An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.

Summary: An important (but fatally flawed) new peer-reviewed paper about climate change reveals much about climate science, the public policy debate, and the role of science institutions in America. Here is a quick look at it and its lessons for us.

Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!
Your affectionate uncle,
– Screwtape {From C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters}.

Postcards from the frontier of science

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

Posted yesterday in Bioscience (an Oxford Academic journal).

By Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, and Michael E. Mann.

This is an important new paper by a team of blue-chip authors. It reveals much about modern science, and shows one reason the campaign for policy action to fight climate change has produced so little despite so much invested over the past three decades. It defies standard analysis, so I will take you on a page by page tour. Each page makes a new low! You can draw your own conclusions.

First section of the paper.

The opening repeats scientists’ consensus about global warming, as described in the IPCC’s reports (which I support). But it quickly goes off the rails.

“However, much of the public …believes scientists continue to debate AGW causes or even process …”

People believe that because it is true. The Working Group 1 report in the IPCC’s AR5 (2014) describes the confidence of its conclusions and forecasts. A large fraction of these conclusions are rated “likely” or less, which the IPCC defines as …

“In this Report the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: Virtually Certain 99–100% probability, Extremely Likely: 95–100%, Very Likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%, About As Likely As Not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33% …”

To see the many fundamental issues debated by climate scientists, look at the “Climate Change Statement Review Workshop” Climate held by the American Physical Society (APS) in NYC on 8 January 2014. See this summary by Rupert Darwall and the full transcript.

“A blog is a website that contains regularly updated online personal ideas, comments, and/or hyperlinks provided by the writer (Nisbet and Kotcher 2013).”

With commendable precision, the authors define the term “blog” (although that citation does not appear in the references and Google does not show the quote). But the authors do not define the more important and vaguer terms “denier”, “science denier”, “climate change denier”, and “AGW-denier.” Worse, they use these different terms interchangeably. Peer review should have caught this.

“Indeed, credible estimates suggest that the entire Arctic may be ice-free during summer within several decades (Snape and Forster 2014, Stroeve and Notz 2015, Notz and Stroeve 2017), a process that, as has been suggested by both theoretical and empirical evidence, will drastically reduce polar-bear populations across their range …”

The authors fail to mention previous “credible estimates” that have proven to be false. To mention a few…

2002: “Arctic melting will open new sea passages“, in which Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge says “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there.” Not by 2012. Not by 2017.

2007: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” “Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. …So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Nope.

2008: “NSIDC — Arctic melt passes the point of no return, “We hate to say we told you so, but we did.” But the polar ice minimum extents in 2008 and 2017 were almost identical.

“To characterize how blogs and related online sources frame the topic of AGW, we identified a total of 90 blogs covering climate-change topics that mentioned both polar bears and sea ice.”

This is climate science, so the paper neither identifies the 90 blogs nor the methodology used in this analysis. There is no Supplement with that additional information.

About Susan Crockford and her work.

The next section is the core of the paper, examining her writings about polar bears. The authors misrepresent her qualifications and her analysis. Any competent peer review would have forced revisions.

“Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

This is a serious misrepresentation of relevant facts. The authors fail to mention her Ph.D. in zoology (her dissertation mentions polar bear evolution) and her peer-reviewed publications (details here). She is even cited in a paper published in Bioscience. As for relevance, there is a long tradition of scientists leveraging their basic training into other fields. Darwin’s education before joining HMS Beagle gave him little preparation to discover evolution. Stephen Jay Gould — the great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science — did his empirical research studying snails.

“Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”

This is a deliberate lie. Nobody who has read her work can honestly say that. See this post, for example. Also see her major paper, described below. One can question her evidence and logic, but not that she provides much evidence.

“A primary approach of Crockford’s and other denier blogs is to frame uncertainty by focusing on the present and to question the accuracy of future predictions — implying that the rapid loss of Arctic ice recorded over the past 40 years induced by AGW cannot serve as a guide to future conditions.”

The authors give no citation for this claim. I have never seen Crockford say anything remotely like that.

More claims.

“Denier blogs that downplay the threats of AGW to Arctic ice and polar bears rely heavily on arguments that …it is therefore difficult or even impossible to predict what will happen in the future.”

That is part of a long paragraph of unclear meaning. But this claim attributed to “denier blogs” is quite correct. How did this error pass even a cursory peer review? As climate scientist Kevin E. Trenberth said (repeating what so many others have said during the past two decades)…

“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent ‘story lines’ that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”

Given the difficulty of making predictions, the IPCC’s reports describe various scenarios of future events. AR5 uses four Representative Concentration Pathways, scenarios ranging from good to horrific.

There is another page of analysis and claims in this paper, but it is more of the same. The authors conduct a complex — and only sketchily described — classification and analysis of “denier” blogs. Given their gross misrepresentation of Crockford and her work, I see no reason to consider it seriously.

One last oddity: many of the attacks in the paper apply just as well to itself. Reverse the white and black hats in these two claims and they make just as much sense.

“For example, scientific blogs provide context and associated evidence, whereas denier blogs often remove context or misinterpret examples. …Rhetorical devices to evoke fear and other emotions, such as implying that the public is under threat from deceitful scientists, are common tactics employed by science-denier groups.”

My Conclusions

This paper follows the forms of science without its substance. In this respect is resembles pseudoscience more than science.

This paper demonstrates the often discussed institutional failures in modern science. Papers whose claims are easily disproven. Sloppy peer review. Politicization. These are the elements creating the replication crisis, slowly spreading through the science (details here). That would have been a small problem in 1817, but is one we cannot afford in 2017.

Let’s hope that scientists begin institutional reforms as soon as possible. The rot seen in this paper, directed as it is at a major public policy issue, can have ugly repercussions.

Polar Bear on small ice flow

 

Decide for yourself. See her major paper

Crockford documents her theory in “Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)”, posted at Peer J Preprints (not peer reviewed) — Abstract…

“The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively.

Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions).

“Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis.

“Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed.

“The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.”

Her paper was ignored, using their role as “gatekeepers” to keep challenges out of the debate. Now they have taken a second step: rebuttal by smears and lies. Let’s respond to this unscientific behavior by scientists: circulate this paper and force them to rationally respond to it.

About the author

Susan Crockford is a zoologist with more than 35 years of experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia (a “non-remunerated professional zooarcheologist associate”) and co-owner of a private consulting company, Pacific Identifications Inc. See her publications here and her website Polar Bear Science.

See her book at the end of this post. See this review of her other book by Kip Hansen: “Polar Bear Facts and Myths – A Science Summary for All Ages”. She has also written a novel, Eaten — a polar bear attack thriller.

For More Information

For more information about polar bears, about the keys to understanding climate change and these posts about the politics of climate change…

  1. Mother Jones sounds the alarm about the warming North Pole — Exploiting the polar bear story for political gain.
  2. Twenty stories of good news about polar bears!
  3. Are 30 thousand species going extinct every year?
  4. Good news about polar bears, thriving as the arctic warms!
Advertisements

340 thoughts on “An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

    • Scientists in Hell are doomed to spend eternity performing complex statistical correlations on mountains of stochastic input data and always finding that r² is so close to zero that it renders any conclusions invalid. Wait a minute…

      • jorgekafkazar:

        I prefer to think that they’ll end up in research limbo where every day dawns with researchers facing the exact same problems and starting at the same place.

        Surrounded by piles of papers filled with smeared terrible handwriting that includes many cross-outs and drops of gummy ink. Containing numbers that do not add or cross foot correctly and lack the metadata to properly identify the number.

        Burdened by a must submit by end of day totally blank grant application. Without any functional printers, only white crayons for writing/graphs, with postage stamps that lack glue.

        Where all of the candy/coffee/tea/snack machines are broken and full of flour moths.
        Where the nearest shops or restaurants are dozens of miles away and the only transportation are rusty single speed huge tire bicycles that are low on air.

        Besides that all of the shops/restaurants are exact change cash only.

        May they serve in research limbo forever.

      • I’m reminded of “Infernoland”, a fantasy/science fiction story by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It was a science/science fiction oriented version of “Dante’s Inferno”. In “Infernoland”, bureaucrats sent to hell have to fill out 10 copies of every form they fill out- for replacement pitchforks, or whatever. The 10 copies of the form are filled out with the requisitioner’s own blood.

    • White House Archives, Nov.29, 2015, Paris

      Announcing: ‘Mission Innovation’

      Summary which includes photo.

      Re: climate change

      More information at this website

      https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/29/announcing-mission-innovation

      ‘Mission Innovation’ organization. Global organization.

      “Accelerating the Clean Energy Revolution”

      More information at: http://www.mission-innovation.net

      Also check U.S. Department of Energy for information online on this topic.

      • Believers of CAGW think they too have self-respect and dignity. They just define it differently than you do. Self-respect and dignity, to them, is going along with the most popular group out there. If it changes 180 degrees tomorrow, so be it. They still love themselves—a lot.

      • +1 Sheri.
        Remains me of all the good people that flock to the crowd of those who would had resisted dictatorship back in the 40s. While, obviously, flocking to the crowd people were precisely those who eagerly raised their arms, then, and just as eagerly stop to do it when the tides turned.

  1. The paper is dreck, based on its content. Not a surprise, though, once you recognize some of the authors.

    • I start laughing at this line….

      “However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap”

      Their “broad scientific consensus” is what created the internet blogs…….LOL

      • That line caused me to laugh as well. They place a strong contribution for the gap on internet blogs? Really? Hah. I didn’t even know this blog existed until around 2010. I was first exposed to the CAGW junk in 1995. I knew the minute I first heard about it that the solutions would be conveniently advantageous for those who despised freedom, free markets and individualism.

        These blogs don’t drive my revulsion of the CAGW meme and its various perpetrators, its the perpetrators themselves and their ignorant “solutions” that drive my revulsion.

        If I believed that CAGW was real I would embrace the ONLY viable solution, which is a complete conversion to nuclear fission power. Then you could easily convert to electric only transportation. Push it world-wide and it would work. Base load power, no emissions, every civilization brought to first world status and quickly reducing CO2. Access to power would increase education and wealth and cause a drastic drop in birth rate. I would push a forward looking, optimistic worldview, with an emphasis on free markets and decentralization of governments. Children would be celebrated, humanity would begin its leap forward and we could finally move past the horrors of the 20th century which still haunt our world. Upward, onward, moving into a bright new future.

        But nope, their vision is Malthusian. Humans are evil. Cockroaches of the world. Limit power. Use inefficient solar and wind, which is difficult to maintain, expensive, and uses rare earth materials. Life sucks, free markets suck, individualism must be reigned in and controlled. All power must be centralized into the hands of an elite few who know better than everyone else (how convenient). It is just more of the madness of the 20th century – same evil, different paint.

        This isn’t science – it never was science – it is politics and power.

      • And the funding from Climate Change (AGW) hasn’t allowed them the opportunity to outdo any success of the sceptic blogs. Their Climate Communication skills are lacking. ;)

      • Andrew,

        “They place a strong contribution for the gap on internet blogs? Really? Hah. I didn’t even know this blog existed until around 2010.”

        I used sites like this one as sources for useful quotes, stats, graphs, and so on, for use on other sites that were not focused on climate . . and it seemed like a significant number of other people were doing likewise.

        Most (like me) were opposing the whole globalist/control freak gambit, though this climate stuff was seen as a critical battle and was probably the most fought over single aspect of the wider “war”. So I suspect these guys are right about a relatively few blogs having made a strong contribution, even if not because a great many people were actually frequenting them.

      • But since their “broad scientific consensus” has been thoroughly debunked, the actual level probably lines up with “public opinion” reasonably well.

      • JohnKnight commented – “Most (like me) were opposing the whole globalist/control freak gambit”

        which has absolutely nothing
        to do with how molecules
        behave in planetary atmospheres.

        you’re a
        perfect example — those who
        do not accept the science do so
        for ideological reasons, not for
        scientific reasons.

      • Raven commented – “But since their “broad scientific consensus” has been thoroughly debunked”

        debunked by whom?
        when?
        where can i read this
        research?

      • Why would a globalism drive necessarily lack a pseudo-science based global crisis component, crackers? I can understand thinking it might have been a remarkable coincidence, but not assuming that it was . . And no, I feel no obligation whatsoever to take your ostensible certainty about that “negative” seriously, but thanks for the demonstration of your . . fervor ; )

      • Seriously crackpot.. you are getting passed the PATHETIC stage.

        Haven’t you bothered doing any basic research of your own……. ever.?

        Are you INCAPABLE ????

        …… or just totally BLINKERED and NAIVE.

      • “those who
        do not accept the science ”

        You have yet to produce one single bit of this so-called science.

        And when data and real science is put in front of you.. you reject it.

        You haven’t the vaguest clue about any of ‘the science”

        You are an empty vassal.

      • I see that crackers refers to the IPCC report as his science basis. Well you shouldn’t have a problem with their FAILED Per Decade warming trend projection then:

        2007 IPCC report,

        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”

        A .30C per decade rate,which is the same as in 1990 only this time it is not less than .30C per decade anymore

        UAH shows about .11C per decade warming rate,from 2001:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:2001/trend

        From 1990

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend

        About .165C per decade.

        Epic Fail!

        The AGW conjecture has failed this test.

      • IPCC is not a science body.

        The report is a political based summary, often not representative of the actual science

        Several real scientists that were contributors, quit the IPCC because of their maleficence.

        Where you SO IGNORANT that you didn’t know that ?

        ZERO EVIDENCE

      • Read this again crackers:

        “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected”

        what does .20 + .10 add up to _________?

      • Crackers:
        **debunked by whom?
        when?
        where can i read this
        research?**
        It has been debunked by a lack of evidence. in other words when you get no response to a question – there is no science.
        I have two questions to demonstrate the no response:
        1. Show me ONE study which MEASURES the amount f temperature increase due to CO2.
        2. Show me the engineering quality study which determined that warming in excess of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming.
        Neither Griff nor anyone else has answered.
        Yes, I get this response when |I ask for evidence – “i follow the science”.
        However, at the U of Winnipeg on Wednesday, nobody showed any science. we heard the same old “Winnipeg will have Texas temperatures bu 2080” from the eco group.

      • Crackers;
        The IPCC is not a scientific organization. The sheep are still quoting them. The IPCC has changed their wording to “projection” from “prediction”, but it is still the same junk. The statement for policymakers is done before the “science” is done, so then the science part is changed to match the politics. Answer my two questions above, then I will listen.

      • Income gap//achievement gap … buzzwords and phrases that get attention. Using term “Consensus gap” isn’t going to get this idiots what they want. But it may move us the public towards a better understanding of “integrity gap”.

        “However, there is a wideNING gap between our scientific INTEGRITY and the public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed toward CALLING ATTENTION TO THIS INTEGRITY gap”

      • Gerald M commented –
        “1. Show me ONE study which MEASURES the amount f temperature increase due to CO2.”

        ipcc 5ar; Feldman+ Nature 2015: https://is.gd/vIWMxr; Matthews+ Nature 2009 doi:10.1038/nature08047

        “2. Show me the engineering quality study which determined that warming in excess of 2 Deg C will cause runaway warming.”

        i don’t know of
        anyone who thinks
        agw will cause runaway
        warming. that hardly means
        it isn’t serious.

      • Your web reference, crackers345, does not calculate temperatures in relation to CO2 forcings at the surface only, not in the atmosphere. It gives its estimates of changes in CO2 forcings only, no temperature estimates.

        Berkeley Lab found an increase of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade: dF = 0.2 W/m^2/decade. [Their period chosen was 2000 to 2010, beginning on a La Nina and ending on an El Nino, for what its worth.]

        Changes in temperature are given by: dT = lambda*dF, or dT = 0.2*lambda

        Taking others’ figures at face value:

        1) At a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C for each doubling of CO2, lambda = 0.27 C/(W/m^2)
        Therefore, the change in temperature would be: dT = 0.2*0.27 = 0.054 C/decade.

        2) At a climate sensitivity of 2 C for each doubling of CO2, lambda = 0.45 C/(W/m^2) [It could be up to 0.54 C/(W/m^2). I don’t know.]
        Therefore, the change in temperature would be: dT = 0.2*0.45 = 0.09 C/decade

        Is our surface temperature measurement systems capable of detecting a change of less than one tenth of a degree C over a decadal period? Fifty-four hundredths of a degree C?

    • Jorgeafkazar. I agree, the paper is useless and is based on feelings and deceit, not science. But then, most papers I see that have a dozen or more authors are usually junk.

      • True, Leonard. Climatology is not the only field that is in trouble, and more authors means more people counting on everyone else to get it right. IQ is not additive; stupidity is.

      • Hugs

        These people are desperate. Why else would anyone write something that can be so comprehensively dissected and condemned with empirical data. They risk their reputations, as every scientist does on publication, the bedrock of scientific credibility. So, I suspect, desperation can be their only motivation.

        I wouldn’t understand the paper even if I read it but when it’s so easily ripped apart on a public blog, which suggests no fear of retribution, it must be really bad.

      • HotScot: I no longer see “risk their reputations” as a viable outcome. Science is so corrupt right now that the only people vilified are those that do real science and upset the consensus crowd. Reputation is based on consensus, not accurate science.

      • HotScot,

        I’m not buying the desperate part. This is a personal attack against a scientist, and in my opinion, it is also unethical. Because of that, I assume both the editor and peer reviewers (Oreskes, by any chance ? – Can’t know!) are colluded to do this. It is a statement, not a scientific paper.

        They don’t care if it is ripped apart in a blog. They could be concerned if they were forced to rectract due to excessive errors and bad ethics. It is published in a scientific paper with good enough reputation to be quoted in The Daily Kos, Wikipedia, The Guardian and the other media used by the people of the Cause. That is its purpose. It is just a soundbite to smear Susan Crockford, and the ‘deniers’ they fail to define in their paper.

        Even IF the paper were retracted, I assume much of the damage would have been done, since this acts as a warning for any scientist to disagree with the authors of the paper on any subject related to poster children of the climate change. They don’t care if you are a real denier, they’ll make you one and make sure you will have problems with your career.

        It happened with Pielke, Lomborg, Curry, Christy. That this attack is so vicious is further fueled by the fact that Crockford is actually not part of the gang doing fieldwork, i.e. she’s not taking the hit of decreasing funding. It is further fueled by the close relations between her blog and this blog. Anybody who associates with the WUWT is an enemy of Michael E Mann, and these people really think this is about trench warfare where you throw projectiles at your enemy. The paper should not be considered to be science at all.

        The more I think about this, the more I think the scientific community should try to stop this kind of behaviour in no uncertain terms.

      • HotScot:

        They are NOT risking their reputations.

        At this point, whether or not AGW is real is irrelevant to their professional standing – their job, like that of the IPCC, is to promote Climate Change as a driver of public policy. So long as they do that, they will remain employed.

        It’s a moot point as to whether or not they realise that they are no longer scientists, but it’s not a unique situation – in fact it recurs with every generation. It’s just unusual for so much political angst to attach itself to the entrenched delusions of the Old Guard. (Ordinary people rarely came to blows over, for example, the existence or non-existence of tectonic plates…)

  2. The “esteemed” authors:
    …Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, and Michael E. Mann….

    Seems scientific ineptness coupled with political advocacy are contagious….

    • The fact that this paper ever made it through peer-review,..

      .. shows just how IRREVOCABLY BROKEN peer-review is in so-called ” climate science”

      • A personal attack paper with easy to spot lies,shows the lack of interest in pursuing good science research.

        from the post:

        “This is an important new paper by a team of blue-chip authors”

        if they were truly “blue chip” people,there would be NO personal attack paper with lies all over it.

        “It reveals much about modern science, and shows one reason the campaign for policy action to fight climate change has produced so little despite so much invested over the past three decades.”

        They are investing in POLITICAL interests,not for science,because good science research would never produce such a horrid lying paper. A paper designed to smear a person with deliberate lies,that kind of behavior happens in politics.

        There are FOURTEEN names listed as authors of that irrational trash,one would expect some scientific rationality and decency could be harvested from 14 brains,but these people are poor scientists with a chip on their shoulders.

        One more piece of evidence that Dr. Mann is a truly dumb man and a pseudoscience wacko!

      • I want to know if any of the resident AGW trollups really think this piece of anti-science trash-talk should ever have passed peer-review.

        What does it show about peer-review when papers like this can get through..

        Trashes the whole of “climate science”..

        degrades its putrid, underhanded, spiteful reputation even further…. if that were possible…

        … wouldn’t you agree !!!

      • No wonder rational, scientific people treat “climate science” peer-review with such MOCKERY..

        they bring it on themselves.

  3. Peer review has been re-defined as review by people who already agree with the “consensus”.
    Anyone who is not part of the in-crowd is not permitted to review papers done by insiders.

    Dr. Crawford has released all of her data and methods so that anyone who wants to can review her work and as a result all of her work has been reviewed much more extensively than anything produced by the so called “climate scientists” who only release their data and methods to those who already agree with them.

    • Yes, it is interesting that they can offer no criticism of Crockford’s methods or conclusions but instead rely solely on false attacks against her credibility.

    • George, please note the “experts” had to use “judgement” to cool off the intermediate term of the IPCC AR5 CMIP5 models. Tellingly, they left the out-years wildly hot.

      I recently read where modelers were forced to reduce the assumed climate impacts of particular forcings by 30% to bring hindcasts anywhere near historical temperatures. But in the same model runs, no such adjustments were made for future projections. I wonder if that is really true?

      • When a bureaucracy starts out with an assumption (CAGW for the IPCC), knr, it unlikely it will produce any contrary observations.

  4. What about the Arctic conditions in the 1930s – was there a PB population crash? No. Now we have a plateau of about four and a half Wadhams or more every September for the last decade, we can relax and watch for the increase to start with the AMO cycle.

  5. Dr. Susan Crockford is a Canadian scientist of significant stature and admirable ethics whose shadow, the authors of this piece of rubbish in Biosicence are not qualified to stand in. We can be proud that science is still practiced by some who know its purpose and methods. The inept and dishonest authors of tripe such as this are so far gone from reality there is little if any hope of them producing more than self-interested misrepresentations of a fantasy world where their magical thinking is as good as logic.

  6. Name-calling does not belong in science. Certainly not in published peer reviewed papers. Were Michael E Mann professional he would not have signed his name to the work or insisted that the pejoratives be removed.

    • This is not science. It is self-serving lies to support, not only an agenda, but their lifestyles of the rich and famous.

      Such blatant and aggressive attacks reflect the end-game desperation of paid political hacks as they recognize current and projected real science is destroying the consensus on a daily basis. That is why they are attacking blogs that publish contrary facts and agenda-free analyses.

  7. My younger offspring is currently in Yellowknife doing some technical work, apparently large stuffed Ursus maritimus specimens are all over the place.

  8. “The authors fail to mention previous “credible estimates” that have proven to be false. To mention a few… – Arctic Sea Ice predictions of 2002, 2007 and 2008”
    Dr Judith Curry stated during Congress hearings in March 2017 that the mechanisms that control the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice variance “were not known”.

    And yet when the predictions of Arctic sea ice demise were made in those years detailed above no-one asked the predictors of gloom to explain the mechanisms that would bring about those outcomes. How will this happen. Wadhams, despite visiting the Arctic over 50 times and it being his area of focus has no idea.

    The concern that the EPTG would change and atmospheric circulation be disrupted due to lack of ice is ironic. The period from the early1980s has witnesses greater atmospheric inflow the Arctic from mid latitude heat release, and it is that increased inflow that has contributed to the reduction of sea ice area and thickness.

    A good main post, thanks

    • Yes. But it is a real shame google put desmog as the top hit when I googled Susan Crockford. I mean, of all sites of the world, google puts a lefty hate site top. I don’t say they deliberately did that, but it well describes the size of the problems we have with ‘progressives’.

      Leftists are so eager to desmog everybody that they are seeing the results of their hate behaviour as a proof of being right.

      • Google definitely skews search results to the left. If you search almost any politically controversial position, the top page of results are almost dominated with left leaning links. This seems to be especially true with climate science related searches.

        For example, search for ‘hansen 1984 feedback climate’ and most of the first 10 pages are links using his papers to support their position, links to articles on RC, SS and other warmist blogs and a small number of skeptical positions thrown in after the first page of results. There was one wuwt link in the first 10 pages of results on the 6’th page, which happened to be my ‘feedback fubar’ article, although that also may be due to my own search history modifying my own results. I also needed to qualify the first search with ‘climate’ since without it, there were only warmist positions, nothing from wuwt and many unrelated results (different hansen’s and nothing to do with feedback).

        However, if I search ‘hansen 1984 feedback climate wuwt’ I get several pages of relevant results, oddly enough, the first result said ‘missing wuwt’ and was a link to Hansen’s paper. BTW, if enough people search for ‘hansen 1984 feedback climate wuwt’ and click through to wuwt links, it should improve the organic rating of wuwt. This will work for qualifying any climate science related search with wuwt and clicking through the wuwt links.

      • Speaking of “leftists”, has anyone noticed their males, specifically the powerful ones in the entertainment business appear to be the most sexually misguided? Stupid question: why are they the ones getting caught?

        I’m betting most of these characters support the alarmist narrative (including the imagined polar bear plight).

        Interesting times.

      • HotScot

        “Try using Duck Duck Go as a search engine, Susan’s top of the list”

        I don’t think duckduckgo works too well. But in some cases, it reveals striking differences in valueing (ordering) results.

      • I never trusted a company whose motto is “don’t be evil”. Only the devil can pretend not being evil; hell, not even Christ, not even Mary for a catholic, are sinless (only Christ conception is said to be).
        I ban google products wherever possible, except when they make no money or even lose some.
        I don’t even use the “google it” sentence, i use “duckduckgo it”
        And i use the fact that lefties do not like being tracked by a private company with known links to NSA to have them ban google, too.
        I hope anti-trust will break Alphabet apart.

      • And received a quick “Thank you”
        No one deserves to be attacked for just doing their job and being an honest scientist.

      • As a published author myself, I think people buying my book and posting a review on Amazon is even better than a note of support. I’m pretty sure Susan would agree.

    • I shared her post..comments are closed on her website though, I can understand why that would be.

      Susan if you are reading this…good for you! No scientist deserves to be attacked by quacks who can’t keep their hands out of everybody’s cookie jars. They aren’t biologists, they obviously can’t remember basic photosynthesis, consistently tell others they are experts in all fields because they play with climate models (yet also ignore the oceans beyond light depth), and are frequently caught pointing fingers when called out on what they simply don’t know.

      Go get ’em! They are obviously scared of you. :)

  9. It’s amazing how scientists whose work is influencing policy affecting trillions of dollars can get away with being so incredibly sloppy and even more amazing that a ‘consensus’ s embraced the idiocracy. But then again, this is the hallmark of ‘consensus climate science’. It’s fortunate for the world and for the integrity of science that blogs like this exist to bring this nonsense to light.

    This all started with Hansen’s bungling of feedback as his ego pushed back to counteract the Regan and first Bush administrations characterization of him as an alarmist ‘chicken little’ lunatic. This continued with Trenberth’s arbitrary conflation of the energy transported by photons and energy transported by matter done for no other reason than to obfuscate the simple requirements for energy balance and add wiggle room to support what the laws of physics can not. The IPCC piled on with inconsistent definitions, misleading characterizations and obfuscated uncertainty as they applied layer upon layer of junk claiming eminent catastrophe consequential to the bungled science underneath the shaky foundation supporting its existence as they unethically manuevred themselves to become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science. Worse yet is that the transparent purpose is to justify a repressive agenda shared with the UN, UNFCCC and the World Bank to replace the engine of growth with the repression of robinhood economics.

    • co2isnotevil

      It’s just as fortunate that informed people like you populate sites like this. Without you guys, we laymen would be lost.

      Thank you.

  10. I visit so-called “denier” blogs because they bring to light the “unhelpful” facts that somehow fail to get a mention in climate science press releases and friendly media interviews and comment pieces. The authors of “denier” blog posts don’t need any scientific qualifications, so this just looks like a priesthood getting its robes into a twist because the game is over for them, the inevitable fate of all priesthoods.

    • These maroons avoid mentioning that it is the absurdity of their claims…that created the internet blogs in the first place

      • They claim you believe in conspiracy theories like the fake moon landings them claim there’s a fossil fuel conspiracy with “common tactics employed by science-denier groups.”

        The irony is astonishing,

    • Blogs like this are required because the climate science blogs aligned with the IPCC’s self serving consensus don’t permit challenging the science they use to support their impossible claims.

  11. The climate change establishment is getting a bit frantic. How much of their funding was from the US government?

  12. Same bunch of bile and bilge that Griff was spewing about Dr Crockford a few months back. What is it about these people that make them attack Dr Crockford? Over and over they slander and try to diminish anyone who disagrees with them, but some the seam to focus in on and never let it go no matter how many times they are refuted. Dr Soon is another example.

  13. “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

    Looks like libel to me. I hope she sues.

    • ““experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.””

      Like what?

      What agenda can the numerous unpaid, often retired, scientists and engineers, ‘on denier blogs’ be pursuing? Fame? Fortune? Power?

      How self manufactured are Professor Tim Ball, Ant Watts, David Middleton, Willis etc? They comment under their own names, unpaid, and have credentials to back them up.

      Many of them, as far as I can gather, have comfortable lives and don’t need to profit from associating with WUWT, notalotofpeopleknowthat or any other ‘denier’ blog. Yet they do, because they value the integrity of science and seek to challenge the preposterous concept that concencus represents scientific endeavour.

      Even as a layman I can see what an appalling slur the comment represents to any scientist, no matter how modest.

      This is truly the time of the scientific Luddite, when questioning a concencus is considered wrong or heretical. Indeed, the very act of making inquiry into climate change makes me, arguably, a scientist, not a good one, but a scientist nonetheless.

      I don’t believe for a moment a qualification suddenly endows one with scientific drive and integrity. In my limited opinion, a qualification is merely evidence that one has the desire, drive and ability to complete a single task successfully. What one does after achieving that qualification is not the job of the qualification, it’s the job of the individual. How many people with degree’s are flipping burgers in McDonald’s? Judging by the adulation of qualifications they should all be running the company.

      My friend, Stephen Fear, the Phone box millionaire (Duck Duck Go him, google if necessary) is one of the wealthiest men in the UK. He left school at 14 and was, until recently, the entrepreneur in residence at the British Library. He is entirely self educated and I believe has at least one honorary degree. An acquaintance, Simon Dolan, also left school early, with a single ‘O’ level. He sold his accountancy firm SJD accounting a few years ago for £100M.

      Qualifications are no guarantee of ability.

      The statement “expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.” is a sad, self indictment of many publicity seeking, grant funded scientists.

      • Agreed. While having an advanced degree does indicate one is dedicated to the task, the “proper” letters after one’s name does not mean that the person is an infallible authority. Not having letters after one’s name does not mean the writer/speaker is ignorant of the subject. There is a psychological explanation, however, because once one has spent a fortune on a PhD, one usually wants to believe they know more than anyone without a PhD. Otherwise, what good is the degree? The reality that the degree is often just a job requirement is too sad for them to contemplate, I think.

      • And when you consider the cost of obtaining a Phd, the opportunity cost of not working and the financial penalty of starting from the bottom at a later age, it’s really not worth it. Plus, candidates tend to focus on narrow specialties limiting job opportunities where their specific education is even relevant.

  14. Given the easily-proved erroneous statements about Dr. Crawford’s work and reputation, a letter to BioSicence from an attorney representing her that demands a retraction and rebuttal would be in order. These twerps need to be held to a standard of decency. This is an opportunity to broadcast the depths of their despicable behavior that should not be missed.

    • A defamation lawsuit might be in order. Depends on whether Susan wants to push it that far. The authors definitely lied about her and her work, and smeared her reputation deliberately.

      I think the authors should be held to account in a court of law.

      • I’m afraid that suing for defamation would be a Mikey Mann thing to do. Rather, Dr. Crockford ought to submit a detailed refutation in the form of a Comment to the journal in question. Since they are likely to refuse to publish it, similar Comments ought to be submitted to other polar biology journals. That is how *scientists* are supposed to handle this sort of conflict.

      • Defamation most assuredly happened, but don’t you also have to prove harm?
        Without harm, it’s more like the Streisand effect. Sure a couple wanna-be’s will take up the mantra, but everyone else will go and look for themselves.

      • The trouble is that the authors didn’t lie when they said that she has not published on polar bears in the peer reviewed literature. She hasn’t.

      • Really Skeptical, make a dishonest statement here,since no one claimed they lied over it. Here is what Slimers wrote:

        “Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

        Here is the reply to it in the blog post:

        “This is a serious misrepresentation of relevant facts. The authors fail to mention her Ph.D. in zoology (her dissertation mentions polar bear evolution) and her peer-reviewed publications (details here). She is even cited in a paper published in Bioscience. As for relevance, there is a long tradition of scientists leveraging their basic training into other fields. Darwin’s education before joining HMS Beagle gave him little preparation to discover evolution. Stephen Jay Gould — the great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science — did his empirical research studying snails.”

        No mention of a lie here.

        Slimers made this LIE here:

        “Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”

        as exposed here:

        “This is a deliberate lie. Nobody who has read her work can honestly say that. See this post, for example. Also see her major paper, described below. One can question her evidence and logic, but not that she provides much evidence.”

        You keep trying to make deliberate misleading comments like you did, will make you appear to be a liar too,if not a serious misrepresentation of the evidence.

      • ” “This is a deliberate lie. Nobody who has read her work can honestly say that. See this post, for example. Also see her major paper, described below. One can question her evidence and logic, but not that she provides much evidence.” ”

        Well, I have seen many of these Crockford articles, and evidence and logic go together, don’t they. She carefully picks her evidence, and therein lies the problem.

        But both Crockford and Steele, who cast themselves as ecologists, seem to like to find examples of species living in environments that they are not well adapted for, and then imply that all is well. But anyone who has taken Ecology 101 knows that not to be the case; when faced with competition, polar bears ultimately retreat to the ice and pika to the mountain tops, or they go extinct. And we know this takes 100s or 1000s of years, it doesn’t happen in a few decades, thank heavens.

        And lastly, I thought it was a fine paper.

      • Dr. Crockford,

        the exact smear quote starts with

        Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.

        I understand your published peer-reviewed papers are mostly about evolution and archeozoology of the Arctic, but not about polar bears only and specifically. Do you have a list of papers (CV-like) that contains peer-reviewed papers on polar bears?

        You have been studying the food that polar bears eat, which makes you very relevant to this discussion, but how many peer-reviewed papers you have published on polar bears specifically?

  15. “Any competent peer review would have forced revisions.”

    That sums up the sad state of peer review, This even the case at the top-tier journals Science and Nature. Peer review is so frequently given pal reviews by conspiring senior editors at those journals on anything related to and promoting climate change alarmism.

  16. Dishonesty. From those who pretty much have made a career of it – and getting a little shrill as their behavior is getting painfully obvious.

  17. …Very Likely 90–100%, Likely 66–100%, About As Likely As Not 33–66%, Unlikely 0–33% …”

    I find it very unlikely the classification would contain overlapping categories.

  18. Bioscience (an Oxford Academic and sometimes irresponsible carrier of personal and blatant falsifiable attacks on influential people they don’t like journal). I had to fix that description. Hey, enough, this doesn’t need to be settled in court, it can be settled by individuals who simply won’t stand for this stuff. If Biosicence expects to maintain any standing and expect people like myself (I hold a degree in zoology) to have any confidence in their “peer reviewed” publications they need to fix this, now! I think a retraction is in order.

      • Dave Fair, Steve Lohr

        Aw lobbox, I just posted a comment which basically said that, in my opinion as a layman, qualifications are meaningless. Tossing them about as justification for an argument becomes a rabbit warren of ‘my qualification is better than yours’. The old ‘appeal to authority’.

        Again,in my opinion, a qualification is only an acknowledgement that one can complete a given task. Which is valuable, but it doesn’t recognise creativity, imagination, response to failure and, of course, scepticism. By all accounts, scepticism is now ridiculed by the scientific Luddite’s who promote concencus.

        Sorry guys, my earlier comment disappeared into the ether, and was a bit more comprehensive, so don’t take this one as a slight on your abilities or credentials. But surely, a layman like me, and many others on this site, qualify as scientists because we care to ask questions of accepted climate science.

        We only ask so we can learn.

      • Qualifications are important when dealing with those that value such qualifications, HotScot. And I prefer a qualified engineer to design power systems.

        I agree, though, that qualifications do not guarantee performance. And personal attacks on people are no substitute for reasoned argumentation.

      • Dave. Most engineers would be qualified. However, I believe your thinking more along the lines of “quality” engineer. And to find those you’d have to ask about in the industry. Easy for those “in” the industry, but not as easy for those external to the industry.

        Also being an engineer, you know they have an engineering guild behind them and the qualifications mean something. A scientist is almost a self appointed term these days, and means almost nothing. We’ve seen journalists, historians and cartoonists call themselves scientist for God’s sake.

  19. The quality and quantity of “psychological projection” from the Left is astounding; they are so crazed that they do not apparently perceive it, ahhh the irony! What they blame on skeptics it is really they who do it.

    • Hitler projected his own evil upon the Jews. He believed that he was some sort of Germanic/Aryan “messiah” and that the end justified the means. The 350.org 10-10 “No Pressure” video revealed the depth of Warmist evil, showing children being blown up and splattering others with their blood. The video makers thought it was oh-so funny, and not one of them objected.

  20. Something to bear in mind is that “climate science” is just a niche interest area “science” based on fake data and failed predictions mainly attracting those interested in unethical practices.

    The “Algorians” desperately need to spread the word about there being a “consensus” amongst scientists.

    There is no scientific consensus, at least none that anyone pushing the AGW agenda can furnish anyone with.

    It’s all part of the scam.

    The next time anyone mentions the “consensus” ask them to provide evidence of it.

    They won’t be able to.

  21. We already know the many of these authors have no character or are just just figurative academics, but all of them need to be called ‘on the carpet’ and shown to be bald-faced activists and out and out liars. They have their name on the paper and each and every ‘false fact’, piece of flim-flam, inuendo, needs to be attacked and hoisted for all to see.

  22. When all you can make is BS , they that is all you have to sell.
    The really sad part of much of this BS they have managed to sell.

    And did it really take all those authors to write what is a very light-weight paper , even if you ignore its ‘factional’ issues ?

  23. Many of the commenters here are using the wrong standard to evaluate this paper. Dr. Curry described this paper as “stupid.” She is a scientist, and is evaluating the paper as science.

    I believe this was deliberately written as propaganda (a commonplace in professional journals, including those of science). So other “s” words are more appropriate. The operationally accurate word to describe it is “successful” — and the authors are “smart.”

    Most people will read about this paper in the news. It has already begun to receive wide and uncritical coverage.

    Bob Weber wrote the first news story about this — for The Canadian Press, Canada’s leading news wire service (Wikipedia). His article already has been run by the National Post, The Globe and Mail, CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), the Winnipeg Free Press, the Edmonton Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, the Vancouver Sun, and The Star. Probably others, too.

    Major papers are reporting about this story, with not a critical word.

    Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian: “New study uncovers the ‘keystone domino’ strategy of climate denial” – – “How climate denial blogs misinform so many people with such poor scientific arguments.”
    International Business Times: “Nearly all climate-change denial blogs quote exactly the same dubious research” — “Internet becomes haven for websites which deny man-made global warming.”

    The Science News websites are running it prominently, which guarantees coverage in the next week, such as ScienceDaily and Phys.Org.

    Only “word of mouth” by people — posting about this on social media and other websites — can get out a more accurate message. That’s a very American solution.

    • The other thing is the people that stand behind the publication of the paper. Oxford proudly states its values as:

      “At Oxford Journals, we share the values of our society partners because we are part of the scholarly community. Our mission is to ensure that high-quality research is as widely circulated as possible in order to support education, research, and scholarship. To achieve this, we focus on:

      Quality
      Service to the academic community
      Journal development
      Global dissemination
      Appropriate innovation
      Fair play
      Transparency”

      Remembering that this article was an “Editor’s Choice” one presumes that Oxford Journals regards the article as “Fair Play”.

      Also it is the Journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and their ethics statement that one would expect to be exemplified by their journal likewise says, inter alia:

      “Be civil and respectful in professional interactions,… . Treat colleagues … fairly.

      “Be constructive and professional in evaluating the work of colleagues … .

      “Provide recognition of past and present contributions of others to science, and present one’s professional opinions only on those topics for which one has training and knowledge.

      “Promote the free and open exchange of information, not withholding information to substantiate a personal or scientific point of view.

      “Be candid about potential conflicts of interest in the conduct of professional duties.”

      They also pride themselves on the quality of their peer review service https://spars.aibs.org/, and no doubt the point needs to made that their Journal shows no competence in it.

      • Having written that I see the AIBS state

        “The EPA is moving ahead with creating a ‘red team/blue team’ exercise to review what is known about climate change. The concept comes from military analysis, where a red team criticizes the current consensus view and a blue team rebuts that critique.

        “‘We write to remind you of the ongoing research, testing, evaluations, and debates that happen on a regular basis in every scientific discipline,’ states the letter. ‘The peer review process itself is a constant means of scientists putting forth research results, getting challenged, and revising them based on evidence. Indeed, science is a multi-dimensional, competitive ‘red team/blue team’ process whereby scientists and scientific teams are constantly challenging one another’s findings for robustness.”

        No doubt they therefore wouldn’t shy away from a bit of peer review to demonstrate why there’s no need for a military response.

    • “It has already begun to receive wide and uncritical coverage.”

      That’s partly because, I suspect, Green NGOs lobbied those publications to feature the story, and provided them with a press release ahead of the release date they could mine for a news story.

      It is the activist alarmists, not our side, who are “well-organized and well-funded.”

      • roger – do you have any evidence of
        such lobbying by
        “green” ngos?

        or are you just
        making this conjecture
        up out of nothing?

        i’d like to see
        your evidence. thanks.

      • I don’t have any damning quotes at hand, although I suspect there are several out in the wild. Probably the annual balance sheets of these NGOs contain a line describing the amount of spending on something like “media outreach, which would cover the activity I suspect.

        What I do know is that Green groups are well-funded and professionally run, and therefore likely to use standard public relations’ tactics to get their message across. Lobbying media outlets in advance of the release of a scientific paper favorable to one’s cause is Standard Operating Procedure in the PR world. Especially for politicized causes and “advocacy research.”

  24. Poor Susan!
    She does the hard yards and all the attack dogs can do is pathetically challenge her credentials.

  25. Being this is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal (which makes you wonder about the credibility of both, but I digress), can a character assassination piece such as this be grounds for Dr. Crockford to bring legal charges (libel/slander; not enough of a legal beagle to know the appropriate charge). It seams to me that the accusations made in the paper against her, and maybe more importantly the conscious decision to leave out a lot of important information such as her credentials as a polar bear scientist, should be dealt with harshly. I’m no fan of using the courts to settle disputes, but the AGW clowns have gone on for far too long with this kind of unacceptable behavior.

    • T.Fry: ‘It seams to me that the accusations made in the paper against her, and maybe more importantly the conscious decision to leave out a lot of important information such as her credentials as a polar bear scientist, should be dealt with harshly.’

      The authors of the study may have taken legal advice and have worded their report accordingly.

      The relevant statement in regard to Susan Crockford’s credentials is here: ‘Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.’

      This matter could be settled by citing examples of Susan Crockford’s original research and articles in the peer reviewed literature on polar bears. Otherwise, the authors of the study seem to be on safe ground on this point.

    • Dr Crockford has never done field studies on polar bears or published on current polar bear populations

      you can find many actual polar bear scientists on the web who will attest she is NOT a polar bear scientist.

      • It is clear you are here to make a dishonest comment because her PHD dissertation was about Polar Bears.

        She is a ZOOLOGIST by degree and has done a number of ARCTIC research on Seals (P. Bear Food),Walrus (P bear food), Dogs,genetic research and more.

        She is well qualified to discuss Polar Bears.

  26. Larry goes off
    the rails in the
    very beginning of his post.

    The paper says:
    “However, much of the public …believes scientists continue to debate AGW causes or even process …”

    That says nothing about
    uncertainties or error bars
    or statements of certainty or
    where Larry is trying to
    place blame.

    it simply says that AGW is
    caused by man’s emissions of
    GHGs, especially CO2….

    …and, indeed, many on this
    very forum refute this most solid of scientific
    conclusions,

    a fact known for over 150 years.

    • Quote the whole sentence and you’ll understand it precisely refers to uncertainties and error bars via IPCC AR5 WG 1:

      “However, much of the public remains unconvinced of the human influence on climate, as has been described by Working Groups 1 and 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and believes scientists continue to debate AGW causes or even process (Lewandowsky et al. 2013). “

    • “a fact known for over 150 years.”

      gees, no wonder you are so far behind in knowledge.

      With all your scientific acumen.. (lol)

      Do you really think this paper should have passed peer-review as a science paper?

    • Approx 4% (Man’s emissions of CO2) of 0.04% (Total) of the atmosphere is causing warming? Where’s your evidence?

      • “crackers345 November 30, 2017 at 9:38 pm”

        Approx 4% (Man’s emissions of CO2) of 0.04% (Total) of the atmosphere is causing warming? Where’s your evidence? Answer the question.

      • “I will start snipping your words) MOD”

        I think crackers does that all on his own.

        Poor little fella can’t even manage a complete line !!

    • “it simply says that AGW is
      caused by man’s emissions of
      GHGs, especially CO2…. “

      Which is a totally UNPROVEN load of anti-science BS.

      Produce PROOF, crackpot.

      Empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.

      WAITING…. STILL.

      Remember..

      There is NO CO2 warming signal in either of the satellite data sets, just El Nino and ocean events.

      and NO CO2 warming signal in sea level rise

      NO CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE.

      • “tony mcleod November 30, 2017 at 8:32 pm

        I dunno, what’s this all about then?”

        You need to explain this graph from 1970. There is nothing but the graph. What is it’s source?

      • Tony Mcleod
        Why would anyone discuss anything with you? You are a dishonest person, “facts” from you are meaningless. Heres your dishonesty on display for everyone.
        Cut from WUWT on March 3rd, the bet. This bet was discussed and reaffirmed on multiple occasions after with no retraction ever made or implied at any time. Tony lost and then welched.
        “UAH Global Temperature Report: February 2017 warmest in 39 years

        Bob boder
        March 3, 2017 at 3:45 am
        Tony
        i’ll make a bet with you.
        if the geographical North Pole is ice free this year I will never post here on WUWT again. If it isn’t you never post here again.
        will you take the bet?

        tony mcleod
        March 3, 2017 at 3:56 am
        Your on Bob.

        Bob boder
        March 3, 2017 at 8:38 am
        Tony
        It’s a bet.
        Koodos to you for being willing to stand behind your prediction.”

    • AndyG55 commented – “crackpot.. suffering avoidance issues”

      i already told you, andy, that
      i avoid you because you can’t be
      mature or decent.

      i don’t need your kind of abuse.

      (YOU abuse threads with your long standing avoidance of answering questions given to you,often fail to debate in replies to others.) MOD

      • Lets ask it again, crackers….

        With all your massive scientific knowledge and integrity.. (lol)

        Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?

      • “Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?”

        Poor crackers.. RUN and HIDE. !!

      • “i don’t need your kind of abuse.”

        You mean THE TRUTH. !

        Yes crackers, you DO need to be told the truth about yourself.

        How will you possibly GROW-UP without it…

        And your baseless ego will never allow you to see it for yourself.

        I am trying to help you get over yourself.

        Now let’s try that question again..

        Look inside yourself and see why you are refusing to answer……. then MAN UP !

        Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?”

      • “crackers345 December 1, 2017 at 12:04 am

        what question(s)
        have i avoided
        answering?”

        “Patrick MJD November 30, 2017 at 7:26 pm

        Approx 4% (Man’s emissions of CO2) of 0.04% (Total) of the atmosphere is causing warming? Where’s your evidence?”

        This one for a start, plus dozens of others.

  27. I think the fact that this is pseudoscience cannot be pointed out enough.

    What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is falsifiability. Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. A real scientific theory asserts things that have a danger of being contradicted by as yet undiscovered facts. Indeed, science is entirely based on, and advanced by, the discovery of precisely such uncomfortable facts. Really good science clearly and completely spells out exactly what experiment or fact would disprove the theory.

    Scientists revere Darwin not because he was right, but because he clearly and logically set up various conditions and tests to prove he was wrong.

    A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of this embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them. This article is classic pseudoscience. What evidence could be produced to persuade the authors that their foundational premise is incorrect? They begin with characterizing a large, amorphous, group, that is entirely undefined. What were the 90 blogs? How were they selected? How do you boil down an opinion on something as nuanced as climate change into a yes/no answer for the purpose of a statistically study? For example, on this blog, would it be considered a denier blog? This is clearly a lukewarm blog – climate change is real, but not a huge deal. Certainly it seems open to a variety of opinions, and even occasionally welcomes people from the other side of the debate to post.

    The authors don’t even provide a proper methodology to use for drawing their conclusions. 14 authors for this baloney? And not one of them realizes they are not actually doing any science? Pitiful. Shameful.

    I can’t help but notice – Dr. Ian Stirling is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Alberta with 37 years experience. Dr. Susan Crockford is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, with 35 years year experience and her own consulting firm. Both write papers about polar bears. But you know, one is an authority because he agrees with the other authors, and the other is a joke because…she dissents. Given Mann’s involvement, perhaps sexism is at play, or simple elitism.

    And naturally – your credentials don’t matter in science. Seriously, if you start your argument by saying not that my ideas are incorrect, but that I am not qualified to express any ideas because of my credentials, well, you have lost the battle right there – you are engaging demagogic pseudoscience of the first order.

      • “discuss the science, not
        the personalities.”

        Yet that is exactly what this paper DOESN’T do.

        It LIES, FABRICATES, SLIMES………just one massive ad hom attack….. zero science

        In your self-esteemed scientific judgement ….. (lol)….

        Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?”

      • Crackers

        since you don’t respond to Andy, i’ll ask the question

        Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?”

      • My personal observation on Dr. Mann is based on his frequent and documented comments on Dr. Curry, which have been quite sexist in the past.

        I would be happy to discuss any science in this paper, if there was an actual science to discuss. Perhaps you could point it out? Lacking any scientific basis by which to judge the validity of the arguments presented, I am unfortunately left with personal observations wondering at the motive for scientists to publish such garbage. Again, happy to evaluate this is some other way, if such a path forward could be presented.

    • Naturally one thing is lost entirely by the boobs who published this. And this has been bugging me.

      There are the predictions of climate change (warming by x %). Then there are separate predictions on ice cover (for a variety of reasons the nature and extent of ice cover depends on more than just temperature). Then there are predictions of polar bear populations, which depend on ice cover, but also on other factors (how well can the bears adapt to less ice? What is the food availability?).

      This is a chain of predictions. One dependent on another. Across multiple science boundaries.

      If polar bear concentrations don’t decrease, it doesn’t mean that the theory of global warming is incorrect, only that a tertiary prediction is incorrect. It is quite possible something else could happen – bear populations could be fine with global warming. That, in fact, might be an interesting and important observation.

      And yet, someone who says, “the polar bears are fine” is branded as a global warming denier. Do they realize how absurd this is?

    • Geoman: ‘…your credentials don’t matter in science.’

      But your experience does matter. The claim against Susan Crockford is that she has not done any original research into polar bears or published in the peer reviewed literature on polar bears.

      On her website, in her commentary ‘On Being a Polar Bear Expert’ Crockford says: ‘I’ve learned most of what I know about polar bear life history, behaviour, and ecology through reading published academic papers written by polar bear biologists’.

      Reading scientific papers is a worthy endeavour, but it doesn’t count as first-hand expertise. It’s piggy-backing on the work of others. It means she’s a commentator looking in from the outside of the field.

      Nothing wrong with that, but it also means she cannot claim the same level of expertise as people who have actually done the research.

      • I guess there is no point in publishing scientific findings if they can’t be used in analyzing the science, huh Brendan?

      • Brendan, you can’t be this ignorant?

        She is a ZOOLOGIST! Which means reading the literature of the field that she has a PHD in, is indeed right up her alley,since that is her expertise.

        What is a Zoologist?

        “What Does a Zoologist Do?

        Zoology is the study of animals and their behavior. Zoologists may study a particular species or group of species, either in the wild or in captivity.

        Zoologists study animals and their interactions with ecosystems. They study their physical characteristics, diets, behaviors, and the impacts humans have on them. They study all kinds of animals, both in their natural habitats and in captivity in zoos and aquariums. They may specialize in studying a particular animal or animal group.

        Zoologists may be involved in a wide variety of duties in various environments. For example they may observe and study animals in their natural environments, or plan and conduct experiments involving animals in nature, in zoos, or in other controlled areas. They may also collect biological specimens and measure physical characteristics. These studies are generally aimed at investigating animal behavior, migration, interactions with other species, and reproduction, as well as the pests, diseases, toxins, and habitat changes that affect them. They use the information they gather to monitor and estimate populations, address invasive species and other threats, control disease, manage hunting programs, and develop conservation plans. They also write reports and journal articles and give presentations to share their findings.

        Zoologists also use geographic information systems (GIS) and global positioning systems (GPS) to track the movements of animals and map their habitat ranges. They also use modeling software to project future scenarios, such as habitat range changes due to climate change.

        Their efforts are critical to protecting endangered species and other wildlife from the pressures of habitat loss, disease, invasive species, and climate change.”

        https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/zoologist

        Susan acknowledges others contributions,

        “‘On Being a Polar Bear Expert’ Crockford says: ‘I’ve learned most of what I know about polar bear life history, behaviour, and ecology through reading published academic papers written by polar bear biologists’:”

        Reading the science published by others of her field is be EXPECTED!

        Come on try not to be this stupid again.

      • I’m sorry to tell you this Brendon, but you are a fool.

        1) there are innumerable fields of science where most of the data is collected by remote sensing. I have not been to Mars, and neither have you. But many scientists have read data about mars and form various opinions on it. From this data they have written and published papers. Are those papers invalid because they didn’t do any field work?

        2) believe it or not, I have seen polar bears in the wild. So? It doesn’t make me an expert. Dr. Crockford I believe has a PhD in zoology, so I have little doubt regarding the fact she has some expertise in wildlife. She knows more than I do.

        3) The thing is, if what she is written is wrong, refute it. Don’t mumble mumble about silly credentials, or worse, pretend her works are beneath notice. If you are attacking the woman, be forthright in attacking her ideas, not her credentials to express those ideas.

        4) What exactly are the appropriate credentials for being a climate expert I wonder….seems like the only credential is agreement with the consensus.

  28. “a disgrace to the profession”

    Mann seems to have passed this communicable disease onto his coauthors.

  29. The more I think about the phrase “Climate-Change Denial by Proxy”, the harder I laugh.
    I mean, what? We would deny something, but we’re so naughty we get others to deny it on our behalf? :)

    That the authors would publicly put their names to this paper shows that they really just don’t care what anyone thinks, at all. Many of them might also have young children in pre-school. Why didn’t they get them to help illustrate this publication and list them as co-authors?

    When your “opponents” aren’t even making the effort anymore then gobsmackedosityness is about all I’m left with.

  30. This is a the trouble Larry. We had 30yrs of strong cooling between 1950-1980 (revisionists have reversed the decline in recent years) so that the beginning of Arctic ice decline was at the beginning of the satellite era (although there is lots of data pre 1979 that doesn’t get any billing) when the ice had peaked in extent and thickness. It had risen from lows similar to today in the 1930s and 1940s, prominently commented on by scientists, journalists, the world’s Navies and explorers.

    In an earlier generation, there would have been a hue and cry over such blatant misdirection by those calling themselves scientists. I was born in the late 30s and my parents’ generation talked about the 30s and 40s heatwaves and droughts for up to the 1950s. The reason Susan Crockford stands so tall, is biologists as a group have long been politically active – Ehrlich was the Che Guevara of this corrupted science who inspired several generations of them who only published misanthropic skewed biology. Being wrong all the time seemed to endear him more and more to his admirers.

    So far, Arctic ice is just fine looking at it historically. The northern shoreline of Greenland was ice free during the Holocene Optimum creating a terraced beach with 7000year old driftwood. Development of such a beach requires a considerable stretch of water to the north. It’s still icebound today.

    • Gary Pearse
      “It had risen from lows similar to today in the 1930s and 1940s, prominently commented on by scientists, journalists, the world’s Navies and explorers”.

      Not even close to being true. Indtead of trotting out, quickly go here for a look:
      http://brunnur.vedur.is/pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf/

      It shows this something like this:

      “In an earlier generation, there would have been a hue and cry over such blatant misdirection”
      Ah yes, the good ‘ol days.

      • Pure and utter fabrication before 1979.

        DOE charts clearly show a large drop through the 1950s

        Plenty of other evidence of less sea ice in the 1940’s as well

        Icelandic sea ice records show a large dip through that same period.

        That SKS chart is DECÊÌTFUL and WILFUL in its LIES………….. right down your alley.

        It also totally ignores the fact of the Little Ice Age, and that for most of the first 7000+ years of the Holocene sea ice levels were often nearly summer ice free. And that 1970’s and LIA levels were at an EXTREME.

        Current levels are nowhere near down to even those of the MWP.

        Why do you continue pushing your WILFUL IGNORANCE on everyone, McClod?

      • shows 1968 lower than 1974 which we know was lower than 1979.

        The whole SkS graph is a total FARCE…. a FAKE… zero-science.

        ….. just like basically everything else from that most AGW infected of propaganda site.

      • Iceland and Arctic temps pattern match the RAW temps of the USA

        (ignore the red line, its an AGW propaganda fabrication through mal-adjustments.)

      • The DOE chart you posted shows that at it’s lowest the ice maybe dipping to the high 5m a couple of time. This century it has fallen far more substantially : 3.2m in 2007 and 4m last year for example.

        http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c8e1e415970b-pi

        I think that shows Gary’s “lows similar to today” is not correct. Don’t make me brandish the volume graphs.
        Oh ok, here it is:

        Yep, about half gone.

        “Plenty of other evidence of less sea ice in the 1940’s as well”

        Really? Why didn’t you post the links? Tell you what, don’t bother, just go go for another tirade of childish insults instead.

      • PIOMESS..

        1..Mostly GRACE which had issues right from the beginning that were never fix.

        2.. Assumption driven model… mostly FABRICATION

        3. Over active volcanic region

        4. Grace shown to be monumentally wrong over Antarctica

        Current levels of Arctic sea ice are still in the top 10% of Holocene extents.

        LIA was the EXTREME, late 1970’s was up with those extremes.

        Current levels are a RECOVERY from LIA type EXTREME levels.

        A more open Arctic, similar to say MWP, would be of MASSSIVE BENEFIT to all those trying to live up there.

        Commerce, fishing , travel, mining etc all become viable.

        YOU HAVE NOTHING… as always. !!

    • I’m probably confused here…
      Tony’s graph has the majority of “Sea Ice Extent” sitting at 11 million square kilometres.
      AndyG55, first link average 6.5 million square kilometres “Sea Ice Amount”.
      but.
      WUWT Sea Ice Page shows annual “Sea Ice Extent” varies between 5 and 15 million square kilometres.

      I see it now. Tony’s graph is the “summer” extents, which should be sitting closer to 4 to 8 million square kilometres. Andy’s graph is “annual mean”, which fits the yearly charts a lot better.

  31. I knew Dr. Steven Amstrup in college. Back then, he was level headed and fact-oriented. His conversion to full scale AGW warrior and Mann and Lewandowski facilitator is shameful. The polar bears deserve better.

      • Evidence says Amstrup and his cohorts are WRONG.

        Oh wait.. you know NOTHING about providing evidence.

        Just your empty short-line child-posts.

        Come on little child, answer the question.. or just RUN and HIDE.

        “Do you really think this paper should have ever passed peer-review as a science paper?”

      • ” Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”
        This is a completely provable and disgusting lie. So, crackers, it is you who is wrong.
        Both you and Dr. Steven Amstrup should be ashamed.
        Chris

  32. Circular logic:
    Climagesterium controls academic climate publication
    Climagesterium publishes only alarmist papers, rejects anything questioning alarmism
    A scientist disputes an alarmist conlusion
    Climagesterium: where are the publications to back up your case?

    Totalitarians always delude themselves that control of information is control of reality.
    Soviet citizens eventually realised they weren’t in a worker’s paradise.
    Ecoviet citizens will eventually also discover that climate is a natural roller-coaster and that the influence of CO2 is benign.

  33. With reference to Andy 55’s graphs and comments on Arctic ice: here’s a personal viewpoint from a reader’s letter in the Sunday Telegraph, page 23 on Tuesday October 1st 2013, from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84:
    “SIR – I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents in Europe had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age.
    The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.”

    In connection with this letter, a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office is interesting. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, ‘heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon characteristic and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice distribution occurred almost each year following, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland took place (sic) at rather irregular intervals’.
    See website.lineone.net/~polar.publishing/seaiceincidents.htm for more details.
    Some of the important fishing areas around Iceland are located on the shallow banks off the coast of Greenland at about 63ºN. These banks can be ice-covered during most of the year, causing difficulties for the fishing vessel. Ice edges form ‘tongues’ which extend like giant hooks when viewed from a satellite, extending for many kilometres (over 100km for example) and curving back towards the main ice sheet. These ice tongues, which can change rapidly from one day to another, are particularly important for fishing vessels operating near the ice edge. In some cases the ice tongues can turn back towards the main ice pack and vessels near the ice edge can be trapped. Consequently trawlers need accurate ice edge maps updated every day.
    See earth.esa.int/…/data_util/…/Ice…/fishing_on_ice_covered_denmark.html‎ for more details.

    • Re. my post above on sea ice: I’ve just tested the link I’ve given on the last line, and unfortunately it no longer works.
      It looks as if the website on the subject has been revamped since my last visit. Maybe the information’s buried somewhere, but I haven’t had time to look further.
      Still, the points made above remain. My apologies for the non-existent link.

  34. “2002: “Arctic melting will open new sea passages“, in which Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge says “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there.” Not by 2012. Not by 2017.2

    Wadhams was right: the NW passage and Northern sea route have been increasingly open to ships in the last decade.

    That trade has not yet ramped up is not because there wasn’t the access

    • Griff,

      Your reply makes no sense. Wadhams predicted that before 2012 their would be regular summer trade thru the arctic. There is not.

      Commercial ships need reliable clear passage. “increasingly open to ships” is not sufficient.

      “That trade has not yet ramped up is not because there wasn’t the access”

      What is your evidence that there is sufficiently open access? And that there are other reasons there is no regular summer trade thru arctic passages?

    • The Larsen route passed Banks Island in 1944, has not been passable since.

      Arctic sea ice is only a little bit down from the largest extent in 10,000 years, still in the top 100% for the Holocene, only surpassed by the LIA and late 1970’s

      But you KNOW all that..

      I thought facts might perhaps cure you of your continual Arctic sea-ice bed-wetting

      But facts are irrelevant to you.

  35. How does “denier” make it into a peer reviewed paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Peer review is obviously worthless at this point

    [The keyboard Repeat Delay and Repeat Rate should be able to be adjusted from the Control Panel… :) -mod]

  36. There is a clear message in this paper and the comments that support it which ring false in our modern pluralistic and egalitarian society . It is the notion that debate on climate science should be restricted to those that support one side of the argument ( defeating the idea of a debate) and that sceptic sites should be suppressed on the grounds that the contributors to them are incapable of reasoned argument.
    It will be obvious to many that we have heard this argument before .It was expressed by men who objected to the idea that universal suffrage should be extended to women on the grounds that they were not sufficiently intelligent , and too poorly educated , to engage in a political debate , and should never , Heaven forbid, consider becoming MPs or members of Congress.
    It is another of the ironies about discussion of global warming that the fiercest critics of the sceptics are the radical feminists like Oreskes.

  37. Never mind the ice, the polar bears or The Climate…

    What, to my mind, has happened here is an appalling act of School-Playground thuggery and bullying.
    That’s all – and invariably the practice of gutless brain-dead wimps and cowards.

    On a lone girl as well.
    Have these people no shame or self-awareness?
    Simply incredible – *and* coming from (supposedly) educated folks.

    What *has* gone wrong?
    Surely to goodness, they have all now entirely trashed their own careers – how can anything that any of them say from now on be held in any sort of High Regard.
    They have entirely Lost The Plot with this one and we have to ask: Did they ever have it?

    And Dr Crockford’s reply should surely be to paraphrase Einstein (was it him?) when apparently he said something like:

    “Why so many of you?
    If I’m wrong, only one would have sufficed”

    • …….beware the unclosed HTML……
      tink i got me arra the wong way wound – shot me own foot innit?
      chuckles

  38. “Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”
    Hmmmm, could one of those criticized been Steven C. Amstrup.

  39. Back in roughly 2009, I visited the WWF and found a 2001 paper by the Polar Bear Specialist Group. Their Table 1 is reprinted below. They divided the Arctic into twenty regions (the Arctic is not one, monolithic climate region). In most of the regions, the polar bear populations were either stable or unknown. In two regions the populations were increasing and in two others, the populations were decreasing.

    The temperatures in those regions were also interesting. Where the populations were stable, the temperatures were also stable. In those two regions where the populations were increasing, the temperatures were also increasing. And in those two regions where the populations were decreasing, the temperatures were also decreasing. It was the exact opposite to what their propaganda was saying.

    It’s too bad really. These environmentalists are wasting their efforts on polar bears who aren’t really endangered and ignoring species of bears that are endangered–all for the AGW cause.

    Jim

  40. Concerning Susan Crockford, Saulinsky’s Rule 11 applies:
    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.”
    Whether they do it conciously or not , the leftists/alarmists copy each other and learn from each other; one just has to look at their group-speech.

  41. Dave Fair: ‘I guess there is no point in publishing scientific findings if they can’t be used in analysing the science…’

    Anybody can analyse scientific findings, but not all analysis is equal. Those who do the hard yards of research and subjecting that research to critique by their peers stand above off-field commentators, however worthy.

    Susan Crockford rates as a commentator. She doesn’t have the expertise gained by actual research work in this field.

    • Brendon, your comment is absurd,since she has done FIELD work on several animals,and published papers on various ARCTIC and Sub Arctic animals”

      “’ve marked those papers that are especially pertinent to Arctic (**) and Subarctic (*) biology and paleoecology/glacial history [contact me if you would like copies, via the Comments/Tips page]

      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. https://polarbearscience.com/2012/11/26/ancient-polar-bear-remains-of-the-world/

      *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. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/journal/cjz

      **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. http://epress.anu.edu.au/ta29_citation.html

      **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. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso

      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). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asi/

      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. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/

      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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312001537

      **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 http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1216424

      **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, http://www.Cell.com and find the paper at the Current Biology website. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900645-2#Comments

      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. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.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. http://www.elsevier.com/ [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. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00167428.html [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. http://www.press.jhu.edu/press/books/index.htm [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. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp

      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. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp

      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: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2005&PID=11071&O=Generic

      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. http://www.archaeopress.com/defaultBar.asp (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. http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/arcpress/index.htm
      [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] http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso

      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] http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-1701.1

      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.
      http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_tocs_e?cjfas_cjfasS1-98_55

      https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

      You claims are stupid.

      • Sunsettomy: ‘Brendon, your comment is absurd, since she has done FIELD work on several animals, and published papers on various ARCTIC and Sub Arctic animals.’

        But not polar bears. That’s the central point.

        When I first read this article, the claim that Susan Cockford hadn’t done any original research into polar bears or published in the peer reviewed literature jumped out at me. It looked pretty definitive. But was it true?

        The writer of the article provided a link to the Polar Bear Science website, so like you I was able to check the list that you provide in your posting. The polar bear material amounts to a map of ancient bear remains and a couple of comments on bear evolution. Not original research, not published articles, not peer reviewed.

        Also on her website, Susan Crockford said that most of what she knows about polar bears she learned through reading the work of others.

        Full marks to her for keeping up with the literature. But that’s also the point. It’s other people’s work, not her own. Therefore, she cannot claim the same level of expertise as the people she is cribbing from.

      • Brendan, you appear ignorant of how scientists actually develop their skills and careers over time. It is not at all unusual for leading researchers to focus on areas subtly or radically different from their original thesis work. After all, how can new original research take place otherwise? (we are talking here about people with a PhD as that is considered the benchmark level for someone to be considered capable of new independent research).

        Your standards would also exclude many of the leading lights on the alarmist side of the debate. Thus Michael Mann started in condensed matter physics before moving into more geophysical concerns. Neither of those appear related to the biology and growth rings of trees, but I and others accept that he is capable of learning about such things, should he choose to do so. What matters is the validity of his research, not how much of it he has already done.

        This highlights the premise that actually underlies the concept of the PhD: The qualification indicates an ability to perform valid independent scientific research in new areas. Every scientist publishing in a field must always start at zero publications. Susan Crockford’s pre-existing research record is clearly highly relevant to the ecology of Polar bears. You really are barking up the wrong tree by trying to criticise her in this manner.

      • Imagine the MANIC GATEKEEPER she would face if she tried to publish in a “climate science™” magazine/rag.

  42. It appears that the main reason for the attack on Susan and her website is to keep alive the alarming claim that polar bears are in danger of extinction, and to accomplish this in part, by warning people away from her website.

    I have no idea if Susan Crockford believes the world is going to end tomorrow from CO2 induced overheating. She might. But to characterise her in such false and hostile terms will, I hope, create another example of The Streisand Effect. Let everyone read her works!

    An aspect of the article not mentioned in the discussion is the implicit desire that the reader should not embark on any independent investigation of the truth, but should instead accept the back-biting and calumniating of these self-appointed gate-keepers. This is not science! This is not politics! This is character assassination by a cabal. Sue the publisher.

    It is obvious from the article that The Team is scared witless by Susan’s methodical analysis. The loss of the polar bear as an iconic, overgrown, hairy canary in the mine must be traumatic for the habitually alarmed. My sympathies for them wane as they gracelessly realise defeat is upon them, even as they exhaust themselves punching the cold Arctic air.

  43. Cronin and Cronin, 2015
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41063-015-0019-3
    “Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”

    [A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

    York et al., 2016
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full
    “Subpopulation growth rates and the probability of decline at current harvest levels were determined for 13 subpopulations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) that are within or shared with Canada based on mark–recapture estimates of population numbers and vital rates, and harvest statistics using population viability analyses (PVA). … Considering both TEK [traditional ecological knowledge] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.”

    • Kenneth, your error is alway
      the same – Arctic sie doesn’t
      have to an
      unprecedented low
      for it to be a problem right
      now. it’s melt rate is very high..
      it is not normal for earth to
      lose all its Arctic ice
      in 60-70 yrs

      • Arctic sie doesn’t have to an unprecedented low for it to be a problem right now.

        Explain where the problem for polar bears is, crackers345. According to peer-reviewed science, 12 of the 13 subpopulations are stable or increasing.

        York et al., 2016
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full
        “Subpopulation growth rates and the probability of decline at current harvest levels were determined for 13 subpopulations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) that are within or shared with Canada based on mark–recapture estimates of population numbers and vital rates, and harvest statistics using population viability analyses (PVA). … Considering both TEK [traditional ecological knowledge] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.”

        it’s melt rate is very high..it is not normal for earth to lose all its Arctic ice in 60-70 yrs

        Arctic sea ice has not been “all lost”. It has instead undergone a 60-year oscillation, with a similar low during the 1920s-1940s, coinciding with the warmth during that period. Then, from the 1950s to 1980s, Arctic sea ice grew, coinciding with the Arctic-wide cooling that was occurring during that time.

        In the Southern Hemisphere, the sea ice extent has been growing since 1979, after declining from the 1950s to 1980s. These trends are not consistent with climate modeling that presupposes that CO2 concentration modulates sea ice extent. It doesn’t.

  44. Michael Hart: ‘It is not at all unusual for leading researchers to focus on areas subtly or radically different from their original thesis work.’

    True, but irrelevant. This is not about people developing and furthering their specialties. It’s about the standard of the work.

    Susan Crockford’s work on polar bears has failed to reach the standard required for it to be accepted as authoritative, regardless of the quality or otherwise of her other work.

    • “Susan Crockford’s work on polar bears has failed to reach the standard required for it to be accepted as authoritative”

      BS.!! What a slimy comment…… pure AGW ad hom.

      There is NO WAY she would ever be able to get the FACTS through the “climate science™” gatekeepers.

      In other circles it most certainly is seem as authoritative… because it is backed by FACTS, which the likes of you cannot dispute… so you SLIME instead.

    • Brendan,

      Amstrup is pissed off because I criticized his work. He and Stirling are not used to being challenged.

      He and his colleagues had the opportunity to formally demolish my PeerJ preprint online for all the world to see but they didn’t. That might have drawn attention to the issues I raised. They decided it would be best to ignore me.

      Except others who matter (for funding etc) clearly DID read the paper and found merit in my conclusions – that must be true or Amstrup and Stirling would not have concocted this paper. They are trying to demolish me instead of addressing the failed predictions exposed in my paper.

      Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.

      But it’s too late. And your rants about me being unqualified and substandard are as groundless as theirs.

      Colleagues have read my paper and found it to be fully acceptable as a piece of academic scientific work.

      If that were not true, this desperately ridiculous Bioscience paper would never have been published. I have exposed Amstrup’s failure and this is the only way he could think of to stop me: he went to Michael Mann for advice, with predictable results.

      This paper says way more about these co-authors than it does about me. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt them.

      Susan

      • susanjcrockford: ‘Amstrup is pissed off because I criticized his work. He and Stirling are not used to being challenged.’

        Susan, I cannot speak to your dispute with these scientists, since I know nothing about it. I was simply testing a claim made in the paper, and concluding that it was valid.

        Nor can I comment on your anecdotal claims about the quality of a particular paper of yours. And there’s the rub. It’s just your word, which has not been tested in the standard way.

        More broadly, there is a solution for climate sceptics on this one: create your own, online journal. There are surely sufficient resources and know-how within the climate sceptic world to do so. And if climate scepticism has the expertise claimed, then we can all see it through a properly validated process.

      • “create your own, online journal. ”

        Brendan you moronic twit !!

        WUWT, NoTrick, JoNova..

        These get [FAR] more peer review than most “climate science” papers, which are more akin to…..

        “does it support AGW, even though total garbage”..

        Yes.. ok publish it.

        Peer review and “climate science” journals make a [MOCKERY] of themselves because of some of the abject nonsense and total BS that they allow to get published.. ie like this paper.

        It should NEVER have even been considered for publication in any real science journal.

        It is more akin to a piece of “trash talk” in Rolling Stone, Cosmopolitan or the Guardian or other far-left socialist rag.

      • The sort of personal attacks and lack of evidence contained in this peer reviewed “paper” is one of the reasons I began questioning CAGW.

      • BS.. Of course they. That is EXACTLY what they do.

        EVERYONE gets to comment. and discuss the paper.

        Heck even you could comment on any paper, if you had any expertise.

        MANY here do have. !!

        Many so-called peer-review papers barely get a “spell check” and a brief read-through.

        If peer review in climate science journals actually work, ..

        ….. this atrocious piece of garbage from Mann, Lewindopey etc would NEVER have got published in any science journal in the world.

      • Stop AndyG55 while you are ahead. Blogs have no peer review. You have no clue what peer review in a scientific journal entails. The sites that you mentioned are a circle jerk of like minded individuals, congregating because of a shared belief system, incapable of dealing with facts they cannot accept.

      • Remy, then why are you and like minded warmistas allowed on the blogs such as this? Don’t you get to comment?

      • Stop Remy…. before you make yourself look like even more of a mindless propaganda regurgitating twerp.

        Do you REALLY think this obnoxious paper should ever have been published in a journal, anywhere?

        Are you really that ANTI-SCIENCE !

        Blogs provide massive reviewing of articles.

        GET OVER IT !
        .

      • Remy, a true scientist, Dr. Judith Curry, called it “stupid.” “Obnoxious” is an apt corollary.

      • The fact that you don’t see it as “obnoxious” shows you are NOTHING but a brain-washed AGW suckophant.

        Their is no science in the paper,

        It is a pack of lies and ad homs, full of unproven propaganda pap.

        Do you REALLY think it is should have passed peer-review?

        Your answer, if you dare to give it, will be enlightening to everyone.

        (You need to back off on the personal attacks angle as it wrong and weakens your argument) MOD

      • Dave Fair: “Dr. Judith Curry, called it “stupid.” “Obnoxious”

        Opinions are acceptable in blogs, but they have no value in actual science. Curry’s labeling the paper as such form nothing more than mere “opinion.”
        ..
        Her “opinion” has no bearing on the actual science. My opinion and your opinion has no scientific value either.

      • David, are you saying the paper is science, not opinion?

        Are you saying a scientist’s pithy observation about another’s paper is somehow less worthy than the baseless, personal denigrations contained in the paper?

        Are you saying that some scientists and some papers are not stupid?

      • “you are NOTHING but a brain-washed AGW suckophant.”

        Thank you Andy, I like it when you resort to calling me names. Do you have anything else to offer?

        I’m surprised the folks running this blog don’t reprimand you for such juvenile behavior.

      • Remy, look at AndyG55’s post where he says : “BS.. Of course they. That is EXACTLY what they do.”
        ….
        See?…..He thinks that calling people names in the comments of a blog is “peer review

      • Some serious self analysis, needed then Remy……. just “believe”.. that’ll work ;-)

        It is again noted you are incapable of answering the main question…

        “Do you REALLY think this obnoxious paper should ever have been published in a journal, anywhere?

      • @David

        “My opinion and your opinion has no scientific value either.”

        Yes, I agree, your opinion is totally meaningless.

        Maybe you should look at the paper, and see what a slimy piece of anti-science it really is.

      • Seems remy is a mindless troll with a massive yellow streak,

        Unable to answer a simple question on his own..

        So Sad.. so PATHETIC.

      • ” remy is a mindless troll with a massive yellow streak,”

        Andy, when and if you are able to rise above the ad-hom name calling and slurs, we can continue the discussion.

      • Remy, peer review journals are not the only place to post science research. They do it in mails,phone/fax,seminars and postal mail and yes even in science blogs too.

        You show your ignorance every day when you think it is only done through a journal.

      • David, Dr. Curry read that awful paper,which was designed as a personal attack on Dr. Crockford.

        She is stating that PAPER is stupid,which I also agree since it is NOT a credible research level paper. It is an attack paper,with obvious lies and omissions in it. It is NOT a science based paper at all!

      • Poor remy-child is now whimpering because he is backed into a corner.

        He referred to us as a “circle-jerk” earlier, and now is crying about getting a bit back.

        PATHETIC. !!!

        Answer the question , (SNIPPED) MOD

      • Remy, how is peer review defined? One of the “Team” members said he would redefine peer review to exclude opinions with which he disagreed. What is that peer review as he defined it?

        How does getting journal editors fired comport with any definition of peer review you might describe?

        How does the review conducted by pals (stacking the panels) meet your peer review definition?

        Are you aware of the widespread scientific misconduct at the highest levels of climate science revealed by Climategate? If so, should anyone believe any of the miscreants involved? Should they have received professional condemnation instead of institutional whitewashes? Do you continue to believe their “science?”

        Do you believe in the peer review that gave us Mann’s Hockey Stick? Do you believe in the fundamental honesty of “scientists” that went along with that abomination for so many years? Do you believe we should trust “scientists” that accepted the abolition of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age by a Doctoral student?

        And so on ………

        Give me open forums where people, including scientists, are free to explore different ideas publicly. I don’t put up with people who go along to get along. Consensus adherents have nothing to say to me; validate IPCC climate models and we might have something to talk about.

      • Wow, this Remy makes clear he is NOT a scientist and has no experience with science research.

        You really think scientists don’t pass some of their research around OUTSIDE of journals?

        Think again……..,

        “Remy, peer review journals are not the only place to post science research. They do it in mails,phone/fax,seminars and postal mail and yes even in science blogs too.”

      • Remy, AndyG55 is or was a scientist, you sure you want to tell him he can’t bypass peer review to pass on research to other science researchers?

        Pat Frank, a scientists tried several times to publish a paper in several journals,much better paper than the one that is an attack on Dr. Crockford,he eventually found a place to post his paper,by passing the hypocritical gate keepers and their overrated journals. Do you know where he posted it,that attracted a few scientists on it?

        .

      • But it is a fact that WUWT gets massive numbers of inputs from a wide variety of commentors having differing levels of expertise in many relevant disciplines, crackers345. Narrow, hidden peer (pal) review by gatekeepers pales in comparison.

        Climategate revealed the malfeasance of high-level climate crooks. Should I now believe anything they say, or the “peer review” of their pals? Juries are told that if someone lies once, everything else they say is invalidated. Do you agree with that?

        The fact that the quality of the comments varies in no way invalidates the scientific worth of WUWT as a whole. Open contention drives science forward; “consensus” retards science. Additionally, without the work of Anthony Watts we would still be in the dark about the unsuitability of U.S. weather stations.

        You seem to have a problem with the constant erosion of the “consensus” as presented throughout WUWT articles and comments. Sniping and obfuscation doesn’t change the underlying facts.

        If you can provide a scientific validation of the IPCC climate models, you might have a case. Where are the validations, please? I ask because the entire CAGW edifice leans on the results of unvalidated models and the unbridled speculation about the environmental impacts of any future modeled scenarios.

      • Dave Fair – i see more
        personal attacks on this
        page — on the comments in this
        very post — than i’ve ever
        seen in a scientific
        paper.

        (You avoid answering many good questions posed by others,your complaint run hollow) MOD

      • Crackers writes,

        “Sunset: do you read many peer reviewed journals papers?

        If you do, you’d know that blogs in no way compare to them.
        Sorry, but that’s truth.”

        Do you think at all when you read comments posted by others?

        If you did, you would know that I never made any comparison between blogs and journals.

        What I was pointing out was that there are other ways to post research than in journals. You make the same ignorant comment that Brendan makes,since you have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes.

        If you only knew how Milankovitch gained confidence in his first paper he published,you would know that it was because of original unpublished research given to him by postal mail. It greatly supported his paper.

        If you only know why Dr. Imbrie could post that big paper in 1976 with confidence,you would know that he got the needed data and confirmation from a seminar he had attended.based on unpublished research from someone else.

        I used to be a member of an exclusive hidden Yahoo group forum board with many scientists,who would debate,exchange some research information with each other. Some of the discussion was based on unpublished material that would be used by someone else.

        If you would ever consider the possibility that “peer reviewed” journals have made many mistakes in publishing junk papers, you would have learned this from a BLOG called Retraction Watch……

        Heck this very paper under discussion doesn’t even meet the “peer review” criteria in their attack on Dr. Crockford since most of them have ZERO Zoology training and experience, in their error filled attack on her.

        You are a narrow minded thinker.

    • Brendan,

      You have been told that she is a trained/educated ZOOLOGIST,which means she is qualified to talk about Polar Bears.

      Here is the Abstract she wrote that is posted in the blog article:

      “Crockford documents her theory in “Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)”, posted at Peer J Preprints (not peer reviewed) — Abstract…

      “The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively.

      Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions).

      “Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis.

      “Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed.

      “The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.”

      She tested a hypothesis,that appears to be unsupported by evidence she points in the paper. That is what science research is all about,Testing the veracity of a hypothesis to see if it is robust enough for further consideration.

      Her detractors seem to prefer attacking her background instead of the paper,which in my mind is an admission that they have no effective counterpoint to offer. Their unethical behavior should be exposed for ridicule,since they should know better as scientists.

    • Brendan, why don’t you review her actual work yourself? https://polarbearscience.com/ It would seem a prudent exercise to read her books/articles before opining as to her “fitness” as a scientist.

      Until you tell us that you made that minimum effort, none of your comments have any weight.

      I don’t have degrees in economics and finance, but made many profitable decisions based on principles contained in those disciplines.

  45. Dave: ‘Brendan, why don’t you review her actual work yourself?’

    Thank you for the suggestion and the link, Dave.

    The first item at the end of the link is headed: ‘Bioscience article is academic rape: an assertion of power and intimidation’. Not very sciencey, but I plough on to find a photo of a man holding polar bear cubs. OK, the item is about polar bears, so I guess it’s relevant.

    There are then links to a couple of articles (one an attack on Michael Mann), followed by Susan’s defence of her style of communication, then a link to an abstract of the paper she believes has sparked a backlash from the climate establishment. (I note that the paper is not peer reviewed and only the abstract seems to be available.)

    So there’s a bit of reading to get through to make sense of just this one blog posting.

    This brief experience raises the limitations of blogs as a scientific medium: lots of heat, point-scoring, chatty asides, links to other material, but not a lot of science in sight.

    OK, I’ve looked at only one blog posting. Perhaps there’s more enlightenment in other postings.

    • Brendan,

      Dr. Crockford’s two main points in many of her writings appear to be this:

      1. Polar bear populations have not been declining, but have instead been stable/increasing in recent decades.

      2. The premise that polar bear populations are susceptible to decline via the mechanism of a loss of sea ice extent is not supported by the evidence.

      Both of these points find support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Cronin and Cronin, 2015; York et al., 2016).

      So which conclusion do you disagree with, since Dr. Crockford’s positions find support in peer-reviewed journals? And why do you think it is that polar bears were able to survive the Early Holocene, when the Arctic was several degrees C warmer than now, and the Arctic was seasonally ice-free?
      ———————————————–
      Cronin and Cronin, 2015
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41063-015-0019-3
      “Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”

      [A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

      York et al., 2016
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full
      “Subpopulation growth rates and the probability of decline at current harvest levels were determined for 13 subpopulations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) that are within or shared with Canada based on mark–recapture estimates of population numbers and vital rates, and harvest statistics using population viability analyses (PVA). … Considering both TEK [traditional ecological knowledge] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.”

      • Your second article is not a summary of scientific evidence. It is a summary of traditional Indigenous knowledge.

        Science does not support the proposition that polar bears will be unaffected by climate change. It supports the notion that there is a >70% chance that the global polar bear population will decline by >30% over the next 35 years.

        Science also supports the notion that some populations of polar bears will be affected sooner and more drastically than others. In particular, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is likely to benefit from global warming over the short term as thick multi-year ice is turned into more productive annual ice that supports greater seal populations. However, as that ice begins to disappear so will the polar bears. The ice is their habitat. Habitat loss –> reduction/loss of populations.

        In addition, polar bears were intensely overharvested until the 1970s. Some populations are still recovering. So what you will see in some areas is a reduction in carrying capacity that does not result in lower populations because current populations are still reduced and are lower than the carrying capacity because of past overharvesting. As the carrying capacity gets lower and lower because of loss of sea ice, this will result in extirpation.

        This is something I would expect an intro ecology student or even a high school student to understand… Is it too complicated for you?

      • Bobo:

        Science does not support the proposition that polar bears will be unaffected by climate change. It supports the notion that there is a >70% chance that the global polar bear population will decline by >30% over the next 35 years.

        Bobo, science is about empirical observation, not predictions about what may happen to polar bear populations 35 years from now based on suppositions about their inability to survive with less sea ice.

        According to observational evidence, polar bear populations have not been declining in recent decades. Of 13 subpopulations, 12 are stable or growing. That’s what the peer-reviewed science says.

        So why are you dismissing the observations (that have been similarly reported by Dr. Crockford) that do not support the suppositions that polar bears are endangered, and instead you just repeat the prognostications for 35 years from now…and call these prophesies “science”?

        As well-established in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the Arctic was sea-ice-free and several degrees warmer than now just a few thousand years ago. Polar bears survived during these periods. There is some evidence that polar bears were in existence during the Pliocene. The Arctic was 12 to 18 degrees C warmer than now during that time. Somehow, polar bears survived.

        Furthermore, your own word-choice concoction “polar bears will be unaffected by climate change” is a straw man. The entire biosphere is affected by climate changes at least to some unspecified degree. On the other hand, most polar bears live in Canada, and there is extensive evidence that shows modern temperatures are colder now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

        http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/16/most-polar-bears-live-in-canada-where-there-has-been-no-net-warming-for-centuries-so-why-are-they-endangered/
        Modern Polar Bear Habitat Among Coldest Of The Last 10,000 Years

        Furthermore, Arctic sea ice extent is still much greater than it was even 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, or during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods. And yet polar bears didn’t die out then either. Can you explain why, Bobo?

        http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/30/2-more-new-papers-affirm-there-is-more-arctic-ice-coverage-today-than-during-the-1400s/
        2 More New Papers Affirm There Is More Arctic Ice Coverage Today Than During The 1400s

    • Brendan, you fail to note in your cherry-picked references from Dr. Crockford that those were rebuttals to vicious attacks in the Bioscience article and by Michael Mann, climate fraud.

      What about all of her scientific work? Why don’t you list those? Wouldn’t a balanced review of her qualifications include her scholarly work?

      How does her defending herself from personal and professional attacks by CAGW hacks? Are you unaware of the dodgy personal and scientific histories of Mann (especially) and Trenberth?

      Given that you appear to be a Troll, and an ineffective one at that, I’m done with trying to converse with you.

      • To my knowledge, she has published precisely zero peer-reviewed studies on the subject of the effects of climate change on polar bears.

        Anyone can write whatever they wish on a blog or in a book that they self-publish. It is easy when you self-publish to cherry pick, misrepresent, etc. Let’s see her get something through peer review in a reputable venue, and then we’ll talk. (Protip: anything on Beall’s list or another similar pay-to-publish venue with zero standards doesn’t count.)

      • Bobo and Brendan, continue to embarrass themselves with their strident dishonest comments over Dr. Crockford.

        They ignore her PHD in ZOOLOGY,they ignore her many papers on various animals in the arctic,sub arctic,they make absurd comments saying she has no expertise on Polar Bears because she didn’t camp out in the arctic watching them,despite that she is a ZOOLOGIST and has read many published science papers on the bears.

        Then Bobo tries to downplay the published science papers that Kenneth posted that supports Dr. Crockford, while Bobo doesn’t try any counterpoint against Dr. Crockford’s print paper in the blog post, neither did any of the 14 Authors of the stupid attack paper.

        Dishonest they are!

        From the blog post:

        The LIE,

        “Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”

        The Omissions,the misrepresentations of her work,

        “Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

        How did you miss the obvious personal attack on her?

        Meanwhile what is “peer review”?

        “Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

        Lets take a good look at the 14 authors of the stupid attack paper, to see if they are qualified to comment on Dr. Crockford’s research and her papers,books.

        Did ANY of them address her science papers with a counter paper or show that her print paper is wrong?

        This despite that many of them are ECOLOGISTS,they somehow couldn’t come up with a counter paper to dispute any of her published research at all.

        Nope instead they LIED,omitted her education and list of published papers from their attack paper on her. They say she didn’t publish a paper on Polar Bears, therefore she isn’t qualified to talk about them,which is amazing when her PHD dissertation was on Polar Bears and that she is a trained ZOOLOGIST.

        What is Zoologist?

        “Zoology is the study of animals and their behavior. Zoologists may study a particular species or group of species, either in the wild or in captivity.

        Zoologists study animals and their interactions with ecosystems. They study their physical characteristics, diets, behaviors, and the impacts humans have on them. They study all kinds of animals, both in their natural habitats and in captivity in zoos and aquariums. They may specialize in studying a particular animal or animal group.

        Zoologists may be involved in a wide variety of duties in various environments. For example they may observe and study animals in their natural environments, or plan and conduct experiments involving animals in nature, in zoos, or in other controlled areas. They may also collect biological specimens and measure physical characteristics. These studies are generally aimed at investigating animal behavior, migration, interactions with other species, and reproduction, as well as the pests, diseases, toxins, and habitat changes that affect them. They use the information they gather to monitor and estimate populations, address invasive species and other threats, control disease, manage hunting programs, and develop conservation plans. They also write reports and journal articles and give presentations to share their findings.”

        https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/zoologist

        Polar Bears falls under the heading of Zoology.

        Why do you people ignore the obvious personal attack on her,of their using a bogus argument that defies rational thinking?

      • LOL Sunsettommy: “and has read many published science papers on the bears.”

        That doesn’t make her an expert. I’ll bet you read a lot of climate papers, but that doesn’t make you a climate expert.

        Please post a link to one of her peer reviewed journal research papers about polar bears.
        ..
        Thank you in advance.

      • Another brainless comment that ignores so much:

        “Robert Kernodle
        December 3, 2017 at 5:07 pm Edit

        LOL Sunsettommy: “and has read many published science papers on the bears.”

        That doesn’t make her an expert. I’ll bet you read a lot of climate papers, but that doesn’t make you a climate expert.

        Please post a link to one of her peer reviewed journal research papers about polar bears.
        ..
        Thank you in advance.”

        You too dumb to understand this?

        “Nope instead they LIED,omitted her education and list of published papers from their attack paper on her. They say she didn’t publish a paper on Polar Bears, therefore she isn’t qualified to talk about them,which is amazing when her PHD dissertation was on Polar Bears and that she is a trained ZOOLOGIST.

        What is Zoologist?

        “Zoology is the study of animals and their behavior. Zoologists may study a particular species or group of species, either in the wild or in captivity.

        Zoologists study animals and their interactions with ecosystems. They study their physical characteristics, diets, behaviors, and the impacts humans have on them. They study all kinds of animals, both in their natural habitats and in captivity in zoos and aquariums. They may specialize in studying a particular animal or animal group.

        Zoologists may be involved in a wide variety of duties in various environments. For example they may observe and study animals in their natural environments, or plan and conduct experiments involving animals in nature, in zoos, or in other controlled areas. They may also collect biological specimens and measure physical characteristics. These studies are generally aimed at investigating animal behavior, migration, interactions with other species, and reproduction, as well as the pests, diseases, toxins, and habitat changes that affect them. They use the information they gather to monitor and estimate populations, address invasive species and other threats, control disease, manage hunting programs, and develop conservation plans. They also write reports and journal articles and give presentations to share their findings.”

        She is a ZOOLOGIST,with a PHD dissertation on Polar Bear evolution. She has the education and experience to read papers on Animals,as you should know Polar Bears are indeed animal and lives in the Arctic/sub arctic regions, the very region where Dr. Crockford has spend many years studying in.

        Have you looked at her published papers,bobby?

        She has researched Walrus,several types of Seals,Dogs,Otter,Goose,Tuna and more.

        Her PHD dissertation:

        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.

        Her list here:

        https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

        Don’t continue make a fool of yourself Robert,since you can’t keep ignoring her obvious expertise in studying many kinds of animals,which is what a ZOOLOGIST does.

      • Her dissertation is not about polar bears.
        ..
        Now, please follow your link to her blog, and find ONE paper she wrote that was published in a peer reviewed journal about polar bears

        Please prove to all of us that “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”

        ONE

        Just one, thank you.

      • Bobby, continues to ignore a few things:

        1)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.

        2)What is Zoologist?

        “Zoology is the study of animals and their behavior. Zoologists may study a particular species or group of species, either in the wild or in captivity.

        Zoologists study animals and their interactions with ecosystems. They study their physical characteristics, diets, behaviors, and the impacts humans have on them. They study all kinds of animals, both in their natural habitats and in captivity in zoos and aquariums. They may specialize in studying a particular animal or animal group.

        Zoologists may be involved in a wide variety of duties in various environments. For example they may observe and study animals in their natural environments, or plan and conduct experiments involving animals in nature, in zoos, or in other controlled areas. They may also collect biological specimens and measure physical characteristics. These studies are generally aimed at investigating animal behavior, migration, interactions with other species, and reproduction, as well as the pests, diseases, toxins, and habitat changes that affect them. They use the information they gather to monitor and estimate populations, address invasive species and other threats, control disease, manage hunting programs, and develop conservation plans. They also write reports and journal articles and give presentations to share their findings.”

        https://www.environmentalscience.org/career/zoologist

        3) 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 http://www.rhythmsoflife.ca.

        4) On being a polar bear expert, among other things

        https://polarbearscience.com/2015/03/12/on-being-a-polar-bear-expert-among-other-things/

        You are now deep into stupid territory since you keep ignoring her education,her PHD dissertation and her 35 years of experience in studying many kinds of animals.

        All Zoologists have the education and training expertise to be able to read published science on ANY animals,including Polar Bears.

      • WTF, Robert?

        “Making posts “disappear” just because WUWT can’t handle the truth?

        Too funny!!!”

        (He was trolling for trouble) MOD

      • What is amazing is that we have three people Brendan,Bobo and now Robert, who thinks not publishing a “peer reviewed” paper on Polar Bears, completely invalidate anything she says about Polar Bears, despite having the education (PHD,Zoology) the Field and desk experience (35 years) the published papers on many kinds of Arctic,sub arctic animals,the very region Polar Bears live in.

        Yet she is completely unqualified to discuss Polar Bears, so says these warmist armchair scientists.

        Pathetic.

        Meanwhile these three funny guys and the other 14 still can’t address her paper:

        Crockford documents her theory in “Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)”, posted at Peer J Preprints (not peer reviewed) — Abstract…

        “The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively.

        Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions).

        “Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis.

        “Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed.

        “The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.”

        Why can’t you address it?

      • “Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”

        To prove this assertion false requires ONE research paper, or article published in the literature.

      • Brainless Bob, never notice that I have never disputed it. Never said she posted a paper on Polar Bears.

        He is trying to make it appear that I am fighting it,when I never did. What I keep pointing out that Dr. Crockford has the education and experience to talk about Polar Bears.

        He writes,

        ““Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”

        To prove this assertion false requires ONE research paper, or article published in the literature.”

        Meanwhile you continue to ignore the lies,omissions and her education they made against her.

        Like I say, you are truly ignorant and stupid.

      • Sunsettommy writes: ” you are truly ignorant and stupid.”

        I guess that means I win the argument, because you’ve devolved into ad-homs.
        ..
        Just ONE Tommy, just one research paper about polar bears.

      • Robert, you seem to be a One Trick Pony.

        The more you belabor the point, the more ridiculous you appear. Aware people move on.

      • I just wrote this you IDIOT!

        “Brainless Bob, never notice that I have never disputed it. Never said she posted a paper on Polar Bears.

        He is trying to make it appear that I am fighting it,when I never did. What I keep pointing out that Dr. Crockford has the education and experience to talk about Polar Bears.”

        You are trolling now,since I never disputed this quote, YOU keep bringing up:

        “Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”

        You going to continue your B.S?

      • Bobby also missed this too,where I write:

        “What is amazing is that we have three people Brendan,Bobo and now Robert, who thinks not publishing a “peer reviewed” paper on Polar Bears, completely invalidate anything she says about Polar Bears, despite having the education (PHD,Zoology) the Field and desk experience (35 years) the published papers on many kinds of Arctic,sub arctic animals,the very region Polar Bears live in.

        Yet she is completely unqualified to discuss Polar Bears, so says these warmist armchair scientists.

        Pathetic.”

        again I never said she published a paper on Polar Bears, or disputed this quote the three stooges keep bringing up:

        “Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.”

        Yet you kept asking me over and over anyway. even AFTER I said this to you,

        “Brainless Bob, never notice that I have never disputed it. Never said she posted a paper on Polar Bears.

        He is trying to make it appear that I am fighting it,when I never did. What I keep pointing out that Dr. Crockford has the education and experience to talk about Polar Bears.”

        you came right back once again,with this deliberate B.S.

        “Just ONE Tommy, just one research paper about polar bears.”

        That is why I started calling you stupid.

        You are a troll.

  46. As well as smearing Dr Crockford, there are other aspects of the paper that are of note. Take this claim.

    The vast majority of scientists agree that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is explained by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Cook et al. 2013, Stenhouse et al. 2014, Carlton et al 2015, Verheggen et al. 2015),

    Doran and Zimmerman 2009 asked two questions

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    Significant” is not synonymous with “most“.

    Cook et. al 2013 looked at the endorsement of AGW theory, not the estimates of how much warming was due to AGW. Any proper peer reviewer (someone with knowledge of the literature) should have picked up on this.

    Proper scientists should have referred to the estimates from the data. This from AR5 WG1 Ch10 Page 869

    It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GM ST from 1951 to 2010.

    If there was empirical evidence to support the belief that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is from human activities, the IPCC would have presented it. So the authors misrepresented nonsense opinion surveys instead.

    For further details, and for links to check for yourselves, see my post here.

  47. Sunsettomy: ‘Yet she is completely unqualified to discuss Polar Bears, so says these warmist armchair scientists.’

    Never said that. She can discuss polar bears all she likes, and is probably more qualified to do so than most people, including me.

    But that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that she is less qualified than the people who have actually done the first-hand research.

    This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. And no amount of chest-thumping will change this reality.

    The other thing that should concern climate sceptics is the apparently heavy reliance on one, second-hand authority for their information about this subject. That’s a very thin evidence base.

  48. Brendan: “What is relevant is that she is less qualified than the people who have actually done the first-hand research.”

    And yet the people who have actually done first-hand research have reached the same conclusions that she has:

    1. Polar bear populations have not been declining, but have instead been stable/increasing in recent decades. (Of 13 subpopulations that have been followed, 12 were stable or increasing and just one was declining [York et al., 2016]).

    2. The premise that polar bear populations are susceptible to decline via the mechanism of a loss of sea ice extent is not supported by the evidence — especially paleoclimate evidence.

    Currently, even with the decline in recent decades (that matched the oscillatory decline in the 1920s-1940s before growing in the 1950s to 1980s), Arctic sea ice extent is significantly higher than it’s been for most of the last 10,000 years. And despite SIE being much lower in the past than now, polar bears survived these low SIE periods. For millennia.

    Since Dr. Crockford’s positions find support in peer-reviewed journals, what is it, specifically, that you disagree with about her work?
    ———————————————–
    Cronin and Cronin, 2015
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41063-015-0019-3
    “Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”

    [A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000 years ago]. … Some species thought to be dependent on summer sea ice (e.g., polar bears) survived through these periods.”

    York et al., 2016
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full
    “Subpopulation growth rates and the probability of decline at current harvest levels were determined for 13 subpopulations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) that are within or shared with Canada based on mark–recapture estimates of population numbers and vital rates, and harvest statistics using population viability analyses (PVA). … Considering both TEK [traditional ecological knowledge] and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.”

    • Kenneth_richard: ‘Polar bear populations have not been declining, but have instead been stable/increasing in recent decades. (Of 13 subpopulations that have been followed, 12 were stable or increasing and just one was declining [York et al., 2016]).’

      This conclusion is at odds with this summary (https://polarbearsinternational.org/climate-change/status/), which identifies 19 polar bear populations globally, of which three are in decline, one rising, six stable and nine for which there isn’t enough data.

      The relevant point here is that warnings about polar bear populations are about projected future decline, so current numbers are only part of the story.

      Similarly with paleo studies. They do not necessarily translate one to one to today’s situation or the projected future, which may involve other factors such as human pressure that wasn’t present in past millennia.

      And this highlights a common defect of contrary thinking – not just within climate science. The picking and choosing of selected points and ignoring the balance of evidence across the board.

      • The relevant point here is that warnings about polar bear populations are about projected future decline, so current numbers are only part of the story.

        I see. So real-world observational evidence doesn’t count…because it doesn’t support the contention that polar bear populations are declining. It’s modeling and predictions for the future that count. Because they can’t be shown to be wrong yet…so they’re right, and thus they’re the “consensus”.

        Put another way, warnings and predictions about what might possibly maybe perhaps happen decades from now are “climate science”. Real-world observations and empirical evidence regarding what has happened to polar bear populations are not “the relevant point here”.

        You do realize, Brendan, that the reason why it is assumed polar bears will soon meet their demise is because their hunting grounds have been compromised by thinning sea ice.

        So what is the reason why polar bears survived during much warmer Arctic periods during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, when sea ice was far thinner and less extensive than today? Can you answer this question?

      • According to the blog link you provided, humans cause sea ice loss…and this kills polar bears.

        “Without action on climate change, scientists predict we could lose wild polar bears by 2100.
        Two-thirds could be gone by 2050. And sea ice loss from human activity is the cause.

        Interestingly, in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Record, the native peoples who have watched polar bear behaviors for centuries have noticed (a) polar bear numbers are currently growing, and (b) polar bears can hunt seal just fine with thin (or no) ice. These conclusions are strikingly similar to what Dr. Crockford has written. So is it your contention that the Inuit are wrong, and the scientists who predict the demise of polar bears because of human-caused thinning ice are right? Assuming this is indeed your contention, why do you side with prognosticating academics rather than native communities who have been observing polar bear behaviors for generations?

        Wong et al., 2017
        http://www.pamelabywong.com/uploads/2/5/3/6/25363453/wong_et_al_2017.pdf
        Strong and transparent relationships between polar bear researchers and Inuit communities are necessary to overcome persisting research (and community) misconceptions. For community members, most types of research have been viewed as inseparable from government agendas through funding and consulting programmes (Bocking 2007) and past histories and power relations have politicised views of scientific research as a whole (Reed and McIlveen 2006). … All [Inuit] participants reported having more bear encounters in recent years than in the past. Some participants indicated that the bears they have encountered are healthy.

        Inuit observations:
        Last year he said that there’s more bears that are more fat … they rarely see unhealthy bears … the only time they would see one is when it’s pretty old … it won’t hunt—hunt as much … and it’s skinny. (AB9) … Our elders, they say, they migrate, into other area… for years, and then they come back … that’s what we’re experiencing now … back in early 80s, and mid 90s, there were hardly any bears … there’s too many polar bears now. (AR16) … Bears can catch seals even—even if the—if the ice is really thin … they’re great hunters those bears … they’re really smart … they know how to survive …

  49. Have already asked Brendan and his two fellow dishonest supporters about this,that they have completely avoided:

    “Meanwhile these three funny guys and the other 14 still can’t address her paper:

    Crockford documents her theory in “Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)”, posted at Peer J Preprints (not peer reviewed) — Abstract…

    “The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively.

    Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions).

    “Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis.

    “Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed.

    “The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.”

    Why can’t you address it?”

    They avoid her research in detail completely,since their goal is to smash her down with bogus arguments,which is why her research goes unanswered.

    Snicker……………….

  50. I remain puzzled why neither side in this debate acknowledges the fact that the CO2/warming link upon which all of the climate change hysteria is based (as is much non-hysterical climate science) has NO HARD-DATA-BASED STUDIES supporting the concept. The purported link is therefore entirely theoretical, which is unforgivable in responsible science. In science, all theories and hypotheses MUST be tested by hard data, and if those data fail to support the concept, it MUST be altered or rejected. So far, this process has only been undertaken three times in regard to the CO2/warming link, to my knowledge. The first was by atmospheric physicist Knut Angstrom in 1900. His results, which were negative, were enough to remove greenhouse warming from all consideration by the climate science community for 38 years until a British climate hobbyist (!) revived the concept with a series of persuasive magazine articles. The second and third were conducted independently by Peter Ward and myself this year and in 1974, respectively, and both were also decidedly negative.

    It’s no wonder, then, that the “warmists” are so aggressive! Fundamentally, they must know they literally haven’t got a leg to stand on, and so they go on the offensive to push their agendum. This, alone, should be sufficient indication that there’s something seriously wrong with their position. Isn’t it about time that we called them on this most blatant Achilles heel of their “unassailable” science?

    • Tyndall 1859

      JOURNAL ARTICLE
      The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction, John Tyndall
      Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
      Vol. 151 (1861), pp. 1-36

      • I’m not talking about ABSORPTION by CO2. Tyndall and many others have proven that abundantly. I,m talking about whether or not CO2 can cause global warming, i.e., the CO2/warming link. That has not been proven.

      • Let me expand a bit on this. What needs to be proven is that Earth’s IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 can back-radiate heat to Earth’s surface and have it absorbed by that surface to cause global warming. If the lines of the spectrum of CO2 are sufficiently broadened to form a continuous Planck distribution, the most intense line is at 14.95 microns, which corresponds to a Wien temperature of -80 degrees C, i.e., well below any temperature experienced at Earth’s surface except for occasional cold snaps at the South Pole. Is it any surprise, therefore, that no physical evidence of warming from this source has ever been found? Cold objects can’t transfer heat to warmer ones.

  51. “This is a serious misrepresentation of relevant facts. The authors fail to mention her Ph.D. in zoology (her dissertation mentions polar bear evolution) and her peer-reviewed publications (details here). She is even cited in a paper published in Bioscience.”

    Larry:

    I must point out that the Crockford you think is Susan in the “paper published in Bioscince” is, err, not.

    It is a certain N Crockford….

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola_Crockford?pubType=article

    And to boot, it has nothing to do with Polar Bears.

    It must have passed unnoticed by Susan, as she has participated on this thread.

Comments are closed.