As many readers know, there was a erroneous and malicious paper recently published by The journal Bioscience titled Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy, (Harvey et al. 2017) covered here and here by WUWT, along with a request for retraction here.
The person who was the focus of the 14 authors of the Harvey et al. paper was Dr. Susan Crockford, and I decided to send her a series of interview questions so that she could tell her side of the story. She graciously responded within 48 hours of my request. This Q&A is unedited in content, with only two spelling and punctuation corrections plus font style changes to fit the format of this website. – Anthony Watts
Q. Why do you think this paper by Harvey et al, with 14 authors, specifically names you?
I suspect it’s because earlier this year I published a rather scathing scientific critique of the predictive model used to get polar bears placed on the endangered species list in the US (Crockford 2017), which is primarily the work of Steve Amstrup. Although my paper can be reviewed easily online, none of the scientists whose work I criticized have challenged my claims. I believe that instead, they enlisted the help of the other 13 authors of the Harvey et al. paper denigrate my reputation in the hope that this will reduce the amount of influence I am clearly having with the public. Previously, they tried enlisting the media for this purpose but it didn’t go too well. The most obvious example happened in February 2015, when they got the UK-based Carbon Brief to challenge my claims after I was given a bit of attention by the UK media. http://polarbearscience.com/2015/03/13/polarbearscience-has-been-carbon-briefed-success-at-last/
But that was obviously not enough, since I doubt if it did any good at all. This Harvey et al. paper is their attempt at “trench warfare” (their words, not mine), to knock me off my Internet high-horse. I think they are particularly frustrated with the Internet as a source of information because they can’t control it.
Q. Has any of the 14 authors replied to you, queried you, or otherwise contacted you prior to this publication?
No. I heard about the paper from a journalist requesting a comment the day before the paper was published and she sent an advance copy of it a few hours before the embargo was lifted.
Q. What are your credentials in zoology?
I have a Ph.D. and more than 40 years of experience. I have written more than 30 papers for peer-reviewed journals or book chapters on a variety of topics, including evolution, paleoecology, genetics, and zoogeography (how and why the distribution of animals changes over time). I am a general interest zoologist and that has allowed me to build a successful career outside academia: I have a firm foundation in zoology and read widely across the discipline. Evolution and evolutionary theory are my primary interests and I take my cue from the point once made (Dobzhansky1973) that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.
Q. What relevant publications have you made related to the zoology of Arctic animals, and specifically, ursus maritimus?
The dissertation I wrote for my Ph.D. on speciation including a discussion of polar bears (Crockford 2004). In addition, I have an article on evolution in a peer-reviewed journal in which polar bears are prominently featured (Crockford 2003), and two official comments, with references, on polar bear hybridization (which is how these were handled in these two journals at the time (although some have argued these are not strictly peer reviewed, they were vetted by the journals at the time: it wasn’t like a posting a comment at a blog, they had to be approved). I also have a paper in a peer-reviewed book chapter on ringed seals, the primary prey of polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2011), and a peer-reviewed journal article on the paleohistory of Bering Sea ice, the habitat of Chukchi Sea polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2007).
While it is true that these peer-reviewed papers are not the result of field or laboratory research on polar bears and most do not focus exclusively on polar bears, they do deal with the history of polar bear habitat, the ecology and physiology of their primary prey, and the evolution of polar bears as a species (which requires a firm understanding of their zoogeography, ecology, genetics, physiology, behaviour, and life history). I don’t believe that the definition of a peer-reviewed paper on polar bears implies it be only about polar bears. These topics are all valid aspects of polar bear biology and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to my expertise. The citations to these papers are listed on my blog “about” page, but I’ve copied them here.
Crockford, S.J. 2004.“Animal Domestication and Vertebrate Speciation: A Paradigm for the Origin of Species” (filed at the National Library under “Zoology”).
Crockford, S. J. 2003. Thyroid hormone phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile thyroid hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A 135(1):105-129. [peer reviewed journal, includes polar bear evolution discussion]
Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6):699-706. [peer reviewed journal, an Arctic sea ice paper]
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Hailer et al. 2012], Science 336:344-347.
Crockford, S. J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. [Official comment with references to Edwards et al. 2011], Current Biology 21: 1251-1258.
Crockford, S. J. and Frederick, G. 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg. 65-91 In T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human and Marine Ecosystems: Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Northeastern Pacific Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters. U. California Press, LA. [a peer reviewed book chapter]
I now have an intimate knowledge of the huge body of polar bear and Arctic sea ice literature because I have studied it for more than 10 years. My big-picture, evolutionary perspective and the fact that I am so well versed with the polar bear literature makes it possible for me to critically comment on recent polar bear papers, reports, and news stories with reference to previous work on the topic. I am also qualified to raise issues that are worth discussing regarding that body of knowledge, although that doesn’t mean everything I conclude is correct.
Q. How does a person become a “polar bear expert”? What qualifies people to comment on polar bears from a scientific basis? Is there an accredited degree program for becoming a “polar bear expert”?
Polar bear researchers usually have general degrees in zoology or biology, but might also have degrees in ecology, wildlife management, or conservation biology. In other words, their academic backgrounds might be quite general or they might be one of a number of subfields of biology that pertain to all species: a degree program in ecology or wildlife management provides background on a wide range of species. So, no, there is no degree program for becoming a “polar bear expert”.
Q. Are any of the 14 authors of the Harvey et al. paper certified as “polar bear experts” ?
Two of them are the most senior members of the specialty: Ian Stirling and Steven Amstrup. Both are a bit older than me. Ian Stirling did his undergraduate degree in zoology at the same university that I did (University of B.C. in Vancouver), only a few years earlier.
Q. The Harvey et al. paper has some glaring inaccuracies in it (according to people who have examined it and commented on it). Do you have any comment on those inaccuracies?
See my letter requesting a retraction of the paper, which you have conveniently copied on your site. One statement that’s particular galling is that I criticize the work of “real” polar bear experts without supporting evidence. Anyone who has read my blog knows this is far from the truth.
Here’s one example, from February 2015, within the time frame of their blog analysis, where I made my point with extensive quotes from the scientific literature and gave a rather substantial list of references (with links). http://polarbearscience.com/2015/02/09/polar-bears-out-on-the-sea-ice-eat-few-seals-in-summer-and-early-fall/
Q. If in fact the Harvey et al. paper has clear inaccuracies, how does such a paper get past “peer-review” which is designed to catch and correct such issues?
I think it is highly likely this paper was rushed through review and as a consequence, no one took a really close look at it. The misspelling of “principle” in “principal component analysis” should have been caught by a competent reviewer, for example (there were apparently three reviewers of this paper). That suggests there was little hope that more important errors would have been caught. In addition, it appears that no one who reviewed the paper saw the supporting data or the obvious errors in that document would have been corrected as well. I wonder if all 14 of the co-authors even saw that supporting data?
As Steve Mosher pointed out on another blog, Bioscience has particular requirements regarding multi-authored papers: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-107484
“Everyone listed as an author of an article must have made a substantial contribution to the manuscript. In the case of multiple-author contributions, please upload as a supplementary file a brief statement detailing the contribution of each author.
1) Authorship should be restricted to those individuals who have met each of three criteria: (a) made a significant contribution to the conception and design of the article or the analysis and interpretation of data or other scholarly effort, (b) participated in drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for content, and (c) approved the final version of the manuscript.
2) In the case of papers with multiple authors, the corresponding author has the responsibility for: (a) including as coauthors all those who meet the three criteria defined in part 1 of this policy and excluding those who do not; and (b) obtaining from all coauthors their agreement to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the manuscript. Of course, any person can refuse to be a coauthor if he or she elects to do so.
3) Coauthors assume full responsibility for all work submitted under their names and, as a coauthor, acknowledge that they meet each of the three criteria for authorship as defined in part 1 of this policy.
4) Honorary or courtesy authorships are inconsistent with the principles of this policy and, as such, are unacceptable.”
This makes me wonder what major contribution Michael Mann made to the paper. I would love to see the supplementary file submitted that details the contribution of each of these 14 authors.
Q. Is the “AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES” an appropriate place to publish such an article, or are there better places to publish articles about polar bear populations?
I can’t think of a journal that would be an appropriate venue for this paper. But then, this paper isn’t really about polar bear populations: it’s about trying to shut down dissenting voices and enforce a consensus of opinion on a scientific topic with a strong political component. Maybe there’s a journal for that but I’ve never heard of it.
Q. Have you ever seen a paper published in a zoology journal that would pass peer-review using pejorative labels such as “denier”?
No. And polar bear researchers – including Ian Stirling, Steve Amstrup and the ever-strident Andrew Derocher (the only one of the polar bear group who is really active on Twitter) – don’t use that kind of language in their peer-reviewed scientific papers, no matter how emphatic or passionate they might get about their conclusions. It’s hard to imagine what led Stirling and Amstrup to decide such reprehensible language was appropriate for a paper in this journal.
Q. There’s a lot of claims on reduced sea ice causing shrinking polar bear populations and that being an indicator of climate change. What’s the real history of polar bear populations over the last 50 years?
Fifty years ago polar bear numbers were low in many areas due to unregulated sport hunting. By 1960, they may have been reduced to between 5,000 and 15,000 animals worldwide (no one knows for sure, but we do know that a number of regions were being severely impacted – most of Russia, the Barents Sea, Western Hudson Bay, Southern Beaufort Sea – while other regions like the Central Canadian Arctic where most bears actually live may not have been impacted at all). An international treaty in 1973 stopped the most dangerous practices and by 1996, numbers had recovered so much that the IUCN Red List not longer considered them to be in trouble (officially “Least Concern”).
The evidence from surveys that count bears suggests that in most regions this recovery process is still taking place. Negative impacts on survival from the amount of summer sea ice reduction that has taken place so far have been minimal. The IUCN Red List in 2015 put the global population at 22,000-31,000 but oddly, even though Polar Bear Specialist Group members wrote the 2015 assessment, they don’t use that number on their website. Instead, they say there are about 25,000 bears on average. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/pb-global-estimate.html
Q. Are polar bears adaptable in their feeding habits? Is sea-ice an absolute requirement for their survival?
Polar bears are relatively adaptable. They will scavenge, for example, or try new prey that presents itself, like dolphins trapped by ice in Svalbard a few years ago. Sea ice is an absolute requirement for their survival but they don’t need it year round. Polar bears need sea ice in the fall through spring, with spring being the critical season. Bears eat little in the summer whether they are on the ice or on land, and eat little through the cold and dark of the Arctic winter. Most food is consumed in the spring (2/3 of the yearly total) and the second most important time is fall, when bears that have fasted over the summer can recoup some of the weight they have lost. This ability to fast through the summer as well as through the depth of winter is clearly what has made it possible for polar bears to survive previous warm periods that had low amounts of summer sea ice.
Q. How much money do you receive to publish on polar bears (both in literature and on the Internet as commentary) and what are the sources for such grants?
First off, no one pays me to write my blog: I don’t even have a donate button. The Global Warming Policy Foundation has on several occasions approached me to write summary briefing papers that are largely compilations of material from by blog posts. Those were reviewed by board members and I got paid for the final product. One exception is my Arctic Fallacy paper, which was a piece of original work that I wrote first because I wanted it written. I approached GWPF and asked if they would publish it. Several of their board members reviewed it (tough reviewers!) and I was paid for the final product. The fees paid for these articles only partly compensates for the time taken to write them and has varied for different products, generally £500-3500.
I have written a few articles for Range Magazine, for which I am usually paid US$300.
All of the ballyhoo about me being on the “payroll” of The Heartland Institute (or “supported” by them) that keeps making the rounds is nonsense. From 2011 to 2013, I was paid $750 a month (the equivalent of one day’s income for me, on a contract), to make summaries of published papers relating to vertebrate animals (my specialty) that I thought might not be covered by the IPCC report.
These were to be included in the NIPCC report to ensure that a balanced perspective of the literature was available to the public, which the Heartland Institute published. Heartland had no input on what papers I looked at or what I wrote. The monthly payments ended (as did the contract) when my work on the NIPCC report was finished in early 2014. I have not received any money from Heartland since, except for travel expenses to their 2017 conference.
I must say it is insulting beyond words to suggest, as many continue to do, that the output of a respected scientist like me could be “bought” in this way at all, let alone bought so cheaply. Those who make those accusations imply I am not just a whore, but a cheap whore!
Ian Stirling took tens-to-hundreds-of-thousands of dollars worth of oil money during the course of his career to carry out his polar bear research in the Arctic, yet no one questions if this biased his work.
That is the correct response: I have no reason to believe it ever influenced his work one way or another. Despite my criticisms of what Stirling has done recently, I have never suggested that what kind of organization paid for his research over the years ever biased his results. http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03/27/oil-money-provided-the-foundation-of-polar-bear-research-now-its-greenwash/
I have worked on contracts for most of my 40+ year career but no one has ever accused me of bias before I took a contract from The Heartland Institute.
Q. In your estimate, how much grant money is there globally for polar bear research?
It has to be in the millions because Arctic research is so expensive. I did a post on this a few years ago that some might find interesting because it was inspired by a complaint that polar bear researchers are underfunded http://polarbearscience.com/2013/11/25/polar-bear-researchers-are-they-protecting-the-bears-or-their-own-jobs/ According to a presentation by Andrew Derocher and Ian Stirling, in 2011 there were 29 people employed full time to do polar bear research worldwide, most with government organizations. Graduate students and those without full time jobs get their salaries from research grants. But full time researchers can’t do field work without help, so if there is no funding for students, the work doesn’t get done even if the senior researchers are getting paid. Now, there are even more students working on polar bears than ever before and there is an even greater demand for research funds. If grant money dries up so will field and laboratory research.
Q. If the consensus conclusions about polar bear populations and sea ice loss are wrong, why do you think more people such as yourself have not come forward to point out such inaccuracies of the conclusions?
Just look at the flack I take! Look at what the Polar Bear Specialist Group did to Mitch Taylor in 2009 (recent review here: https://polarbearscience.com/2017/10/24/death-of-the-polar-bear-as-climate-change-icon-validates-mitch-taylors-skepticism/ In my opinion, what the PBSG did to Mitch was a clear warning to any other colleagues who thought they should speak out: do so and you’re out. The PBSG operates on consensus (it states as much in their terms of reference) and the way you get consensus when there are dissenting opinions is to coerce, bribe, or bully to make everyone fall into line. If the dissenters won’t toe the line, expulsion is the only answer. There is nothing democratic about it.
Feel free to add any additional comments or response you wish.
My letter of complaint and request for a retraction of the Harvey et al. paper has now been published. Readers will note that I included a number of emails that show exactly what polar bear researchers have been hiding from the public since 2012: that a high-level IUCN Red List official heavily criticized the model used to put polar bears on the endangered species list in 2008. The Harvey et al. paper implied that no one else besides me had ever questioned the work of “real” polar bear experts but co-authors Stirling and Amstrup both know that’s not true. Now the evidence is out there for all to see.
I might never have done anything with those emails. I got them too late in 2014 to derail the renewal of the ESA listing for polar bears and it was not obvious how they would make an impact all by themselves. But the publication of the Harvey et al. paper created the context I needed to show the world what these groups (PBSG, IUCN, USGS, USFWS) have been up to while pretending to be dedicated scientists whose only interest is the preservation of polar bears.
As of late in the day 6 December, I have not heard from the Bioscience editors or any of the co-authors.
.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think there has to be some serious sexism goin on in climate science. Mann seemingly can’t cope with strong willed women contradicting him. This is the second promo]inant female critique after Judith Curry to be got at.
Credit to these 2 ladies that they don’t play the easy sexism card. They take it on the chin and fight back. Good luck Dr. Crockfort, you have many supporters out there. And thanks to Anthony.
Yes, John, credit to these ladies!
Dear Reader,
Please google “Prof. dr. Jeff Harvey” and view a picture of what appears to be Jeff, along with some details of his work.
And do you, dear reader, like moi, wonder what would possess a man of Jeff’s years (he has a white beard, after all) to choose, as his photo for a professional, technical site, a “selfie”, with him all got up as an age-inappropriate, retro-hippie, rock-star (luv the shades!) wannabe? So what’s the deal here, anyway? Are we, perhaps, lookin’ at someone, belatedly, albeit heroically, and in his own way, tryin’ to recast himself, late in life, as a “Cool Kid”, even as he wrestles with the demons, possibly school-nerd related, of his youth (kids can be so cruel)? Or what?
And then there’s Jeff’s guitar. I mean, like, I don’t know too much about guitars, but that sure looks like an electric guitar that Jeff’s slingin’ in that photo of his. And if my surmise is right, what’s the skinny here?–does Jeff maybe think he’s a privileged-white-dork, too good for a carbon-free acoustic guitar? But who knows, for sure. And, again, if my surmise right, and Jeff’s “axe” is, indeed, an electric guitar, doesn’t he need to get a power cord and plug that gitfiddle in? You know, like, how Jimi Hendrix used to plug in his electric guitar, and everything!
And on the same site we see that Jeff’s areas of expertise are “Life history strategies in parasitoids and hyperparasitoids” and “plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions”.
“Life history strategies in parasitoids”?….Hmmm…well I’m not gonna claim that I’m some sort of ivory-tower Mr. Smarty-Pants, and everything, but unless I miss my guess, I’m thinkin’ this area of Jeff’s expertise involves the study of greenwashed, trough-seeking good comrades in on the Gaia-hustle deal.
“Plant-herbivore-parasitoid interactions”…Hey! no question what this area of Jeff’s expertise is all about! And let me just say that it’s about time that the “academic community” is takin’ note of the “Vegan Flatulence”, greenhouse-gas plague that the lefty-puke vegetarians have unleashed on that precious, fragile “blue marble”, that we all call our own dear planet Earth!
And is it just moi, or does anyone else think it odd that the eco-flake hive-bozos are all, without apparent exception, a bunch of truly strange, possibly even mutant weirdos? I mean, like, really!
Wait until Jeff et.al. find out the truth about Santa and flying reindeer.
In the meantime…
http://amp.dailycaller.com/2017/12/06/activists-use-california-wildfires-to-push-the-global-warming-narrative/
Prof. Brian Cox is a similar ‘rock god’ scientist (he was in two real bands too for extra points).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/888433/Alien-discovery-Brian-Cox-wonders-of-the-universe-mars-enceladus-aliens
Brian Cox is a tart.
nope, not just you mike. you are spot on.
When your best feature is a flaccid hockey stick of diminishing prominence any strong woman looks like a threat.
Ha ha. Wonder if Mr Coxie has learned about lunar phases yet, or if he still thinks the Moon sometimes looks ‘like a banana’ because of Earth’s shadow. Stick to pop music, boy!
After having seen Dr.Crockford at the Heartland Conference I decided to give my four great grand children copies of her Polar Bear books designed for children as Christmas presents.
https://www.amazon.com/Polar-Bears-Outstanding-Survivors-Climate/dp/1541139712?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1541139712
That’s how you deal with this nonsense. Everyone on this site I highly recommend you purchase copies for your children for this Christmas Season to help Dr. Crockford.
Great thought but I’m afraid you have ordered the book for older teens rather than the one for 7 years olds and up, which is called “Polar Bear Facts & Myths” and has a blue cover.
So get them both! Outstanding Survivors will be ready and waiting for them when they are ready (which might be sooner than you think).
Here’s another idea, if you have kids who are learning French or German at school: get a copy of Facts & Myths in English AND French (or English AND German) and let them compare the text.
It all helps support the work I do and is much appreciated.
Susan
Susan I actually order both as my oldest are 10 & 13. The youngest are 7 & 5. The oldest help the younger ones read and understand the Polar Facts & Myths. I’m also going to buy and donate both to our local school district elementary, intermediate and high school libraries.
Thank you for helping young minds learn the truth.
Good idea, CarbonB!
She is up against Neomarxism promotion their radical change of Society trough politicized “science”. It’s not about polar bears. Polar bears are among many just the means to promote leftist change of society.
Read this . . .
http://www.southernlawjournal.com/2008/05_.pdf
then have a chat to . . .
Daniel T. Ostas, J.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Legal Studies
Harlow Chair in Business Ethics
Price College of Business
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019
Belief and “Denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
The fact that you have taken on the climate establishment and criticized their failed doomsday theories, with regards to their favourite catastrophe mascot – the cuddly polar bear – “with supporting evidence is precisely why these “leading researchers” feel so threatened and why the paper had to be written.”
It is not surprising that you are being targeted by serial smear merchants like Michael E Mann et al. How dare anyone question their religion and threaten its veracity with solid data and evidence?!
You’ve hurt them and their melting credibility even more with your excellent, objective, data-driven science. Well done Susan!
The truth really does hurt.
Sounds like another classic case of klimate alarmists trying to enforce their philosophy of:
“Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
With the abysmal state of climate science, Nature or Science journals and their editors are both up to the task of a political hit job-smear paper. Powerful, very deep moneyed concerns are at work now trying to undermine the RedTram/Blue Team push, the Trump US withdrawal from Paris, the Pruitt EPA rein-in.
For them on the Climate Change – Left eco-religion, one must recognize it is desparate times for them. They never saw Trump coming until he won. Now it is down to desperate measures.
Very desparate measures. Very desparate times.
I have terminated my subscriptions to “Science”, “Nature” and all their subordinate “journals” because they have become nothing more than political propaganda publishing agencies. I’ve done the same with the 10 “professional” organizations of which I used to be a member.
Dr. Susan, I am a man who has scientific heroes. Dr. Spencer. Dr. Christy. Dr. Singer. Dr. Soon. And you. Folks who do science the right way and are willing to defend it in public. You were on my list of heroes even before this recent scurrilous attack, and now, even more so.
Yours is a voice of sanity and reason in these parlous times, and it is most welcome.
My very best wishes to you and yours,
w.
I would like to second all of that Willis.
All power to your elbow Dr Crockford!
Yes, and all with style and wit, very impressive!
Well said Willis, and congratulations Dr. Crockford on your integrity and your courage to speak the truth in this climate of academic deceit and intimidation.
The Harvey et al gang have disgraced themselves – that will be their lifelong legacy for this baseless attack.
Best regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
+1 Willis
I think Susan should be appointed to the Red Team, as a polar bear specialist, by President Trump.
Yes, I’ll 3rd or 4th Willis’ comment.
Lets not forget Dr Curry.
The “climate change” swamp is very extensive and very deep and full of nasty creatures. You need a very thick skin (armour-plated) if you even so much as dip a toe into the swamp. Well done Dr Crockford for joining other luminaries who have taken the plunge and taken on the swamp-dwellers.
They are terrifying monsters that have yet to find their place on the phyletic tree.
We all know which one Knobby is.
Ian Stirling can tell you everything about polar bears as they currently exist. He can’t tell you how the bears survived earlier warm periods. I’m not sure Susan Crockford can accurately explain that either. The point is that the bears did survive the earlier warmer periods and Crockford documents that. link
the survival of the polar bear 6-8 k years ago when the arctic was largely ice free defies the common wisdom that bears are dependant on ice for survival.
a likely explanation is that polar bears are smart enough to change their feeding habits when food supplies change. I suspect they are more. adaptable to climate change than many climate scientists.
where is Nick Stokes on this?
No. The more important question is: “Where is Griff on this?”
You know, Griff, the renowned climate and polar bear expert, who shared her knowledge right here on WUWT!
I had a strange thought while reading this article. Griff did claim at least one of the things claimed in the smear paper. Is there a chance he’s one of the authors?
Some here know who he is. Just wondering aloud, it’s unlikely.
And as an aside, aren’t the new replacement trolls better than Griff?
No
Griff’s absence makes quite a statement when presented the choice of defending his/her/its views in dialog with Dr Crockford, or turning moral coward and crawling deeper under his/her/its rock
I’m assuming Griff is using this “down time” to comb the Guardian to stay current on scientific developments, or developments, or whatever
Susan,
Shows how desperate they are to cover up their lack of scientific ability that they have to group together & attack you in this manner.
But to me, one name stands out head & shoulders below the rest in the list of 14 authors –
The Mann has proved himself a ‘distinguished’ liar, cheat, fraudster & bully, a poor researcher & is a disgrace to science; all round, he looks like a thoroughly bad egg, (you get the picture).
Best wishes from the UK, stick with it as truth will out……eventually.
Nil illegitimo in desperandum carborundum
Dr. Crockford, will you consider legal action for defamation if they refuse to retract this paper ?
I’d happily contribute to Dr. Crockford’s legal fund, should the need arise. My guess is that many others would do the same.
Stay away from lawyers and doctors is my advice.
#MeToo
As they say here in Oz, “you don’t get much law for a quid!”
the legal system was designed to protect people with money from people without money. if you want justice compete the following: “justice is mine” sayeth the ____.
Q. Has any of the 14 authors replied to you, queried you, or otherwise contacted you prior to this publication?
No doubt the 14 authors are all invited to comment here on Susan Crockford’s response to their paper!
It is interesting that merely reporting the current status of polar bears vis-a-vis their improving numbers is taken to be a ‘denial of climate change’. What the heck is that? By ‘proxy’? How can talking about malfeasance in the counting and health and prognosis for polar bears constitute disagreement with claims that CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels constitutes an existential threat to most living creatures on this planet? Isn’t that what ‘denial by proxy means’? If so, it’s nuts.
Even the title of the paper is conceptually deficient.
Speaking of proxies, at least the gang of 14 wasn’t stupid enough to use tree rings as proxies for missing bears…were they?
I believe they did: It was their family tree – and they didn’t identify it.
Mr Mann appears in the author list for the same reason that Pontius Pilate figures in the Catholic Credo: by juxtaposition. Pilate was alive at the same time. For a vainglorious character like Mann such happenstance appears to be reason enough to wriggle himself into anything and everything. The rest of mankind is therefore blessed that there is only one of him.
If I recall correctly, what happened with Jesus had a huge impact on Pontius Pilate, a positive one or at least mixed. Not sure what it would take to turn mann around, don’t believe it is possible.
The article seems to imply that there may be a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) involved.
Dr Mann’s expertise on PCA’s is very well documented in Montford’s book, appearing to the left on my screen while writing this, so I assume that he may be an important contributor to this smear.
If by “expertise” you mean “artless implementation”, I can agree with that.
@RPT
I have a rather low opinion of Mr Mann’s analytical powers.
Two new papers support Susan http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/07/2-new-papers-92-of-polar-bear-subpopulations-stable-increasing-inuit-observe-too-many-polar-bears-now
It looks like Alarmist Climate Scientists are using the serengeti strategy to attack their skeptical opponents. This is ironic, since Michael Mann was the first person to complain that his opponents were using the serengeti strategy to attack him. Is it ethical to use a strategy that you have publicly denounced?
Mann and ethics , an oxymoron
Although to be fair ethics and climate ‘science’ is an oxymoron as an area its shown a number of times that ‘effective PR’ is what is valued most , and if that means outright lying or scientific malpractice, then that is fine.
As I read once in a scathing attack on a fellow lawyer:
“He gives the impression of having attended ethics classes, not as a means to learn ethics, but as a means to learn how to avoid them.”
(probably an inaccurate recall)
It perfectly is if you believe that you are at war you must win. He’d even risk a global th*rmonucl*ear war just to prove he is right. The only positive thing about that is that he wouldn’t survive either. Cockroaches? Who said that???
This seems to have more to do with psychogeography and psychozoology than zoogeography, territory protection really. Amstrup’s batchelor degree was forestry, perhaps that’s the connection to Mann. He got the Our Earth Bambi Award in 2012 (Wiki but I really hope it’s true!).
It was with great interest that I have followed Dr Crockford’s analysis, that warming in the Arctic means other brown bears extend their territories and interbreed with Polar Bears, preventing Polar Bear destruction were they to breed in a closed population.
So but for such warming this population would become endangered.
Her work is an ornament to scientific inquiry.
Pity the poor ‘Yeti’, in its mountain redoubt.
‘“Brown bears roaming the high altitudes of the Tibetan Plateau, and brown bears in the western Himalayan mountains, appear to belong to two separate populations,” she said. “The split occurred about 650,000 years ago, during a period of glaciation.”
The two subspecies have probably remained isolated from one another ever since, despite their relative proximity, she speculated.’
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/11/29/world/yeti-specimens-himalayan-bears-dna-analysis-shows/#.Wikj5FWWbct
‘Today, the Himalayan brown bear — Ursus arctos isabellinus — is listed as “critically endangered” on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List.’
It would appear that the biggest threat to the Himalayan Bear is grazing.
https://news.mongabay.com/2014/05/a-sketch-of-the-yeti-saving-the-himalayan-brown-bear/
Even if you ignore its factual errors and its use of ‘name calling ‘ what stands out is, how did such a light weight paper really need ‘14’ authors .
The answer is of course is it did not , most probable only added their name to the list to either give it ‘weight ‘ or as a sign of their unquestioning loyalty to AGW. You have to finger Lew paper as being one of the real authors as it has all the hallmarks of his pseud-psychological and his down and dirty style which sadly has proved such a success for him. Other than that who actual wrote it is a good question .
Rather than “need” 14 authors, I’m more intrigued that 13 people signed on to such an appalling hit piece that is laden with so many errors. I assume it was mostly written by the 14th.
Ric there was a group letter in support of RICO ? 2 years ago now.
The main authors got into a lot of trouble and the rest wished they had never got involved.
Maybe the same will happen here?
Shukla??
I forget.
Yes, Jagadish Shukla. Leading an attack on climate “deniers” while misappropriating NSF research grants is not a good exercise in morality. I don’t know where all that wound up, it’s probably still in the court system.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/30/backfire-on-the-rico20-and-jagadish-shukla-is-imminent-wagon-circling-climbdown-dissolution-begins/ is one of many posts, but a pretty good one.
firing squads are used so everyone can deny it was their bullet. safety in numbers for people who would otherwise be too afraid.
Maybe they wanted to outweigh Jesus, who got along with 12 disciples.
The evidence suggests that the 14 authors of the Harvey et al smear job are rats.
So what are the rats going to do when their global warming sc@m becomes obvious to all?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/15/collapse-of-global-warming-deception-triggers-variety-of-bailouts-and-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-2637282
Tim wrote:
“The level of inventiveness will astonish as rats desert the sinking ship.”
I had similar thoughts, and wrote this in 2012:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/#comment-1182610
I was searching for some famous quotations about rats, but only found one, which coincidentally was about rats finding a way out:
When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats.
– Claude Swanson (1862 – 1939)
Best wishes Dr. Crockford. I’m thinking the Streisand effect may come in to play for Harvey et al.
It’s an extraordinary paper devoid of any attempt to conform to intelligent scientific practice. While this is indeed a dreadful personal attack on your integrity, it does have, and has had impact on the rest of us too. The defamatory contents have already been pushed in my face, like this is the proof that undermines everything that’s sceptical of CAGW.
Willis has said it in his comment above, what many of us are thinking.
Eamon.
What did “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy” do? It was an exercise in framing. It chastised blogs for not presenting a topic objectively, honestly, and with context: “any topic can be framed in exactly the way a communicator desires if it is not presented objectively, honestly, and with context.”
It is now clear that the intent of “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy” was to frame the topic of dissent among honest scientists as a matter of “science-denial” on the part of those who oppose the consensus view, singling out Dr. Crockford in particular, and the paper could only accomplish this by not presenting the topic of polar bear populations “objectively, honestly, and with context.”
In a larger context the authors of this paper are attempting to frame scientific debate as illegitimate if it opposes the consensus view. “…[S]ome media outlets consistently misrepresent our fundamental understanding of AGW. This may be partially because framing AGW as a ‘scientific controversy,’ with ‘opinions on both sides,’ may be more profitable than differentiating unsubstantiated opinions of climate-change deniers from the broad and evidence-based ‘scientific consensus.'” It should be noted that suddenly the “science deniers” have been transformed into a entity that is very rare indeed: a “climate change denier.” There are very few scientists– or even bloggers– who deny that the climate is changing. In any case, those scientists who are on the other side (i.e., oppose CAGW) of this legitimate scientific controversy do not do offer “unsubstantiated opinions,” as an “objective, honest, and in context” perusal of the work of any of the scientists who oppose the consensus view will demonstrate. That, as we well know, is and always has been a flat-out lie.
As they say: “any topic can be framed in exactly the way a communicator desires if it is not presented objectively, honestly, and with context.” The Harvey paper is a masterful example of that.
… scientific controversy do not offer “unsubstantiated opinions”
The Harvey paper is a masterful example of that.
==========
the paper is a lame example at best. clearly someone didn’t like having it pointed out that polar bear population models are as worthless. it is especially irksome that the person doing the pointing was armed with facts. these sorts of things are just not done in science. otherwise the taxpayer is likely to discover they are paying huge sums for a bunch of malarkey.
You’re right. I’m not attempting to defend the paper, lest I’m misconstrued. Another way to put it is that the Harvey paper is a masterful piece of deception, and deliberately so. It will work, and it is working, isn’t it? That’s why I think it’s important to call out this “framing” nonsense for what it is.
It’s extremely interesting, really. What should we call it? “Projective framing,” wherein one projects onto another the sort of framing one is oneself doing, in an attempt to subvert the truth and win adherents to one’s own viewpoints?
Upon further reflection, I think you’re wrong: the paper isn’t a lame example. It’s a beautiful example– a near-perfect example, in fact. It’s projective framing at its finest, with all the proper authorities signing on to give it an illusion of authority and righteousness, yet it completely and utterly ignores that nearly all of the scientific criticisms of the consensus are substantial, and Crockford’s criticisms regarding polar bear populations are especially pertinent. Here is a concise summary of the paper, supplied by the paper itself: “not presented objectively, honestly, and with context.” What they’ve done is, in a way, an absolutely beautiful deception. It’s stunning.
Ya gotta hand it to ’em.
The same as with scientists/observers pointing out the inaccuracy of IPCC climate models.
People must break through the “peer review” gatekeeping for the upcoming IPCC AR6. Somehow, people must show the inaccuracies of the unvalidated climate models.
Don writes “What they’ve done is, in a way, an absolutely beautiful deception. It’s stunning.”
I agree. The vast vast majority of AGW advocates and supportive journalists will never actually read the science and will only ever look up references that support their position if they ever look anything up at all. This paper’s existence is enough.
The paper is uncritically lauded in the Guardian, of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial
The article in the Guardian was written by Dana Nuccitelli, second author of the Cook, et al., 2013 paper promoting the discredited 97% “consensus.”
Since this 97% consensus was supposedly determined by a survey (study, whatever), why hasn’t anyone simply demanded the names of 100% of entire population, both for & against?
It’s time to demand to see the data.
Use of sophisticated statistical methods (PCA) on such a trivial issue is breathtaking, the word contrived springs to mind. Susan Crockford gets most of the citations on sceptical blogs and websites simply because she is one of the few scientists in the world that questions “the consensus” in this area and that dares to write about it. This is not a scientific paper, it is merely a morale raising post on blogs of consensus enforcement.
That is my peer review of this paper, I recommend rejection.
If some fool at the Guardian thinks that ‘keystone’ and ‘domino’ could share a metaphor, then they need to go away and learn to think.
This is all playing out rather nicely. Thank you Susan, and Anthony, and all the commenters.