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 itself, which is in Israel, whose website states that “” 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.
# # # # #
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
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.
Susan
Readers => Susan Crockford can be found at the Polar Bear Science blog and apparently at Susan J. Crockford – Scientist, Writer.
You are a class act Susan. I don’t have much time to read books, but I have decided to buy your new one when it comes out. I’m sure both my wife and I will enjoy it.
Oh! My! Goodness!
Right when the fur is flying fast and furious, look who stops in for a visit.
I will look forward to your new books with keen interest.
Merry Christmas, Dr. Crockford.
Thank you for your honest work. Merry Christmas to you!
Susan, any chance of getting the books other than via Amazon?
SeaDog ==> (I do not use the “o” word)….Barnes and Nobel in Nook eBook format. You c an download Nook Reader for Desktops free.
Oldseadog,
I also publish ebooks through Smashwords, which distributes through a variety of other outlets and also offers pdf and Apple formats. I will do the Amazon first though, to get the hard copy out.
Susan
Griff – are you buying the books?
We are waiting for an answer.
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.
gavin schmidt?
He wouldn’t agree to allow anyone else to post in his threads, if past performance is any indicator.
Gavin may be in need of a new job 🙂
Nick?
I think Griff may be Bill Nye.
LOL
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”.
I do worry I am the only dissenting, realist voice here.
where indeed are the others?
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?
Ask your other hand.
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 !)
Don’t worry too much about it Griff, you aren’t the only Troll on this board
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:
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.
It may be this was just a cute image grabbed by a web design consultant and accepted uncritically by the Committee.
Thanks, Kip. 🙂
if you can hug a tree you can hug a bear.
I advocate all tree huggers do so.
the bear will hug back, honest.
Panda attacks man who wanted a cuddle”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-panda-idUSTRE4AN5NF20081124
There was a TV advert about a year ago. It showed a polar bear leaving the Arctic and wandering through the countryside until it came up to a man who owned an electric car. It then reared up on its hind paws and gave him a big hug. The camera did not show what followed, but I’m sure the eco-conscious fellow ended up a No. 2.
Excellent suggestion, maybe we can get them a special group rate up to Churchill for polar bear love.
PMK
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.
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.
Actually a pretty good photoshop. They got the dimensions very close. Polar Bears ARE that big!
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.
Bravo ClimateOtter!
That was one of the best fact based paddlings of a disingenuous, snot nosed troll I have witnessed this year!
Encore! Encore!
Trust me. NOBODY wants to get a good close look at a polar bear.
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.
If you look again, you will find that he is actually claiming to have been vindicated.
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?
“answer with science and observed fact”
You first
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.
Griff’s comment includes:
.
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!”
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.
tadchem,
H. sapiens
permasturbatio.There, FIFY.
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
Kinky Friedman walks into a bar with Commander Cody…
Every comment that Griff makes now on whatever subject will get the response ” what about those bears “?
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.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D668HB4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I happen to know Barry Lopez. I drive by his house at least once a year.
He’s an environmentalist, but of the kind who likes animals, especially wolves. I’ve never asked him what he thinks about the sacrifice of millions of birds and bats on the altar of “renewable energy”.
Maybe I should.
Couer,
Are you referring to the story about how polar bears have to walk on three legs while hunting because they have to use one paw to keep their black nose covered so that the seals don’t see them?
IMO, they cover their noses while still-hunting, ie lying in wait near a seal breathing hole.
Dunno about while walking hunting.
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…
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.
Why not email them and ask?
I bought and read Susan Crockford”s book, and I’ll tell ya that she didn’t pull any punches.
Yes it sure scared me. I daren’t open the fridge now in case there’s one hiding inside
Griff,
Maybe this is why there aren’t as many Polar bears around.
That’s a big incentive to reduce the population…
Oops! Since rational hunting laws were adopted there are many more Polar Bears.
Please don’t encourage Griff.
But what a cute widdle baby that first bear was.
Someone may mistake that propaganda poster as real news. Fake news is the new term for propaganda.
Bet this is one piece of fake news that Facebook won’t suppress.
But eagles don’t get any slack
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/final-wind-turbine-rule-permits-thousands-eagle-deaths.html?cq_ck=1481743208977
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:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-and-climate-change-what-does-the-science-say
“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.
He’s off the clock.
If he’s in the UK, he is probably asleep.
Hey, I can only spend a little time in a couple of coffee breaks here…
Even that little time is too much.
I wouldn’t call him a ‘man’.