Steve Amstrup is lying to the media about my critique of his 2007 model

Posted: April 12, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, Critique
Tags: ,

Looks like polar bear alarmists could become an endangered species, struggling for the negative propaganda material necessary for survival.

Susan Crockford explains…


Until now, my scientific paper post at PeerJ Preprints for review, about the failure of Steve Amstrup’s 2007 USGS polar bear survival model (Crockford 2017), has been formally ignored by Amstrup and his colleagues. But now Amstrup and his colleagues have taken to lying to the media about my analysis because he can’t refute it in a scholarly manner.

Mother with cubs Russia_shutterstock_71694292_web size

Amstrup was quoted by Erica Goode in her New York Times article on the Harvey et al. (2018) BioScienceattack paperpublished Tuesday (10 April 2018: “Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back”):

“Dr. Amstrup, however, said that according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the average September sea ice extent for the years 2007 to 2017 was 4.5 million square kilometers, “nowhere near the low levels projected it would be by the middle of the century.”

“To say that we already should have…

View original post 1,141 more words

  1. Bitter@twisted says:

    Amstrup sounds like a slightly less objectionable climate “scientist” than State Penn Mann.
    In fact most climate “scientists” are grant-grasping, snake-oil merchants.
    Each and every one of the to$$ers should be done for fraud.
    Yes I am very angry.

  2. Phoenix44r says:

    The real frauds are The New York Times, BBC, Guardian etc. who continually present Alarmist scientists as people who came to their political views from the science and Deniers as people who came to their scientific views because of their politics.

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    another trope that is easily debunked… except the LSM won’t let it go because it sells headlines

  4. oldbrew says:

    Polar Bears Thriving…

    Each year Gaia Fawkes updates you – on or around International Polar Bear Day – with the latest on climate change experts’ favourite cuddly carnivores. The most recent report released by the Global Warming Policy Foundation bears good news. Contrary to common belief and the near universal claims of the green lobby, its findings are:

    — Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century;
    — The widely predicted 67% decline in polar bear numbers did not occur;
    — As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival;
    — Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number starving to death or too thin to reproduce.

    Or, the polar opposite of what the experts said.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Date: 13/04/18 Donna Laframboise, No Frakking Consensus

    SPOTLIGHT: Journalistic professionalism evaporates in front of our eyes.

    TOP TAKEAWAY: Environmental reporting at the New York Times is a disgrace.

    BIG PICTURE: When historians document the demise of the mainstream media, an article published this week by the New York Times will make an excellent case study. Titled “Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back,” it’s written by Erica Goode who isn’t just any journalist. She’s a former Environment Editor of the Times. In 2009, she “founded and led a cluster of reporters dedicated to environmental reporting.” Currently, she’s a visiting professor at Syracuse University.

    Out here in the real world, a debate exists about polar bears. Will they be adversely affected by climate change or will they continue to adapt as they have historically?

    Since the future hasn’t yet arrived, it’s impossible to know whose opinions will turn out to be correct. But rather than presenting a range of perspectives to her readers, Goode takes sides. Apparently clairvoyant, she knows that experts concerned about the long term prospects of polar bears are correct. She knows that dissenting voices are wrong. No other possibility is conceivable within the confines of her exceedingly narrow mind.

  6. oldbrew says:

    A conversation with Dr. Willie Soon – on polar bears, the sun, and Earth’s climate
    April 14, 2018

    Dr WS: I should say categorically that this polar bear fear-mongering is evidence of mass delusion promoted by group think.