.
.
Playing prosecutor judge and jury ensures the desired outcome in the minds of these climate alarmists. But all they’ve really done is damage themselves.
From Bart Verheggen’s blog, where he clearly identifies himself as a co-author of a paper in a post promoting it
Stephen Lewandowsky has co-authored (yet another) paper attacking climate skeptics. His colleagues-in-arms this time are long-time climate consensusite Jeff Harvey , Bart Vergheggen, and a cohort of ecologists along with Michael Mann. First author Harvey is well-known to climate commenters as a rant-prone passionate bulldog for the climate cause.
The main supposed finding of the paper is that zoologist Susan Crockford is the source of a number of skeptical blog posts. Harvey and colleagues claim a large figure (80%). The authors then claim to identify a ‘majority-view’ position in the polar bear literature, which they say is diametrically opposite of the Crockford-based blog position/s.
Polar bear alarmism has a checquered history and scientists Ian Stirling, Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher have been prominent proponents. All three have made several statements pushing…
View original post 563 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Yet more polar bear controversy…
INUIT ACCUSE GREEN ACTIVISTS OF RACISM OVER ‘FACTUALLY UNTRUE’ POLAR BEAR CLAIMS
Date: 16/12/17 CBC Radio
A conservation group that released footage of an emaciated polar bear has come under fire for suggesting Inuit hunters are downplaying the effects of climate change in order to protect their bottom line.
http://www.thegwpf.com/inuit-accuse-green-activists-of-racism-over-factually-untrue-polar-bear-claims/
Bioscience editor tells journalist he won’t retract Harvey paper
Posted on December 16, 2017
I shouldn’t be surprised that a journal editor who would publish — and then staunchly defend — a paper that deliberately trashes the reputation of a respected scientist would tell the media before anyone else of his decision regarding a retraction request.
We are drowning in an ocean of lies.
pochas – that’s the plan.
Richard Tol writes:
In sum, Harvey et al. (2017) play a statistical game of smoke and mirrors. They validate their data, collected by an unclear process, by comparing it to data of unknown provenance. They artificially inflate the dimensionality of their data only to reduce that dimensionality using a principal component analysis. They pretend their results are two dimensional where there is only one dimension. They suggest that there are many nuanced positions where there are only a few stark ones – at least, in their data. On a topic as complex as this, there are of course many nuanced positions; the jitter applied conceals the poor quality of Harvey’s data. They show that there is disagreement on the vulnerability of polar bears to climate change, but offer no new evidence who is right or wrong – apart from a fallacious argument from authority, with a “majority view” taken from an unrepresentative sample. Once the substandard statistical application to poor data is removed, what remains is a not-so-veiled attempt at a colleague’s reputation.
Dec. 19
Lipstick on a bear
http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/lipstick-on-bear.html