Retraction request to Bioscience: FOIA emails document another harsh criticism of Amstrup’s 2007 polar bear model

Posted: December 6, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, Legal, News
Tags: ,

The gloves are off in the polar bear wars, as Dr Susan Crockford launches a strong response to a recent unfair and malicious attack on her reputation by a group of climate scientists.


Today I sent a letter to the editors of the journal Bioscience requesting retraction of the shoddy and malicious paper by Harvey et al. (Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy) published online last week.

The letter reveals information about the workings of the polar bear expert inner circle not known before now, so grab your popcorn.

Harvey et al. 2018 in press climate denial by proxy using polar bears_Title

I have copied the letter below, which contains emails obtained via FOIA requests to the US Geological Survey and the US Fish and Wildlife Service by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, E&E Legal, and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (USFWS request; USGS request) and sent to me by lawyer Chris Horner in 2014, unsolicited. I reveal some of them now, with his permission (most of the emails are boring, involving mostly technical topics not relevant to anything, as might be expected).

The emails in…

View original post 6,096 more words

  1. angech says:

    A shame. A vicious organised attack on a defenseless subject.
    Guess all that Polar Bear research payed of in one way then.
    The lead author was particularly upset with CAGW not being taken seriously by anyone, so he says , so he lined up a baddy in his eyes to take out.
    A slight hope for retraction as Lewindowsky was on the paper but M Mann as well means the defensive wagons will be tight.
    Could throw Lewindowsky to the fishes but not the big man.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Climate alarmists know they’re under pressure, especially in the US. That’s probably why some of them have taken to doing cornered rat impressions. German alarmist media is also getting more desperate…

    Media Climate Alarmism Has Become “Primitive”… “Intellectually Subterranean”, German Scientists Say
    By P Gosselin on 5. December 2017

    Recent SRF German public broadcasting commentary on climate change has reached a new low in quality and new high in activism, two respected German scientists say.

    Some of the UK media is sliding down the same slope as well, or sliding down at a faster rate. They must be hoping to shore up weak arguments by shouting louder and so forth.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Who Wrote the World’s Worst Scientific Paper?

    So that’s ten biologists, including two specialists in polar bears (both retired) two climate scientists, one banker and a psychologist. But who did what?
    . . .
    When it comes to attacking denialist blogs, the favoured target is Susan Crockford since:

    – she’s a scientist who knows what she’s talking about

    – she’s been proved right by the data

    – she’s made a couple of the authors of this paper look silly

  4. oldbrew says:

    An interview with Dr. Susan Crockford on the Harvey et al. attack paper over polar bear research
    Anthony Watts / 45 mins ago December 7, 2017

    SC: This Harvey et al. paper is their attempt at “trench warfare” (their words, not mine), to knock me off my Internet high-horse. I think they are particularly frustrated with the Internet as a source of information because they can’t control it.
    . . .
    Q. Have you ever seen a paper published in a zoology journal that would pass peer-review using pejorative labels such as “denier”?

    No. And polar bear researchers – including Ian Stirling, Steve Amstrup and the ever-strident Andrew Derocher (the only one of the polar bear group who is really active on Twitter) – don’t use that kind of language in their peer-reviewed scientific papers, no matter how emphatic or passionate they might get about their conclusions. It’s hard to imagine what led Stirling and Amstrup to decide such reprehensible language was appropriate for a paper in this journal.
    . . .
    Q. If the consensus conclusions about polar bear populations and sea ice loss are wrong, why do you think more people such as yourself have not come forward to point out such inaccuracies of the conclusions?

    Just look at the flack I take! Look at what the Polar Bear Specialist Group did to Mitch Taylor in 2009 (recent review here: In my opinion, what the PBSG did to Mitch was a clear warning to any other colleagues who thought they should speak out: do so and you’re out. The PBSG operates on consensus (it states as much in their terms of reference) and the way you get consensus when there are dissenting opinions is to coerce, bribe, or bully to make everyone fall into line. If the dissenters won’t toe the line, expulsion is the only answer. There is nothing democratic about it.
    . . .
    I might never have done anything with those emails. I got them too late in 2014 to derail the renewal of the ESA listing for polar bears and it was not obvious how they would make an impact all by themselves. But the publication of the Harvey et al. paper created the context I needed to show the world what these groups (PBSG, IUCN, USGS, USFWS) have been up to while pretending to be dedicated scientists whose only interest is the preservation of polar bears.
    – – –
    The authors of the paper obviously hope to stick a label of ‘denier’ on anyone who contradicts their climate alarmism. It’s less bother than having to try to justify their own claims.

  5. oldbrew says:

    They’re still pushing the ‘reduced insolation’ argument, as though that were the only significant factor related to solar activity.

    Current global warming, in contrast, is driven by rising GHG concentrations, is occurring despite reduced insolation, and cannot be reversed without mitigating GHG rise…Moreover, sea-ice habitat reductions during past interglacial periods occurred over millennia (rather than over the decadal scales that accompany AGW), giving the bears more time to adjust their behavior and distribution.

    If you’re a hungry bear you’re not going to have ‘millennia’ to figure out what to do about it :/

    They admit sea ice has been lower before and the bears are still here. Pity they don’t admit the current numbers are not the grim statistic they’d like to scare us with.

  6. oldbrew says:


    Two New Papers: 92% Of Polar Bear Sub-populations Stable, Increasing…Inuit Observe ‘Too Many Polar Bears Now’

    Inuit: Bears ‘Catch Seals Even If The Ice Is Really Thin’
    Scientists: ‘Unlikely Polar Bears Are At Risk From AGW’

    The overwhelming conclusion from years of accumulated conversations with native populations about polar bears is that there is almost no connection between the long-term observations of polar bear ecology and the more recent claims that polar bears as a species are in grave danger due to climate change and thinning sea ice.

    IOW – much ado about very little.

  7. oldbrew says:

    NTZ: 2 New Papers: 92% Of Polar Bear Sub-populations Stable, Increasing…Inuit Observe ‘Too Many Polar Bears Now’

    8. “Given the persistence of polar bears through the current and previous interglacial periods, and their ability to accommodate extended retreats onshore and based on the empirical observations of climate and sea ice change (S7), it seems unlikely that polar bears (as a species) are at risk from anthropogenic global warming.

    Time to call off the dogs on those worn-out alarmist claims.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Terence Corcoran: Canadian finds polar bears are doing fine — and gets climate-mauled

    We take you now deep out onto the frozen floes of Arctic science and polar bears, where the most dangerous threat known to man and bear alike is lurking among the icebergs: Junk science.
    . . .
    So here’s the summary of this so-called science paper: We compare the blogs that agree with us on polar bears with blogs that don’t. We label those that don’t agree with us “deniers” and smear one of the scientists whose work is cited on those denier sites.

    If this is science, we are all doomed. Out on the ice, the polar bears seem to be safe for now. But it’s us humans who are at risk of succumbing to the malicious catechism of the high priests of climate change.

  9. oldbrew says:

    DECEMBER 8, 2017
    By H. Sterling Burnett

    Instead of presenting data, the paper commits numerous logical fallacies any first-year philosophy student would catch. The majority of the paper attacks polar bear researcher Susan Crockford, Ph.D. When the authors aren’t simply lying about Crockford’s qualifications, research, and publications, they are calling her names, attacking her character, and implying her research is funded by disreputable people.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Alarmists like the Guardian resort to ‘tragedy porn’…

    Date: 09/12/17 Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science

    This was one polar bear dying a gruesome death as happens in the wild all the time. If sea ice loss due to man-made global warming had been the culprit, this bear would not have been the only one starving: the landscape would have been littered with carcasses. Yet other bears around him did not starve and die.

    We finally have this year’s example of the new fad of claiming every polar bear that died of starvation (or on its way to starving to death) — and caught on film — is a victim of climate change
    . . .
    This may be how you get gullible people to donate money to a cause but it isn’t science: there is no evidence that this starving bear was a “victim” of sea ice loss caused by global warming.

    SeaLegacy co-founder Cristina Mittermeier admitted as much later in the interview quoted above and said the reason the bear died was “irrelevent” — essentially admitting that she was using this poor individual as a serendipitous photo op to illustrate the future fate she imagines for all bears.

    Climate propagandists will use any trick to try and fool the public.