where he posts his malicious nonesense in an attempt to disrupt the conversation.

      • “BTW: does Griff actually have any qualifications to speak about anything”
        I believe Griff can probably demonstrate he is level headed by dribbling from both sides of his mouth at the same time.
        Griff has shown he’s not qualified and too lazy to Google a name before challenging someone on their qualifications and making an arse of himself. ; > )

      • I should note I am at least as qualified to an opinion on climate -which I endeavour always to back with facts from scientists and observed scientific data – as any on here who tell me that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, there is no greenhouse effect, etc…
        Heck, I bet many of those guys don’t even have a greenhouse…

        • “I should note I am at least as qualified to an opinion on climate “
          Still making stuff up, Grifter?
          Your mummy will be cross.

      • Griff,
        What does owning a greenhouse have to do with anything. I live in a virtual green house. Although my roof is opaque, it prevents loss of heat by convection or lateral wind. The so-called Green House Effect with respect to Earth is a misnomer. Perhaps you didn’t realize that and that is why you feel that owning one somehow gives you special insight on the problem. Have you apologized to Dr. Crockford yet for accusing her of not having any expertise, experience, or credentials?

      • Ursus maritimus Got maritime right in the scientific classification.
        I still contend that someone needs to youtube some footage of the cute and cuddly polar bear munching down on the yet cuter and more or less defenseless baby seals for a bit of reality check.
        I think it was from Canada where a video went viral of a polar bear patting a dog. Checked the update and apparently a bit later the guy didn’t put out food one night and the bear ate one of the dogs.

    • You know, you could have just hit the “About” tab and found out that she is a zoologist with 35 years experience. Undergraduate degree from University of British Columbia, PhD from University of Victoria, B.C. And yes, she has peer-reviewed about polar bears. You are a frick’n idiot.

    • “I’d say the bears are in trouble this year…”
      Indeed. They’ve already been eliminated from playoff contention.

    • Griff…brilliant. Susan has made you look a right twat, as we say here in England. If I were you, I would go and boil my head (a Scottish insult, this time). If you want, I could find a Welsh one, too.

    • Griff??? You come to this site and embarrass yourself on almost a daily basis but today’s post from you was one for the record books. Never thought you could out yourself as a gullible ecoloon any further, but you did today. Congratulations.

    • Just to add what Susan did not cover — you can take a trip to Svalbard to see the polar bears, as the population has been booming. There is no official count, because all of the Nordic polar bear scientists are in Canada arranging a polar bear week every year in the Hudson Bay. You would think one of them could take the time to study polar bears in their own country.
      “Over the years, Svalbard has acted almost like a refuge when it comes to polar bears and the populations have increased with numbers now thought to be reaching 3,000! This is a huge positive, not just for the bears as a species, but for specialist operators such as ourselves, as these days we are more than confident in regards to sightings. Some of our trips (on our smaller more specialist vessels) have seen upwards of 20+ polar bears on an individual trip!
      “The best time to see polar bears in the wilds of svalbard is between the months of May to September”

    • “She does not research or publish (scientifically) about bears, nor is she involved in the biology of arctic populations, so far as I know.”
      What a thoroughly unpleasant, mendacious little creature you are.
      Do you have no conscience whatsoever?

      • “Giff has just demonstrated for all to see that he knows absolutely nothing –quite possibly about anything.”
        Sure he does. He knows whatever someone feeds him to post.

    • You need to make an effort and produce that sucking sound as you extract your head from where the sun don’t shine.
      Crockford’s qualifications are a matter of [scientific] record.
      So is the fact that in the 1960s the polar bear population was 5000-6000 and the animal was considered threatened. Today polar populations are estimated to be around 30,000 and possibly higher. In trouble?

    • And let’s not forget the scientific name for polar bears: “Ursus maritimus,” That is, “Sea Bear.”
      (They routinely swim non-stop 10s of miles, have often been seen swimming 200 miles from land/ice, and one female has been recorded as having swum 426 miles nonstop.)

    • Griff
      (ha ha tee he)
      Yup, Dr Susan Crockford, PhD is qualified to write about polar bears.
      (snicker, snicker, yuck, yuck)
      The question is: are you qualified to ask polar bear questions…
      Oh, man: Griff – the gift that keep on giving.

    • Griff, first you quote Dr. Crockford as an authority, then you question her opinions?
      Stupid is as stupid does!

    • lol, thanks so much. Not only for the time you take to share your wisdom and insight. But also for the demonstration of just how dry humor can be served. One of the most dishonest and anti-science tactics of the climate consensus extremists is their refusal to accept that there is a diversity of well qualified opinion that disagree with the consensus. I can only imagine the pressure brought to bear by fanatics like Griff.
      Hang tough

    • Anthony (I think) recently wrote that Griff works for Barclays Bank. Check it out!
      You could have some fun with that.

  3. Griffie:
    Do us all a favor and go hug a polar bear. Your empathy will be rewarded – social justice at work.
    Just sayin 😉

  4. Twenty years ago, I was in a bar in a small town in Alaska, a local couple got into a spat and she stormed out. The other men in the bar really got on the guy and made him walk home with her, because there had been a bear spotted in town. They took it very seriously.

    • I hope he was wearing running shoes. As the saying goes, he doesn’t have to outrun the bear. He just has to outrun her.

  5. Traditional hunting is just an excuse as those animals end up being hunted by rich international hunters. If it were up to me traditional hunting would only be allowed by the traditional method of handheld spear and large knife. You want traditional you do traditional. Let’s see how many would be up to the task.

      • @Javier
        Your post clearly implied that some significant fraction of the polar bear hunt was for “rich international hunters”. An advertisement is hardly proof of that assumption. In fact, the web site touts their “very successful season” with a total of 6 bears taken. Egads!! Extinction is just around the corner!

      • Hmmm
        6 bears taken, let’s say 1 male and 5 females. Females aged5 and older can birth 2 or 3 cubs a season. The cubs mature over the next 2 to 3 years and begin the cycle again after 5 years. Presuming all the cubs survive to maturity, the male and 5 females would equate to 10 to 15 bears in the next generation. Those bears would have the potential to create an additional 20 to 30 bears in the next generation. In ten years time, the original 6 bears hunted unnecessarily has eliminated a possible 70 to 100 bears by the third generation

        • I don’t think it’s that simple. While predation by humans might have been the limit on polar bear populations in the past, most alpha predators are so-called “k selected”,where the limit is carrying capacity, not “r selected” where the short term limit is how fast they breed. While most organisms can breed to fill the capacity of the environment, the short term behavior is different. Bad management in the past does not rule out controlled hunting.

    • Javier,
      I think that the “traditional hunting” method was shown in Nanuck of the North. The traditional hunter froze the springy skeleton of a fish inside a ball of blubber. The bear would swallow the ball in one gulp. Then, when the blubber melted in the stomach, the skeleton would spring open, piercing the internal organs. The hunter would follow the bear until it collapsed from loss of blood. If he was in a hurry, he might finish it off with a spear. Most modern hunters disavow such a slow, painful death of game animals. They advocate a single, well-placed bullet as a more humane way to kill an animal. Primitive people were pragmatic. They didn’t take risks they didn’t need to take. The spear was for a coupe de grace and the knife was for field dressing the animal.

      • And they eat the bear to survive. How many Trophy Hunters are hunting the bear to survive and actually Eat all of the Polar Bear meat? I’ll bet you could probably count the hunter consumed carcases of those afore mentioned 6 bears on one hand with no fingers held up.

      • Like hunting:
        Elephants for their Tusks
        Rhino’s for their Horns
        Sharks for theiir fins
        Gorillas for their hands
        Trophy hunting for trophies is just senseless killing
        Granted sharks fins aren’t trophies but shark steaks arent sold in the same market as their fins so that is a true waste

  6. I can’t believe that anyone still thinks the polar bears are an endangered species.
    I also don’t understand the logic of pushing energy policies which for certain will kill
    many humans , again, for certain, against the barest (sorry!) possibility that they will prevent the
    extinction of a damn carnivorius, seal-murdering bear. Exterminate the bears and save the seals is my motto. We don’t need no stinking high latitude killers. Polar bear lovers turn out to be the enemy of us humans.

  7. If someone had been paid $1 million to destroy the credibility of Griff, they could not have done a more effective job than what he just did to himself. Is it really that difficult to do a little research before making oneself out to be a complete fool?
    Memo to myself: Completely ignore in the future anything written by Griff.

  8. Kip, essay No Bodies in my ebook Blowing Smoke contains several examples of the sort you seek, from a wide variety of NGO’s plus the Feds. aelie penguins. american pikas, red wolves, bog turtles, Canadian lynx… and more.

      • Its available at all the usual outlets. IBooks, Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook… Cheapest is Amazon; it sold well enough that they cut the already low price to undercut iBooks. My publisher was not thrilled.

        • Got it! I have a Nook eReader because I hate the ads and not a huge fan of Amazon anyway. I paid a higher price, your publisher will rejoice.

    • Pamela ==> Blowing Smoke is available from Amazon under this title: “Blowing Smoke: Essays on Energy and Climate” by Rud Istvsan

        • PMK ==> Portuguese or Brazilian?
          In my youth I spend several years in Portugal and on the Portuguese island of Madeira.

          • Portuguese, Porto and environs. I go back January 2. We will retire there in a few years, our favorite European country, dare I say the best? Currently working on a Roadside Geology of Portugal with a dear friend at U of Porto.
            Have already downloaded Blowing Smoke and Eaten, lots of reading!

        • Hey! I just learned how Portuguese thank you is reflexive and should be based upon the person issuing. And here you are confirming it! Thank ye kindly, or Obrigado

          • They used to show Song of the South on The Wonderful World of Disney, in the ’60s it was just amusing not hate speech. There may still be a ride at Disney World based on Song of the South but I am now old enough that I no longer have to take kiddos there so haven’t been in over a decade, Praise All Gods Most Fulsomely!

          • If you take small kiddos to Disney World don’t let them stray off to any bodies of water, the place is now infested with alligators and they recently took a toddler. People think Disney is all fun and animatronics and those gators are not dangerous. They are very dangerous and fearless.

        • PMK => I really loved Porto….especially the Old City. I loved being 24 too….
          I was there in September, after the London conference, took my brother along, his first European vacation, he has not stopped talking about it yet. January is not so nice, rained a lot last year, but we still get good days for field work and eating olives and chourico alongside the Douro…I don’t miss being 24, us Dragons stay young forever….

      • No, publisher won’t allow it. But if you download either free iBook or Kindle readers to any tablet (I have both on my iPad as there are technical and history books Amazon has but iBooks doesn’t) you can downlowd and read the published version. It has hotlinks to footnotes and there are some footnote links to web sources. Plus, with those readers you can bookmark, underline, markup, paste a note… all just like a real book. You cannot easily do all that with a ,pdf.

  9. Polar bears are dying of hunger do the selfish humans. Take your child to hug a polar bear: SHOW YOU CARE !!

  10. Griffmeister,
    This could be the flame of all time. You have distinguished yourself. Wonder if you will ever have the nerve to come back. If you do, I will just reply “Climate Otter” each time until you are gone…

  11. Back on topic, I wonder if they will replace that photo with one of a little Dutch girl with her finger in a dyke holding back a “ocean” of CO2?
    That just sounds so much more “sciency”, doesn’t it?

  12. I wonder if Griff is a kind of masochist.
    You gotta admit, it would take a lot of mental fortitude to go into your enemy’s lair, get the crap beat out of you, and come back for more.
    I wouldn’t do it.
    There is another possibility, however, maybe Griff is just playing the Devil’s Advocate.
    A Devil’s Advocate wouldn’t be affected by being criticized because it’s their job.

    • Be nice to Griff, folks! This site wd be a bit too serious (on balance) without his thigh-slapping contributions. And, in this particular case, I’ve learnt of Susan Crockford’s credentials, her book (am off to buy it!) and gleaned a lot more about polar-bear matters — all thanks to Griff!
      Even Fools can be useful!

  13. as an aside, Susan’s book was my go to Christmas present last year for the faithful – sadly few have managed to read it over the year – I still recommend it highly

  14. Btw, like Kip I hoghly recommend EATEN. So good it is on par with Michal Creighton. So to her distinguished science credentials must be added wonderful sciency fiction novelist.

    • You guys!
      I mosey over for a bit of a break from writing to find my writing the topic of conversation??
      I have a blog post planned about this but what the heck – here’s my pre-announcement notice for you loyal supporters.
      I will shortly be publishing via Amazon (maybe next Monday week?) two polar bear science books of the sort that folks have been requesting for years.
      One is a summary suitable for all ages (aged 7 up) and the other is a fully referenced volume for adults.
      Both are short and to the point, in full color.
      Sorry they won’t quite be ready for Christmas gift-giving but in lieu, perhaps an Amazon gift card and a recommendation would allow the recipient to purchase when it’s out.
      Watch my blog for more details – I’ll get on it.
      best regards and thanks for your support – all of you.
      And Merry Christmas Griff, may the good cheer of the season help change your attitude.

  15. Guys, I hate to have to say it, but a blog with the quality and history of this blog, with the awards it has, the quality of analysis provided by both the authors and the commentators, a blog like this deserves a better gadfly than Griff. I’m not saying I expect someone with decades of knowledge and experience, but using a 12 year old like Griff as the blog’s gadfly/opposition, someone who has not yet graduated from middle school, is not reflective of this blog’s quality. So it’s time to fire Griff and hire someone a bit more experienced to act as gadfly in the comments section. Please forward resumes of candidates.

      • Funny story about “deflategate” today: “Roger Goodell owes Tom Brady an apology by Dan Wetzel. He talks about how, in the Steelers/Giants game last weekend, there were under-inflated balls due to the cold weather and the NFL decided it was no big deal.
        In the story, they make a number of comments about the ideal gas law (something I learned in Middle School) such as,
        —“Footballs lose air pressure in cold weather. The numbers were explained away by science, not cheating. This was nothing. Nothing happened, nothing at all.”
        — “{a year ago}, the league scampered down to test {Patriot’s balls} at halftime. League vice president Troy Vincent, who was in charge of such things, later testified he’d never heard of Ideal Gas Law. As such, when the readings started coming in under 12.5, no one spoke up and said, “Those numbers are explainable.” Instead, they thought anything below 12.5 was cheating and something like 11.4 was significant cheating. Ignorance was bliss.”
        — “It wasn’t true. Not then and not as a parade of scientists came out screaming that everyone should’ve paid more attention in science class back in high school. Most of the footballs were fine, easily explained away by the weather. … The science is the science. It’s been that way since 1834, when Ideal Gas Law was proven. So, welcome to the 19th Century.”
        Long story short, last year Bill Nye made a video about deflategate where he “proved” that Tom Brady cheated. He did the math wrong. That’s right, Bill Nye took a very simple scientific method and got it completely wrong. (Basically, he failed to convert gauge pressure to absolute pressure when he applied the ideal gas law.)
        That is the brave scientist of climate change. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a “convenient truth”.

      • Realist voice? The only one here?
        You do flatter yourself. Many would say that you would better serve yourself by being honest with yourself. And others.

      • Griff,
        You are here to do one thing only: spread FEAR. You effectively say, “The Ice is melting! The Ice is melting! Be Afraid! Be Afraid! Do Something! Do Something!” You are ultimately a FEAR MONGER.
        But every time you post a comment, I see your notion that we should be Afraid is Soundly Refuted.
        As a consequence, I am NOT AFRAID of Climate Change, Global Warming, or an impending Environmental Disaster.
        And I will fight your kind to the death because I am a FREEDOM MONGER, and Freedom dictates that the Human Race must never be forced to endure an Oppressive Solution to an Imaginary Problem.

      • Only voice?
        Griffy, you think way to highly of yourself.
        Regardless, the only resemblance to a realist on your part is that you are both breathing. And I’m making an assumption on your part.

      • “I do worry I am the only dissenting, realist voice here.”
        No, you are the only full-time propagandist here.

      • Griff,
        You must not read many comments here. People who actually work, if that’s the right word, in the climate industry often comment here. Have you really missed their comments?

      • Griff,
        It has long been held as a maxim that only the sane question their sanity. The insane are absolutely convinced that they are sane and it is everyone else that has a problem. What does that imply about you believing that you are the only “realist voice here?”

      • I’ve been posting here for ten years or so Griff. Good to have another dissenter, it sort of divides the abuse between two of us so makes it more tolerable, (Actually there are a few more, but you have to be pretty brave to pop your head above the parapet with many of the good ‘ole boys on this site !)

  16. The actual website of the Weizmann Institute doesn’t say anything about “Science for the Benefit of Humanity.” Instead, it presents a straight-forward exposition of the science that’s going on there.
    The link in the head-post is to “The American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science,” not the Institute itself. So, the feel-good motto is theirs, not the Weizmann’s.
    I did a post-doc at the Wezmann many years ago. Call me biased, but it was a great place, full of hard-working underfunded scientists.

    • Isn’t underfunded pretty much part of the definition of scientist?
      At least that’s what the scientists I know are always saying.

    • Pat Frank ==> Your point is well taken — and I tried to cover this in my essay:
      “the Weizmann Institute of Science, whose motto, proudly displayed on their website, is “Science for the Benefit of Humanity”, have managed to embarrass themselves with a little ad …
      This is what happens when the public outreach from scientific organizations is put into the hands of modern college graduates who have been indoctrinated but not educated.
      I have no prior experience with the Weizmann Institute before seeing this ad. I can only hope that the ad was produced without their editorial input.”
      I have posted a correction to make the difference, however slight, perfectly clear.

      • They appear to be very closely connected:
        About Us:

        The American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science is a community of dedicated people who share a common vision with the Weizmann Institute in support of our common mission: science for the benefit of humanity. The American Committee partners with individuals, families, foundations, and the business community to develop philanthropic funding for the Institute; educates the American public about the Institute’s research; and represents the Institute’s interests in the U.S. Whether through events such as galas, parlor meetings, and luncheons; meetings with Institute scientists; campaigns to spread the news of research discovery; and more, the American Committee’s nationwide presence helps bring the Weizmann Institute to you, and you to the Weizmann Institute.
        On the Weizmann Institute campus in Rehovot, Israel, around 3,800 scientists, graduate students, highly skilled research technicians, and the staff who support them come to work every day with the goal of solving the most challenging problems facing humankind: climate change, world hunger and malnutrition, cancer and other diseases, safety and security, to name just a few. For more than 80 years, the Weizmann Institute’s curiosity-driven scientists have made thousands of landmark breakthroughs, and they continue to strive to make thousands more. These discoveries are moved from the lab to the marketplace via the Yeda Research and Development Company, Inc., the Institute’s technology transfer arm. In addition, the Weizmann Institute’s graduate school is unique in that every student receives financial support, allowing them to focus solely on their research, and each student is immersed in hands-on research in the lab of a renowned scientist from day one.

        Our Mission:
        Making a Difference – With Your Help
        Founded in 1944, the American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science has been a driving force throughout the history of the Weizmann Institute – fostering the partnership between science and philanthropy while supporting the Institute’s needs, leading the way in providing resources for continuous development and pioneering projects, and promoting awareness of the vision and accomplishments of its scientists.
        The American Committee is not only a national organization, but also a community of dedicated people who share a common mission: advancing the Institute’s goals by becoming partners in the search for answers to the most difficult challenges facing humanity.
        The American philanthropic presence is felt wherever you look on the Institute’s campus. Buildings, laboratories, instruments, and educational and research projects owe their existence to the efforts of the American Committee and its loyal supporters. These same donors provide the endowed professorial chairs, scholarships, and other financial assistance that support the scientists, teachers, and students who bring life and meaning to the physical facilities.
        All of us—and each of us—must do all that we are able to ensure that the trajectory and pace of modern science never falters. The best of human existence is ahead of us—and science will transport us there. If you would like to receive updates about research breakthroughs at the Weizmann Institute of Science and other news, follow us on Twitter, Like us on Facebook, or sign up to receive e-mails.
        So both have been around for quite a while and it appears the “Amierican Committee” is at least a fund-raising arm for the Institute if not more. They list “climate change” as one of the “most challenging problems” facing mankind.
        However a quick scan of their achievments in protecting our planet I do not see anything about polar bears.

        Weizmann Institute scientists are not only facing current environmental crises head-on, but are solving tomorrow’s threats to our planet today. They are developing mathematical formulas to predict rainfall with greater accuracy; creating crops that can grow in harsh climates and with less need for pesticides; designing nanomaterials that can serve as engine lubricants and thus reduce air pollution; studying ways to protect and conserve water, our most valuable resource; examining the Earth’s movements to forecast volcanoes and earthquakes; growing a forest in a desert to study CO2—these are just some of the ways in which Weizmann researchers are using science to protect our planet, both now and in the future.

        It may be this was just a cute image grabbed by a web design consultant and accepted uncritically by the Committee.

  17. Troll? Griffter? Time-waster?
    Does this point to an Agent-Provocateur whose job it is to discredit ‘our’ website with sh*t-stirring, debase its demeanour, and shift our focus to troll-hunting, rather than more earnest, relevant and better-directed matters at an intellectual level?
    I am not sure what coherent, consistent responses this thinking engenders …. maybe a Mod. replying to Griff — for all to read — something like: “Troll-Alert!” and we can all leave it at that? Ignoring him may be the best response.

  18. To me, it is a pretty good ad. The ad agency knows that if you glance at the ad at all they will have your attention for only a couple of seconds. During those two seconds the ad has to persuade you to click through. The ad can’t bog you down in text to read. So it uses 100% emotion to hook you. Who is against protecting the planet to benefit cute little girls and cute polar bears? Not liberal New York Times readers and not the Weizmann Institute.
    Seems like an effective way to reach liberal NYT readers who already may be presupposed to believe that the planet, cute little girls, and polar bears need someone to care about them. And this emotional hook might get them to learn more about the Weizmann Institute and ultimately give them some dough.

    • Well NYT readers may conclude that polar bears must be saved so little girls can hug them. Others may see the ad and see that the little girl is being offered for lunch.
      But if I wanted to really go down the NYT rabbit hole of stupid, I would ask the NYT would anyone be caring about polar bears if they were black? Isn’t there dark toned bears that need saving? Aren’t liberals being racists by focusing only on white bears?
      I know, ridiculous questions, but no more ridiculous then the lefts infatuations with polar bears and their fabricated plight.

      • Alx
        My understanding (pretty much confirmed by a bunch of Google results) is polar bears are black – shave off the insulating white hairs…and you have black skin – just like their lips.

  19. According to IUCN/SSC Polar bear specialist group there are 19 distinct polar bear populations: 3 are in decline due to lousy neighbors, 1 is increasing, 6 are stable, and 9 covering over half the area lack useful data. The 9 unknown populations are mostly in Russia which hasn’t bought into the CAGW/disappearing sea ice clap trap.
    So the glib observation that when Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears and only 30,000 are left now might not be exact, but the idea is close enough. I guess “saving” the polar bears beats having real jobs.

  20. Bravo ClimateOtter!
    That was one of the best fact based paddlings of a disingenuous, snot nosed troll I have witnessed this year!
    Encore! Encore!

  21. All,
    I have scrolled through the comments looking for Griff’s apology and couldn’t find it. Surely I just overlooked it! I’d appreciate it if someone could point me to the date and time stamp of his apology.

  22. in re Griff:
    Griff has left enough evidence over time for others to build a profile of him and his motives.
    1) It is known that most posts from Griff come from a server owned by Barclay’s, during working hours. Rarely does he post during non- working hours (as Griff.)
    2) The only conclusions to be drawn from this fact are
    a) He is paid for his efforts by his employers at Barclay’s
    b) He is a hopelessly inept and clueless time waster on the company’s dime.
    If b), then little can be added to his profile. His own words undermine him.
    If a), then his/his company’s motives must be examined through several scenarios:
    1) Barclay’s is actively interjecting propaganda into the continuing debate.
    2) Barclay’s is actively probing for holes in the defenses of skeptic arguments, looking for any warmist rationalization which might still be useful to their agenda.
    3) Barclay’s is running a false flag operation, with main intent to discredit the warmist cause, through Griff’s posting of non- stop and indefensible warmist inanities.
    With regard to the known agendas of the warmist coalitions, being an increase of power and wealth to the elite statists who are the progenitors and principal supporters of the entire CAGW mythos, then Barclay’s certainly fits the profile for agenda item 1) and probably 2) also, as well as many that this humble peasant hasn’t thought of yet.

    • Further, examination of “Barclay’s agenda”, another point could be made:
      1) Griff rarely engages in debate after one of his posts and when he does engage, it’s usually only to the extent of another warmist copy/past which might support his previous assertions. This behavior is significant, but motive is not clear to me, at least.

      • Alan
        Griff IS PAID (that’s his motive). Someone sends him the email of the day with the goofy questions & links.
        He does seem to be MIA after today’s stupidity.

      • Not paid, no affiliation or involvement in any political party, environmental group, society, or whatever.
        all my own ‘amateur’ (in the not paid sense) opinion.
        answer with science and observed fact if you please – don’t play the man

        • “answer with science and observed fact if you please – don’t play the man”
          You mean like knowingly stating that a professional scientist with an international reputation had no knowledge of her field when it was clear that you had visited her site and thus were aware she was?

      • Alan
        WRT # 3 above
        3) Barclay’s is running a false flag operation, with main intent to discredit the warmist cause, through Griff’s posting of non- stop and indefensible warmist insanities.
        fixed it

    • Sir, these are attacks of a personal and unfounded nature.
      all my remarks are on my own time for my own amusement.
      Shame on you!

      • Griff, you are not actually relevant. Whether paid troll or pathetic true believer doesn’t actually matter much. Examining the aftermath of a the sort petard hoisting you have engaged in is not a personal attack. It is more of a necroscopy.

      • …sez the guy who goes to a Climate Sewer to get some ammo to assassinate Susan Crockford’s reputation.

      • “Sir, these are attacks of a personal and unfounded nature.”
        Says the propagandist who attempted to malign the reputation of an internationally recognised scientist by deceitfully claiming she was unqualified in her own field, even asserting that you knew more about it than she did?
        What a hypocrite you are.

      • “Sir, these are attacks of a personal and unfounded nature.”
        Says the paid disrupter who attempted to malign the reputation of an internationally recognised scientist by deceitfully claiming she was unqualified in her own field, even asserting that you knew more about it than she did?

      • Griff,
        You should go and amuse yourself elsewhere. You provide no points here.
        In your critique of Dr Crockford above you quoted the same error prone pseudo-scientists as yourself.

      • You’re entire life is for your own amusement. You’re like a spoiled little sister, baiting her older brother until he hits you.

  23. Griff’s comment includes:

    She does not research or publish (scientifically) about bears, nor is she involved in the biology of arctic populations, so far as I know.

    The use of the words “…so far as I know” encapsulates the entire CAGW industry’s view of the world – that of being in no doubt but often wrong – as they make definitive statements about everything but forget that this is based on “so far as I know” with no regard to what they do not know.
    Loved the Griff takedowns – a good laugh to start the morning.
    Should we coin a new term for incredulity – “Good Griff!”

  24. It was designed to appeal to ‘bleeding hearts’ – people whose cerebral functions occur primarily on an emotional level, devoid of logic. True scientists must function according to the scientific method – objectively and analytically, driven by logic and data rather than emotion.
    For years I have suspected that this human dichotomy exists genetically at level comparable to that of subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens v H. sapiens perturbatio.

  25. A Texan is being heckled in a local bar in Alaska that he couldn’t pass the test to become an Alaskan
    He replies that a Texan can pass any test and asks what he has to do
    The local say he needs to do three things. 1 Down a fifth of whiskey 2 make love to an Eskimo woman and 3 kill a polar bear
    He promptly downs the fifth and runs out the door of the bar. When he comes back later he is bloody and all torn to shreds and asks “Now where is that Eskimo woman I have to kill?”
    do not attempt this at home

  26. Every comment that Griff makes now on whatever subject will get the response ” what about those bears “?

  27. There’s this book Arctic Dreams – forget the author – which has a chapter on what Darwin has done to adapt the polar bear for survival. Think about the FEET. Think about the TACTICS. Think about THE BLACK NOSE!! It’s a wonderful read.

  28. Her’s an idea:
    Anthony posted a picture from “concerned scientists” at the AGU conference in San Francisco (including at least 1 drunk…).
    Couldn’t we get those guys to pose with the cuddly polar bear?
    Just a suggestion…

  29. Doesn’t matter if it is the Weizmann Institute or the Committee for the Weizmann Institute. In either case the ad is about the Weizmann Institute in order to garner support for the Weizmann Institute.
    That being the case this ad embarrasses the Weizmann Institute.
    But who knows this may be a trend. Next astronomers will be drumming up support by showing a little girl picking flowers on the moon. Or biologists asking for support with little girls on unicorns.
    Or maybe the Weizmann Institute could stop the madness and denounce this scientifically unsound and overtly political ad.

  30. Someone may mistake that propaganda poster as real news. Fake news is the new term for propaganda.

  31. Notice Griff has gone quiet , do we really need to kick a man when he’s down ? Well in some cases more so when there’s no apology.
    I respect anyone who makes a mistake and owns up even possibly in this case .

    • Robert from oz,
      A mistake is generally a one-time event (and decent people do apologize). A pattern of behavior indicates purposeful intent.

      • Can Griff really be so dense as not to realize that in mere seconds a normal human being could find the good doctor’s scientific qualifications? Just because he’s a lazy slug troll doesn’t mean that other commenters here are too. The fool must have known how easy it would be to show him up for the ueber fool he has the shame and ignominy to be.
        Maybe the jejune imbecile really is that dense.

      • chimp:
        “The scientists we spoke to tell us Crockford has never led any research on polar bears, nor has she published any papers on the topic. Amstrup tells Carbon Brief:
        “[The GWPF report] is a collection of statements [Crockford] has made and conclusions she has drawn without any support from the refereed literature.”
        Derocher points out Crockford’s specialism is not, in fact, in the field of polar bears:
        “[Crockford’s] expertise is the archaeology of dead dogs and the identification of animal remains â?¦ In general, her views are tainted by a lack of understanding of polar bear ecology, Arctic marine ecosystem, and sea ice.” “

      • Griff, your answer to Chimp certainly fits your profile. We’ve repeatedly seen you fall back on ad hominem attacks as your last line of defense. You never have a leg to stand on with any point you make and you know it. Relentless propaganda is your stock in trade.

      • Griff.
        You and Amstrup and Derocher are the problem. You asked the problem people for a comment. Dr Crocker has pointed out the problems in their “science”. You went to the wolves den. Similar to going to Realclimate.
        You criticized her knowing NOTHING about her and knowing NOTHING about polar bears.
        Time for you to apologize to DR. Crockford, then disappear.

  32. I agree with pretty well everything Griff posts. The guy has more guts than most of you brave keyboard warriors put together, few of whom would dare to be so brave to his face.
    Yeah, it’s a funny faux pas but sheesh, some of you guys are so bitter.
    Chimp, would you really walk up to a complete stranger and slap them with the sort of abuse you’ve posted above? No, of course you wouldn’t. But here you’re part of a really tough, anonymous gang, I get that. You can be as courageous as you like. Good for you, hope it makes you feel better.
    To bring it back to polar science here is a snapshot.
    and globally:
    Thanks for your time, let you get back to Griff.

    • “Warmest year on record…”
      So what? Warmest since 100 a.d.? 1000 a.d.? Warmest since the Holocene optimum?
      In a word,no. Last year was neither the warmest in the proxy record, nor in recorded human history.
      Were Arctic temps inthe past 2 years outside the range of natural variation for the past 10,000 years?
      What is your point again, tony mcleod?

      • Warmest year on record can be as little as 10 years depending on the information and the source , it means nothing .

      • tony, the rate of change is insignificant and irrelevant climatologically
        Now for climate extremists and true believers it is everything. But you believe in an irrational faith system so discussing with you is kind of a waste of time. Ciao.

    • With all that warming going on North America, especially the north part of the USA and adjacent Canada, will soon be producing so much grain, oil seeds, oranges, sugar cane, bananas, and …

      • “For what should I apologise?”
        Specifically, for deceitfully and maliciously attempting to damage the reputation of a professional scientist of international standing by claiming that she was unqualified in her field, despite having demonstrated you had even been to her site and were aware of her qualifications, which also casts doubt on either your sobriety or mental capacity.
        Generally, for being a serial poster of untruths, even though it has been demonstrated to you over an over again that many of them were totally inaccurate.

    • Tony , Griff whatever you’re real name is the graph from NOAA has some unusual stats , thanks for showing it . Can anyone else see periods when global temps were up but Arctic temps were down? Surely this can’t be a tortured NOAA graph they would have corrected that just before the year 2000 .
      And correct me if wrong but is that the El Niño spike at the end ? your NSIDC graph doesn’t quite match some of the other graphs they produce .

    • tony mcleod
      December 14, 2016 at 7:16 pm
      Yes, after the stranger spouted such garbage for so long, attacking his intellectual and moral betters without the least justification and out of total ignorance.

    • Tony,
      Because of the climatologist’s fascination with anomalies, we don’t have any information in your graphics about the actual air temperatures. As I recollect, sea water freezes at about 28 deg F. That implies that the air temperature has to be above 28 deg F if ice isn’t forming. With a maximum anomaly of about 11 deg F, that suggests the typical temperatures would be about 17 deg F. Considering that it is forecast to be considerably below that tonight here in southern Ohio, I’d be surprised to discover that the air temperatures were that high. . We are approaching the Winter Solstice, meaning that here is no sunlight to warm the oceans at the localities showing the maximum anomalies. Something is happening, obviously. But, I suspect that it is either warm water moving into the Arctic Basin, or turbulence in the Jet Stream sucking in warm low-latitude air. The role of CO2 or “dark water” (no sunlight!) can be ruled out with such high temperatures. Somebody who gets paid to understand this needs to start thinking outside the CO2 box and look for alternative explanations.

      • “Something is happening, obviously. But, I suspect that it is either warm water moving into the Arctic Basin, or turbulence in the Jet Stream sucking in warm low-latitude air.”
        These would appear to be the likely causes and the postulation is that Jet Stream turbulence might in part be caused by reducing north-south temperature gradient – a feedback.

  33. GRIFF is someone we shd IGNORE as a Troll.
    After *this* ‘Black-Eye’, one might expect him/her/it to change name to [Whatever] and continue bugging us.
    SHE-IT indeed.

    • Shouting doesn’t make you more persuasive. If it wasn’t for Griff and few others this site would run the risk of being an un-scientific echo chamber and outlet for ignorant rants.

      • Errrr is it Tony or Griff I’m posting to ? Same baloney different name .
        (Griff) Tony if you read his only post on this thread and you can defend it with real science such as how much different the Arctic is today rather than 100 years ago or even better emperical evidence as to how we’re all wrong that would be great .
        Not withstanding the fact he owes that scientist an apology .

      • It is not likely that Tony/griff/trolls would post the actual bitterly cold Temps of Arctica, Eurasia, Nth America as they lie their ways to rightful oblivion. But they do succeed in wasting our time.
        By the way, even here in our SH ‘summer’, there is snow falling on some of our provinces this day. The real climate seems to be following Piers Corbyn’s wild jetstream transfer of polar cold towards the equator as the sun quietens. Food supply, with crops already being nipped early and late in seasons, bears close attention though it is okay so far. But one bad season can change all that horribly.

      • I have never met Griff and I agree he put his foot firmly in it.
        I don’t profess to have a considered position on polar bears. They are just one species. I care less about them than the Orange bellied parrot or the Mallee fowl (google it) and that isn’t much. My guess is that current rapid changes underway in the Arctic won’t work in their favour.
        I see what looks to be a system flipping from one stable state to another. The climate has done changed countless times in the past but the rate of change makes this unusual. There have been decadal scale changes in the past like meltwater pulses and volcanic activity but usually the changes are ‘glacial’ thousands or tens of thousands of years.
        We’re up a degree, if we stop emitting CO2 we’ll be lucky if it stops rising a couple more. But with the momentum strongly in one direction – who the f*** knows.
        How long since the Arctic was 90% ice free?

      • tony mcleod
        December 15, 2016 at 3:48 am
        The Arctic has been “ice free”, as defined by Wadham, for more summers during the Holocene than it has been at higher Wadham numbers.

    • Is this a site for examining the truth about climate change and for discussion, or just an echo chamber?
      Evidence on climate is found by scientific observation and validation of scientific theory – so I think that the evidence must be posted and discussed.
      Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average.
      That’s a fact any discussion on climate needs to acknowledge and explain.

      • Griff,
        You said, “Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average. That’s a fact any discussion on climate needs to acknowledge and explain.”
        I agree with you. Certainly the usual attributions to so-called “dark water” and well-mixed CO2 don’t seem to be applicable. There are things happening that the current consensus theory is inadequately explaining.

      • **Brett, it is cold in the dark of the arctic winter at the moment – but nowhere near as cold as it is on average.**
        Griff, I have bad news for you. The Arctic is rarely average. It is always above or below. When it goes below we do not hear from trolls like you.

    • What can I say?
      If polar bears are dependent on sea ice and the sea ice conditions are changing because of global warming, then there is a contradiction between the position there is no global warming and the study of polar bears.
      This story was completed ignored outside the skeptic blogosphere: no ‘non-skeptic’ opinion or review of Mitchell’s work I can see.

      • Er, ok.
        First, you state that Crockford is unqualified, and unpublished.
        Since you can’t do much about her actually being published, you head to a character assassination site to get some ammo, and cherry-pick through some effluent and appear satisfied that she isn’t qualified.
        Then I point you to what a truly qualified polar bear expert says, and what happened to him when he spoke out against the cult, and all you have is “nobody has proven him wrong”.
        Why do I get the idea there is a “yet” in there and you are furiously googling?

      • You’ve got to admit Griff: a scientist who was regarded as an expert in his field was turned away from a conference (by one of his ex-pupils no less!) merely because he disagreed with the global-warming hypothesis.
        The hysterical over-reaction to the possibility of his presence at the conference and subsequent ban was not worthy of the spirit of open enquiry. Once again it has been demonstrated that the CAGW gang are always happy to shut down debate.
        A question for you Griff: Do you think he should have been banned?

      • Griff,
        Your understanding runs from the simplistic to nonexistent.
        Polar bears don’t need sea ice. They can survive and even thrive without it.
        The ice most important to them is springtime landfast ice, where ringed seals build lairs in the snow to have their babies. That forms in the winter even in years, decades, centuries and millennia without sea ice as extensive as it was during the LIA.
        Polies survived the Holocene Optimum, Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, no problems.

        • “Polar bears don’t need sea ice. They can survive and even thrive without it.”
          Griff has been informed of that, with a plethora of quotes, links etc. on innumerable occasions.
          His business is purely alarmist propaganda.
          Facts are of no interest to him.

      • Grifter,
        Some more facts of polar bear life for you.
        The landfast ice is important to sow polies emerging from their winter hibernation dens, especially if she has nursing cubs with her. She needs the power bar snacks represented by fleshy ringed seal mothers and blubbery pups.
        Boar bears tend to spend the winter hunting rather than sleeping, so might go out on sea ice floes in search of seals. Their survival rate varies, but one boar can cover many sows, so they have less effect on population. They do pose a risk to cubs, though, since they eat them not only because they’re hungry, but so that the mother sow will come into heat and he can mate with her. Or eat her if he’s big enough and she’s small enough.

      • Warmunists appears to be more accurate than kind, I admit. Cultists might be as accurate, but probably less kind. Alarmists, certainly. If it bleeds, it leads.
        Can’t get a large grant, or page views, if you say what the science actually says: we can’t actually count polar bears very well, but we have an agenda, so we’ll take the worst possible scenario, double it just in case, extrapolate it out past all reasonable time periods for projections and hope it scares folks who get the vapours when they are more than 3 blocks from a Starbucks into keeping the lights on at the WWF or Greenpeace.
        Please don’t tell me that the people who go after Susan Crockford as Griff has are trying to have a good discussion.

      • Gareth Phillips, name calling is permitted on this site only in a specific direction. If you call the “rejectionists” using the term that begins with a “D” you will get blacklisted.

        • It takes more that one use of the word to merit banning. People that use it maliciously and regularly also often commit other policy violations, due to their irrational anger that accompanies such labels.

      • Gareth Phillips,
        Your sentiments are well known here. Your words might show more veracity when you start making similar remarks about the near universal use of the “d” word, by those on your side of the fence.

      • GP, warmunist was a carefully defined term in essay Climatastrosphistry in my book. It was inspired by former Czech president Vaclav Klaus and his 2007 book Blue Planet in Green Chains. It is explicitly the climate equivalent to Lysenkoism. And far from being insulting or intentionally derogatory like “d…..”, it is accurate and apt. The essay covers all the background and provides many examples making the point. I suspect you would find it educational.

      • Perhaps you’re unaware of the fact that Mann and his fellow unindicted coconspirators themselves call their antiscientific alarmism a “cause”.

      • @Alan Robertson
        Gareth Phillips,
        Your sentiments are well known here. Your words might show more veracity when you start making similar remarks about the near universal use of the “d” word, by those on your side of the fence.
        Alan, you patently have only read my recent posts. I have argued for many years that labelling sceptics as deniers is a pointless exercise which drives people away. I have said it here and on website which support the consensus. I also feel the same way about the silly use of terms like warmunist or troll for someone you disagree with. A brief read of the responses to Griff highlights some of the language that causes me concern. If you have to grossly insult someone to persuade them of the validity of your argument, it does not give much credence to the quality of your beliefs.

      • Here is an excellent example of an ad hominem attack :
        “Now you just repeat your fact-free spew. You are a pathetic maroon.”
        Such responses are the road to hell in any debating situation. The grammar also suggests it was written in anger without proof reading. Or the writer, like me, has a dodgy keyboard.

    “Having spent a week on the shores of Hudson Bay with Polar Bears International in early November, I was stunned by how warm it was. I harkened back to the conditions I experienced in 1984 when I started research there. It was a different place. I was a lot younger but absolutely jazzed by the opportunity to study polar bears. It was an amazing time back then: Polar bears were roly-poly, triplets cubs were everywhere, lone yearlings thrived even without their mothers, and there were lots of bears.
    Back then, there were about 1,200 bears living in the core monitoring area between the Churchill River and Nelson River. Most of this area is now part of Wapusk National Park, which includes most of the denning area for the Western Hudson Bay population. In those days, the bears were on the sea ice by mid-November and, some years, even earlier. Now with only 800 bears in the denning area and fewer in the coming years, things have changed.”
    “After I left Churchill in early November, I watched the sea ice situation. It’s been a very slow freeze-up and the bears are late returning to the ice. The ice failed to form until December and only in the last few days has there been enough ice for some bears to move offshore. While the autumn freeze-up doesn’t present the best hunting conditions, it does allow some bears to kill seals. Those bears that do kill seals can shift from burning 1 kg/day (2.2 lbs/day) of their own stored reserves to using the fat of ringed seals—fat that makes being a polar bear possible. The simplest way to think of a polar bear is as a “fat vacuum”—fat is where it’s at for polar bears, and they need sea ice to access their prey.
    We won’t really know what the late freeze-up in 2016 will mean for the Western Hudson Bay population until 2017. It’s likely not good but a late break-up in 2017 would help. Unfortunately, further south in Ontario, those bears are all still on land waiting for ice. It’s tough being a polar bear in Hudson Bay these days.”

    • I thought a week was weather not climate. So which is it Griff? Is the ice station Zebra we are experiencing now global cooling or weather?
      Please do not get rid of Griff! Then I would have no one to laugh at! ROFL!!!

    • **Now with only 800 bears in the denning area and fewer in the coming years, things have changed.”**
      FYI Griff. Derocher and his buddies (your heroes) have not done any real count of the polar bears. There are not 800 bears. There are over 1000 and they are not decreasing expecially due to climate and ice.
      So, more rubbish from you. that is why you should not got to derocher for a reference on Dr. Crockford.

  35. Someone has posted an active graphic on this thread which tries to run a script. The script is causing problems for viewers. The graphic was posted after time stamps in the range of 7:30 pm 12/14/16.

    • Alan ==> I have tried in vain to find such a beast here in the comments….if you can give me the comment link, I will edit it or delete it. It may be an ad and not a comment…..

      • Kip,
        I think you’re right about the ad. The script stopped working within a moment of my post. While it manifested first on this page, it then briefly affected the home page, too. I caught a small bit of code which had “ad” something in the URL ref, but it quit appearing as soon as I tried to examine it and I lost access to the script. This is a fairly strong machine which came to near full stop due to that script, all cores near 100% cpu, etc.
        False alarm. All Apologies. I got busy with something else and should have checked back.
        Again, my mistake, sorry.

  36. Dear Readers ==> This comment section is a perfect example of the confusion , distraction and disruption that can be created by a single, dedicated, angry ‘tweenage troll (‘tween-aged: emotionally, intellectually or temporally).
    I do appreciate the “fun” aspect of poking and prodding the offender, but must point out that it is worse than an entire waste of time.
    The offender started off with an off-topic ad hom against Susan Crockford — whose work was not really a subject of discussion (other than her novel – a work of fiction).
    The subsequent chatter — other than Susan Crockford’s comment in self-defense — is the worst type of Climate Warrior silliness, which I had hoped would be avoided here.
    Let this be a lesson to us all — Don’t Feed The Trolls.

    • Kip:
      If this was my site, I would not allow any more posts from Griff until he apologizes to Dr. Crockford.
      One should not be making remarks when totally ignorant of a subject or person.
      In the meantime, we should not feed the trolls.

        Ross King, MBA, P.Eng. (ret’d) 1453 Beddis Road, SaltSpring Island, B.C., V8K2E2, Canada (250) 537-0666
        “The older I get, the better I was….”
        On 15 December 2016 at 16:06, Watts Up With That? wrote:
        > Gerald Machnee commented: “Kip: If this was my site, I would not allow any > more posts from Griff until he apologizes to Dr. Crockford. One should not > be making remarks when totally ignorant of a subject or person. In the > meantime, we should not feed the trolls.” >

      • Gerald ==> IF this were MY site, I would have slightly different policies on comments — but it is not my site, it is Anthony Watts, and his policies are at least clear and fair.
        Note that I do have the right and ability to disapprove and delete any comments that egregiously violate Anthony’s site policies…. I have only found ti necessary to do so once.
        It is far easier to simply ignore trolls and trolling — I try very hard never to respond ( I am not always successful).

    • As someone who has prolonged this, I do somewhat apologize. However, I don’t really consider Griff a troll. To me a troll is someone who is deliberately obtuse in order to get a reaction.
      I’m not flaming when I say I don’t think he is being DELIBERATELY obtuse.
      I honestly think he is a run-of-the-mill low-information Chicken Little who will jump on every apocalyptic pronouncement by a dizzying and growing array of often self-described experts, while ignoring, or being truly ignorant of, the nuances of things like scientific uncertainty.
      My reaction to character assassination where folks like Griff malign scientists like Dr. Crockford, or intelligent and well-educated people like Steven McIntyre will, however, remain visceral.

  37. So what. All bears are predators, yet it is the world’s #1 fave cuddly toy… they are in every shop window, in every bed, and simply just everywhere. We love them, it doesn’t matter that they don’t love us back – just like dinosaurs, dragons, and sometimes monsters… to be honest, it is quite an embarrassment that you penned this.

    • IMO far from an embarrassment.
      The fact remains that alarmists are still trying to use polar bears in their attempts to deceive taxpayers, despite the fact that the polies are not in the least bit endangered by “climate change”.

  38. Remarkable the sheer ignorance of Griff and tony mcleod in the face of very well documented science about bears. Griff “disagrees” with the science from Dr. Crockford and tony says CO2 traps heat. Well done guys!

      • Like climate scientists? Like a global average temperature? You said CO2 “retains” heat IIRC. In other words trap! I can find the post if you really want but I know I don’t have to!

  39. I saw a TV series of the polar bears in Churchill (Hudson bay). It was told they had a hard time (even that all lookede well fed), but i wonder why they just don’t walk north if they miss the ice. Churchill is in the southern part of Hudson bay, so could it be they like it there?
    I mean they have not the same problem as the polar bears at Svalbard. These bears must swim a lot to follow the ice north in the summer.

    • The Churchill bears are hang around the garbage dump scavengers.
      You’re right. If they wanted to hunt for a living, they’d follow the ice north.

  40. @Kip
    I have a bone to pick and I hope it does not get me banned. Kit is based on my middle name. It is what my parents called me. My father and son use a shorten version of out common first name.
    All my life I have been called Kip of Skip. My attempts at correcting that resulted in things like being called ‘Kip who?’.
    So could you post under another name to avoid me having negative feelings.

    • Retired Kit P ==> My dear sir…I have been called “Kip” since assuming the name as a willful three-year-old and refusing to answer or respond to any other name.
      Since I am now a [very] senior citizen (by some standards), I will continue to live under my own name, despite, and with regret for, your discomfort.
      I have my doubts that anyone will confuse the name I write and comment under, which is my real name, with your pseudonym “Retired Kip P”.
      I certainly hope that your request was in jest….but one can never really tell these days.

Comments are closed.