Yesterday, there was yet another hit piece in the New York Times:
Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back. – by Erica Goode
I’m not allowed to give any of the details of it other than a link because I recently got a threat letter from the NYT’s lawyers over some “fair use” excerpts criticizing another junk article of theirs, and was told essentially “that they don’t adhere to the fair use doctrine, and I’m not allowed to use excerpts – ever”. But of course, links promoting their article are certainly OK. [insert eyeroll here] I’d rather not give these media dinosaurs any traffic, but it’s a necessity in this case. So follow the link above, and then read the response below by Dr. Susan Crockford.
Climate mauling, polar bears, and the self-inflicted wounds of the self-righteous
By Dr. Susan Crockford
The BioScience paper “Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy” (Harvey et al. 2018) is a smack-talk response to my pointing out that polar bear numbers did not plummet as predicted when mid-century-like sea ice conditions arrived unexpectedly in 2007 (Crockford 2017). Here is why this shoddy piece of work will go down in history as a self-inflicted wound for the polar bear community (and biologist co-authors Ian Stirling and Steven Amstrup) and an own-goal for their wanna-be climate-hero friends, Stephan Lewandowsky, Jeff Harvey, and Michael Mann.
“…absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published” tweeted climate scientist Judith Curry, Emeritus Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”).
Dr. Curry is a favourite target of colleague Michael Mann’s penchant for derogatory name-calling. Ironically, Mann often promotes something he calls the “Serengeti Strategy,” which he described to US Congress in 2017 in presenting himself as a victim of abused by others [my bold]:
“I coined the term “Serengeti Strategy” back in 2012 in “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” to describe how industry special interests who feel threatened by scientific findings—be it tobacco and lung cancer, or fossil fuel burning and climate change—single out individual scientists to attack in much the same way lions of the Serengeti single out an individual zebra from the herd. In numbers there is strength, but individuals are far more vulnerable. Science critics will therefore often select a single scientist to ridicule, hector, and intimidate. The presumed purpose is to set an example for other scientists who might consider sticking their neck outby participating in the public discourse over certain matters of policy-relevant science.” Michael Mann, 2017 Congressional testimony.
Mann thinks others are using this strategy against him but if he had half an ounce of self-awareness he’d see it’s exactly what he and his long list of colleagues are doing with the Harvey et al. BioScience attack on me. Intimidation by numbers is the only rational explanation for a roster of 14 when two incompetent researchers could have produced a similar result.
Polar bear specialists Ian Stirling and Steven Amstrup knew they didn’t have a valid argument to refute my paper (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2018) on their failed polar bear survival model (Amstrup et al. 2007), which their responses to my International Polar Bear Day (27 February 2018) Financial Post op-ed revealed to the world (see hereand here with references).
So when ignoring me didn’t work – or, more accurately, when the world started paying too much attention to me, by their own admission (Harvey et al. 2018:3) – they teamed up with Michael Mann, Jeff Harvey, and Stephan Lewandowsky (all with previous form attacking colleagues who don’t share their views) to publish an academic paper attacking my scientific integrity. In the words of Terence Corcoran, I was “climate mauled.”
Judith Curry stated recently (14 February 2018), regarding the Mann lawsuit against Rand Simberg, Mark Steyn and the National Review vs. the attacks on her integrity:
“Mann’s libelous statements about me (because he is a scientist with many awards) are far more serious than say Rand Simberg’s statements about Mann.”
In other words, like the attack on me in the Harvey paper (used to libel other internet bloggers by association), when senior scientists like Mann, Stirling, and Amstrup use derogatory and defamatory language against a colleague it’s a serious breach of professional ethics that impacts careers. Harvey et al.’s attack against me may be worse than those against Curry at a Congressional Hearing because it has been entered into the scientific literature in my own field.1
However, I expect BioScience (read mostly by teachers, students, and the general public, and therefore widely subscribed to by public libraries) was the only outlet willing to publish such unprofessional tripe. The editor’s refusal to retract the paper after numerous complaints about the language and the quality of the scientific content, tells you all you need to know about the journal’s “low, sectarian standards“. For example, the notice showing the two corrections they were willing to make at the end of March 2018 had to be pulled because such an egregious error occurred (it was posted to the wrong journal) it got the attention of online watchdog Retraction Watch! [Still not fixed as of 8 April]
It also tells us quite a lot about the bias of its publishers, the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Did you know, for example, that this organization has an “actionbioscience” program that provides free idealogically biased content aimed at kids and teachers that’s not particularly different from the biased content produced (without references) for kids and teachers by activist conservation outfit Polar Bears International (employer of Harvey et al. co-author Steve Amstrup)? The AIBS actionbioscienceprogram currently includes an out-of date, alarmist essay by litigious Center for Biological Diversity employee Shaye Wolf on the plight of penguins (from 2009) as well as one by pessimistic polar bear specialist Andrew Derocher (from 2008) .
If you are able, please support the work I do here at PolarBearScience, some of which will go to Josh for these fabulous cartoons:
Here is a list of issues regarding the Harvey et al. paper as well as responses to it: some of these you won’t have heard before. Because this is a long summary post, for convenience I offer it here also in pdf form: “Climate mauling, polar bears, and self-inflicted wounds of the self-righteous.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann, was always a pinched little man and now, he’s clutching at non existent straws desperately pinched little man.
Re Josh’s second cartoon it’s a pity the polar bear didn’t eat the homies rather than the homework.
I just read the NY Times piece, which is rather short. It mostly quotes Oppenheimer of Princeton decrying non-specialists for criticizing experts in their specialty. By that logic, no one could call out the emperor but another emperor.
And no one can describe a plane crash except a pilot.
When it comes to climate science, the vast majority of the so called experts aren’t in their specialty in the first place.
I think that polar bears may have a problem in Iceland and the Scandinavian Peninsula.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00963/h313yk31e2yn.png
What makes this polar bear business so funny is that they are a good proxy for arctic temperatures, at least in the North Atlantic
http://en.ni.is/media/dyrafraedi/dyr_kort/large/hvitabjarnakomur-2010_EN.jpg
Excuse me – the number of sightings in Iceland.
Delingpole has an interesting article on this very topic:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/04/11/delingpole-climate-alarmists-maul-inconvenient-polar-bear-expert/
Interestingly enough, it includes NYT article excerpts….
The Goode article states that Steven Armstrup is the “chief scientist for Polar Bears International, a conservation group.” So since I’d never done that before, I went to their web site to learn more about this “conservation group.”
You have to see this site to believe it, so if you’ve never looked at their site, I recommend you do so. Here’s the link:
https://polarbearsinternational.org/about-us
A more rabid band of believers would be hard to find. Here’s how they describe themselves:
“Our Story
Made up of a small group of passionate conservationists, scientists, and volunteers, PBI exists to help secure a future for polar bears across the Arctic.
Our commitment to innovation, science, and technology fuels our day-to-day, but our hope sustains our vision. We persevere through our inherent optimism. Collaborative by trait, we push to move beyond borders, silos, and bottom lines to prove the phenomenal impact we can have together as a global community.
We share what we know and leave our doors wide open, unifying with a broad cross-section of people who help us in our mission.
Our partners range in size and strength, but they all value the two things we know for certain: knowledge is a catalyst for change and inspiration is more powerful than fear.”
So I guess if you’re a scientist, but you’re not “passionate,” you’ll never make the cut to get hired by PBI. And the passion-screener-in-chief would undoubtedly be none other than chief scientist Armstrup. And this organization works closely with the Polar Bear Specialist Group formerly Chaired by Ian Stirling, so PBSG are equally focused on amping up the concern.
What I find remarkable is how this site says, over and over, statements like:
“The studies we conduct or help support are run by passionate teams of experts who have dedicated their careers to polar-bear and sea-ice conservation.
Made up of professionals from various fields, our teams work with our regular contributors and researchers from around to world to provide new science that informs conservation.”
Science in the service of hype. Couldn’t be stated more clearly.
Look on page four at the solar panels, especially at the angle. Never been to the arctic but used one of similar size (in the summer) at a latitude of ~42 degrees N on a RV. The long sun day is very helpful, but the production does not amount to much. I could see the utility at a permanent place, but maybe not when flown in on a helicopter. They generally tell you to conserve weight and space. We had a student that worked one summer at 72 degrees at the edge of the Beaufort Sea. Their problem was bears, so they issued shotguns. This would be funny if it was not so tragic.
https://polarbearsinternational.org/media/3078/about-pbi-web.pdf
When “passion” is more important than “science”, the last thing you are is scientific.
MarkW,
What has happened to the ideal of a dispassionate observer to insure that observations are objective?
He wasn’t passionate enough to get funding.
Passionate enough to do the hard work, especially when others tell you that you were wrong. Not so passionate so as to ignore that the others were right.
Today’s post calls out Amstrup for the lies he’s telling the media
http://polarbearscience.com/2018/04/12/steve-amstrup-is-lying-to-the-media-about-my-critique-of-his-2007-model/
It is good response, and provides more depth. But she should have accused Amstrad of “moving the goalposts,” because that would be aptly pin the tail on the donkey.
In the Canadian paper the National Post
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/how-are-the-oh-so-symbolic-polar-bears-really-doing-fight-between-climate-skeptics-and-scientists-heats-up
In the National Post article, one of the main polar bear scientists says that the average September ice extent from 2007 to 2017 was far above the level he’d forecast would be catastrophic for bears. IIRC it was over 4 million square something, vs. 1 million for catastrophe.
But that dodges the gravamen of Crockford’s critique, which was that in 2007 the level did fall to a supposedly catastrophic level and no catastrophe ensued. IOW, if the bears couldn’t eat with such a low ice level that month, as hypothesized, half of them should have starved—but none of them did, apparently.
Speaking of stupidity and corrections…..would someone please get BioScience to correct “Principle component analysis” in the description of Figure 2.
They don’t care about spelling. They don’t have time for such trivialities, the world needs to be saved!
“Refereces cited” still there as well, so I expect it is in the print version.
Editor Collins: BioScience’s own worst enemy.
They’ve made this a parody, all by themselves.
“Parody”!
+100
“Refereces Cited” ain’t too bad. Could have been “Ref Feces Sighted.”
‘they don’t adhere to the fair use doctrine’
Heh. Now THAT’s a set-up line if I ever heard one.
“Scientists need to more effectively use Internet-based social media to their full advantage in
order to turn the tide in the battle for public opinion.”
Then they cease to be scientists. Does it need explaining why?
Ya figure the “Eskimo’s” might have figured out how to defeat a close range charge from a polar bear.
Yet, you never hear those “close encounter” stories, wonder why ?
No survivors ?
Rule 1: Don’t get close to the polar bears.
Rule 2: Why did you get close to the polar bears?
Courtesy of Dr. Crockford’s excellent rebuttal, here is a classic from the “science only requires a keyword search” department.
“29 November 2017. Blair: “…let’s pick up on Barry’s idea: how many articles were looked at on the York blog (a blog for a local newspaper). [considered a “science-based blog” by Harvey et al.]
Since it is the blog for a community newspaper I wonder how they found a definitive case on that site. I ask seriously because the York Blog happen to have a number of stories about the “York Polar Bears” who are, not a genera of Ursus but rather are a hockey team in the York region for special needs kids. (http://www.yorkpolarbears.org/). Any search of the York Blog will get lots of hits for “ice” (from ice hockey) and polar bears (from the team name) but few if any for Dr. Crockford (who does not write research papers on special needs hockey teams).””
I recommend to all that they click the link to ‘continue reading’ Dr. Crockford’s article. The media as well as critics have characterized Harvey et al. as ‘mauling’ Crockford, an analogy to a polar bear attack.
I’ve read the Harvey paper and, beyond the sound and fury from the green crowd and the sycophant media, my opinion is that the better analogy is that they hit her with a nerfball attack. I avoided the paintball analogy because that would leave a mark. The nerf just bounces away harmlessly.
On the othe hand, Dr. Crockford’s response…well, I would say that left a mark. If I were to offer a characterization and were to follow the artic analogy; picture Crockford as an artic hunter with a club and Harvey et al. as the baby seal…
My apologies to Dr. Crockford for the analogy.
“In numbers there is strength, but individuals are far more vulnerable” Isn’t Mikey saying he has no friends? The others deserted him and left him to the lions? Wouldn’t that be Mikey’s problem, not the lion’s?
I did not know that adhering to the fair use doctrine was a choice.
I find Mann’s “Serengeti Strategy” pretty funny. Does he not relise that lions, cheetas or hyenas usually go after the weakest or sickest individual in the herd?
So what does that say about Michael Mann?
Dear New York Times lawyers:
So much drama, so little science !
New York Times writer, Erica Goode, recently wrote the article titled, Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back., published online on 04/10/2018.
A bio of Ms. Goode can be found at the following link:
https://communications.yale.edu/poynter/erica-goode
No doubt, she is an accomplished and effective writer. Unfortunately, where the actual science of polar bears is concerned, it could be argued that she appears to be little more than a blank page, choosing to fill in this blank page with name calling, issue conflating, and general accusations that lack any fiber of substance.
Her overall tone is one of condemnation without any factual grounds to support it, thus making her a political parrot of popular views rather than a true reporter of facts.
Its always open to the NYT to publish Dr Crockford’s reply.
It is a way of allowing debate as well as preventing the rise of blog sites that erode the credibility of MSM papers, such as the NYT.
If it’s in the public domain, you can quote anything no matter how flush with self importance the writer is.
“The Polar Bear ate my homework” version
from the Nansen North Pole expedition; 1893:
“I must now give the story of the others who made the bear’s acquaintance first. Hansen had to-day begun to set up his observatory tent a little ahead of the ship, on the starboard bow. In the afternoon he got Blessing and Johansen to help him. While they were hard at work they caught sight of the bear not far from them, just off the bow of the Fram.
“‘Hush! Keep quiet, in case we frighten him,’ says Hansen.
“‘Yes, yes!’ And they crouch together and look at him.
“‘I think I’d better try to slip on board and announce him,’ says Blessing.
“‘I think you should,’ says Hansen.
“And off steals Blessing on tiptoe, so as not to frighten the bear. By this time Bruin has seen and scented them, and comes jogging along, following his nose, towards them.
“Hansen now began to get over his fear of startling him. The bear caught sight of Blessing slinking off to the ship and set after him. Blessing also was now much less concerned than he had been as to the bear’s nerves. He stopped, uncertain what to do; but a moment’s reflection brought him to the conclusion that it was pleasanter to be three than one just then, and he went back to the others faster than he had gone from them. The bear followed at a good rate. Hansen did not like the look of things, and thought the time had come to try a dodge he had seen recommended in a book. He raised himself to his full height, flung his arms about, and yelled with all the power of his lungs, ably assisted by the others. But the bear came on quite undisturbed. The situation was becoming critical. Each snatched up his weapon—Hansen an ice-staff, Johansen an axe, and Blessing nothing. They screamed with all their strength, ‘Bear! bear!’ and set off for the ship as hard as they could tear. But the bear held on his steady course to the tent, and examined everything there before (as we have seen) he went after them.
“It was a lean he-bear. The only thing that was found in its stomach when it was opened was a piece of paper, with the names ‘Lütken and Mohn.’ This was the wrapping-paper of a ‘ski’ light, and had been left by one of us somewhere on the ice. After this day some of the members of the expedition would hardly leave the ship without being armed to the teeth.
Can anyone point me to a legitimate recent census of polar bears?
Actually even the WWF reports the numbers correctly
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Then comes the big scare story and how you make the Polar Bear endangered read the next section which is all based on models and projections on those models.
It’s the same as with sea level rise the current data isn’t scary at all but you apply the right model and we are all doomed.
I believe that the biggest problem that polar bear populations have had is people shooting them. Restrictions on hunting have allowed their numbers to increase. What littel climate change we have been experiencing has not really been a problem for them.
The Corrigendum appears to include Harvey’s email address. I am tempted to use it!