The two most bizarre people in the climate debate have now had the most bizarre thing happen to them and their garbage science paper that basically become a peer reviewd smear of Dr. Susan Crockford.. Retraction watch notes:
Caught Our Notice: Climate change leads to more…neurosurgery for polar bears?
What Caught Our Attention: There’s a lot going on here, so bear with us. (Ba-dum-bum.)
First, there was the paper itself, co-authored by, among others, Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky. Both names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers. Mann is a prominent climate scientist who has sued the National Review for defamation. A study by Lewandowsky and colleagues of “the role of conspiracist ideation in climate denial” was the subject of several Retraction Watch posts when it was retracted and then republished in a different form. And the conclusion of the new paper, in Bioscience, seemed likely to draw the ire of many who objected to the earlier work:
By denying the impacts of [anthropogenic global warming] AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap.
Indeed, there was the predictable reaction to the paper. Judith Curry referred to it as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.” And Susan Crockford, one of the bloggers referred to repeatedly in the paper, and now in the correction, raised questions. (In several blog posts, natch.) Crockford reported last week that the journal would be issuing a correction. Which it now has.
But what really caught our attention was that the correction appears not in Bioscience, but in another journal from the same publisher (Oxford University Press), Neurosurgery. If you’ve ever tried to perform neurosurgery on a polar bear — and hey, we’d like to hear from you! — then perhaps you can understand the mixup. We, however, are chalking it up to a typo in the DOI for now.
more here
Meanwhile, Dr. Susan Crockford has this to say:
An embarrassment to science: BioScience editor formally rejects retraction request
After four long months of waiting, late last week I finally received an official response from the editor of BioScience regarding my retraction request for the Harvey et al. paper (Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy), which I sent 5 December 2017.
From the sounds of it, the wait took so long because the paper went through a tedious process of parsing words just so among the 14 co-authors (akin to that used by the IPCC in constructing the Summary for Policy Makers), to convey the authors meaning and retain as much of the original insult as possible. In reality, we know the decision was made barely two weeks after I sent the request (16 December 2017) because that day, BioScience editor Scott Collins told a reporter he had no intention of retracting the paper.
In the end, the authors were compelled to make two small word changes. The editor insists that:
“…prior to publication, the article was peer reviewed by highly reputable scholars with expertise on the topic as per our standard procedures.”
So he says.
Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky should just give up. Their credibility on this issue is hosed.
AW, a terrific catch. Been following this because another of warmunist icon blows. The images suggest not a typo, but rather a deliberate attempt to hide the corrigendum in a completely (except by ultimate source) unrelated journal. A typical Mann type tactic.
Yeah next Nick and all the blogger activist team will be giving us all the statistics ignoring the fact the entire premise is stupid.
Wow, – cartoon from over 20 years ago…!!! How prophetic…
Just when you thought that “hiding the decline” of the “stupidest paper ever published” was as low as it could possibly get, come on admit it fellow readers, they will indeed find a way to reach a new low.
Possibly too late for those two, but could we please cram more research dollars into gene editing?
“… the journal would be issuing a correction. Which it now has.” – the link comes back with page not found. Any correction?
Bob,
The correction was there yesterday, I downloaded it (now added to today’s post); it disappeared when the retraction notice went up.
Correction/Clarification: it disappeared when the *Retraction Watch* notice went up.
I wonder where Michael Mann could have gone wrong. Do you suppose he counted rings on the wrong tree? Or perhaps he forgot to carry the 1 in running his omnipotent algorithm. The one that turns garbage science into a career.
The editor should be replaced or subscribers and supporters should walk.
his fathers choice not to wear a condom is where the problems began.
Hi Guys. I read a long story by someone who was professionally involved with the bears living up near Hudson Bay somewhere ages ago but the facts and figures are lost in my overly full brain…sooo, does anyone have actual bear numbers? He was saying that numbers are way up, and that there were moves afoot to change the way bears were being counted…for obvious reasons.
My poor memory is that numbers have been counted from about 1955 and then there were 5,000 bears and that number increased at each count by a pretty uniform number and that there is around 30,000 bears now…probably more. His feeling was about 35,000, 30,000 being a conservative number and the continued growth means a higher figure now anyway.
I trust this site and find anything questionable would be heavily “peer reviewed” in comments should a mistake be made…and also know that a mistake would be unintentional anyway, unlike the lying stinking filthy mind-trapped vermin of the uber left.
Note the comments here today by “susanjcrockford”
Susan has your answers: https://polarbearscience.com/
She will sell you a couple of neat books too.
In the 1960s there were about 5000 polar bears. Now there are only about 28,000 left.;-)
It’s worser than we thoughted.
Not thoughted. Thunk.
Does this make Mann a candidate for a Nobel Prize in Neuroscience?
Barely…
maybe it was a misprint of “neoscience”, in which case Mann certainly wins a prize.
Well, maybe a consolation prize…
There is no actual Nobel prize for the field of Neuroscience the field competes under the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It has been won 17 times by people in the field of neuroscience but I am sure when the next win comes for the field Mike will somehow link himself and have his little plaque in the window.
I’m still coasting on being Times “Man of the Year” back in 2006.
To have a prize just for being a know-it-all hypocritical big mouth, go to Hollywood… or the “festival de Cannes”.
Climate science meets neurology:
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
Here’s a better title:
Peer Review, Polar Bears, and Climate Change Alarmism by Sophistry
Soooooooooooooooooooo stupid ! — that paper.
Climate change is not rocket surgery.
But it IS.
It appears to be brain science, in a sort of twisted way.
“bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established … aggravating the consensus gap”
All these guys have the brain of a soviet “scientist” trapped in the body of the Westerner and the language of a modern SJW (which makes Marxism look reasonable in comparison).
This is trans-sovietism.
My favorite position relative to neurosurgery (and appropriate for this bunch of “authors”):
“I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me, than a free frontal lobotomy”.
Once you get it this ditty in your head, it’s hard to disremember it…
If you look at ozone in the lower stratosphere, you’ll see why Canada still has a strong frost.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f12.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
“The authors apologize for any confusion”
That is a wonderful example of a non-apologetic apology. I’d hazard a guess that more thought went into that short sentence than the rest of the ‘paper’.
I wonder who Mikie will have to coax, bribe, threaten or blackmail to get them to nominate him for a Nobel prize? Maybe Mikie can get Lew a Nobel prize, too.
It worked for him before. I believe Mikie tried to join a sciency group by trading favors with Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia? What, you don’t remember Phil Jones? He’s the one who oversaw the destruction of the world’s historical climate data. as described in the “harry read me file” of the Climategate Papers. It’s an arduous but very enlightening read.
They don’t care, they are on to other stuff now :
They’ve “just published The Consensus Handbook ”
https://twitter.com/johnfocook/status/978304091754565634
To get philosophical, I have to note that, sure, consensus is generally a great indicator of what is most likely true, but we have to acknowledge that it is not infallible. There are too many cases where the “consensus” has been wrong. In history, in the recent past, and carrying on right now.
“We” concerned with epistemology of science have to give up on this idea that some field gets studied to death, saturation point of knowledge is reached, and a complex hypothesis eventually becomes a “fact.”
Let it just be “a well-supported theory,” and if there are critics or competing schools of thought, then we have “a well-supported theory with some criticisms.”
The U. S. Supreme Court issues decisions, and often these include dissenting opinions. “Science” should model this, rather than have a turf fight over what complex idea, with a varied array of supporting observations, is now a “fact,” and which is not.
The Cooker:
It is worth noting that the lead author is one Jeff Harvey, who with Stuart Pimm did the hatchet job on Lomborg’s book, wherein the likening of sceptics to holocaust deniers was first made.
Just a minute… I’m going to look that up in my new “Handbook of Consensus and Physics.”
Hmmm…”The Lew” is now a polar bear expert?
Hmmm…Mann is also now a polar bear expert?
Maybe a polar bear took a dump up against Yamal 06 and used “Lew Paper” instead of Charmin?
(Maybe Mann will sue Mr. Whipple?8-)
This is not a paper about polar bears. It’s not about tree rings. It’s not about Mann or Crockford or anyone else.
This is a paper about the differences in the way science in portrayed by “denier”/skeptic and “science-based” (poor descriptor) blogs, and the power they have to sway the public .mind. Why doesn’t anyone address that question? Why are the comments either about polar bears or about how stupid the paper it is? I think it makes some good points, ones that I have observed myself. I know skeptics generally despise Mann, but can you get beyond that to evaluate what the paper is really saying? The polar bears are an example of the way skeptics are more inclined to believe the ideas of someone who has never published a paper about them than those who have been actively researching and publishing for years. Why? Do you think Crockford is less biased? Why? Do you think it not significant how many outspoken, well-known “skeptics” are associated with conservative think tanks and fossil fuel funding?
I haven’t read every single comment, but I read dozens, and none of them addressed the topic. That itself is significant.
[???? .mod]
“more inclined to believe the ideas of someone who has never published a paper about them than those who have been actively researching and publishing for years”
Yes, probably. Publishing a lot might be seen as a proxy for how biased, incompetent, dishonest, or whore someone is, at least in some fields.
“Do you think it not significant how many outspoken, well-known “skeptics” are associated with conservative think tanks and fossil fuel funding?”
Who is?
“Yes, probably. Publishing a lot might be seen as a proxy for how biased, incompetent, dishonest, or whore someone is, at least in some fields.”
I see. Well, that says a lot more about your bias than others’ since you cannot possibly show a connection between the publishing a lot and all that. There is none. Besides, there are contrarian scientists who have published a lot, too. “…at least in some fields” – isn’t that convenient! Whatever you don’t want to believe can be deemed one of those fields. THAT is what the paper is about. It’s an attitude, a choice of what science is corrupt and dishonest, and what science you trust, and it’s based on politics and economics rather than the quality of the science.
Unfortunately I’m not at home and don’t have access to my bookmarks, and don’t have time to track down the links I want right now. The links below are OK, but not really what I was referring to. Climatefiles.com has a lot of info about FF propaganda, including direct mention of Patrick Michaels and a couple others, including two well-known skeptics a lobbyist from Exxon wanted the Bush WH to place in high-ranking positions in the IPCC.
Naturally the sites that are going to bring this stuff up are those that “skeptics” don’t generally trust. That’s the catch-22: the distrust of evidence ensures that errors live on; there is no way to argue a point. Debate is futile.
………………………………….
Willie Soon got over $400,000 in research funding from FF. (Well-known, should be easy to find evidence.)
LIst of think tanks and connections to FF funding
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.WsfAVojwbIU
“The study, published in this month’s issue of Environmental Politics, analyzed books written between 1972 and 2005 that deny the authenticity of environmental problems. The researchers found that more than 92 percent of the skeptical authors were in some way affiliated to conservative think tanks – non-profit research and advocacy organizations that promote core conservative ideals”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5782
Heartland Institute targets schools
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/