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
}.
}.
“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 is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published https://t.co/jBSiJ1DMlL pic.twitter.com/XnuRZDrsUt
— Judith Curry (@curryja) November 29, 2017
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.
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
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…
- Mother Jones sounds the alarm about the warming North Pole — Exploiting the polar bear story for political gain.
- Twenty stories of good news about polar bears!
- Are 30 thousand species going extinct every year?
- Good news about polar bears, thriving as the arctic warms!
It almost makes me wish I believed in Heaven and Hell because these pathetic people would surely be headed for the latter.
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…
With really bad global warming!
I think, “Approved but not funded” on all their grant proposals would do quite well.
Apparently, the atmosphere in Hell is high in CO2.
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.
U.S. DOE
‘What is Mission Innovation?’
Re: Climate change and other related issues such as funding for ‘Mission Innovation’
Webpage has a video on ‘Mission Innovation’
https://energy.gov/what-mission-innovation
White House Archives, Feb.6, 2016
‘FACT SHEET: President’s Budget Proposal to Advance Mission Innovation’
Scroll down to:
DOE, about 80 percent of government-wide Mission Innovation supports DOE research, development and demonstration activities across the spectrum of clean energy technologies.
Includes amounts proposed in the budget.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/06/fact-sheet-presidents-budget-proposal-advance-mission-innovation
So what did US taxpayers get for the 6.4 to 12.8 BILLION dollars spent on ‘Mission Innovation’? Did it go toward funding:
Syrian rebels (a.k.a. Isis)?
Hillary 2016?
Antifa?
Perhaps a Hawaiian estate for former President Obama?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan
“Mission Innovation’ meeting June 1-2, 2016, San Francisco, CA
Attended by some 20 countries.
Re: DOE Secretary Moniz.
At:
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2016/0603_05.html
All that is necessary to explain this paper is to see that M. Mann is a coauthor.
For posterity, I would rather be known for being a skeptic, than an alarmist. Glad I discovered WUWT!
Earthling2
Seconded. At least we retain self respect and dignity.
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.
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.
AndyG55 commented – “You have yet to produce one single bit of this so-called science.”
if by now you have not spent an
hour or three investigating the evidence
for AGW,
nothing I can write
here & now will appease you.
but it’s been here all along:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
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.
Sunset, those do not add to 0.3 C/dec.
pleases read more
carefully
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 Machnee commented –
“It has been debunked by a lack of evidence.”
see the ipcc 5ar.
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.
The paper is basically just an attack on Dr Crockford.. Lewandowsky (and Cook) did exactly the same against Prof Ian Plimer (and Anthony Watts) in their Alice in Wonderland paper.. yes it really has that title https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
And I say the attack is there to be quoted all around. These people are just evil.
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.
Add liars and deceivers.
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…)
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….
Well well, Jeff Harvey does again the ugly trick he did with Björn Lomborg.
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.
Sunsettommy, and the value of blue chips at the casino seems, by consensus, to be $1.
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.
The peer of an alarmist is an alarmist, and the peer of a fraud is a fraud. We need scientific review.
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.
Judith’s quote is enough for me.
Resourceguy
Seconded
IPCC measures “probability” by a popular vote of hand-picked “experts”.
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?
That would the the IPCC which is ‘dead duck’ without AGW !
When a bureaucracy starts out with an assumption (CAGW for the IPCC), knr, it unlikely it will produce any contrary observations.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. But Michael Mann is scum. He and Al Gore deserve all the pejoratives you can come up with.
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.
My younger offspring is currently in Yellowknife doing some technical work, apparently large stuffed Ursus maritimus specimens are all over the place.
Stuffed with food or sawdust?
Stuffed with these so called scientists would be preferred….
… kind you can get close to (eg. one at the airport luggage reclaim or the explorer hotel lounge) had a visit from taxidermist some time ago, the other kind that occasionally roam on the town’s outskirts best not to get too close to check it out ….
“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
Sea ice thickness seems to be recovering this year.
Wouldn’t it be a shame if visits to Susan’s website went through the roof.
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 has been caught biasing it’s results over and over again.
Hugs
Try using Duck Duck Go as a search engine, Susan’s top of the list.
https://polarbearscience.com/tag/dr-susan-crockford/ is now at the top using google, desmog is below it
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.
Google put Susan Crockford up top for me. Anything else would be evil.
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.
By the way, I don’t know the reason, but now and here, Crockford’s blog is top in my google search.
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.
Bloke
Great idea, i just went to her site and sent her a note of support perhaps all here should do so.
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. 🙂
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.
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,
Irony: they are not afraid to use a 9/11 denialist actress as a global warming ambassador
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.
The climate change establishment is getting a bit frantic. How much of their funding was from the US government?
Looks like the majority of the authors are from The Netherlands, a country without polar bears.
For now, I’ll wait to see how bad the coming cold snap gets before predicting what the future holds for them.
More likely from the nether regions. !!
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.
She refuted their latest scare tactic.
That’s enough to launch a bile attack these days.
Looks like libel to me. I hope she sues.
+1000
The organisation that she works for should do the sueing
““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.
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.
Crockford
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.
No need for any Manniacal responses. Don’t need to lie down with that dog.
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.
TA said “The authors definitely lied about her and her work”
” “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.
Just confirms what many of us know to be true: green is the new brown and full of muck.
They act like climate trolls, using the same tactics. Pathetic.
Not only a hit piece, but a badly researched hit piece. They didn’t bother check whether Susan had published any papers.
They know I’ve published papers, they just lied because they knew they could get away with it.
Dr. Crockford,
the exact smear quote starts with
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?
“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.
Dishonesty. From those who pretty much have made a career of it – and getting a little shrill as their behavior is getting painfully obvious.
I find it very unlikely the classification would contain overlapping categories.
Why not, given how much ‘slop’ there is in a system where you ask people their opinions about the confidence they have in events happening rather than using a mathematical calculation to come up with a real number.
“opinions about the confidence they have in events happening”
Sorta like horse racing 🙂
K.Kilty,
“I find it very unlikely the classification would contain overlapping categories.”
See for yourself. IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers, page 4, footnote #2.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
They are triple counting the top values? Wow, just wow!
Aww Phooey
Comment disappeared into the ether!
Surely, between all the brains on this blog, there must be a way to come up with something more reliable than WordPress.
Can we come up with something more reliable than computers?
Sheri
Abacus?
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.
Contact them, Steve. Your qualifications may have some influence.
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.
And if that doesn’t work I’ll sic my dog on them!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Say no more!
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 ?
Could it be that they are all light-weight authors, knr?
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.
HAS, very good points. This is a serious and willing breach of ethics.
If only I was as fast and intelligent as you. Yes, this must be so.
“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.”
Apparently Stephan Lewandowsky, professor of cognitive psychology, is an expert in polar bear science and Susan Crockford, zoologist with published papers on polar bears, is not.
Susan Crockford’s publications: https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
Stinkerp,
The paper covers a great deal more ground than just attacking Crockford. Hence the large number of authors, from different fields. Each is relevant to some aspect of the paper.
Poor Susan!
She does the hard yards and all the attack dogs can do is pathetically challenge her credentials.
No need for the pity. I can deal with this.
If you’d like to support my work, buy a book or two (I don’t have a donate page) and give it to someone you care about, including your local library.
THAT would help.
Susan
Susan
Will do
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.
Griff the serial Slanderer at it again
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.
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). “
Thanks for that excerpt. About that, this new Harvey et al paper
is exactly
righdt
No problem about quoting the full excerpt, it’s something you could easily learn to do yourself.
“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?
crackpot.. suffering avoidance issues…. big yellow streak.
This is my question. We know who the authors are. But who are the reviewers that let this go? Seems like they have some explaining to do also.
Approx 4% (Man’s emissions of CO2) of 0.04% (Total) of the atmosphere is causing warming? Where’s your evidence?
patrick –
study
harder.
(Patrick asked for the evidence,you avoid answering it. You continue to behave this way,I will start snipping your words) MOD
“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.
I dunno, what’s this all about then?
Nothing to do with warming
ZERO PROOF, Clod. !
“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.”
Interesting graph….Where is WATER?
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
(SNIPPED) 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?
MOD: what question(s)
have i avoided
answering?
“Is the paper in question up to peer reviewed scientific standards?”
PS, mod: I don’t
respond to Andyg55 or
his questions. he’s
always invariably rude and I
ignore him.
“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.
Look up the “A” in AGW. 150 years ago there was no A.
A pretty sad fail I’m afraid.
And the experiment was in a tube, in a lab.
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.
that’s not too much
to ask.
(You continue to avoid answering questions you have been asked) MOD
“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.
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.
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.
And of course we can always get raw temperatures from Iceland
And other Arctic sites
Iceland and Arctic temps pattern match the RAW temps of the USA
(ignore the red line, its an AGW propaganda fabrication through mal-adjustments.)
And of course, Reykjavik temp that haven’t been through AGW torture process follow the AMO pattern.
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:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PIOMAS-2017-02.png
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.
Tony mcleod: have you looked at your link? There is no way to get the graph you showed from the data presented in the link.
Tony Mcleod
Dishonest through and through
Tony Mcleods Lake of honesty on display again.
Where did SkS get the data for their graph, Tony?
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. !!
The recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid-1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974
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.
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.
or maybe
he’s right
and you’re wrong.
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
Yep, saltine, he’s right to make personal and unfounded attacks on a colleague.
Cracker:
You have not answered my questions, as usual.
Really is a small-minded yellow-back troll, isn’t he. !
Gerald, what question?
There’s the sweaty stench of desperation here.
Yep! The smell of fear is strong!
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.
Mann sues others for allegedly doing what he and his gang have actually done ro Dr. Crockford.
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.
“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 recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid-1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974
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.
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]
LOLllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
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.
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:
…….beware the unclosed HTML……
tink i got me arra the wong way wound – shot me own foot innit?
chuckles
J. Curry sums this “Scientific Paper” precisely.
“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.
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
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.
“Saulinsky” is Saul Alinsky, but Chelsea Clinton’s daughter will not know anymore who he was.
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.
And what, pray tell, has Susan Crockford published that is incorrect?
She hasn’t published anything in the peer reviewed scientific literature on polar bears.
So Brendan, you couldn&#