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.
The day that polar bear science jumped the shark. Or should that be jumped the beluga? Or simply jumped the polar bear? Or ran off the ice?
“it’s about trying to shut down dissenting voices and enforce a consensus of opinion on a scientific topic with a strong political component.”
This is of course Michael E Mann’s secondary area of interest and forms a useful adjunct to his primary speciality in junk science.
You are a light in a very dark and dank place Dr. Crockford. Many of us take a great deal of comfort from it and from your indefatigable courage. Thank you.
“Beargate!” (Sorry, Delingpole)
Bear scat.
Sue
“I now have an intimate knowledge of the huge body of polar bear” !? Not something a lady of repute would want taken out of context 😉
Susan, I salute you! Well put, all of it. That actual science has to be defended in the public sphere tells us how low the bar has gotten due to the “political science” of global warmism. You’re obviously a heretic, and by their lights must be destroyed.
Thanks all of you for your kind words and support. It means a lot to me.
Note that this morning the National Post as a comment by Terry Corcoran on the issue:
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-canadian-finds-polar-bears-are-doing-fine-and-gets-climate-mauled
“The most dangerous threat known to man and bear alike is lurking among the icebergs: Junk science”
Good article.
And excerpt: “Climate scientists in the Amstrup/Mann/Lewandowsky camp have apparently had enough of Crockford’s steady debunking of many of their polar bear alarmist claims and have set out to destroy her and her reputation via what can only be called a vicious personal attack.”
That’s exactly right.
This personal attack on Susan may just backfire on the perpetrators.
Thank you, Dr. Crockford.
I note that you, as I once did, work for numerous and varied entities to produce useful products. Your work must meet high standards for it to be accepted and generate repeat work.
I note your detractors, in the main, are academics operating under sinecures and poorly managed government grants. Under which one of your detractors wrote a computer program that was wildly off target.
Typical that it took an outsider to point out that “a member of the Team” had no clothes.
Thank you Dr. Crockford for posting this article.
This part really dropped my jaw:
““You don’t have to read far in her material to see that it is full of unsubstantiated statements and personal attacks on scientists, using names like eco-terrorists, fraudsters, green terrorists and scammers,” Amstrup claimed.
A few days later, Motherboard published a slithery retraction. After Crockford complained that Amstrup’s comments about her were “a lie” and that she has never used such terms, Amstrup “clarified” his comments. He said that when he accused Crockford of calling scientists fraudsters, he really meant to accuse “climate deniers as a whole, rather than Crockford in particular.””
He is so arrogant that he doesn’t see the hypocrisy in that statement. He falsely accuses her of name-calling and when called out he calls her a name. I guess he believes that only alarmists have that privilege.
“““You don’t have to read far in her material to see …”
And he denies he was referring to Dr. Crockford specifically.
Wonderful “editors” at that journal. More like “partners in crime.”
This is all about money. nothing to do with science. once every year scientists are forced to stand up on their hind legs and put on a brave face while explaining why they should get even more money when last year they got so many things wrong.
this year they have the pleasure of standing up and saying there is a peer reviewed paper that proves they were right all along. never mind that they wrote the paper. it is peer reviewed so that means it is right.
“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. 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.”
It appears to me that Dr Crockford answered her own question regarding what Michael Mann’s significant contribution to the paper was.
Good interview, and go for it, Dr Crockford.
There is one arguable typo–“Flack” relates to press agentry, “Flak” relates to drawing metaphoric fire. As this is press agentry producing the black bursts of shrapnel, it sorta works either way, but I think it could be inadvertent.
Reading between the lines will become more and more important, a rare art the Alarmistas will never understand.
I think that the spelling of “principal component analysis” is correct. It’s the principles of many researchers which seem to not be correct.
It was nature that showed us all the polar bear models are wrong. Dr. Crockford merely documented the event in a very eloquent and accurate manner. The authors of the bioscience paper don’t have the courage to take up their arguments with nature (though I think there may be some who wish they would simply go and debate their models with the bears face to face). The best they can come up with is a petulant, rude and ignorant name calling exercise against a respected and intellectually more honest scientist who states facts as she finds them. How on earth can supposedly responsible journals be filled with the kind of nonsense that would embarrass a preschooler, and how did this gang of reportedly educated people stoop to such a low intellectual level, or is it possible there was no stooping at all as the base-line intellectual stature was measured in microns?
it must be hell being a polar bear scientist. you have this great theory. polar bears need ice. more co2 means less ice. co2 is increasing therefore polar bears will be decreasing.
you publish. China starts pumping out co2. ice starts dropping. you can smell the Nobel. you start working on your acceptance speech.
and the damn polar bears don’t cooperate. they refuse to die. worse yet. some uppity canuck writes about it. it is the hockey stick all over again.
bloody Canadians. all so polite to your face. but on the ice a different story.
Well played sir, very well played indeed!
While Florida is far from the Arctic and polar bears, we have had similar debates, personal attacks and name calling. Our most prominent “charismatic megafauna” the manatee was/ is the subject of heated debate and name calling. The past head of the regulatory program who was put forth as THE manatee expert was a freshwater invertebrate zoologists from Missouri. To say he based most of his propose regulation on questionable data would be a gross understatement. Anyone daring to challenge the endangered listing of manatees, question the veracity of the data being used, or even making recommendations on how to improve research was immediately attacked both face to face, in the media and within the regional scientific community. Interestingly the true manatee expert had retired back in the 1980s. He had written the definitive work on the state of manatees, turned it into his bosses at USFWS but they never would allow it to be published. His conclusion was that manatees had not been abundant for a long time, since native Americans, early settlers and others had long hunted them for meat. Until the late 1980s, while hunting had been banned early in the 20th Century, the ban was not strictly enforced. As hunting was eliminate the population began to increase. When a recent re-assessment was completed the environmental community and some government biologists went nuts. The ESA has been turned into a giant stick that is used by environmentalists allied with government regulators to stop human development, ANY human development no matter how environmentally sound.
14 authors listed for this ‘study’? It took a gang to work up the courage to take a stab at Julius Caesar too.
That’s always the case with bullies.
1saveenergy sends best wishes to Dr Susan Crockford from the UK. Here are my best wishes from Spain. You must be telling the truth about polar bears to have upset them so. Take their attacks as a form of congratulations.
ClimateOtter points out new papers supporting Dr Crockfords work on increasing polar bear numbers.
Elsewhere http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/30/2-more-new-papers-affirm-there-is-more-arctic-ice-coverage-today-than-during-the-1400s/#sthash.r3CagTFp.dpbs, 2 other papers point out that Arctic ice was less than present levels for most of the last 3000 years, and most of the last 10,000 years respectively. Polar bears obviously survived these periods of lower ice extent.
Yup, Keith.
Actually, the oldest polar bear fossils found to date go all the way back to near the beginning of the Pleistocene, about 2.3 MYA. Meaning, these hardy animals have survived and thrived through every glaciation and interglacial the planet experienced during the”ice age”, approximately one full cycle per every 100,000 years, on average. The disappearance of some ice floes for part of the year is clearly trivial in comparison with the drastic climatic changes experienced literally a couple dozen times throughout the history of the species.
Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut in a a china shop and then finding the nut was in another building and perhaps was not a nut at all.
–
“We have clearly hit the target dead-on judging by the bitter response of the climate change skeptics and deniers. They are inadvertantly helping to spread the message.” Jeff H
–
As opposed to advertently helping, I guess.
–
Look Arctic Ice is down on all measures since satellites were “formally”” used to measure it.
The time span is short to know anything about long term trends.
If one shows CO2 increase, and then the CO2 increase shows the warming it is predicted to, then the ice will melt over the long term.
The long term result of this in thousands of years is that Polar Bears may or may not be endangered [they may or may not adapt].
Speculation on linking the two separate calamities if they eventuate is fraught with difficulty and should never have been poster childed in the first place.
Does Dr. Crockford really think that PCA is “Principle Component Analysis”!? It’s not. It’s “Principal…” What possible sense would “Principle..” make? Did something go wrong in the transcription process?
@Smoking Frog
No, that was her criticism! Look at the paper yourself, that’s what they called it!
Reading; it’s fundamental. 🙄
Dr. Crawford,
When you’re attacked like this, consider the source.
When the source has little or honesty or credibility, neither does the attack.
“little or no honesty or credibility”
Of course, we all make mistakes.
the measure of a man/woman is not making mistakes, but admitting them and correcting where possible. something that appears to never happen in climate science . says a lot about the practitioners.
A typical phrase a Mann could never accept, not to talk about honesty or credibility.
“Maybe there’s a journal for that but I’ve never heard of it.”
Völkischer Beobachter , though it’s been struggling with it’s circulation since 1945…..
Now dat be sum funny azz sheeat, dawg!
Was Mann adding his name to the paper, apparently without making any substantial contribution (as is required to be a co-author) another of his deranged ‘nobel’ moments?
Ilma, Michael Mann became infamous for his misuse of PC analysis.
In the current paper, can anybody explain/support the validity of PC analysis on arbitrary “data” subjectively derived?
“a erroneous”
Ummm
“Has any of the 14 authors”
errr
“Any” is singular.
“14 authors” is singular.
So, fourteen authors is writing a story …
w.
The “14 authors” is a single group, Willis. One would say “a group of 14 authors is writing a story.”
However, I should have stayed out of this.
Let me suggest what coauthors Mike and Lew contributed. The title CC d*Nile by proxy is the MO of the twins Lew and Dowsky. The use of PCA principle( sic) components anal. is the trademark of the other guy. He does tricks on nature with his personal variation which allows use of upside down contaminated proxies, heavy weighting of a selected sample that points the way he wants it to. Wanna hide a decline, or create a decline? Get your order in so we can make a proper selection. Want to freeze the Medieval Warm Period? Make a balmy LIA? We’ll PCA it for you! I think we should ask Steve Mac to look the machinations over and get this ugly beast retracted. It’s going to have to go along with 50,000other papers when the Great Correction comes.
Dr Susan Crockford can not be condered an independent, credible scientist on the fate of polar bears and here is why.
1. The Heartland Institute’s Denialgate documents indicate that the spinstitute gives Crockford $750 per month. She is one of three Canadian university professors on the denier dole at Heartland, along with Madhav Knandekar and Mitch Taylor.
Greenpeace contacted the University of Victoria to raise conflict of interest questions relating to Heartland’s payments to Crockford, who has a history of denying climate science as a speaker for its anti-science International Climate Science Coalition. See Greenpeace’s letter to the University of Victoria.
2. One of Crockford’s colleagues at UVic had plenty to say about the disconnect between the university’s science-based position and the spin emanating from the Heartland Institute.
“It is regrettable that anyone affiliated with the University of Victoria participated in the activities of an organization like the Heartland Institute,” says Dr. Thomas F. Pederson, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) at UVic. “The University prides itself on being an institution of higher learning that deals with facts and that is nowhere more true than in the field of science. Those who deny that the planet is warming as a direct result of human activity are denying facts.
…
“The Heartland Institute is one of a collection of so-called think tanks that have been extensively supported by elements within the American fossil fuel industry,” says Pederson. “Their mission is quite clearly not to think, but instead to sow confusion with respect to the global warming issue.”
source: https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed
2. A 2015 study from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature that ranked climate change as the single most important threat to the world’s 26,000 polar bears. Researchers – who described the bears as the canary in the coal mine – found a high probability that the population would decrease 30% by 2050 due to the changes in their sea ice habitat.
source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/19/climate-change-is-single-biggest-threat-to-polar-bear-survival
3. There is clear evidence that climate change is having a negative impact on polar bear numbers
“As climate change boosts Arctic temperatures, sea ice – crucial to the bears for hunting, resting and breeding – is melting earlier in spring and refreezing later in autumn. The growing number of ice-free days could push the species past a tipping point with widespread reproductive failure and starvation in some areas.
Satellite data published last year revealed that the number of ice-covered days across the 19 Arctic regions inhabited by polar bears declined at a rate of seven to 19 days per decade between 1979 to 2014.”
This video footage in the link below, captured in Canada’s Arctic, offers a devastating look at the impact climate change is having on polar bears in the region. It shows an emaciated bear clinging to life as it scrounges for food on iceless land.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video?CMP=share_btn_link
… and popcorn futures go through the roof …
I’ll let Dr. Susan defend herself, she’s more than capable.
I will note that accusing someone of “denying climate change” marks you as either a rank amateur in the field or a dedicated alarmist or an idiot … but I repeat myself.
Dude … climate ALWAYS changes and it always has. Nobody denys that. You are just babbling words that you think make sense. Protip. They don’t.
Now, popcorn and watch the show.
w.
ivankinsman’s inability to count is a clue to his/her cluelessness…
Good one. Dude … climate ALWAYS changes and it always has.
So, what about the man-made CO2 emissions that have been pumped out since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Ah – it just disappears into thin air and is never seen again, and no … absolutely zero negative impact on the planet’s ecosystem. Go and tell that to the fairies my friend…
ivankinsman December 9, 2017 at 5:03 am
Hey, you’re the genius claiming that someone is “denying climate change”. It marks you as a rank amateur. Think about what you are saying, it might force you to change your puerile accusations to something less idiotic.
Excellent question. What about it? I made no claims about that.
Now you are trying to put words in my mouth, and I won’t wear it. I said no such thing. That is you trying to deceive the credulous.
Another lie. I didn’t say that, that’s all you.
You’ll have to point me to where they live, I’ve never seen them … are they friends of yours, or just acquaintances?
w.
@ur momisugly Willis Eschenbach 5:18 a.m.
I have reason to believe that ivankinsmans siblings live at Trollshavn, Hordaland, Norway. :=)
” absolutely zero negative impact on the planet’s ecosystem”
Yes we KLNOW that CO2 has absolutely zero negative impact on the planet’s ecosystem.
Totally beneficial…. the fundamental building block of all life on Earth.
Are ther no real facts concerning the payments Dr. Crockford is said to have received? You ought to be able to show, for example, copies of the paychecks, payslips, bank account statements, affidavits or any evidence of good standing for you allegations? Deschmockblog certainly is not a source to be trusted.
if you cannot provide the readers with evidence of immaculate credibility, you’d better hold your gob.
Criminal defamation occurs when one purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he or she knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Have a nice day.
Sheese, Ivan:
1) $750 per month for a period of time to select and review self-identified related publications will corrupt anyone? Not. How about the people on Greenpeace’s payroll? Rockefeller Foundation? Government grants and payroll? Get real.
2) What in the world does The Heartland Institute’s position on CAGW have to do with Dr. Crockford’s analysis of data relating to polar bear populations growing in the face of ice loss volumes predicted to decimate their populations? Poor use of a propaganda technique on your part.
2[sic]) Again, Polar Bear populations are increasing under the conditions described by “researchers” at the Union for the Conservation of Nature that would lead to a 30% population decrease. The CAGW-ers are again using models in lieu of hard data.
3) “There is clear evidence that climate change is having a negative impact on polar bear numbers” Have you no self-awareness? No shame? You also throw out data that “experts” would imply decreases in Polar Bear numbers, but the numbers increase. Again, poor use of a propaganda technique on your part.
Is someone paying you to be such a CAGW partisan, Ivan? Lies to support the noble cause?
Where is your data about polar bear numbers increasing? If you are predicting future results of course you are going to have to rely on some type of modelling – what else can you use if an event has not happened yet. Christ – modelling has been used in the commercial world for decades now for forecasting future trends.
Increasing Polar Bear numbers are reported by the involved governments. Do your own research, Ivan.
I know modeling, you obviously don’t. I spent much of my career developing and analyzing engineering, economic and financial models.
The researchers combined polar bear generational length with sea ice projections based on satellite data and computer simulations.
They worked out the probability that reductions in the mean global population size of polar bears will be greater than 30 per cent, 50 per cent and 80 per cent in the space of three generations.
While the likelihood of a more than 30 per cent loss was high, there was little chance of populations crashing to near-extinction levels.
Writing in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters, the team, led by Dr Eric Regehr from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, concluded: “Our findings support the potential for large declines in polar bear numbers owing to sea ice loss.”
“Dr Eric Regehr from the US Fish and Wildlife Service … potential for large declines in polar bear numbers owing to sea ice loss.”
Well, we had the sea ice loss without the potentiality being realized. What does that tell you about the forecasting ability of the good doctor and his cohorts, Ivan?
Polar bears live right through the early Holocene, flourished.. when the Arctic was often summer ice free.
These twerps seem to think that the extreme ice of the LIA is the norm..
Shows JUST HOW LITTLE they actually are aware of.
Their computer simulations are almost certainly a load of GIGO !!
ivankinsman writes:
===================
This video footage in the link below, captured in Canada’s Arctic, offers a devastating look at the impact climate change is having on polar bears in the region. It shows an emaciated bear clinging to life as it scrounges for food on iceless land.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/08/starving-polar-bear-arctic-climate-change-video?CMP=share_btn_link
===================
How old was that polar bear? Do polar bears ever get too old to hunt? Do they ever get arthritis or other degenerative or debilitating diseases? What percentage of an arbitrary cohort of pre-AGW polar bears, e.g., those born 1900-1920, have died? When old polar bears die, how do they die? Was that bear autopsied to determine its cause of death? Do you know anything about the lives and deaths of polar bears in general? Aside from what can be seen from that video, do you know anything at all about that particular bear? If not please acknowledge that your video is presented purely as propaganda and is absolutely worthless as an argument. Thanks.
Also from the article accompanying the video; “The bear eventually comes across a trashcan used by Inuit fishermen, rummaging through it with little luck.” So this is a bear that has been interacting with human populations, not out feeding naturally. It may have been shot or poisoned for all we know. Stories like this are a disgraceful attempt to influence public perceptions.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/24/fat-and-happy-polar-bears-no-longer-a-climate-chan/
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/110176778.jpg
This large male bear was not old, and he certainly died within hours or days of this moment.
The source states that this bear died from starvation so why would they lie about it? Why do you talk about an ‘old bear’ when this bear is patently not old but just completely emaciated? Because you do not want to see a causal link with climate change and will argue to kingdom come – like Scott Pruitt at the EPA – that anything that happens is always the result of something else other than AGW.
Ivan, what about all the increasing number of Polar Bears that didn’t starve?
Dr. Crockford simply pointed out the documented increases in bear numbers, in spite of model predictions that current ice extents would result in a 30% reduction in bear numbers. Where is your argument concerning those facts? Filming a starving bear proves nothing.
Get a grip, Ivan. Quit pulling Griffies. [I had a hapless brother named Mike, and whenever someone screwed up we called it pulling a Mikie.]
You need to start doing more reading Dave so that you don’t end up like hapless Mikie when you find that everything you believe in is a hoax.
The Arctic is a refrigerator that cools the planet. Climate change is the equivalent to leaving that refrigerator door wide open – get it?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42330771
Is there some message in your random collection of words, Ivan? What do they have to do with my observation that Dr. Crockford was correct in her criticism of others’ model of bear numbers?
Using your own analogy, it is the function of the Arctic “refrigerator door” to remain open to bleed off planetary heat developed towards the Equator.
Sorry Dave but you and other like-minded sceptics just don’t get it.
Like Trump you think that the status quo can be maintained. Innovation in renewable energy is taking place all around you and adaptation to climate change is now being implemented. You think life will continue as normal whereas in fact the US is already being left behind when it comes to innovation and investment in clean energy.
There are many in America who can’t wait to see the ejection of Trump and his side-kick Pruitt from public office so that the US can rejoin the 2015 Paris agreement. Short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term environmental degradation no longer makes sense financially, but the US sceptics are too blinkered to admit this. Time to get real instead of sticking your collective heads in the sand.
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2017/12/13/this-is-a-huge-success-story-eu-announces-e9bn-in-funding-for-climate-action/
Well, Ivan, I’ll go along with Bill Gates in his call for true technological innovation as opposed to technology dead ends such as the current, subsidized wind and solar.
The U.S. will always lead technology development. That is, unless we get another Obamaite in.
“so why would they lie about it?”
AGW Propaganda, of course, you brainless naïve little child-mind.
They LIE about so many other things in the name of their agenda.
Ivan, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that human CO2 is changing the climate in any way, except giving an enhanced biosphere, which is a benefit to all life on Earth.
Feel free to post some REAL empirical evidence if you have any .
Arctic sea ice is currently in the top 90-95% of Holocene extents.. ANOMALOUSLY HIGH.
Polar bears survived/thrived during the first 7000-8000 year of the Holocene when there was MUCH LESS SEA ICE THAN NOW..
“Short-term economic gain at the expense of long-term environmental degradation no longer makes sense financially”
You are talking about wind and solar, aren’t you ivan…
environmental degradation… most certainly
financially….. wind and solar are subsidy farming at best
——————
It is noted that you STILL RUN and HIDE from a simple question… stop being a COWARD..
“How did Polar Bears survive the first 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene , when sea ice was a LOT LESS than it currently is, often being summer ice free.” ?
Poor Ivan, still sucked in by the propaganda pap of desmog and the guardian.
They do NOT do facts, ivan… and you have to mighty GULLIBLE and brain-washed to even bother looking at them.
Polar bears lived through the full period of the Holocene, when Arctic was often summer ice free.
You are talking ARRANT NONSENSE, just like you always do.
That’s a load of BS and you know it. This is factual evidence – captured on video – but of course brushed aside as ‘ARRANT NONSENSE’ because you have no other answer to the facts. I think you are the one who is brain-washed my friend…
You are still the same brain-washed idiot you always were.
FACTS need never enter the green sludge that was once your mind.
Do you DENY that polar bears existed through the whole of the Early mid Holocene when the Arctic was summer sea-ice free.
Video is an old or sick bear, and you are tooooo blinkered to see it.
“you have no other answer to the facts”
Ivan old chap, it is patently obvious that you wouldn’t recognise facts if a swarm of them scuttled under your slimy, noisome bridge, leapt on you and sank their fangs into your leprous green snout.
Average Arctic sea ice has not changed in 10 years.
1979 was an EXTREME extent of sea ice, up there with the extreme extents of the LIA.
Polar bears have survives the whole Holocene, when sea ice levels have been far lower than the currently anomalously high levels.
The Gaurdian is a blatant propaganda rag, nothing more, probably less.
There is absolutely NO proof that this poor bears plight was anything to do with climate change
You have been SUCKED -IN by propaganda aimed straight at brain-washed kool-aide quaffers like you.
And the freeze is happening EARLIER, not later
Whenever a sceptic quotes ‘Holocene’ I always advise them to read this excellent article as a rebuttal:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/09/the-climate-has-changed-before-but-this-is-different-look-at-the-archeological-record?CMP=share_btn_fb
The article supported the claims made here that temperatures have changed, up and down, significantly over the Holocene; temperatures today are not unusual and are actually between the ups of the Roman and Medieval Optimums and downs of the Little Ice Age.
Predictions of climate doom are based on speculation about the future and unidentified “tipping points,” not observational science, Ivan.
Still the info from the gutter
You really have to get some reality into your life, or you will remain forever a monumental CRETIN.
Really a PATHETIC attempt to avoid a simple question
“Come on Ivan, PLEASE EXPLAIN how polar bears survived the first 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene when there was far less sea ice.”