The Polar-Bear-Gate Saga: How a picture is worth a thousand lies – Paul Nicklen and Michael Mann vs Susan Crockford

Guest essay by Jim Steele

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

What oddly seems to surprise so many people, reality can quickly disagree with the hypotheses and speculative models of scientists. The polar bear is a rich case in point. In 2008, the polar bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act as a result of the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) petition. Due to hypotheses regards future effects of increasing CO2 on sea ice and polar bear health, CBD argued polar bears were endangered. However then Interior Secretary Kempthorne made it clear that “the ESA will not be used as a tool for trying to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for creating climate change.” But as seen in other memos and petitions, such as for the bearded seals, the CBD ultimately wants to use the ESA as a tool to regulate CO2.

So the CBD stepped up their demands and petitioned the Obama administration to list the bears as endangered. Climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Michael Mann co-authored a 2010 letter to Interior Secretary Salazar supporting CBD efforts. They warned “sea ice has been projected to disappear in the 2030s or before” and lost sea ice was both a future and “current threat to this important habitat of the polar bear.” The Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) led by researchers like Andrew Derocher, Steve Amstrup and Ian Stirling warned the world that “two thirds of the world’s bears will be lost by mid-century due to climate change”. The PBSG published a status table for all the polar bear sub-populations showing in the best studied populations, 8 were declining.

However, since 2010 those predictions have been unravelling. All the evidence now reveals polar bears are thriving and increasing, and the PBSG’s recent status tables show just that. Research by Chambellant and Stirling determined it was heavy springtime ice that was most detrimental to bears and their main prey, the ringed seal. The loss of Arctic summer sea ice was happening faster than CO2 driven models had predicted, suggesting flawed models. Research revealed that in response to the natural Arctic Oscillation, thick sea ice had been blown into the warmer Atlantic due to a directional shift in freezing winds. Further loss of Arctic sea ice has recently been shown to be caused by cycles of intruding waters from the Pacific and the Atlantic resulting in heat in that gets stored in the subsurface of the Arctic Ocean, dynamics that have not been accurately incorporated into global climate models. Accordingly, the loss of sea ice has not accelerated. Instead the loss has slowed considerably.

Skeptics argued such evidence challenges prevailing hypotheses about the polar bears’ demise, and question the contention that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of sea ice fluctuations. Driven by the hubris of scientists like Michael Mann whose careers are totally invested in the “dire predictions” of rising CO2, the normal scientific process of challenging a hypothesis was framed as an “attack on science”.

Again in 2010, in the paper Climate Change and the Integrity of Science Peter Gleick wrote, “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. Accompanying his paper (below) was a photo-shopped picture of a polar bear stranded on a shrinking piece of ice. A deception that skeptics quickly pointed out.

clip_image002

So the following correction was placed in the paper’s online version.

“Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph, but a collage. The image was selected by the editors [of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science], and it was a mistake to have used it. The original image has been replaced in the online HTML and PDF versions of the article with an unaltered photograph from National Geographic.”

That replacement picture (below) was from National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklin, who would become infamous for specializing in dead and skinny polar bear photos. If Gleick or his editors were pulling photos from an archive (National Geographic?) of photographs, then the question arises if the fake collage was also the work of the same photographer. And if so, for what purpose were they creating such a dishonest photo? The timing of the article and fake photo also raised suspicions from skeptics as it coincided with the Center for Biological Diversity’s campaign to up-list the polar bear from threatened to endangered,

clip_image004

Despite having “carelessly” used a fake photo, Gleick was anointed the Chairman of the new task force on “scientific ethics and integrity” for the American Geophysical Union in 2011. Leading by example, in 2012 Gleick was outed in a flagrant attempt to anonymously smear the Heartland Institute’s climate skepticism by disseminating documents dishonestly obtained, including a damning but forged memo. Quickly identified by internet skeptics, Gleick finally confessed. Although the forged document was only being disseminated by Gleick, he denied any hand in forgery, and there was not enough evidence to convict him of forgery. In a KQED interview, Michael Mann, likely motivated by self-protection, downplayed Gleick’s underhanded actions as “poor judgement”. Mann then argued the release of the climate-gate emails, emails that had exposed Mann’s own underhanded methods, was a more dastardly deed. To this day, it is still unknown if the release of climate gate emails were the work of a whistle-blower or a hacker.

However, consistent with Mann’s efforts to promote polar bears as an icon of catastrophic global warming, Mann expressed no concern about Gleick’s fake polar bear picture. Indeed Mann was actively trying to pull on heart strings by mewing in the CBD release, “When I ventured up to Hudson Bay in mid-November and saw the undernourished polar bears with their cubs, sitting around at the shore of the Hudson Bay, waiting for the then month-overdue sea ice to arrive so they could begin hunting for food, it suddenly came home for me. For the first time in my life, I actually saw climate change unfolding before my eyes. It was a sobering moment, and one I’ll never forget.” In contrast to such storytelling, the unpublished research data from Stirling and Lunn, determined polar bear’s Body Condition Index for Hudson Bay bears had been improving since 1998 (in Landscapes and Cycles, p. 217). Improving body condition was also consistent with the increasing number of Hudson Bay bears estimated in subsequent surveys.

Susan Crockford runs the website polarbearscience.com, that aggregates the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed science and media releases by polar bear researchers. For example, Crockford reported the latest survey showing a healthy rebounding Western Hudson Bay population, months before the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) researchers publicized the increase. The PBSG had incorrectly predicted a dramatic decline in Hudson Bay bears, so their tardiness to expose their own shortcomings is understandable. Crockford also reported the lack of consensus among polar bear researchers. While Enviornment Canada agreeed with the latest survey that estimated a healthy 1030 Western Hudson Bay bears, PBSG alarmist Andrew Derocher was actively pushing a much lower estimate of 800 bears to the media and suggesting the bears were doomed. This too is understandable as Derocher was invested in his earlier predictions that “by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone from their current populations”

Nonetheless despite mutiple surveys suggesting polar bear abundance was and is increasing, others tried to deny the evidence and suggest bears were starving and still on the brink of extinction. In 2015, photos by Kerstin Langenberger and once again by Paul Nicklin were pumped on social media, suggesting bears were suffering from a climate catastrophe. Who were these photographers?

clip_image005

The dying bear above was put on Facebook by Kerstin Langenberger whom internet articles referred to as just a German photographer. But a little digging revealed she is a Greenpeace activist, which is consistent with her catastrophic narratives that accompanied her photo and contradicted our best science. She stated, “With the pack ice retreating further and further north every year, they tend to be stuck on land where there’s not much food,” and “many times I have seen horribly thin bears, and those were exclusively females – like this one here” and “Only once I have seen a bear getting a big fat ‘5,’ but several times I have seen dead bears and bears like this one: a mere ‘1’ on the scale, doomed to death.” [polar bears’ body condition is often rated from 1(dangerously thin) to 5 (fat)].

However contradicting Langenberger’s narrative, Norwegian Polar Institute researcher Kit Kovacs stated there’s reason to question claims that the number of animals experiencing such hardships is increasing. Our monitoring work indicates that (on-average) bears in the Svalbard population have NOT declined in condition over the last two decades – based on male body masses and fat levels”. Similarly, in the South Beaufort Sea population, female body condition had improved despite reduced summer ice.

clip_image007

Also in 2015, Nicklin posted his photo of a dead bear that went viral. Journalist Andrew Freedman promoted the picture in Mashable writing, “Global warming may have led to the death of this polar bear.” Presenting a thin veneer of objectivity, he quotes polar bear researcher Ian Stirling who suggested that Nicklen’s photo shows a bear that most likely, but not certainly, died as a result of starvation related to sea ice melt. But Stirling’s remarks must be taken with a grain of salt as there is absolutely no evidence to support why the bear died. Furthermore, Stirling has appeared slightly schizophrenic lately as has been detailed. For example despite his research showing cycles of heavy spring ice had been most detrimental to seals and bears, Stirling and Derocher’s review of polar bear “science” used the very same research to falsely imply that less summer ice was the problem.

In contrast to those 2015 photos, Crockford’s website was one of the few places where scientific reports of a healthy bear population could be found. Contradicting Langenberger and Nicklin’s story-telling of dead bears strewn across Svalbard due to climate change, Crockford posted links to actual researchers from the Norwegian Polar Institute who reported fat bears in Svalbard.

Researchers were reporting

“The polar bears on Svalbard is round and full, thanks to a good [ice year] and good hunting opportunities.” And “… Polar bears were fat, many looked like pigs”, says polar researcher at the Norwegian Polar Institute, Jon Aars to the High North News. Furthermore the Svalbard bears are part of the Barent Sea population and in 2017 Crockford relayed the most recent survey data showing Barent Sea Bears have been increasing. But such facts don’t have the emotional appeal as Nicklin’s fanciful pictorial story telling.

clip_image009

The Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) had created a status table in 2009 to illustrate the trends of each polar bear population. Above is their 2010 version. The trends are boldly shown in red for declining and green for stable or increasing populations. Eight populations were believed to be declining of which 6 were considered very likely to decline further. Only 3 populations were considered stable and only 1 was increasing. These declining PBSG estimates also went viral, and websites such as the one run by psychologist John Cook, who is now part of the well-funded Center for Climate Change Communication, posted an article concluding, “Current analysis of subpopulations where data is sufficient clearly shows that those subpopulations are mainly in decline” and thus support the ESA listing of polar bears as threatened. In contrast in Landscapes and Cycles I documented how bear populations since 2010 were definitely increasing based on latest research.That analyses has been confirmed while earlier PBSG hype of declining populations and speculation of coming extirpations have not survived the test of time.

Fortunately Susan Crockford’s Polar Bear Science blog has continuoulsy discussed population trends as reported by bear experts plus PBSG’s status updates. While the PBSG removes their old tables, Crockford’s website serves as an archive that allows the public to readily witness how the bears have been increasing. For example the 2014 table (below) revealed the good news that only 3 of the past 8 populations were still declining, one was still increasing, and the stable populatons had doubled to 6.

Oddly in 2017 the PBSG eliminated the trends from their population table. The most likely reason for this omission would be that none of the bear populations are currently declining. Every population would be green or data deficient. Despite rising CO2 and reduced summer sea ice, polar bears are doing quite well and that contradicted the their predictions.

Of the 3 previously declining populations listed in their 2014 status report, the Baffin Bay population has now increased from 1,546 in 2004 to 2,826 in the most recent survey. The Kane Basin bears, that suffer from heavy ice, were estimated at 167 in 1997 but rose to 357 in 2014. The South Beaufort Sea population estimation remained unchanged but this population has been heavily criticized for poor analyses of mark and recatpure data.

clip_image011

clip_image013

In the face of rapid increases in the Baffin Bay bear population, a social media splash of Nicklin’s starving bear on Baffin Island appears to be another orchestrated attempt to resuscitate the failing claim that climate change is killing bears. National Geographic who sponsored Nicklin reports by “telling the story of one polar bear, Nicklen hopes to convey a larger message about how a warming climate has deadly consequences.” The NY Times pushed the video with similar headlines: Video of Starving Polar Bear ‘Rips Your Heart Out of Your Chest’. The Washington Post hyped the bear as evidence of an environmental disaster with the headlines, ‘We stood there crying’: Emaciated polar bear seen in ‘gut-wrenching’ video and photos. If you searched the internet for an objective scientific examination, oddly no matter how many variations of “starving polar bears” are queried Google’s first link brings up the WWF’s plea for money to save the bears, and perhaps a violation of net neutrality.

Snopes who advertises itself as a fact-checker of truth, rated Nicklin’s starving bear video as “TRUE”. But Snopes’ bias is revealed by its discussion on the photo’s relevance, which pushes catastrophic climate change speculation. Snopes quotes polar bear researcher Steve Amstrup, who’s has flipped flopped on several bear issues over his career and whose “expertise model” has been severely criticized by colleagues in released emails. Amstrup promotes the starving bear photo on his website, again with the obligatory thin veneer of objectivity stating, “we cannot say, from the footage captured here, that this bear’s malnutrition was caused by global warming and its associated sea ice loss”. He then launches his speculative catastrophic message, “The problem is that an ever-warmer future means polar bears will have less and less access to their seal prey, so the rate at which bears die from malnutrition/starvation will increase. So, regardless of the proximate cause of this bear’s condition, this heart-wrenching footage provides us with a warning about the future.” Yet not a word about the survey of Baffin Bay bears robustly increasing from 1,546 in 2004 to 2,826 today.

 

clip_image015

Amstrup and Mann are facing an embarrassing professional dilemma. With all the polar bear populations increasing or stable, their predictions that two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone by the middle of this century appears destined for utter failure. They had to do something. Otherwise who would trust a doctor whose past diagnoses were absolutely wrong. So, Harvey, Stirling, Amstrup, Mann and a professor of psychobabble Stephan Lewandowsky, banded together as coauthors of the paper Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy that fortuitously gets publicized alongside NIcklin’s starving bear hype.

Their paper acknowledges observations that polar bears have yet to be harmed writing, “Although the effects of warming on some polar-bear subpopulations are not yet documented and other subpopulations are apparently still faring well.” But they then confuse speculation with proven facts by suggesting “the fundamental relationship between polar-bear welfare and sea-ice availability is well established.” Clearly the growing bear populations present an undeniable challenge to any belief in the “requirement” of summer ice.

Their paper argued, “a growing body of scientific research reports the wide array of negative effects of AGW on biodiversity” by citing Parmesan whose bogus claims about the negative effects of climate change on wildlife are well documented. Harvey, Stirling, Amstrup and Mann confuse speculative hypotheses with “fundamental relationship”. Published observations have shown heavy springtime ice is more harmful for seals and bears. Observations by Arrigo determined that reduced ice, whether natural or anthropogenic, has increased phytoplankton productivity and bolstered the Arctic food web, while fishery researchers find that less ice and warmer temperatures increase Arctic cod abundance that is required to sustain the seals that sustain the bears.

Because skeptic websites like Crockford’s polarbearscience.com, Anthony Watts’ WUWT, and many others are the best source for alternative explanations that challenge catastrophic hypotheses, they are denigrated by these supposed objective scientists. As mounting evidence continues to turn against their prior polar bear predictions Harvey, Stirling, Amstrup, Mann and Lewandowsky’s were running low on scientific ammunition. So now they chose to publish a paper, solely aimed at shooting the messengers. They offered no scientific facts about polar bears that contradicted anything Crockford had published. Their arguments were based solely on the fallacy of authority, authorities whose predictions are failing. Their paper is nothing more than a smear campaign hoping to suppress the upwelling call for more debate. Such tactics, tactics that try to obscure any evidence that challenges a failing hypothesis, are the real attacks on the scientific process. That is why Mann has been labeled by some as a disgrace to the profession. And whether or not Nicklin’s latest wretched polar bear photo is part of an orchestrated attempt to resuscitate their failed predictions, the media hype reveals that such photos, taken out of context, are worth a thousand lies.

clip_image017

Jim Steele is author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Advertisements

157 thoughts on “The Polar-Bear-Gate Saga: How a picture is worth a thousand lies – Paul Nicklen and Michael Mann vs Susan Crockford

  1. There is also evidence from interviewing the locals, Eskimo or Inuit, who have been in the area continuously, as to the abundance and condition of the polar bears. The locals were reporting that the bears were more abundant and in good condition, from people with decades of experience of the area.

      • Luther,

        Eskimos compete with polar bears for the seal resource.

        Before the high-powered, repeating rifle, it was a close-run thing as to whether humans or bears were the top carnivore in the Arctic. Of course, eating a bear was recycling, since grandma was left on the floes for the bears.

      • Polar bears were easy to kill with the help of dogs and no big deal to kill by a group of hunters. They could also be easily lured in with bait. Humans were the top predators in the Arctic for as long as they have been there.

      • Extreme Haitus

        I suspect that it took some time to work out how to kill polar bears and during that process a number of hunters were lunch.

        When a new migration of people from NE China made their way around the Arctic to northern Greenland, sometime before 6000 years ago, they already had experience hunting mammoth together. Perhaps it was natural and easy to transfer that skill to hunting carnivores, after a short introductory course in survival.

        The Inuit in Western Hudson Bay have been agitating for permission to kill more bears per year (there isn’t a moratorium on it) because there are so many more of them and they are showing up in the villages with increasing frequency. The kill permits are sold for about $50k each to foreign hunters. That money belongs to the community to which it was allocated.

      • Crispin

        People were already hunting polar and brown bears in Eurasia before they arrived in North America.

        This was evolution: competition between two dominant omnivores (though polar bears are primarily carnivorous omnivores, like the Inuit) for the apex niche.

        Yes, some individual hunters were killed. But that was the cost of this competition – just as some warriors were killed in inter-tribal battles. The bottom line for bears is that they have very low reproductive rates and they cannot sustain many losses before their populations decline.

        And note that female bears must use dens to give birth. So, find a den with the help of your dogs, get your bear hunters together around it, and kill the bear. Or get your dogs to bay a bear in the open and kill it that way.

        The net effect was obvious in the historical journals of Arctic travelers. Very localized polar bears and rare to nonexistent in most areas.

      • I expect that Polar Bears die from various causes. Old or young ones may not get enough food by being out-competed for available food.

        So, how many are we talking about? Polar Bears in the wild live 20-30 years on average, so for every 1000, you might expect 33 to 50 to die every year – sometimes more, sometimes less. If there are over 25,000 Polar Bears alive today, that means that typically, 825 to 1250 will die each year, many from starvation.

        To look only at how many starving Polar Bears there are as an indicator of species health would be like looking at how human cemeteries keep having more and more people ‘dying to get in there’ and concluding that humans should be classified as an endangered species.

    • Indeed. In the past the CAGW Gang/Environmentalists could/would just dismiss this because it wasn’t from one of their approved ‘scientists.’ But now in Canada at least the politically correct government insists that the ‘Traditional Knowledge’ of indigenous people (‘First Nations’ as they are called there) must be taken seriously.

      So this puts the Gang, who have co-opted indigenous people ever since the famous ‘Crying Indian’ campaign of the 1970s, into a complicated predicament. So far they have just been finding useful indigenous idiots from one First Nation to challenge others but that won’t work so well with the Inuit, as unlike most southern First Nations they actually do still have some real connection with the land and its realities.

      That said, I’m sure they are trying to bribe somebody up there – or in the bigger First Nations political structure somewhere else -to disagree with the people who know this issue first hand.

      • Definitely, anyone doing subsistence hunting will know the fauna very well.
        BTW, there are accounts that Iron Eyes Cody was not an Indian, but Italian. There is a good deal of pious fr@ud in the movement.

      • From Wikipedia:

        Iron Eyes Cody
        Iron Eyes Cody (April 3, 1904 – January 4, 1999) was an American actor.
        Iron Eyes Cody was an Italian-American actor. He portrayed Native Americans in Hollywood films. He also played a Native American shedding a tear about litter in one of the country’s most well-known television PSAs,… wikipedia.org
        Born: April 3, 1904, Gueydan, Louisiana, USA
        Died: January 4, 1999, Los Angeles, California, USA
        Cause of Death: Natural causes
        Nationality: American
        Net worth: $400 thousand (celebritynetworth.com)
        Spouse: Wendy Foote (m. 1992-1993), Bertha Parker Pallan (m. 1936-1978)
        Parents: Antonio de Corti, Francesca Salpietra
        Children: Robert Tree Cody, Arthur Cody, Joseph Cody

    • Yes, I left this over in the Notes section last week:

      Now this Inuit guy is obviously not a “real” expert like Griff, as he’s never actually published a peer reviewed article on polar bears, and he has the distinct disadvantage of living full time in the area, unlike someone who spends whole days at a time there, but I kinda believe him:

      http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.4442887/viral-video-of-emaciated-polar-bear-may-not-be-what-it-seems-nunavut-bear-monitor-says-1.4442892

      Wonder why his story doesn’t get the same hits as the first one about the starving bear, the one with the VERY OBVIOUS BROKEN FOOT?

  2. “Their paper is nothing more than a smear campaign hoping to suppress the upwelling call for more debate. Such tactics, tactics that try to obscure any evidence that challenges a failing hypothesis, are the real attacks on the scientific process. That is why Mann has been labeled by some as a disgrace to the profession.”

    Just how much more proof do we need that much of academic climate science is a straight up conspir@cy?
    It is time for a Congressional Investigation to look into these lies and malfeasance and punish the wrong doers like Mann, et al.

    • Their lies, distortions and malfeasance such as the following, right

      This photo is included in the above published article:

      The dying bear above was put on Facebook by Kerstin Langenberger whom internet articles referred to as just a German photographer.

      And “HA”, me positive that the above photo is a ”photoshopped distortion” of a healthy well-fed Polar Bear, ……. simply because, …… the above pictured bear does not have enough “body fat” to survive a really cold night on a small chunk of floating Arctic ice, ……. let alone surviving the “icy cold” swim in the Arctic Ocean in order to get “on board” that chunk of floating Arctic ice.

      It would have been food for the King Crabs before it made it to that chunk of ice.

      • Someone explain what a “dying” bear should look like. I would expect anything “dying” whether from starvation or disease or just old age to be emaciated. Go to a hospital or nursing home and see what the people look like

      • Polar bears do get cancer and rabies. There is no vet nearby to “put them to sleep.” Rabies is especially sad as it affects the animal’s brain. Death follows, and a simple autopsy would reveal the true cause. But I seem to notice there is never an autopsy. And rather than putting the poor creature out of its misery by shooting with a gun they shoot cameras.

      • A dying polar bear is worth far more in the photo selling business than a dead one.

      • czechlist – December 16, 2017 at 5:00 pm

        Someone explain what a “dying” bear should look like. I would expect anything “dying” whether from starvation or disease or just old age to be emaciated. Go to a hospital or nursing home and see what the people look like

        Czechlist, ….. iffen you ever get around to posting a picture of an “emaciated” Polar Bear being cared for in the warm confines of a Polar Bear hospital or Polar Bear nursing home …… then I promise I will not comment about it freezing to death due to exposure.

  3. Unlike Griff, I’m not a polar bear expert. However, it seems with any large, viable animal population, at a given time, some of them will be dying (old age, crowded off good hunting grounds, injury, bad luck).

    I have no idea what the population of polar bears is (50,000?) or what their life span is (8 years?). With my made-up numbers 50,000/8=6,250 bears die of natural causes each year.

    A photograph of a single starving polar bear will pluck heart strings; 6,250 starving bears will have millions crying in their beer.

    This natural situation seems Taylor-made for lots of starving polar bear pictures, even while the herd is thriving.

    • “…Unlike Griff, I’m not a polar bear expert…”

      Neither am I. Mann seems to fancy himself as one. He can readily identify malnourished polar bears waiting for ice.

      • Where’s the evidence the bear was waiting for ice? There is just as much evidence the bear was waiting for a bus.

      • “the bear was waiting for a bus.”

        By crikey, I think you have it…..

        Poor polar bear was waiting for “meals-on wheels” and it never arrived. !

      • Susan Crockford cites many studies that show bears put on most of their fat in the spring, chowing down on baby seals that cannot be in the water when first born on the ice. By the time the ice melts in the late summer they are often grossly fat. They then fast most of the summer. As the ice grows back they hunt seals on the expanding ice, but it doesn’t contribute as much to their fat as baby seals in the spring, as autumn seals are harder to hunt.

        Michael Mann just demonstrates how little he knows, when he ventures to the coast of Hudson Bay to make whimpering noises. Does he know the growth of ice on that coast this November was one of the earliest since 1979?

    • Agreed. I’m no expert, but I’m sure that these pictures are consistent with bears dying of old age.

      I’m also sure that photographers who don’t feed starving bears are evil.

      • Feeding a dying bear is dangerous … and counter-productive. It would just prolong its agony.

        As suggested by others, the humane thing to have done was to have it put down … then do a necropsy to determine why it was dying. I dare say the diagnosis would not have been global warming!

      • Geeze, the report was that it was starving. The photographer believed it was starving.

        “the humane thing to have done was to have it put down … then do a necropsy to determine why it was dying.”

        Not when they believed they knew what was wrong. The response to starving is to feed it, not put it down.

        Additionally, they probably didn’t have the tools to put it down, nor the required government permits to put it down. Read, “hunting license and bear tag.”

    • In a battle of wits, it matters little that one side has a numerical advantage if they are entirely unarmed. Crockford wins every round.

      • Stirling, Man et al keep bringing salmon to a bear fight: mere morsels that are quickly digested and within a few days, dropped into the deep freeze.

    • Pop, I wonder if the authors of the hit piece on Susan Crockford in Bioscience gave the “Streisand Effect” any consideration? Dr. Crockford mentions in a post on her site today that downloads of her 2017 paper are up three-fold from a few weeks ago. Bioscience apparently driving traffic to her site.

      This Bio-“science” article could serve as another classic example of the Streisand Effect in the Wikipedia entry.

      • Also Susan had twice as many visitors at her site in a single day, after the hit-piece, as she had in the entire two weeks before. I’m glad. Anyone with half a brain can see her work is of sterling quality, if they only take the time to look, and now they are looking. Hip hip hooray for the Streisand Effect!

        Me? I have checked out her Polar Bear Science site for years, for often she is ahead of others when it comes to news about sea-ice conditions, which is my hobby. I learned a lot about polar bears by sheer accident, and found it a joy.

  4. The blog CliScep.com posted a commentary recently about the latest attack piece on Dr Susan Crockford regarding her work on polar bears. Below is a excerpt from the post….

    “…..Of the 92 papers included in the study, 6 are labeled ‘controversial.’ Of the remaining 86, 60 are authored or co-authored by Stirling or Amstrup, or Derocher. That is, close to 70% (69.76%) of the so-called ‘majority-view’ papers are from just three people, 2 of whom wrote the attack paper themselves……”.

    https://cliscep.com/2017/12/14/polar-bear-attack-paper-invalidated-by-non-independent-analysis/.

    If true, this is somehow not surprising.

    • Reviewing and analyzing one’s own papers to draw the conclusions that were obtained in the Harvey/Lewandowsky paper seems pretty deceitful and fraudulent to me. They should be drummed out of science.

  5. I still can’t get one of the polar bear “tragics” to answer the simple question, re sea ice an polar bears..

    How did polar bears survive the first 7000 – 8000 years of the Holocene, when sea ice was MUCH less than current, often actually ‘summer ice free’ on occasions?

    Why is it such a hard question to get an answer to !!

      • What is most ironic, studying all the papers Susan cites, is that it turns out a lot if ice is bad for seals, as there are few air holes and leads for seals to breath at. Also baby seals have to be born on land or up on ice; they are helpless and would drown or quickly freeze otherwise. (Baby seals were hunted because their fluffy pelts are quite different from adults.) What this means is that when the sea-ice is very solid and right up to the shore the seals either die or head south, and this is very bad for the polar bears, who depend on helpless baby seals for much of their yearly body-fat. Susan quotes one study, done during a year of lots of ice, which found skinny mother bears who showed signs of recently nursing yet lacked cubs, which suggested the cubs had died. So much for the idea “more ice is better for bears.”

        Likely there was some winter ice even during Medieval Warm Period, and the bears and seals simply co-existed further from land. (Alarmists used to suggest the sea would be a “desert” away from shore, as it is in some ways on other oceans, but it turns out there is an algae slimeing the bottom of sea-ice (similar to what fouls the hulls of ships) and this makes the edge of sea-ice a rich ecosystem, whether it is close to shore or far out to sea.)

        But the Holocene may have presented an interesting dilemma, with very little ice at all, some years. As the seals must have their pups out of the water, I imagine there was a game of hide and seek along the shores, between the bears and the seals.

        During an ice age I imagine everyone just heads south.

    • And just where were all these polar bears during the LGM when the ice was a mile thick on their present range?

      • Not all of their range. Look up ‘Beringia’ to see that a substantial portion of northern Yukon and the adjacent part of Alaska was unglaciated due to lack of precipitation. The two northern mountain ranges you cross (the Ogilvie and the Richardson IIRC) as you travel the Dempster highway to Inuvik and the MacKenzie delta were not scoured by ice.

      • Wind was a big factor in ice-free Beringia.

        Polar bears and their seal prey moved south when the Arctic was iced over. Until recently, the oldest polar bear subfossil was aged 70 Ka from Britain.

  6. I was an undergraduate at college with Dr. Amstrup, our families were both from Nebraska. He needed a haircut for a swimming meet he was competing in and I offered to give him one. He, then, needed to visit a real barber before appearing in public without a hat. I’m afraid Steve got another haircut offer from Dr. Mann and the results have been the same.

    • President Obama was always quite proud to announce a haircut for the coal industry. Trump ought to be announcing his own haircuts for the Polar Bear industry, especially as the French government now seems willing to fund all this stuff when America calls time at the bar.

      Perhaps they might also like take these allegedly starving bears into temporary custody and give them a few slap-up meals of French Poley bear cuisine such they get in zoos. They could probably also go the fast food walk-through approach, as the bears seem to be quite capable of gorging themselves fat in a very short space of time when presented with a banquet. Even if some few of the bears really were endangered, which I doubt, there seems to be many better options than crashing the world economy by trying to reverse the fossil-fueled industrial revolution.

      • Now that President Merkron has taken the mantle and scepter of global warming for his own I think it is beholden upon everyone to highlight the good work he is doing at every opportunity. Let us all see the steady flow of funds from the coffers of Versailles to the third world in reparation for the hardships caused by global warming there. Let us all witness a monotonic up-ramping of French funding for human GHG-related global warming research. Merkron is talking a fantastic game but people need to appreciate not only his eloquence on the subject but also his financial commitments.

  7. The bear looks diseased or possibly poisoned. I don’t get the debate or panic. A simple test would settle it all. Where is the carcass?

      • Or simply understand that the natural course of predators is to have fairly high infant and adolescent mortality.

      • ristvan “Likely osteosarcoma.”

        Have seen this comment elsewhere.
        Why?
        Not an expert on bears but in humans osteosarcoma is extremely rare.
        Many cancers occur in most species and are a cause of emaciation before death but so is starvation, diabetes, peritonitis, bowel obstruction etc.
        The bear looks gravely ill as opposed to “just” starving and I would expect a medical cause to be highly likely, just not O/S the number one cause.

      • At one site a person commented the bear was foaming at the mouth and that bears do get rabies. Rabies attacks the brain, and animals that have effected brains wander about is a very sad way, doomed. When we had an outbreak in New Hampshire the raccoon wandered like drunks, and skunks discharged their stink aimlessly. Then there was suddenly a low population of skunks and raccoon for a while.

        One thing I noticed was that towards the end of the outbreak other animals had learned not to eat the dead bodies in the woods. (I think birds weren’t effected.) You could find some perfect skeletons in the woods.

    • As Arctic seal specialist Jeff Higdon noted in one of his emails four days after the video went viral, what Nicklen *should* have done was contact the nearest Conservation Office and inform them of the situation. They could have then sent someone to humanely put the bear down or authorize the SeaLegacy crew to do it themselves (they say they didn’t have a gun – why on earth were they travelling in polar bear country without one or a guide authorized to carry?). Then a necropsy could have been done. But now it is too late.

      I’ve criticized Higdon for not contacting the media sooner but otherwise, the rest of his comments and advise are sound https://polarbearscience.com/2017/12/11/bioscience-paper-and-starving-polar-bear-follow-up/

      Derocher, Stirling and Amstrup made statements to the media after Higdon’s comments became common knowledge (there goes *his* career in Arctic research!), well after the video was released.

      A day late and a dollar short, as they say. Any media outlet would have taken their call on day one about the case (ready as the media ever are to give these guys a bullhorn) but none of them bothered, perhaps because it suited their purposes to stay quiet.

      Another shameful incident, in my opinon – all round: SeaLegacy folks, the media, senior polar bear researches who people turn to for the truth.

      No wonder my blog views are through the roof.

      • It is the known Streisand effect. All they are getting is more people knowing what they are trying to hide. That polar bears are doing fine.

        A top predator that lives in isolation most usual death is by hunger, as once he has trouble hunting he quickly falls into a “failure to hunt –> hunger –> weakness –> failure to hunt” spiral. Life is very difficult for predators. These people seem to be implying that without Arctic warming and sea ice decline polar bears would mostly die from old age associated illnesses while being taken care by other bears at bear nursing homes.

        A great example of how easy is to manipulate people through emotions. Goebbels would be proud.

      • Sue, as a polar bear expert, I would value your comments on my post at 6:08 am on this blog as to whether the filming was done legally?

        Thanks in advance

      • Susan Crockford

        As an Ontario resident with half a wit, I absolutely do not believe that photographer was out taking photos of polar bears without a high powered rifle of modern design nearby. An ass-covering, “I didn’t have one on me,” would be belied by his assistant guide holding a 303 semi-automatic with a full clip, at least. Even alarmist journalists are not stupid enough to venture far from a village without protection. No Innu would step out there without borrowing the best weapon his family has available.

        My sister lived for years in Inuvik and it is not just bears one has to watch for. The annual wild husky hunt (escaped dogs) around Inuvik would get the Southern dog lovers up in arms if they knew about it. (In fall they ‘pack up’ and are extremely dangerous, ripping people limb from limb when they can.)

        Nope, that photographer was armed with a camera and plausible deniability. His guide probably drew a bead on it the whole time in case it charged, something polar bears are wont to do as soon as they see something terrestrial and edible.

      • How long would it take for a bear to starve and shrink to that skinny size? Do they hibernate also? The size of that bear indicates it was not small through its life span, and it grew up to a formidable size before death somehow. Just sayin, there is more to that story in my eyes. Anomaly, for a specific reason, in the end.

  8. Only alarmist “care” about polar bears … as long as the images pay money!

    But the real challenge for alarmists is to follow a homeless transgender … transnational … transracial … transvirginal … on a lonely street of Paris or New York City … watch the toil of “Climate Change” upon the body … the degradation of the soul … until death … on a lonely street with a digital billboard of Michael Bloomberg giving $15 Billion to the UN Green Climate Fund to support his “Ambassador” status to the UN.

  9. “To this day, it is still unknown if the release of climate gate emails were the work of a whistle-blower or a hacker.”

    Read recently at Climate Audit that Steve McIntyre says that he knows who the source of the Climategate (2.0?) emails is and that it was not hacked … rather an open portal. I’m open to correction if I have misinterpreted what I read there.

    • Anthony also knows who it is, and has a copy of the whole file. I admire that he earned the trust of one of the most important whistle blowers of the modern age.

  10. Ah, good ol’ Ursus bogus. His official home is

    https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/the-last-polar-bear-gm135183496-4095333

    which notes:

    A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images [sic] is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now)

    The people behind the bear photo and the collage are not named.

    More about U. bogus is at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/new-bear-species-discovered-ursus-bogus/

    If you’d prefer the southern hemisphere, apparently ice transports well.

  11. This is not going to go over well with some, but when I saw the dying Polar Bear, I choked.
    Why? Because the bear reminded me of my mother when she was dying. At one point she became dehydrated. We knew she had lung cancer, and other developing issues. One can do very little, and it is difficult to watch. I have no idea how medical professionals deal with this.
    That the dying bear was used as she/he was, I find repugnant.

    • Agree. My grandfather died of terminal lung cancer chaxecia. Cigarettes. My uncle died of terminal prostate cancer, after the predicted 7 year Astra anti-testrostrogen drug failed. Been there, done that. Twice.

    • Agreed,in one photo the left forelimb was badly swollen. Osteosarcoma may have been the cause, but not as likely as a cellulitis, possibly a maiming fight injury.
      This means the animal cannot hunt and so dies of dehydration and septicaemia.
      The photographer could, if possible, humanely killed this animal.
      We do not know if this were done.

  12. so why is it that every scientific expedition to the arctic I see on tv has two Inuit guards with rifles.

    and why don’t Harvey, Stirling, Amstrup, Mann and Lewandowsky do the right thing and camp out in the Arctic without armed guards given how rare the bears have become.
    and if lighting does strike and they get eaten they will have done a great service in helping the bears ward off starvation. what more could a dedicated scientist hope for.

  13. You can like polar bears or seals but not both. These people must hate seals. Wikipedia appears to get it right about the polar bear as an apex predator. There are about 25,000 polar bears. Most never make it to adulthood as per most species in the wild. Of those that do, the average life span is 16 to 18 years. That means that about 1400 polar bears die each year. When a polar bear gets old they start to slow down. They become too slow to catch food so die mostly of starvation. That is also true for other apex predators like the African lion. Prey animals get caught and eaten as they slow down. No animal in the wild dies of old age.

    • Yeah, why are we celebrating polar bears again? By our current ethics and morality logic, we should be celebrating the death of those bastards. I mean they are big white, heterosexual meat eaters who have no regard for other species rights. They are basically violating every single rule in the progressive rulebook.

    • As Kurt Vonnegut said “There are two parties, the haves and the have nots”.
      Happens all over the place…

  14. “… the media hype reveals that such photos, taken out of context, are worth a thousand lies.” How true. A UK tabloid paper, the Daily Mirror, published a full page of letters on the photo, the content of which indicating the propaganda had worked.

    Nowhere, however, do I see news of airlines and cruise companies struggling to get customers. People still turn up on the school run in their ever-larger offspring cocoons and sit there with the engine running. Double standards?

  15. Don’t forget that nonsense like this also undermines our side of the debate as well. In some ways sceptics should encourage such stories because when they are eventually debunked, you guys get another group of people joining your ranks.

    • Se the ‘|Streisand Effect’ and Susan Crockford’s comments further up the line. We Do have more people joining our ranks.

  16. Tangential comment –

    “The NY Times pushed the video with similar headlines: Video of Starving Polar Bear ‘Rips Your Heart Out of Your Chest’.”….. “We stood there crying’: Emaciated polar bear seen in ‘gut-wrenching’ video and photos….”.

    Couldn’t they find an obliging seal for this polar bear to ACTUALLY rip the heart out of, so that it could live a little longer and kill more seals?

    This is not a comment on the polar bear debate, it’s a comment on the strange emotional inconsistency that human beings have regarding the natural economy of predation. Perhaps Prof. Lewandowsky will turn his attention to this puzzle

    • Yeah, I doubt that they would have “stood there crying” if it would have been a human hunter starving. It’s just so weird. Where are the emotional videos of seals getting murdered by polar bears?

  17. Doom brings the money in, bears doing fine does not. So you are researcher in the area. Which approach do you go for?

  18. The Climategate emails must have been released by an insider with deep knowledge of the UEA’s IT structure, not a hacker. I’ve always thought that the police investigation pulled its punches, given the shocking nature of the material.

    • One might suspect that the police found a swamp that appeared to be too large to drain, so carefully backed off and left it alone.

  19. Let’s see 30,000 bears with a life span of less than 30 years means there around a thousand dead bears every years – so it follows that there’s an army of photographers out there looking for snap shots to sell to the propaganda machine.

    • Steve, you beat me to it. I was just about to make the point that, in a world of increasing bear population, needs must that the mortality rate would also increase.

      • I’ve been thinking along the same lines. With the polar bear population expanding, won’t the Arctic eventually become overpopulated … without enough baby seals to keep them all alive? Then we WILL see more dead/dying polar bears. Alarmist polar researchers will have more bodies to claim as victims of global warming.

      • Harry and TP Geezer,
        And if you read up on population swings in the Arctic there’s a feast and famine pendulum swing. The classic is between the Arctic Fox and Arctic Hare. Their populations yo-yo over time. Now that the human trophy hunters have been reduced, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Polar Bear populations will yo-yo over time as well. But you can be assure that if that’s the case, it will be because of Climate Change.

      • There are all sorts of studies comparing the populations of predators and their prey. Foxes vs, Rabbits. Wolves vs. Moose. They are never flat lines. Prey increases, followed by predator until prey decreases, and then the predators starve. Rinse and repeat. I imagine the same holds true of bears and seals, if the sea-ice is stable each year (which it isn’t).

  20. I am pretty sure that no poley bear ever died before about 1990. Until then they were immortal.
    I blame climate change.

  21. Rhetorical question:
    Why doesn’t Mann and his fellow acolytes stick to the “science” they know and STOP shoving their fingers into everyone else’s pie?

    I want to see his Ph.D in wildlife biology, oceanography, marine biology, botany, chemistry, physics, AND geology (to name a few). He has no business treading upon the science and decency of real researchers who have no political agenda and are doing the work they feel called to do.

    We need to start treating Mann and his cronies like the doomsayer sandwich board walkers of the street. Just glance and walk on by. After a time, you won’t even see them anymore. A real cause to action to put them on ignore….can’t think of a more fitting punishment for all his transgressions….deny him the spotlight he craves so badly.

    • Jenn Runion … 5:03 am…
      We need to start treating Mann and his cronies like the doomsayer sandwich board walkers of the street. Just glance and walk on by. After a time, you won’t even see them anymore. A real cause to action to put them on ignore….can’t think of a more fitting punishment for all his transgressions….deny him the spotlight he craves so badly.

      From my file of tag lines and one liners:

      Time was, people warning the world “Repent – the end is nigh!” were snickered at as fruitcakes.
      Now they own the media and run the schools.

    • Jenn: Not sure what science Mann knows, but he does know “science”. Problem is, his reputation as a scientist was badly diminished by an out-of-work theatre critic several years ago (Mark S. keeps a running total), and he’s anxiously pressing a DC court to restore it. He can’t abide delay, as his important polar bear work will not have the credibility it deserves (very hard to keep typing at this point) until the court restores his good name as a scientist. His urgency is quite telling, no?

  22. Predictably, this morning National Propaganda Radio (a/k/a “NPR”) featured an interview of Steve Amstrup.

    As we all know, NPR is, of course, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the green blob.

    I have no problem with the First Amendment; what I do object to is being forced to fund (because of government funding of NPR) journalistic malpractice and the dissemination of what is demonstrably advocacy.

  23. So the starving bear has been resurrected.

    A very pertinent point on this story and it seems that it has been missed till now.

    The bear appears to be picking up a blackened piece of meat from the trash bin, see the fat streaks in it. Now the official line is that it was a piece of skidoo seating.

    I know that in the States to feed bears is illegal as it encourages them to approach people. Presumably in Canada it is the same – could anybody confirm this? I doubt if the local want to encourage the bears to rummage in their trash. So who had a motive to put meat in the trash can? And was it legal, ethical or wise?

  24. I have to wonder just what they think happens to a top predator in nature when old age, injury, disease or something else hinders its ability to hunt?

  25. “By any means necessary” … is the credo of totalitarian Socialism. Lies? Of course. Deception? Of course. Junk science? Of course. Just look at the revelations coming forth from the DNC and Lisa Bloom … who are bribing women to make claims of sexual harassment against Trump. “By any means necessary” … photoshopping? Hells yes.

    • In support of Kenji @ o7.33

      “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate;
      and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when
      they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way…to become evil oneself.
      One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the
      same effect and is intended to.” [Anthony Daniels published under his pen name Theadore Dalrymple.]

  26. I was in the middle of reading this article when, lol and behold, Scott Simon (NPR, Weekend program) came on the air with an interview featuring Amstrup! Amstrup was a little tentative about ascribing the sad condition of the bear to global warming. But, sub rosa, that was the thrust. Simon seemed to accept it all as gospel. No mention of Crockfords work.
    I know it is NPR, which is always pushing the man-caused warming meme. I listen since it provides grist for the mill!

  27. Another fantastic article. Many thanks. This is right on and I appreciate the effort that went into it.

    The Center for Biological Diversity figures prominently in this nexus.

    Here is a list of lawsuits filed by CBD: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/trump_lawsuits/index.html

    An amazing amount of litigation just in the past year. They are a suit filing machine backed by who knows what. Their product is a form of ambulance chasing grown large and complicated with the aid of imprecision on the part of our law makers, and preying on the ignorance of the general public.

  28. These people couldn’t look any less credible if they walked around with sandwich boards proclaiming, “I’m with stupid.” Greenpeace activist indeed. No lowlier title exists.

  29. The picture of the starving polar bear reminds me of a family member who was dying of Stage 4 liver cancer. A few months into the diagnosis, he was eating a lot of food, yet still felt very hungry all of the time. His doctor told him that he was starving, and that is why he felt hungry. The doctor explained that the liver is the primary organ for delivering glucose to the body, once food is broken down in the intestines. As the liver failed, the glucose supply failed. Since bears have a metabolism and body structure very similar to humans, it would not be surprising if they also could develop liver cancer, which would lead to them dying as they were starving to death.

  30. Jim Steele …

    “To this day, it is still unknown if the release of climate gate emails were the work of a whistle-blower or a hacker.”

    Actually, I thought we did know. Didn’t we get a communication from someone called ‘Mr FOIA’ (?) who claimed he was the whistle-blower? Was he not legitimate … or is that undetermined?

      • No name. (Most whistle-blowers don’t reveal their names for fear of reprisals from their employers.) Perhaps Anthony can fill you in … I’m sure he knows/remembers more about the communication than I do.

  31. “When I ventured up to Hudson Bay in mid-November and saw the undernourished polar bears with their cubs, sitting around at the shore of the Hudson Bay, waiting for the then month-overdue sea ice to arrive so they could begin hunting for food, it suddenly came home for me. For the first time in my life, I actually saw climate change unfolding before my eyes …” ~ Michael Mann

    Really, Michael Mann? You’ve been saying for years that the signs were obvious and were all around us. Yet, THIS is the first time you saw it? #WUWT?

    • Hudson Bay is often open water with only a few scattered bergs in September. That is when the fur trading station was resupplied, even back in the 1800’s. (There were a few years when the ship couldn’t make it, and the fur traders had to go two years without supplies, but they were rare and noteworthy.)

      If the sea-ice is at its lowest in September, and it takes time for the summer-warmed waters to chill and start to refreeze, then the normal start is November. October is actually early. December is late.

      For Michael Mann to stand on the shore in mid-November and call a quite normal sea-ice situation “waiting for the then month-overdue sea ice” shows he hasn’t even spent the time to see when the ice usually reforms. What a maroon.

  32. “and there was not enough evidence to convict him [ Peter Gleick ] of forgery”

    There was not enough evidence because there was not enquiry , not police interview and no investigation or seizure of evidence.

    With blatant, and self admitted wire fraud ( a federal offence ) there was ample grounds for a dawn raid at Gleick’s properties and seizure of his computers and printer. The printer would likely have been confirmed as having printed the forged documents sent by regular mail to DeSmog blog website.

    Gleick got a free pass and high level protection from the Obama administration, because he was frauding for “the cause”.

  33. The starving polar bear video that I saw was almost certainly rendered in slow motion to make the bear look more pathetic. Propaganda.

  34. Jim Steele:
    One more note/question/clarification …

    “These declining PBSG estimates also went viral, and websites such as the one run by psychologist John Cook, who is now part of the well-funded Center for Climate Change Communication, …”

    When did John Cook get a degree in psychology? I believe that’s an error. He hangs around Lewinsdowsky … doesn’t mean he gets the title. Last I heard, Cook was a “Climate Change Communicator” or something like that.

      • Thanks Jim Steele … that’s one of the websites my ancient and decrepit computer won’t let me access.

        I googled ‘cognitive science.’ It’s loosely related to psychology … draws from it and from numerous other fields. Looks like it’s one of those titles that can mean pretty much whatever someone wants it to mean.

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

        Yes, Cook is a ‘front man’ (or flim-flam man) for climate change. But he is NOT a psychologist. I’ve also seen him described as a ‘scientist.’ He’s not that either. He seems rather good at convincing people he is more than what he really is.

        Thanks very much for your kind replies.

      • Caleb,
        Sort of the opposite of Josh.
        Josh draws jokes about “Climate Seance”.
        Cook (et al) supply him with the material.

  35. “Global warming may have led to the death of this polar bear.” So prior to global warming polar bears lived forever! Never has any human seen a dead polar bear in the wild. Making statements like this quote shows how despair these “scientists” are. They are really counting on people not be more skeptical but believing everything they read or hear on MSM.

  36. “Global warming may have led to the death of this polar bear.” So prior to global warming polar bears lived forever! Never has any human seen a dead polar bear in the wild. Making statements like this quote shows how desperate these “scientists” are. They are really counting on people not be more skeptical but believing everything they read or hear on MSM.

  37. “Quickly identified by internet skeptics, Gleick finally confessed. ”

    huh. skeptics didnt catch him.
    I did.
    and he never confessed to his forgery.

    • Agreed, you were first to point out Gleick’s incriminating writing idiosyncrasies on the internet and then others piled on.

      But I never said he confessed “to the forgery” only to anomously disseminating the documents. In the very next sentence after what you quoted, I stated, “Although the forged document was only being disseminated by Gleick, he denied any hand in forgery”

    • Steve,

      Thanks for that. Unfortunately, in the totally corrupt culture of CACA, he suffered no consequences for his crime.

  38. Awesome. Super informative. Thank you for your work, Jim Steele. And, thank you for posting this, Joe Bastardi.

  39. Many Thanks Steven Mosher, your alert identification of that forgery was as significant as any skeptical act I’ve ever read about. Or it should have been. It’s wrong that the event was buried and it also stinks when such contributions by the alert skeptic are anonymized and diluted.

  40. Hooooooly Man-get to the point already. How long can someone possibly read all that before losing sight of what he was suppose to be reading in the first place? More intellectual garbage without getting to the meat of that matter- instead running on with paragraph after paragraph of God knows what. And then, to add insult to injury, the responses from some of the bloggers are just so lame. Quit trying to sound so witty and speak precisely and get to the point!!!!!!!!

  41. For every polar bear that dies,
    another animal gets to live.

    I’m for the prey animals that get to live.

    The thought of animals killing other animals,
    is disgusting — real pornography to my eyes.

    I can’t watch many nature shows on TV
    — they get me too upset.

    Let the mean polar bears die off —
    and let the nice seals live,
    or be food for eskimos.

    What did a polar bear ever do for humans,
    besides providing some entertainment in a zoo?

    A polar bear would have me for lunch,
    if he had the opportunity.

    %$#@% the polar bears
    and the people who use photos
    of dying polar bears for political purposes,
    those @#$&% leftists

    Floyd R. Turbo, Jr.

  42. When I was young I read a story of how a young Eskimo boy killed a full grown polar bear. He wrapped sharp whale bones in a ball of blubber. The bear ate the ball of blubber and when the fat was dissolved by the intestinal juices the whale bones sprung free and pierced the bears stomach causing internal bleeding. The boy followed the bear at a distance until it finally died. I think given a choice the bear would have preferred a bullet in the head.

  43. Snopes who advertises itself as a fact-checker of truth, rated Nicklin’s starving bear video as “TRUE”.
    They labelled the feminist-glaciology paper as “false” because they didn’t get half a million to write just the one idiotic paper ( paraphrasing) .
    Trump’s assertion that the Democrats started the birther thing was also false despite admitting two members of Hilary’s team did push it in 2007. Apparently, someone else wrote about it three years earlier.

Comments are closed.