The SI (and data) for the Harvey et al. attack paper on Dr. Susan Crockford’s polar bear views

While the journal still has not released the Supplementary information (SI) file for the Harvey et al. paper, viewable here. I have a copy of the SI here that lists the blogs used (45 on each side of the issue) and the methodology. After some prodding on his blog and on Twitter, co-author Bart Verheggen released it.

I offer it here in full for analysis and commentary, without comment of my own. That will come later. A PDF of it is also available, see the bottom of this post – Anthony

Supplementary information (Harvey et al. 2017)

Blogs used for this study.

A total of 90 blogs discussing AGW, and both Arctic ice extent and polar bears were found on the internet using the Google search engine, although some were already known to the first author. The internal search engines of the found blogs and site-restricted Google searches were used to evaluate blog content and score their positions on six statements as described in the main manuscript. Citation of Susan Crockford was also recorded. Blogs were assigned ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ categories on the basis of their positions taken relative to those drawn by the IPCC on global warming (e.g. whether it is warming or not and the anthropogenic contribution). The assignment was confirmed by creating a distance matrix from the scores using absolute distance (Manhattan distance) and performing a hierarchical cluster analysis on the result (Ward.D2 method from R 3.3.3, R Core Team, 2017). Both methods yielded two large clusters with identical content. Some blogs expressed positive responses to multiple questions (e.g. Arctic ice is declining but it is due to natural forcings) therefore the total number of hits for a statement can be larger than the total number of blogs in a category. Blog entries until June 20, 2017 were used.

AGW supporting science-based blogs used for Figures 1 and 2.


A Walk On The Natural Side (

Advocacy for Animals (

Carbonbrief (

Churchill Polar Bears (

Climate Change: The Next Generation ( Climate Feedback (

Climate Plus (

Climate Science Watch (

Cool Green Science (

David Suzuki Foundation (

Defenders of Wildlife (

Discovery Kids (

Deep Climate (

Dot Earth (

EcoInternet (

Encounters Alaska (

Frontiersnorth (

Gizmodo (

GO3 Project (

Greendustries Blog (

GreenFacts (

Grist (

Heat is Online (

National Wildlife Federation (

Phys Org (

Planet 3.0 (

PLoS Blogs (

Polar Bears International (

Scholar and Rogues (

ScienceDaily (

Scientific American Blog (

Skeptical Science:

The Corkboard Blog (

The Frog That Jumped Out (

TheGreenGrok (

The Way Things Break ( Thin Ice Blog (

Think Progress (

Tom Dispatch (

UMass Blog (

Wildscreen Arkive (

World Wildlife Fund Canada (

Yale Climate Connections (

Yale Environment 360 (

York Blog (

AGW denying blogs used for Figures 1 and 2.

Blog entries until February 3, 2017 were used (all accessed on 3 February, 2017 along with blog histories). Blogs marked with an asterisk refer to those primarily using the Polar Bear Science blog (of Dr. Susan Crockford) as their main supporting reference.

*American Thinker (

*Bishop Hill (

Bjorn Lomborg (

*Breitbart (

*Climate Change Dispatch (

*Climate Depot (

*C Fact (

*Climategate (

*Climate Lessons (

Climate Sanity (

*Climatism (

C02 coalition (

*Daily Caller (

*Fix This Nation (

*Friends of Science (

*Gateway Pundit (

*Global Climate Science Scam (

*Greenie Watch (


*Hockey Schtick (

*Ice Age Now (

*International Climate Science Coalition (

*Junkscience (

Jennifer Marohasy (

New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (

*No Frakking Consensus (

*Not a lot of people know that (

*Notrickszone (

*Polar Bear Science (

*Powerline (

*Principia Scientific (

*Quixotes Last Stand (

Real Science (

Resilient Earth (

Scottish Sceptic (

Skeptic’s Corner:


*Tall Bloke (

*The Daily Caller:

The Rational Optimist (

* The View From Here (

*Tom Nelson (

*Tom Remington (

*Watts Up With That (

World Climate Report (

Methods for the Principal component analysis (PCA, Figure 2)

A broad keyword search on the internet and the ISI Web of Science database yielded 90 blogs (described above) and 92 peer reviewed papers reporting on both Polar bears and arctic ice. Author’s positions in papers were scored in in same “position space” defined by binary answers to the six statements formulated in the main papers and citation of Dr. Susan Crockford as an expert. Missing values were replaced by zero after scaling and centering to minimize the influence of the replacement. The final data matrix contained the sources in the rows and the scores in the columns. The PCA was conducted using the prcomp routine from R

3.3.3 (R Core Team, 2017). Papers were classified as controversial when they evoked critical comments and discussion in the peer reviewed literature., blogs were colour coded using the results of a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward.D2 method from R 3.3.3, R Core Team, 2017). Datapoint were slightly jittered to improve visibility of overlapping points.

R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL

References used to generate the PCA.

Aars J, Andersen M, Brenière A, Blanc S. 2015. White-beaked dolphins trapped in the ice and eaten by polar bears. Polar Research 34: 26612.

Amstrup SC, Stirling I, Smith TS, Perham C, Thiemann GW. 2006. Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology 29: 997-1002.

Amstrup SC, Caswell H, DeWeaver E, Stirling I, Douglas DC, Marcot BG, Hunter CM. 2009. Rebuttal of “Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit”. Interfaces 39: 353-369.

Amstrup SC, DeWeaver ET, Douglas DC, Marcot BG, Durner GM, Bitz CM, Bailey DA.

2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence. Nature 468: 955-958.

Amstrup SC, Marcot BG, Douglas DC. 2008. A Bayesian network modeling approach to forecasting the 21st century worldwide status of polar bears. Pages 213-268 in DeWeaver ET, Bitz CM, Tremblayand LB, eds. Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications. Washington, D.C: American Geophysical Union.

Andersen M, Aars J. 2016. Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus): population biology and anthropogenic threats. Polar Research 35 (art. 26029).

Armstrong JS, Green KC, Soon W. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces 38: 382-405.

Atwood TC, Marcot BG, Douglas DC, Amstrup SC, Rode KD, Durner GM, Bromaghin JF. 2016. Forecasting the relative influence of environmental and anthropogenic stressors on polar bears. Ecosphere 7: e01370.

Bajzak C, Bernhardt W, Mosnier A, Hammill M, Stirling I. 2013. Habitat use by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in a seasonally ice-covered region, the western Hudson Bay. Polar Biology 36: 477-491.

Bromaghin JF, McDonald TL, Stirling I, Derocher AE, Richardson ES, Regehr EV, Douglas DC, Durner GM, Atwood T, Amstrup SC. 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Ecological Applications 25:634- 651.

Castro de la Guardia L, Derocher AE, Myers PG, Terwisscha van Scheltinga AD, Lunn NJ. 2013. Future sea ice conditions in Western Hudson Bay and consequences for polar bears in the 21st century. Global Change Biology 19:2675-2687.

Chambellant M, Stirling I, Ferguson SH. 2013. Temporal variation in western Hudson Bay ringed seal Phoca hispida diet in relation to environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 481: 269-287.

Cherry SG, Derocher AE, Thiemann GW, Lunn NJ. 2013. Migration phenology and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 82:912-921.

Derocher AE. 2010. Climate change: The prospects for polar bears. Nature 468:905-906. Derocher AE, Aars J, Amstrup SC, Cutting A, Lunn NJ, Molnár PK, Obbard ME, Stirling I,

Thiemann GW, Vongraven D. 2013. Rapid ecosystem change and polar bear conservation. Conservation Letters 6: 368-375.

Derocher AE, Lunn NJ, Stirling I. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44: 163-176.

Derocher AE, Andersen M, Wiig Ø, Aars J, Hansen E, Biuw M. 2011. Sea ice and polar bear den ecology at Hopen Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress Series 441: 273-279.

Durner GM, Amstrup SC, Ambrosius KJ. 2006. Polar bear maternal den habitat in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Arctic 59: 31-36.

Durner GM, Douglas DC, Nielson RM, Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Stirling I, Mauritzen M, Born EW, Wiig Ø, DeWeaver E. 2009. Predicting 21st-­‐century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecological Monographs 79: 25-58.

Durner GM, Whiteman JP, Harlow HJ, Amstrup SC, Regehr EV, Ben-David M. 2011.

Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat. Polar Biology 34: 975-984.

Dyck MG, Kebreab E. 2009. Estimating the energetic contribution of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) summer diets to the total energy budget. Journal of Mammalogy 90: 585-593.

Dyck MG, Soon W, Baydack R, Legates D, Baliunas S, Ball T, Hancock L. 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecological Complexity 4: 73-84.

Dyck MG, Soon W, Baydack RK, Legates DR, Baliunas S, Ball TF, Hancock LO. 2008. Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008). Ecological Complexity 5: 289-302.

Fagre AC, Patyk KA, Nol P, Atwood T, Hueffer K, Duncan C. 2015. A review of infectious agents in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and their long-term ecological relevance.

EcoHealth 12: 528-539.

Fischbach AS, Amstrup SC, Douglas DC. 2007. Landward and eastward shift of Alaskan polar bear denning associated with recent sea ice changes. Polar Biology 30: 1395-1405.

Galicia MP, Thiemann GW, Dyck MG, Ferguson SH, Higdon JW. 2016. Dietary habits of polar bears in Foxe Basin, Canada: possible evidence of a trophic regime shift mediated by a new top predator. Ecology and Evolution 6: 6005-6018.

Gormezano LJ, Rockwell RF. 2013. What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet during the ice-­‐free season in western Hudson Bay. Ecology and Evolution 3: 3509-3523.

Hamilton SG, Castro de la Guardia L, Derocher AE, Sahanatien V, Tremblay B, Huard D.

2014. Projected Polar Bear Sea Ice Habitat in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. PloS one 9 (art. e113746).

Hobson KA, Stirling I, Andriashek DS. 2009. Isotopic homogeneity of breath CO2 from fasting and berry-eating polar bears: implications for tracing reliance on terrestrial foods in a changing Arctic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87: 50-55.

Hoover C, Pitcher T, Christensen V. 2013. Effects of hunting, fishing and climate change on the Hudson Bay marine ecosystem: II. Ecosystem model future projections. Ecological Modelling 264: 143-156.

Hunter CM, Caswell H, Runge MC, Regehr EV, Amstrup SC, Stirling I. 2010. Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology 91:2883-2897.

Iacozza J, Ferguson SH. 2014. Spatio-temporal variability of snow over sea ice in western Hudson Bay, with reference to ringed seal pup survival. Polar biology, 37: 817-832.

Iverson SA, Gilchrist HG, Smith PA, Gaston AJ, Forbes MR. 2014. Longer ice-free seasons increase the risk of nest depredation by polar bears for colonial breeding birds in the Canadian Arctic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 281: 20133128.

Kirk CM, Amstrup S, Swor R, Holcomb D, O’Hara TM. 2010a. Morbillivirus and Toxoplasma exposure and association with hematological parameters for southern Beaufort Sea polar bears: potential response to infectious agents in a sentinel species. Ecohealth 7: 321-331.

Kirk CM, Amstrup S, Swor R, Holcomb D, O’Hara TM. 2010b. Hematology of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears (2005–2007): biomarker for an arctic ecosystem health sentinel. EcoHealth 7: 307-320.

Kutschera VE et al. 2016. High genetic variability of vagrant polar bears illustrates importance of population connectivity in fragmented sea ice habitats. Animal Conservation, 19: 337-349.

Laidre KL, Born EW, Heagerty P, Wiig Ø, Stern H, Dietz R, Aars J, Andersen M. 2015.

Shifts in female polar bear (Ursus maritimus) habitat use in East Greenland. Polar Biology 38: 879–893.

Lunn NJ, Regher EV, Servanty S, Converse SJ, Richardson ES, Stirling I. 2014. Demography and population status of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Environment Canada Research Report.

Lunn NJ, Servanty S, Regehr EV, Converse SJ, Richardson E, Stirling I. 2016. Demography of an apex predator at the edge of its range–impacts of changing sea ice on polar bears in Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications 26: 1302-1320.

Luque SP, Ferguson SH, Breed GA. 2014. Spatial behaviour of a keystone Arctic marine predator and implications of climate warming in Hudson Bay. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 461: 504-515.

Matejova M. 2015. Is Global Environmental Activism Saving the Polar Bear? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 57: 14-23.

McCall AG, Derocher AE, Lunn NJ. 2015. Home range distribution of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Polar Biology 38: 343-355.

McCall AG, Pilfold NW, Derocher AE, Lunn NJ. 2016. Seasonal habitat selection by adult female polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Population Ecology 3: 407-419.

McKinney MA, Iverson SJ, Fisk AT, Sonne C, Rigét FF, Letcher RJ, Arts MT, Born EW, Rosing-Asvid A, Dietz, R. 2013. Global change effects on the long-­‐term feeding ecology and contaminant exposures of East Greenland polar bears. Global Change Biology, 19: 2360-2372.

McKinney MA, Atwood T, Dietz R, Sonne C, Iverson SJ, Peacock E. 2014. Validation of adipose lipid content as a body condition index for polar bears. Ecology and Evolution 4: 516-527.

Molnár PK, Derocher AE, Klanjscek T, Lewis MA. 2011. Predicting climate change impacts on polar bear litter size. Nature Communications 2: 186.

Molnár PK, Derocher AE, Thiemann GW, Lewis MA. 2010. Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biological Conservation 143: 1612- 1622.

Nuijten R, Hendriks A, Jenssen B, Schipper A. 2016. Circumpolar contaminant concentrations in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and potential population-level effects. Environmental Research 151: 50-57.

Obbard ME, McDonald TL, Howe EJ, Regehr EV, Richardson ES. 2007. Trends in abundance and survival for polar bears from Southern Hudson Bay, Canada, 1984–2005. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.

Obbard ME, Stapleton S, Middel KR,Thibault I, Brodeur V, Jutras C. 2015. Estimating the abundance of the Southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation with aerial surveys. Polar Biology 38: 1713-1725

O’Neill SJ, Osborn TJ, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Watkinson AR. 2008. Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1649-1659.

Owen MA, Swaisgood RR, Slocomb C, Amstrup SC, Durner GM, Simac K, Pessier AP.

2015. An experimental investigation of chemical communication in the polar bear. Journal of Zoology 295: 36-43.

Pagano AM, Durner GM, Amstrup SC, Simac KS, York GS. 2012. Long-distance swimming by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water. Canadian Journal of Zoology 90: 663-676.

Parsons ECM, Cornick LA. 2013. Politics, people and polar bears: A rebuttal of Clark et al. (2013). Marine Policy 42: 178-179.

Peacock E, Derocher A, Thiemann G, Stirling I. 2011. Conservation and management of Canada’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 371-385.

Peacock E, Taylor MK, Laake J, Stirling I. 2013. Population ecology of polar bears in Davis Strait, Canada and Greenland. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 463-476.

Peacock E et al. 2015. Implications of the circumpolar genetic structure of polar bears for their conservation in a rapidly warming Arctic. PLoS One 10: e112021.

Pilfold NW, Derocher AE, Stirling I, Richardson E. 2015. Multi-­‐temporal factors influence predation for polar bears in a changing climate. Oikos 124: 1098-1107.

Regehr EV, Hunter CM, Caswell H, Amstrup SC, Stirling I. 2010. Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:117-127.

Regehr EV, Amstrup SC, Stirling I. 2006. Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea. USGS Report No. 2006-1337.

Regehr EV, Lunn NJ, Amstrup SC, Stirling I. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2673-2683.

Regehr EV, Laidre KL, Akçakaya HR, Amstrup SC, Atwood TC, Lunn NJ, Obbard M, Stern H, Thiemann GW, Wiig Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556.

Rode KD, Amstrup SC, Regehr EV. 2010a. Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecological Applications 20: 768-782.

Rode KD, Reist JD, Peacock E, Stirling I. 2010b. Comments in response to “Estimating the energetic contribution of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) summer diets to the total energy budget” by Dyck and Kebreab (2009). Journal of Mammalogy 91: 1517-. 3.

Rode KD, Peacock E, Taylor M, Stirling I, Born EW, Laidre KL, Wiig Ø. 2012. A tale of two polar bear populations: ice habitat, harvest, and body condition. Population Ecology 54: 3- 18.

Rode KD, Regehr EV, Douglas DC, Durner G, Derocher AE, Thiemann GW, Budge SM.

2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20: 76-88.

Rode KD, Robbins CT, Nelson L, Amstrup SC. 2015. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-­‐based hunting opportunities? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 138-145.

Rühland KM, Paterson AM, Keller W, Michelutti N, Smol JP. 2013. Global warming triggers the loss of a key Arctic refugium. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 280: 20131887.

Sahanatien V, Derocher AE. 2012. Monitoring sea ice habitat fragmentation for polar bear conservation. Animal Conservation 15: 397-406.

Sahanatien V, Peacock E, Derocher AE. 2015. Population substructure and space use of Foxe Basin polar bears. Ecology and Evolution, 5: 2851-2864.

Stapleton S, Atkinson S, Hedman D, Garshelis D. 2014. Revisiting Western Hudson Bay: using aerial surveys to update polar bear abundance in a sentinel population. Biological Conservation 170: 38-47.

Stern HL, Laidre KL. 2016. Sea-ice indicators of polar bear habitat. The Cryosphere 10: 2027. Stirling I, Derocher AE. 1993. Possible impacts of climatic warming on polar bears. Arctic

46: 240-245.

Stirling I, Parkinson CL. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 59: 261-275.

Stirling I, Lunn NJ, Iacozza J. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52: 294-306.

Stirling I, Derocher AV. 2012. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence. Global Change Biology 18: 2694-2706.

Stirling I, Derocher AE, Gough WA, Rode K. 2008. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecological Complexity 5: 193-201.

Stirling I, Richardson E, Thiemann GW, Derocher AE. 2008. Unusual predation attempts of polar bears on ringed seals in the southern Beaufort Sea: possible significance of changing spring ice conditions. Arctic 61: 14-22.

Stirling I, McDonald TL, Richardson ES, Regehr EV. 2007. Polar bear population status in the Northern Beaufort Sea. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Administrative Report.

Stirling I, van Meurs R. 2015. Longest recorded underwater dive by a polar bear. Polar Biology 38: 1301-1304.

Stone IR, Derocher AE. 2007. An incident of polar bear infanticide and cannibalism on Phippsøya, Svalbard. Polar Record, 43: 171-173.

Styrishave B, Pedersen KE, Clarke O, Hansen M, Björklund E, Sonne C, Dietz R. 2017. Steroid hormones in multiple tissues of East Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Biology 40: 37-49.

Tartu S, Bourgeon S, Aars J, Andersen M, Polder A, Thiemann GW, Welker JM, Routti H. 2017. Sea ice-associated decline in body condition leads to increased concentrations of lipophilic pollutants in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Svalbard, Norway. Science of the Total Environment 576: 409-419.

Thiemann GW, Derocher AE, Stirling I. 2008. Polar bear Ursus maritimus conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx 42: 504-515.

Towns L, Derocher AE, Stirling I, Lunn NJ, Hedman D. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of problem polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Biology, 32: 1529-1537.

Towns L, Derocher AE, Stirling I, Lunn NJ. 2010. Changes in land distribution of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Arctic 63: 206-212.

Tyrrell M, Clark DA. 2014. What happened to climate change? CITES and the reconfiguration of polar bear conservation discourse. Global Environmental Change 24: 363-372.

Vongraven D et al. 2013. A circumpolar monitoring framework for polar bears. Ursus 23: 1- 66.

Voorhees H, Sparks R, Huntington HP, Rode KD. 2014. Traditional knowledge about polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Northwestern Alaska. Arctic 67: 523-536.

Whiteman JP, Harlow H J, Durner GM, Anderson-Sprecher R, Albeke SE, Regehr EV, Amstrup SC, Ben-David, M. 2015. Summer declines in activity and body temperature offer polar bears limited energy savings. Science, 349: 295-298.

Wiig Ø, Aars J, Born EW. 2008. Effects of climate change on polar bears. Science progress 91: 151-173.

York J, Dowsley M, Cornwell A, Kuc M, Taylor M. 2016. Demographic and traditional knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations. Ecology and evolution 6: 2897-2924.

A PDF of this SI: harvey-et-al-bioscience-2017-supplementary-information

UPDATE: Dr. Richard Tol advises in comments that the data from Harvey et al. is now available, here:

Also, some formatting corrections were made to this post, to fix double spaces and line doubling in the list of websites, which were artifacts of the PDF to HTML conversion. – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 5, 2017 11:36 am

Within sixty seconds of opening the file, I noticed that they double-counted The Daily Caller and only actually have 44 “AGW denying blogs”. Congrats, peer reviewers.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 5, 2017 12:15 pm

Did they have Caller, Daily; Caller, The Daily; etc. 🙂

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 5, 2017 10:24 pm

Yes, I noticed that AND Goddard’s site is linked to his old site, ‘RealScience,’ instead of of his new one, ‘RealClimateScience.’

Reply to  Alex (@PlancksLaw)
December 5, 2017 1:08 pm

Peer review is broken.

It’s sad to think that rubbish like this and the “consensus project” cooked up by Cook and Nuccitelli is what is referred to by the alarmists as peer reviewed scientific “literature”.

On the upside, it does indicate the level of desperation being felt by the junk scientists that they resort to such junk publishing.

The world is getting wise to their antics, hopefully.


Bill Powers
Reply to  Jc
December 5, 2017 4:40 pm

Broken or a rigged game?

Rhoda R
Reply to  Jc
December 5, 2017 8:48 pm

Did you notice that they had Discovery Kids as a science blog as well.

Peter Polson
Reply to  Jc
December 6, 2017 7:30 am

We need new terms for Warmists. Given current media focus, if we are called Deniers, I suggest they be called Data Molesters, and Climate-Model Fiddlers and Gropers.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jc
December 6, 2017 7:16 pm

The best counterpoint name (because it rhymes) is wolf-criers.

Reply to  Alex (@PlancksLaw)
December 5, 2017 1:36 pm

That makes up for not designating my website as denying AGW

Reply to  Jim Steele
December 5, 2017 2:47 pm

JS, perhaps not an oversight. They are arguing that skeptics are scientifically ignorant, and even made that claim indirectly about Susan concerningnpolar bears. Well, you are obviously scientifically literate plus a skeptic. Won’t do. Might lead their gullible readers to your excellent book. Best they pretend you and your blog do not exist.

Reply to  Jim Steele
December 5, 2017 3:11 pm

Jim ==> Try not to be hurt….I hate being left out of Climate Deniers lists too….makes me feel ineffective. I have had the pleasure of being slimmed by some of the AGW Ad Hom character assaination blogs — that cheered me up.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 5, 2017 5:10 pm

Reason could be from Google Ranking since they depended on the Google search engine to pull their lists

Reply to  Jim Steele
December 5, 2017 5:38 pm


Sorry mate, as you know, I’m not scientifically literate. I’m also not a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a child molester, a vandal, a drunk driver, a con man or a drug dealer.

But I have caught and helped convict all of the above on more than one occasion, and many more, too numerous to mention. Some of them with scientific qualifications, all extremely good at their chosen crime.

So I can smell a rat.

It doesn’t take an expert in science to know when scientists are lying, concocting a story, and framing an innocent party. Actually, with training it’s quite easy.

This attack on Susan Crockford does nothing but discredit science itself. It is, from a rat catching perspective, clumsy, vindictive, simplistic, erroneous and unscientific.

Were scientific debate not, quite rightly, excluded from criminal proceedings, I would have taken great delight in helping to convict her assailants and have them suffer draconian punishment.

In this case, public humiliation in the stocks, sadly gone, long before my time. A public caning might also be a reasonable alternative.

Warren Beeton
Reply to  Jim Steele
December 5, 2017 8:08 pm

All good scientists are skeptics, but not all skeptics are good scientists. And some are not scientists at all, but just uneducated amateurs who imagine they are scientists, but lack the expertise and comprehension to understand the depth of their ignorance.

Reply to  Jim Steele
December 6, 2017 6:31 am


I have to tell you that the point in your book about not meeting your neighbours down the supermarket for several years and therefore concluding they were dead is one of the best, poignant and funniest things ever written in this sorry saga of CAGW and polar bears. My son and I were in tears of laughter and it still makes us smile even now!

Great book, keep it up!


Reply to  Jim Steele
December 7, 2017 6:52 am

Hi Jim,

On the page you linked, the title at the top says “Cimate” where I believe you meant to put “Climate.”

December 5, 2017 11:38 am

Well, at least they spelled “Principal”, correctly here. In the peer reviewed paper, the authors, reviewers and editors had it “Principle”. (Principal Component Analysis)

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 5, 2017 11:44 am

Not just once, but both times they mentioned PCA….

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 5, 2017 11:47 am

HT Richard Tol….

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 5, 2017 12:34 pm

And they called me Dr. Susan Crockford (only once though)

M Seward
Reply to  Les Johnson
December 5, 2017 1:02 pm

Didn’t Michael Mann use Principal Components Analysis to generate his hockey schtick?

Are blogs found using Google ( and categorised as ‘AGW supporting’ or ‘AGW denying’ more or less reliable than tree rings selected for their ‘temperature’ indication as against water supply.

Reply to  M Seward
December 5, 2017 4:20 pm

Have to teach Michael Mann that Principal is your “pal” as in High School Principal…
He needs to retake HS courses…

Bryan A
Reply to  M Seward
December 5, 2017 5:16 pm

1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
“the basic principles of Christianity”
2. a fundamental source or basis of something.
“the first principle of all things was water”

[prin-suh-puh l]

1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
2. of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital:
a principal investment.
3. Geometry. (of an axis of a conic) passing through the foci.
4. a chief or head.
5. the head or director of a school or, especially in England, a college.
6. a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer

Chris Wright
Reply to  M Seward
December 6, 2017 3:42 am

Yes, Mann used PCA. It’s a form of fraud even before you get into the details.
Everyone who hadn’t reviewed the hockey stick paper (1998) reasonably assumed that the graph represented the average of the input data, and so indicated the average climate. But in fact the graph is derived from PCA, which is completely different. It is not an average. To pretend that it was an average was deceitful at best, and in a sense fraudulent.

In his analysis, Steve McIntyre took all the proxies and took a simple average of the data. Needless to say, it looked completely different. There was no hockey stick and there was a pronounced Medieval warming.
In short, Mann and his followers used PCA to fool the world.

Nigel S
Reply to  Les Johnson
December 5, 2017 2:35 pm

The one thing PCA isn’t is ‘Principled’.

December 5, 2017 11:47 am

you would be wrong if you think Crockford is the only/primary target..

– ie – main text of ‘paper’

Watts Up With That (WUWT), which consistently denies AGW and/or threats linked to it, is described as “perhaps the most visited climate website in the world,” with “more than two million unique views a month” (Pearce 2010). Other AGW-denying blogs, such as Climate Depot (CD) and Junk Science (JS), are not far behind. Many denier blogs exist and, because of cross-linking, form a large echo chamber, making them what one journalist described as “foot soldiers of AGW denial”

these are the real targets… (as was Moon Hoax, Fury (both of them) Alice paper, etc,etc)

I hadn’t quite noted how littered the paper is with ‘denier’ . ‘denier blog’ references.
oh and this..

“Despite the growing evidence in support of AGW, these blogs continue to aggressively deny the causes and/or the projected effects of AGW and to personally attack scientists who publish peer-reviewed research in the field with the aim of fomenting doubt to maintain the consensus gap.”

I hear Mann and Lewandowsky’s whinging – and their ‘framing’ – science under attack, less data transparency, etc.

December 5, 2017 11:50 am

This illustrates the kind of prejudicial language used in an attempt to reverse the truth and is another example of pathological projection. It’s really the skeptic blogs that are science conforming and the alarmist blogs that are science denying. It’s also misleading to claim that skeptical blogs don’t agree with AGW. Most scientists on both sides agree that AGW is finite and non zero. The controversy is about the absurd magnitude of the AGW effect claimed by the IPCC that turns AGW into CAGW.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 5, 2017 12:03 pm

Yes, the prejudicial wording of “Blogs were assigned ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ categories on the basis of their positions taken relative to those drawn by the IPCC on global warming” clearly eliminates any objectiveness by the authors.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 5, 2017 1:56 pm

Yes, the message is “it’s only science if you agree with my position.”

Worse than nonsense.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 5, 2017 2:21 pm

I particularly find their use of the term “science-denier” rather ludicrous.

NW sage
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 5, 2017 5:17 pm

‘science denier’ is not just lust ludicrous, it is self contradictory. “denying” science is equivalent to denying the Law of Gravity. Deny all you want, it doesn’t change gravity a bit.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 5, 2017 6:32 pm

NW sage – no such thing!

Everyone who knows me will tell you that I am a clumsy person.

Well, I’m tired of those baseless attacks. I have been very busy lately watching things fall, and making the appropriate adjustments and homogenizations for the observed effects. I also found 97 people that are in agreement with me.

There is no gravity! I am not clumsy! Things go from my hands to the floor due to anthropogenic magnetic attraction!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 5, 2017 12:08 pm

“Pathological projection” kinda sums up the modern socialist culture. Perhaps far in the future, this time will be referred to as “The Age of Pathological Projection”.

Tom O
Reply to  beng135
December 5, 2017 12:38 pm

No it will be known as “the beginning of the 2nd dark age.”

Reply to  beng135
December 5, 2017 1:20 pm

they just turning their selfies inside out

Reply to  beng135
December 5, 2017 5:22 pm

Perhaps far in the future, this time will be referred to as “The Age of Pathological Projection”.

This century’s Eugenics.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  beng135
December 6, 2017 10:25 am

and “Fossil Fools”.

michael hart
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 5, 2017 2:38 pm

Most scientists on both sides agree that AGW is finite and non zero. The controversy is about the absurd magnitude of the AGW effect claimed by the IPCC that turns AGW into CAGW.

Every time somebody condenses the truth into a short statement, I am happy to quote them. And agree.

Pat Smith
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 5, 2017 2:48 pm

Am I right in thinking that the ‘C’ in CAGW has never been defined? Examples are given of some generally bad things that might happen / are happening but are they really catastrophic? Perhaps we could at least roughly size it by comparing it with the insurance premium that is being paid to stop it happening. Dr Lomborg estimates that the world will be spending something between $1trillion and $2trillion a year between now and the end of the century to implement the Paris agreement. When you think of the good work that Bill Gates is doing with a few 10s of billions of dollars over a number of years in combating malaria, etc in Africa, what could we do with 100 times that amount of money, every year?? Wiping out all poverty and pretty much all disease in Africa? Saving 10s of millions of lives every year? Boosting education and productivity, transforming world GDP? If this starts to give some measure of what catastrophic means, then, I am sorry, whether polar bear populations have grown from 5,000 to 25,000 or are actually declining is not in the same ball park.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 3:14 pm

Yes, the biggest catastrophe is the wasted money attempting to mitigate a problem that can’t exist without violating the known laws of radiative and thermodynamic physics.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 3:34 pm

It is my general impression that the C in CAGW was originally believed to be anything > 3 K. Then around 2007-2008 with AR4 it went to >/= 2 K. Now in desperation its >1.5 K. They have to keep lowering the bar as the lower limit error bar on climate model sensitivities decrease to maintain some semblance of observation concordance.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 3:46 pm

If a phenomena will cause massive disruption, loss of life, economic meltdown, massive sea level rise, mass extinctions and leave the poles as the only place for a few breeding pairs to survive, sulphuric acid rain… I don’t really think it needs much more in the way of a definition.
That really puts the c into agw

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 3:46 pm

Bill Gates ain’t necessarily the honest climate broker and intellectual saint you think he is.
Bill Gates: We Need Socialism To Save The Planet

But his expenditures on fuel gobbling yachts to get away it all sure is impressive.

His current Mega-Yacht is priced at around $330 million, there are many credible reports he has contracted with Wally Hermes Yacht and CunardLines to produce a $1.3 to 1.4 Billion dollar masterpiece.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 4:34 pm

PS, I had some fun defining the C in CAGW in several essays in ebook Blowing Smoke. All with footnotes. Malaria in Central Park, locust plagues, famines,… even Hansen’s prediction that NYC West Side Parkway would be under water by now. Bit of a missing C even after dissecting various tipping points.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 4:56 pm

I’ve met quite a few “environmentalists” who declare that any change, if it is caused by man, is catastrophic.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 5, 2017 5:00 pm

reading the list of references to support the pca analysis it is easy to see where much of the wasted money goes. hard to believe so much tax payer cash is spent on some of that utter dross. all those years of education and that is the result, deary me.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Pat Smith
December 6, 2017 5:08 am

Pat Smith – December 5, 2017 at 2:48 pm

Am I right in thinking that the ‘C’ in CAGW has never been defined?

Pat, until recently, there never was a need or reason for the ‘C’ in CAGW to be defined, explained or excuses offered for its use.

The literal fact is, the ‘C’ in CAGW is the abbreviated descriptor for CO2 for explicitly defining the EXACT CAUSE of the specific type of anthropogenic [global] warming (AGW) being discussed.

Pat, ……. “heat islands” are another defined cause of anthropogenic [global] warming (AGW) ….. but it is not referenced often enough to bother shortening its descriptor to ….. HIAGW. And don’t forget “the same” about anthropogenic [local/regional] warming (ALW and ARW) with an included ‘C’ or ‘HI’ when needed. HA HA

Pat, because it was more often than not, a pain in der arse to type ….. “CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming” …… each and every time it was referenced, ……. it was first reduced to stating …… “CO2 causing AGW” …… and then further reduced to simply typing …. CAGW.

It just “happened” that way …. and thus never needed to be specifically defined.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 6, 2017 5:43 am

“Am I right in thinking that the ‘C’ in CAGW has never been defined? ”

I think so. Many sceptics say it means “catastrophic”. However, scientists do not appear to use “CAGW”. From my experience in other blogs and forums, the claim is usually that the term is a “denier” invention. Consequently, those who claim to support science often refuse to debate it.

They are happy to warn you of all kinds of supposed future issues that AGW will cause but they never say CAGW. It is a bit like “The Pause”. “Pause” is said to be a “denier” term while “hiatus” is most acceptable and, obviously, quite different. It is just one of the more boring, semantic ways of ignoring your argument.

Reply to  Pat Smith
December 6, 2017 7:36 am

joelobryan, Bill Gates does not own the $330M yacht. He rented it for 1 week. Big deal. And the video you posted has nothing to do with Bill Gates, his named was added to a yacht video to grab more clicks – and clearly it worked.

December 5, 2017 11:52 am

An analysis of the ownership of these blogs would be interesting exercise.

Reply to  Gary
December 5, 2017 12:55 pm

Yr: “…an analysis…”

Well, I can’t say I’ve ever performed an “analysis” of much of anything but I did once celebrate a Jeff Harvey. In particular, a hyper-energetic, credential-flashing, obsessive motor-mouth of that name once regularly contributed to the comments section of the, now defunct, Deltoid blog.

And that particular Jeff Harvey (pretty sure it’s the same guy that associated with the paper discussed in the above post) on one memorable occassion treated Deltoid-land to a self-promotional vanity-comment boasting of a winter-time traversal of a Canadian Park, named Algonquin Park, that he had undertaken. As I vaguely recall Jeff even declared his epochal hike entitled him to the claim that he was even tougher than a U. S. Marine, or some such–that’s the sort silly-shit the transparently geekball, Deltoid Jeff H was into.

But at any rate, I celebrated Jeff’s little adventure in poetry:

Algonquin’s wilds
Aimed Jeff to chart
A trek we’ll call
“Die Grosse Fahrt”

Now as Jeff though
That global warm
Wreaked everywhere
Its scary harm

He mused his stroll
Would balmy be
And planned his trip
So off set Jeff
All bright and bold
When suddenly
“Things” got real cold

But Jeff was not
At all abashed
And at the chill
Credentials flashed

“A smarty-pants
Am I and got
A model here
That says it’s hot!”
There then ensued
A merry fuss
In which Jeff proved
The eco-wuss

And lost his nerve
Just cause a nose
Picked then–“OH GREAT!!!”
To get all froze

And turning tail
Jeff nature fled
Preferring what
His model said
The moral of
This silly tale?
Must not prevail!

And so Jeff’s rout
Scored him a trough
With title grand
An “Endowed Prof”

Reply to  mike
December 5, 2017 12:58 pm

second stanza, first line should read “Now as Jeff thought (not “though”).

December 5, 2017 11:54 am

hey, its not the IPCC’s fault that polar bears are not cooperating with a “perfectly good theory.” So instead of using real polar bears, lets use model polar bears!

Reply to  joe
December 5, 2017 12:13 pm

Or the ones in the Coke commercials. 🙂

Richard of NZ
Reply to  JohnWho
December 5, 2017 5:33 pm

Or the ones in the “Bluebird” ads trying to steal the penguins potato crisps.

Reply to  JohnWho
December 6, 2017 5:46 am

“Or the ones in the “Bluebird” ads trying to steal the penguins potato crisps.”

Ursus maritimus longus armus.

Reply to  joe
December 5, 2017 2:05 pm

The model Polar Bears should be spherical with integer size ratios. This will simplify the math…

Don K
Reply to  joe
December 5, 2017 4:40 pm

Counting white, highly mobile, critters in a vast, mostly white environment is difficult. Modeling is a lot easier.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Don K
December 5, 2017 6:33 pm


Especially if the darn thing could (or will) eat you.

Reply to  joe
December 5, 2017 5:23 pm

hey, its not the IPCC’s fault that polar bears are not cooperating with a “perfectly good theory.” So instead of using real polar bears, lets use model polar bears!

We’ll start by positing spherical bears …

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
December 5, 2017 8:17 pm

We have some in captivity those need to be made to spherically confirm ASAP, the public needs to be able to trust the models.

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
December 6, 2017 4:06 am

Thy shall not ruin a perfectly good theory with facts!

Reply to  joe
December 6, 2017 3:28 am

Could always hunt the bears like we used to. That will make their numbers work just like last time.

December 5, 2017 12:07 pm

This whole ‘Hockey’ Schtick crapola about Polar bears being threatened is a total conjecture based upon future climate change happening in the Arctic that sees the habitat, ice and food supply all disappearing by 2050 or sooner. Polar bear populations are healthy, and recovering from lower counts due to previous outdated hunting pressure from years long gone by. Now the control of the hunt is strictly regulated by the Inuit, in consultation with the Federal Government of Canada. Hunting is no longer the pressure it once was.

2/3 of the worlds estimated 26,000 polar bears live in Canadian Arctic Territories, or in Hudson Bay area of Churchill, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, or Labrador. They are not in any danger…indeed their populations are growing. There never has been a threat to the Polar Bear, apart from the early unregulated hunting pressure that existed decades ago.

To blame future hypothetical climate change on the future hypothetical extinction of Polar Bears is a marketing image, and repeated ad nauseam until many people just believe and repeat what they heard. Witness Griff here. This why so many people are beginning to identify with a skeptic position on a lot of this CAGW nonsense. It really is no different than a perpetual hypochondriac making claims that they are sick and dying.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Earthling2
December 5, 2017 1:13 pm

The story of the polar bear is far more complex than the advocates of AGW will admit, Same with skeptics of AGW (who are different from the skeptics of GW, though the AGW advocates lack the intelligence to distiquish the two groups).

The skeptics of AGW will point to the fact the polar bear population is up to approx 26,000 vs the 10k when hunting was stopped.

The advocates of AGW will point to the lower weight and lower strength levels of the polar bears. Though this is a common problem when any animal species becomes overpopulated.

A better comparison would be the polar bear population circa 1850-1890 vs today along with a comparison of natural habitat and food sources. However data doesnt exist in sufficient detail to reach any conclusion. Yet the advocates project catastrophy based on very incomplete date. – becasue global warming causes everything.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Tom13 - the non climate scientist
December 5, 2017 1:43 pm

“A better comparison would be the polar bear population circa 1850-1890 vs today along with a comparison of natural habitat and food sources. However data doesnt exist in sufficient detail to reach any conclusion.”

Actually there is “data.” There are many historical journals kept by Arctic explorers and in most areas they traveled polar bears were rare to nonexistent. Why? Because the Innuit people could not ‘coexist’ with them so, often with the help of dogs, they killed them all the time.

To use one obvious example, think of the hunters waiting patiently at a hole for a seal to emerge. That takes immense concentration. They couldn’t be doing that if they had to worry about a polar bear sneaking up on them. They couldn’t cache food for the winter – which they did – with polar bears around (see Churchill Manitoba dump). Etc., etc.

Thus the places where polar bears were found were the areas between tribal territories where people did not hunt. It is interesting to note that the polar bears of Hudson’s Bay were known to the fur traders in ca. 1800 (e.g. David Thompson and earlier) but that is an atypical situation for polar bears and indigenous people for a lot of reasons.

So not only are there more polar bears now than in the 1960s, there are almost certainly far more than any time since humans colonized the Arctic.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Tom13 - the non climate scientist
December 5, 2017 1:56 pm

Extreme – I think we agree on the primary points – which is
A) the data doesnt exist to reach any conclusion as to the future of the polar bear population.
B) any attribution or demise due to GW is pure speculation

December 5, 2017 12:10 pm

“Despite the growing evidence in support of AGW, these blogs continue to aggressively deny the causes and/or the projected effects of AGW and to personally attack scientists who publish peer-reviewed research in the field with the aim of fomenting doubt to maintain the consensus gap”

Name Calling
Consensus fallacy
Opinion without cause

This passed peer review………. gargle

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 5, 2017 5:11 pm

indeed . i also take umbrage at the use of the phrase “personally attack”. most of those of an academic bent (apologies to the many on here) have no idea what a “personal attack” actually entails. i once had a rather heated conversation with someone that accused me of a “personal attack”. he was left in no uncertain terms that my personal definition of “personal attack” was the person i was personally attacking lying on the ground with a bloody nose. anyone taking words of disagreement as a “personal attack” needs to grow the f**k up and or grow a set.

to be clear, the first time i encounter any individual that labels me a “denier” face to face, they will find out what “personal attack” really means. academia is fine for wars or words, the school of hard knocks and a few years boxing is a different reality altogether.

a wise man once said, the pen is mightier than the sword right up until the point someone is hitting you over the head with a sword.these upset “academics” would do well to remember that when it comes to bullying fellow academics that obviously have more integrity in a toe nail clipping than the entire bunch of clowns that contributed to this “paper”.

December 5, 2017 12:15 pm

What universe are these authors on? Just using the word “denier” should disqualify this rag from being considered a peer reviewed scientific paper. How about putting it at the grocery store checkout line with the National Enquirer. This is such total garbage, I thought it was self parody.

Does the establishment want to know why skepticism runs rampant? They should reflect on the mentality that created this political document.

I’ve never once allowed the polar bear population to influence my judgement about AGW. There are too many other variables at play. When the AMO turns, what are they going to do then? Sorry, but it makes me believe the authors have never taken the time to evaluate the totality of the evidence about AGW. Setting aside the Arctic, there are still innumerable reasons why one has to be skeptical about the doom and gloom scenarios.

Reply to  cerescokid
December 5, 2017 1:02 pm

U a agree about the “rag” thing. As soon as I read, ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’, it was over for me. It doesn’t deserve even the future analysis that Anthony promises.

Reply to  cerescokid
December 5, 2017 5:12 pm

+1. well said cerescokid.

December 5, 2017 12:17 pm

Susan’s main polar bear point was always that they did not depend on summer sea ice. Most of their feeding is on spring ice during the seal whelping season. No one claimed spring ice was going to disappear. Amstrup, Sterling, Derocher alarm was always based on bad biology independent of AGW. The fact that polar bear numbers are up not down is just another comfirmation of their bad science.
That the SI contains mistakes shows a rushed thru pal review hatchet job for what it is.

Reply to  ristvan
December 5, 2017 12:34 pm

ristvan, it is easy to look up the information on known eating habits of Polar Bears such as this one:

Polar Bear Diet

“Because the polar bear’s body requires a diet based on large amounts of seal fat, they are the most carnivorous member of the bear family.

Food can be hard to come by for polar bears for much of the year. The bear puts on most of its yearly fat reserves between late April and mid-July to maintain its weight in the lean seasons.”

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 5, 2017 12:40 pm

Polar bears are opportunist eaters. They will eat virtually any animal or carcass live to no matter how long dead.

WWF is an absurd source for claims. WWF’s entire purpose if to convince people to donate money that is then used for WWF purposes, not science or conservation.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 5, 2017 2:37 pm

I chose WWF because they are what they are, but the basic statement they made is correct. You are correct that they will eat other things besides Seal,but those other foods often do not provide the needed high fat levels the Bears need.

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 5, 2017 4:48 pm

Yes the WWF. Everyone remember when one of their extortion devices was to offer the public the chance to sponsor a polar bear? They were milking their charismatic value full tilt. Now, not so much, because even they couldn’t lie enough about in the face of all the good news about their population without damaging their brand too much. When you think of the WWF, just think of Prince Charles – that says it all.

Sunset – No doubt that polar bears are the most carnivorous and predatory bears… because there is so little plant food in their habitat. But they opportunistically will eat whatever edible plants they can find. Also, they don’t “maintain their weight in the lean seasons,” they lose weight.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 6, 2017 7:32 am

“Sunsettommy December 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm
I chose WWF because they are what they are, but the basic statement they made is correct. You are correct that they will eat other things besides Seal,{sic}but those other foods often do not provide the needed high fat levels the Bears need.”

Utterly false.

wwf, not only invents their fantasies, they happily include claims by the fake polar bear researchers. Making their “statements” badly prepared bogus fact soups .
wwf prepares their fake polar bear, Arctic sea ice, etc. news releases to solely spur donations; not provide accurate science. Amstrup followed exactly that scenario when filming his polar bear International announcements earlier this year.

Seals may be the best polar bear food for quick weight gains, Then again, whales and other Arctic creatures are also ideal polar bear foods.
But polar bears eat other creatures including geese and waterfowl that are plenty nutritious and fatty. What’s more is that polar bears eat these other creatures during seasons where polar bears do not have access to seals.

Proof is that during the Arctic’s sea ice cyclical minima, polar bears prospered and multiplied.

NB; Amstrup and Stirling along with some of these other authors are the researchers caught pretending to “survey” polar bears. Instead, they “made up” their numbers, allowing these alleged researchers to provide gloomy population estimates.

“The largest conservation organization in the world says that predictive models developed by polar bear biologist Steven Amstrup are utterly unsuitable for scientifically estimating future populations. Earlier this year, mathematical modeling experts at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, who maintain the Red List of Threatened Species, made it clear that Amstrup’s models (used in 2008 to convince the US Fish and Wildlife Service to list polar bears as ‘threatened’ due to predicted global warming) do not meet IUCN standards.

I’d say this makes Amstrup’s polar bear projections (Amstrup et al. 2008, 2010) no more scientifically useful than a crystal ball prophesy, but you wouldn’t know it by his recent actions — or the silence of his fellows”

Alleged researchers who rarely actually work in various Arctic environments, besides using their flawed models, are deaf and blind to those people who actually live, work and play in the Arctic environment.

Guest post by Jim Steele “How ‘science’ counts bears
The Inuit claim “it is the time of the most polar bears.” By synthesizing their community’s observations they have demonstrated a greater accuracy counting Bowhead whales and polar bears than the models of credentialed scientists. To estimate correctly, it takes a village. In contrast the “mark and recapture” study, which claimed the polar bears along South Beaufort Sea were victims of catastrophic global warming and threatened with extinction, relied on the subjective decisions of a handful of modelers.

In mark and recapture studies, the estimate of population abundance is skewed by the estimate of survival. For example, acknowledging the great uncertainty in his calculations of survival, in his earlier studies polar beat expert Steven Amstrup reported three different population estimates for bears along the South Beaufort Sea.”

Bogus polar bear estimates used by the involved researchers as a funding source are then overstated by a global organization actively conning donations from insular internally conflicted people who preferentially believe dire claims.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 6, 2017 8:12 am

Unlike the occasional Arctic wandering surveys conducted by the scam artists; this polar bear research actively collects bear scat to analyze the bear diets.

“Dietary composition and spatial patterns of polar bear foraging on land in western Hudson Bay.

Gormezano LJ1, Rockwell RF.
Flexible foraging strategies, such as prey switching, omnivory and food mixing, are key to surviving in a labile and changing environment. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in western Hudson Bay are versatile predators that use all of these strategies as they seasonally exploit resources across trophic levels. Climate warming is reducing availability of their ice habitat, especially in spring when polar bears gain most of their annual fat reserves by consuming seal pups before coming ashore in summer. How polar bears combine these flexible foraging strategies to obtain and utilize terrestrial food will become increasingly important in compensating for energy deficits from lost seal hunting opportunities. We evaluated patterns in the composition of foods in scat to characterize the foraging behaviors that underpin the diet mixing and omnivory observed in polar bears on land in western Hudson Bay. Specifically, we measured diet richness, proportions of plant and animal foods, patterns in co-occurrence of foods, spatial composition and an index of temporal composition.

Scats contained between 1 and 6 foods, with an average of 2.11 (SE = 0.04). Most scats (84.9%) contained at least one type of plant, but animals (35.4% of scats) and both plants and animals occurring together (34.4% of scats) were also common. Certain foods, such as Lyme grass seed heads (Leymus arenarius), berries and marine algae, were consumed in relatively higher proportions, sometimes to the exclusion of others, both where and when they occurred most abundantly. The predominance of localized vegetation in scats suggests little movement among habitat types between feeding sessions. Unlike the case for plants, no spatial patterns were found for animal remains, likely due the animals’ more vagile and ubiquitous distribution.

Our results suggest that polar bears are foraging opportunistically in a manner consistent with maximizing intake while minimizing energy expenditure associated with movement. The frequent mixing of plant-based carbohydrate and animal-based protein could suggest use of a strategy that other Ursids employ to maximize weight gain. Further, consuming high rates of certain vegetation and land-based animals that may yield immediate energetic gains could, instead, provide other benefits such as fulfilling vitamin/mineral requirements, diluting toxins and assessing new foods for potential switching”

Imagine that!
Polar bears are functioning omnivores!?
As proven by their scat, not meal interrupting occasional transient urbanites.
comment image

Terrestrial predation by polar bears: not just a wild goose chase
D. T. Iles, S. L. Peterson, L. J. Gormezano, D. N. Koons, R. F. Rockwell
Although polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are specialist predators of seal pups on the Arctic ice pack, the use of terrestrial food sources during the ice-free period has received increased attention in recent years in light of climate predictions. Across a 10-day period of observation, we documented between four and six individual polar bears successfully capture at least nine flightless lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) and engage in at least eight high-speed pursuits of geese.”

Where does wwf reference these studies?
Even the NYtimes has published some of these results… Though the deluded never appear to see them.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 7, 2017 12:12 am

“The bear puts on most of its yearly fat reserves between late April and mid-July …”

So two-thirds of that period is in the spring, which runs from late March to late June.

Reply to  ristvan
December 5, 2017 12:36 pm

I believe part of Susan’s recent criticisms was about Amstrup’s and Sterling’s grandstanding after ice had already formed this year and polar bears had already moved out on the ice.

Amstrup’s planned filming was to highlight the alleged lack of ice that endangers the polar bears. Finding that the ice had formed earlier this year and that polar bears were already on the ice were inconvenient facts to Amstrup who was grandstanding on predicted polar bear disaster scenarios and donations from the gullible.

Thus Amstrup’s 2017 propaganda film is full of false statements.

Susan’s common sense observations and facts are making things inconvenient to Amstrup by educating Amstrup’s hypnotized donors.

Reply to  ristvan
December 5, 2017 12:40 pm

I agree. I think this was put together over a very short time period very recently, even if the co-authors discussed doing something like this months ago.

Something happened that rushed it forward. I have an inkling of what it might have been – something that happened in September – but it’s third hand knowledge I can’t confirm.

Reply to  susanjcrockford
December 6, 2017 8:58 am

Thank you, Dr. Crockford!

Thank you, for standing up for rigorous science; against false science.
Thank you, for standing up to these climate bullies and thugs!

Collusive frauds like this alleged research should be prosecuted.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  ristvan
December 5, 2017 3:18 pm

In many journals, SI’s are not reviewed per policy.

December 5, 2017 12:17 pm

Note that “[m]issing values were replaced by zero after scaling and centering to minimize the influence of the replacement.”

Replacing missing observations with zeros is a sure way to bias a PCA. Michael Mann’s adventures in linear statistics continue.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
December 5, 2017 12:24 pm

Now we know why Mann was an author. It was to lend his PCA ‘competency’ as revealed by McIntyre.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  ristvan
December 5, 2017 3:20 pm

suggested errata: “…PCA ‘competency’ ‘duplicity’ as revealed…”

December 5, 2017 12:21 pm

Now there was I thinking that scientific research was all about facts, and not what blogs said what!

Meanwhile, those pesky polar bears keep on breeding!

Bloke down the pub
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 1:23 pm

If they used Google to search for sceptic websites, it’s surprising that they found 45(or 44).

Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 2:58 pm

Happy to see you made the list of deplorables.

*Not a lot of people know that (

This is red meat for the likes Delingpole and Booker.

Reply to  clipe
December 5, 2017 3:19 pm

This is red meat for the likes of Delingpole and Booker.

December 5, 2017 12:27 pm

Their CAGW consensus questions:

Arctic ice extent is declining = science based.
Those that question Arctic ice is still declining are labeled as d*****s.

Polar bears are threatened by AGW = science based
Those that claim polar bears are unthreatened and increasing in population are labeled as d*****s.

They’ve reversed the meaning and concepts of what science is, means, how it is derived, and how science is advanced.

The paper is definitely anti-science, anti-scientific methods and condemns everyone/anyone who isn’t a consensus team player.

Every person who signed that despotic paper should be drummed out of science/research as absolutely contrary to proper science and scientific methods.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 5, 2017 12:42 pm

Here, here!

Roger Knights
Reply to  susanjcrockford
December 7, 2017 12:19 am

The cry is “hear, hear,” meaning “ditto” or “right on!”/”right-O” or “+1” etc.

Roger Knights
Reply to  susanjcrockford
December 7, 2017 1:11 am

PS: Another I agree term similar to those above is “^this”

Reply to  ATheoK
December 5, 2017 12:57 pm

Absolutely agree with your last sentence. They make a mockery of so-called climate science. How low they have stooped.

michael hart
Reply to  cerescokid
December 5, 2017 2:59 pm

Don’t think they won’t go lower. That is something we must all learn. My emotions tell me I like to hope they won’t. My intellect tells me they will.

Reply to  cerescokid
December 6, 2017 6:28 am

Right to the bottom. Any group calling themselves “scientists” that list Think Progress as a science-based blog has already hit bottom.

tony mcleod
Reply to  ATheoK
December 5, 2017 2:58 pm

“Arctic ice extent is declining = science based.
Those that question Arctic ice is still declining are labeled as d*****s.”

Because that it seems is what they are. Nailed it.

Cite one, just one, single shred of scientific evidence that it is otherwise.

Start here

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 3:24 pm

You seem to mistake multi-decadal cyclical trends for short term linear trends. It is a common climate artifice.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 3:34 pm

“Cite one, just one, single shred of scientific evidence that it is otherwise.”

How far back do you want to go?

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 11:15 pm

comment image

DATA, Mc Clod. !!

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 6, 2017 6:50 am

“tony mcleod December 5, 2017 at 2:58 pm

“Arctic ice extent is declining = science based.
Those that question Arctic ice is still declining are labeled as d*****s.”

Because that it seems is what they are. Nailed it.

Cite one, just one, single shred of scientific evidence that it is otherwise.

Start here

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see. Attributed to Matthew Henry”

McClode is as delusional as ever; refusing to see, refusing to listen, refusing to learn.

One also notes that McClode fails to actually read and understand the links he provides. From Anthony’s WUWT Sea Ice page:comment image

Historically, Arctic sea has been observed at low extents and high extents. None of which have been “observed” scientifically, since the Arctic is such a deadly environment. Far more deadly than any tropical area on Earth.

Introduce the satellite era, and suddenly there are better Arctic observations.
Combining and quantifying global sea ice measurements couple with historical writings emphasizes that polar ice waxes and wanes cyclically. Annual hemispheric cycles operate within longer cycles, observed in detail for a small portion of one cycle.

It is a quite typical alarmist selective blindness that after predicting both poles will warm significantly; they then focus on the one pole whose long term cycle is in wane, completely ignoring that pole at the opposite end of Earth. Unless, i.e., they can hyperventilate about trivial sea ice breakups or iceberg calvings.

In order to hyperventilate these polar changes requires that alarmists, e.g. McClode, accept fake temperature claims while completely overlooking the failure of either pole to significantly warm above freezing.
Antarctica’s ice accretion is ignored.
The Arctic’s sea ice failure to melt completely; in spite of rather frequent ice free Arctic predictions.
The Arctic’s sea ice melt cycle bottoming in 2007.
The Arctic’s reversal from earlier breakups/later freeze ups to later ice break ups and earlier freeze ups.
The recent Antarctic cyclical change to less sea ice, matching Arctic’s increasing sea ice.

As Amstrup’s refusal this year to admit that many polar bears had already moved out onto sea ice significantly earlier this year than previous years. Amstrup’s scripted news announcements pretended that polar bears were still restricted to remaining on land.
The trouble really is, that only activists could pretend there wasn’t sufficient sea ice. Polar bears, people, including tourists, scientists, and journalists could easily see the sea ice and the bears leaving land…
So inconvenient.
comment image

Just when during the annual Arctic temperature cycle is all of that sea ice supposed to melt?

McClode refuses to note that for a significant portion of the annual cycle it is plenty cold enough to freeze sea water. What little temperature increases are noted, are well below sea water freeze temperatures.
Nor is the Arctic summer’s warm period and cycle significantly warmer. It has consistently tracked very close to normal summer temperatures, in spite of active NOAA temperature ‘adjustments’.

Apparently, Matthew Henry was writing about people like McClode and it’s trollop buddies:

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.

December 5, 2017 12:31 pm

BTW – the first sentence of the Abstract is unsustainable:

Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world.

As any half competent climatologist will tell you, temperatures in the Arctic are broadly the same as they were in the 1930s and 40s.
Similarly, Arctic sea ice retreated rapidly during those years.

In the 1960s to 80s, the Arctic underwent rapid cooling, and the ice grew much too quickly for comfort. (Iceland knew it as the Sea Ice years).

And guess what?

None of this had anything at all to do with AGW, and everything to do with the AMO, a natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that has been occurring for millennia.

Such a plainly fallacious Abstract would normally disqualify the Paper from any serious consideration.

Perhaps I should also add that a certain Mickey Mann is one of the authors. Enough said?

Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 12:43 pm

” any half competent climatologist will tell you, temperatures in the Arctic are broadly the same as they were in the 1930s and 40s.”

really? now you trust temperature records?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 5, 2017 2:39 pm

Steve, you were shown other evidence besides temperature to show it was warming and melting in the 30’s and 40’s.

Why do you constantly forget so much?

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 5, 2017 2:56 pm

“Why do you constantly forget so much?”

Because sometimes it is very convenient to ‘forget.’

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 5, 2017 3:49 pm

“really? now you trust temperature records?”

Who said they trusted temperature records?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 6, 2017 12:30 am

You guys got hijacked by the left/green politics Steven. They don’t trust you because mix science with politics and in most countries we don’t allow police to be judiciary for very similar reasons. The field has been stupid from start to end and now it is getting belted by the public.

You want to blame anyone for the position you guys have got the whole field into, then look squarely at the scientist/activists because they are the equivalent of the old hanging judge.

No they don’t trust you or the climate science system and your problem is you need their support and votes.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
December 6, 2017 7:41 am

Sunsettommy said: “Steve, you were shown other evidence besides temperature to show it was warming and melting in the 30’s and 40’s.

Why do you constantly forget so much?”

Why do you ignore his main point? That surface temperature measurements are trotted out as reliable when it suits skeptics, then called unreliable, incomplete, or altered when it does not.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 12:44 pm

Exactly. Warmer temperatures may be evidence of global warming but they’re not evidence of “anthropogenic” warming. A ten-year-old can see the differemce.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 1:28 pm

“None of this had anything at all to do with AGW, and everything to do with the AMO, a natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that has been occurring for millennia.”

Of course the models missed pause because the AMO & PDO were natural cycles that were not predictible – per M Mann’s 2015/2016 study

Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 5, 2017 1:36 pm

and everything to do with the AMO…

Just so I’m clear on the concept……almost all of the ice is not exposed to air temps or surface…90% under water….and the North Atlantic Current (AMO) is the only body of water that flows directly into the Arctic sea…..and when the AMO is warmer, ice melts more


December 5, 2017 12:44 pm

Remember the poor polly bear stuck on the top of a ‘disappearing’ icebergcomment image
Well, the enviro-do-goodies got ‘im and stuffed ‘im, as you can see here displayed on a mock iceberg for eternity, in the Calgary’s airport arrival luggage reclaim hall.

December 5, 2017 12:45 pm

Over on Twitter, Lonny Eachus spotted this:
“Author’s positions in papers were scored in in same “position space” defined by binary answers to the six statements formulated in the main papers and citation of Dr. Susan Crockford as an expert.”

That is, if you cite Crockford you are a denier. They then conclude that only deniers cite Crockford.

December 5, 2017 12:49 pm

If you ever want a scatter plot to look very concentrated around a desired spot, this paper tells you one way to do it:
1. Missing values were replaced by zero after scaling and centering
2. Datapoint were slightly jittered to improve visibility of overlapping points.

December 5, 2017 12:50 pm

Strange to class professional media outlets such as The Daily Caller and Breitbart as ‘blogs’. Are the BBC & the Guardian ‘blogs’ as well?

December 5, 2017 1:00 pm

This is what counts as research now? Do a google search and mark the results as agrees/disagrees with what I like?

Patrick B
Reply to  PaulH
December 5, 2017 2:25 pm

“But wheah’s the necessity? It seems an uncommonly woundabout and hopelessly wigmawolish method of getting anywheahs. Look heah, now, I’ve got the wuhks of all the old mastahs the gweat ahchaeologists of the past. I wigh them against each othah balance the disagweements analyze the conflicting statements decide which is pwobably cowwect and come to a conclusion. That is the scientific method.”

– Lord Dorwin in Foundation by Asimov

December 5, 2017 1:01 pm
Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 5, 2017 4:08 pm

and there’s is “Advocacy for Animals” as well.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 5, 2017 4:10 pm

and there is “Gizmodo” …

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 6, 2017 4:16 am

Visualization of CAGW ‘Peer Review’ ……?

Mark Whitney
December 5, 2017 1:03 pm

The paper is truly precious. I chuckle since it shows just how desperate they are. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…”

December 5, 2017 1:11 pm

‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ …………….lost my train of thought right there

December 5, 2017 1:17 pm

From the Harvey, et al., BioScience paper—

“Moreover, scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.” “Because this evidence is so overwhelming, it would be virtually impossible to debunk;..”

I recently got and am just preparing a response to Sigma Xi’s (The Scientific Research Honor Society) solicitation for funds. I have long been a member and even have a research award. The Sigma Xi Executive Director states–
“Together, we have stepped out of our comfort zone to: Protect critical research from budget cuts; Defend our international colleagues from discrimination; Petition for the use of science in policy” It emphasized “Excellence in research communications” and (making) “science policy stronger. ” My response will include the Harvey paper as an example of communication, and am open to suggestions.

I did note that the BioScience paper had the statistically suspect Anderegg, et al., paper in the references, but did not see it cited in the text. Was this their guide? Also note this was “Editor’s Choice.” This may be BioScience, but it is not biology.

Reply to  HDHoese
December 5, 2017 5:04 pm

“Moreover, scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.” “Because this evidence is so overwhelming, it would be virtually impossible to debunk;..”

So the evidence is overwhelming yet they feel like they have to battle for public opinion.

If they had some evidence, I would be on their side, along with every other reasonable person, but they don’t have any evidence. Just claiming they do doesn’t make it so.

They should produce some of this overwhelming evidence some time.

December 5, 2017 1:53 pm

I suspect the same sorting of the 89 would result in the same grouping if instead of dividing by CAGW skepticism the authors made two piles based on blog post censorship practices.

December 5, 2017 2:01 pm

As many have pointed out, the lack of actual science and extremely obvious bias in this paper is obvious evidence of the lengths the CAGW ™ cabal will go to in order to discredit any view that challenges their beloved consensus.

What I think it’s more telling, however, is the almost revered acceptance of papers like this and the various ‘consensus’ papers (97%, anyone?) by anyone holding a left-leaning political view. I have seen almost no critical thinking of analysis from even well-educated and intelligent people. I’m sure the MSM is partly, or possible mainly, to blame, but this is my main observation and the cause of my deep worry about the whole CAGW ™ fiasco.

I despair for humanity if this continues. Global Governance will likely ensure, and humanity will be damned to be ruled by idiots like the authors, reviewers and publishers of papers like these.

December 5, 2017 2:04 pm

This has got to hurt, no wonder the crescendo is increasing.
Delingpole: #Winning – Grant Applications for ‘Climate Change’ down 40 Percent

bill billson
December 5, 2017 2:05 pm

I spent about one month on gregladen,com, debating
Professor Jeff Harvey and his fellow radical, Enviro bots.

They had a number of common traits.

1) you were always wrong
2) profanity
3) ad hominem attacks
4) your references are racists and hatemongers
5) the academic credential were insufficient to dispute AGW
6) you are a denier
7) attack your religiosity
8) disdain for free enterprise and Conservatives

Comments then can under moderation and links were
censored and removed by site owner, Greg Laden.

Just denounce their deity, Al “I want to be something” Gore
and they will hate and despise, until the end time.

When you ask them for a solution (yes, there is AGW how
do we fix it) it fell on deaf ears.

They are full of themselves, especially Professor Harvey, a
bonafide elitist of the first order.

They are doomers; no joy in their hearts; bitter to the
core; lacking any sense of humor and arrogant to
the point of contempt.

It is no wonder, that public opinion has turned
on this Enviro tribe.

December 5, 2017 2:09 pm

Over on Twitter, Lonny Eachus spotted this:
“Author’s positions in papers were scored in in same “position space” defined by binary answers to the six statements formulated in the main papers and citation of Dr. Susan Crockford as an expert.”

This is backed-up by the data: Citing Crockford is indeed a perfect predictor of being labelled with the D-word.

Circular logic. The paper assumes that C implies D, and concludes that D implies C.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
December 6, 2017 4:00 am

More generally, the “consensus” tends to cite only a subset of all the facts. Those doubtful or suspicious of the consensus tend to cite the “unhelpful” facts. It ain’t rocket science.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
December 7, 2017 1:13 am

“Circular logic. The paper assumes that C implies D, and concludes that D implies C.”

That’s actually what’s called “affirming the consequent” or “modus ponens”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
December 7, 2017 1:15 am

Hear, hear!

December 5, 2017 2:18 pm

The data reveal another problem. There are not 6 statements. There are only 2.

The first three statements are about the ice, and mutually exclusive. That is, there is a perfect negative correlation.

The last three statements are about the bears, and mutually exclusive.

A PCA is therefore pointless. The fact that the first two components explain only 91.5% of the variance is due to the noise introduced by the faulty treatment of the missing observations.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
December 5, 2017 2:58 pm

RT, more evidence that Mann oversaw the PCA. He is in a class by himself when it comes to PCA competency, as McIntyre has repeatedly shown.

Reply to  Richard Tol (@RichardTol)
December 5, 2017 3:28 pm

It might be a good idea to point this out to the Journal and suggest a correction or retraction. Yes I know it won’t be published, but you could then publish it and embarrass the Journal.

alastair Gray
December 5, 2017 2:48 pm

Mikie Mann is dangerous with a Principal component Analysis methodology. Hockey sticks, Antarctic warming and now proof that the skeptic blogosphere is a concerted conspiracy on his whited sepulchre are conjured out of his febrile imagination. Giving Mann a PCA package is like giving a climate communication psychologist a stats package or giving a gun to a serial killer. The good news is that sometimes they shoot themselves in the foot – hopefully the one that is in their mouths

Nigel S
December 5, 2017 2:51 pm

‘Man Proposes, God Disposes’, Edwin Landseer (the mast was added as a reference to Sir John Franklin’s failed expedition to find the North West Passage in 1845). Polar bears tearing at a Red Ensign and human remains. (Red Ensign wasn’t used by Royal Navy in 1845 so a possible blooper by Landseer.)
comment image

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Nigel S
December 5, 2017 5:51 pm

My research suggest 1864 was the date that the R.N. stopped using red or blue ensigns as well as white ensigns. The choice of the colour depended on the naval squadron and/or seniority of the commanding admiral.

Nigel S
Reply to  Richard of NZ
December 5, 2017 11:57 pm

Thanks, the perils of ‘Wiki’! Shows what’s great about this site.

tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 3:05 pm

And yet it continues to abruptly melt.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 3:23 pm

Interestingly, sea ice melted more during most of the last 10,000 years, with recent melting only slightly less advanced than during the Little Ice Age. How did those polar bears survive for millennia with so much less ice?

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 3:31 pm

Actually it decreased up to 2007, for the last decade it has been virtually unchanged.

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 5, 2017 11:18 pm

DATA says you are , as always, mistaken. Mc Clod
comment image

Reply to  tony mcleod
December 7, 2017 3:07 pm

in summertime.

December 5, 2017 3:09 pm

As stated in the research, Crockford is not cited as an author of any of the papers that actual deal with polar bears.

Reply to  David Dirkse
December 6, 2017 7:29 am

People tend not to cite authors who disagree with them unless their paper is intended on rebutting their arguments. That’s why you end up with scientific consensus, mutual cross-referencing, self-referencing and “pal” review.

Science only moves on when some new kid points out the emperor has no clothes. Or the old guard retire and/or die. Science progresses one funeral at a time.

Its just human nature. No-one likes to admit they were wrong.

Roger Knights
Reply to  David Dirkse
December 7, 2017 1:24 am

Crockford is not a polar bear specialist, but is an expert in related fields. She has read all the relevant polar bear “literature,” I assume. Thus, she is in a position to make informed criticism. It’s common wisdom that it’s not uncommon for scientists outside a specialty to provide worthwhile input and a fresh viewpoint..

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
December 7, 2017 2:41 am

PS: Therefore, it was not necessarily a weighty objection to say, “She’s an outsider.” It depends. That should have been obvious to Harvey et al..

As for her not publishing in “the literature,” maybe that’s the fault of the literature.

John V. Wright
December 5, 2017 3:16 pm

“ Blogs were assigned ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ categories on the basis of their positions taken relative to those drawn by the IPCC on global warming “.
Astounding, absolutely astounding. And written with, apparently, no trace of irony.
You can smell the fear and desperation even on this side of the pond. And the sound of warmists shooting themselves in the foot is echoing around the world. THIS is peer-reviewed science ?!
A toe-curlingly embarrassing document.

December 5, 2017 3:16 pm

This is funny 😂.
The free peoples of the world know how to deal with fasc1sts including the eco- type.
Bring it on!
They will come to a sticky end in Russia 🇷🇺 .

December 5, 2017 3:17 pm

Anthony/Moderator ==> i like the new “Leave a reply…” intro statement…. kh

December 5, 2017 3:23 pm

Some of those ‘denial’ sites aren’t climate blogs. American Thinker for example.

Reply to  MikeN
December 5, 2017 3:42 pm

I don’t think Breitbart is a climate blog either.

Joe Prins
December 5, 2017 3:37 pm

Not being a scientist by any stretch, I do notice some names in the CAGW list: references used in the PCA. In fact, a quick counting: Armstrup, SC mentioned in 19 papers; Stirling, I, in 27, Douglas, DC., IN 4 and Derocher, AE., IN 22 papers. Now I do understand that these so called scientists are mostly blabbering about their own field, but it seems to me that if one reads, eg, Derocher, it would be immediately obvious to cognoscenti on which side of the CAGW fence he was sitting. What were they thinking? Citing their own work or of their students almost exclusively?
And these are “revered scientists?”
Hang in there, Dr. Susan. Liked your ” Eaten ” very much.

December 5, 2017 3:53 pm

Its clear that Crockford loves Polar bears and would give a lot to see them prosper. I will concede that the greens also have an equal ambition
But..she conducts herself in an exemplary fashion, they seem to me to be a seedy bunch

December 5, 2017 4:57 pm

Have been discussing this at ATTP’s
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial
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 Michael E. Mann.

A star studded line up to attack one person, or should I say woman?
Yes. Why not, it is late 2017 after all. I guess they did the paper before Harvey.
They need to attach her.
Ragnaar says:
“I Googled this: population polar bears Crockford gets hits 2, 3 and 4.”

For what it is worth I totally agree with Joshua and Steven on this in their first comments.

The paper is a statement of the obvious. If AGW, ice all melts and polar bears die. Logic impeccable for warmists.
However, If AGW is denied, if ice melt is denied, then polar bears live. Logic impeccable for denialists.

Hence the problem, how many polar bear specialists are there? Like one does not get up real close and friendly like gorillas in the mist. How many reports on numbers are there and how reliable?
Ragnaar again
“There’s is a lack of data. I looked at a few maps, and there are large unknown areas.”

Then there is this
“A boatload of tourists in the far eastern Russian Arctic thought they were seeing clumps of ice on the shore, before the jaw-dropping realisation that some 200 polar bears were roaming on the mountain slope.”.
Perhaps it was fake news. Perhaps 1 litter of 200 babies was born in this area last year.
All I can think of is that if one extrapolates out 200 bears in 1 square kilometer then the number of Polar bears in the Arctic has been sadly and badly underestimated by everyone , including Dr S Crockford.

It is good to see Jeff Harvey put up his perspective on his paper at ATTP’s. Very well worth reading by anyone here who wants more input into the ideas behind the paper
A few comments for consideration
The article was never about the science.
It was about the *direction the planet is going in and how to save it.
Consequently the aim of the paper

[JH]“My final point. Our paper was about scientific transparency and integrity ”
“one of the major aims of the paper was to advise general readers not to take at face value what they read on blogs.”
was lost in the execution which resulted in
“Instead they accuse us of ad hominem smears of Susan Crockford and leave it at that. They can dish it out but can’t take it.”
This was the “insight” moment for me of his discussion

“[I] and the other authors had the courage to show that blogs which habitually dismiss climate change-related threats to polar bears do not refer to the primary literature but to a blogger that disagrees with the primary literature, and not through scientific journals but through her blog.”

Instead of dismissing a scientist as a mere blogger the intent of the article would have been best achieved by providing the data on Polar Bear numbers, distribution and time changes, real and known firstly extrapolated secondly and then addressing the scientist bloggers extrapolations and conclusions and scientifically, with transparency and clarity, proving her wrong.
Can the paper be redone with this aim?

December 6, 2017 12:44 am

polar bears engendered species?
comment image.
and close upcomment image
not likely
Polar bears are usually solitary animals, but here Rodney Russ, leader of the expedition estimated there were 230 of them, so if polar bears are engendered species where did they come from?
(photographed at Wrangel Island Nature Reserve)

bill billson
Reply to  vukcevic
December 6, 2017 6:24 am

Here is Professor Harvey response to the claim that
Polar bears are not suffering declining numbers.

“November 20, 2017 at 2:55 pm
I must wade in here. I have been reading BB’s bilge for a few months now, and as utterly vile it all is, he reached new depths with his completely vacuous attack on Al Gore. Truth be told, Gore has more integrity in the fingernail of his left pinky than Donald Trump or any of his goons have in their whole bodies. Each of those memes he listed can be summarily quashed, but let’s focus on the Arctic and polar bear lies he spews as I have a paper coming out very soon which in part examines this. You will all know about it very soon.

There has been no ‘major refreezing’ in the Arctic; indeed by the end of this month ice extent there will in all likelihood be the 2nd lowest for this time of the year after 2016. As for polar bears, numbers are meaningless unless placed in the context of the age structure of the population, the per capita fitness of individual bears, and importantly the projected effects of a continuation in the seasonal decline of ice extent based on extrapolated trends. First of all, the age-structure of many of the populations is becoming skewed towards older animals; natality is down. Moreover, per capita fitness is reduced because the bears face multiple anthropogenic threats in addition to climate change. Bill’s kindergarten analysis ignores vital and relevant crteria such as tipping points, critical thresholds and temporal lags that are vital in order to understand the prognosis of warming on polar bears and other arctic species. Two analogies are appropriate: using Bill and other denier approaches is akin to saying that a patient with spreading cancer is fine because he or she has not shown any symptoms yet. Alternatively, its like asking someone who jumps off the top of a 100 story building how they are doing after falling 50 floors. The person might shout out ‘everything is fine!’ When it clearly isn’t. If the Arctic continues to shrink at the current 30-40 year rate over the coming decades, there are no ands, ifs or buts: polar bears will be in deep trouble.

There are thousands of other examples of the negative effects of warming on biodiversity. Bill’s sandbox level understanding of the field precludes him from being taken seriously. The rest of his first post was similar gibberish.”

December 6, 2017 5:42 am

Man exterminates pretty much any animal weighing more than 5 kg he comes close, unless he find some use of it in animal husbandry or as pet.
For that matter, polar bears are probably the LEAST concerned land mammal, just because men don’t care to live in polar region.

December 6, 2017 7:20 am

Wot! RealClimate didn’t make the cut?

I wonder if they should have weighted their results by the number of web hits each site gets? If the self-confirmation result wasn’t as expected, they could always try inverse weighting or bristle-cone pine weighting a la Mickey Mann.

Scottish Sceptic
December 6, 2017 10:02 am

It’s tells me a lot when I’m bookmarking this as a list of blogs I’ve got to have a read of and have zero interest in the paper.

December 7, 2017 3:05 pm

When are journals going to start having a professional statistician on staff? Across so many fields the chicanery and incompetence are shocking.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights