Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

 

Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ specifically to associate opponents with those who deny the Holocaust occurred.

stock-photo-harassment-in-its-many-forms-and-types-235778830

But when they talk about male scientists they are somewhat restrained. Here’s Michael Mann on Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT, and one of the most famous skeptics: “So Richard Lindzen is a scientist from MIT who has expressed contrarian views about climate change.” When astrophysicist Ken Rice, a consensus defender writes of Roger Pielke Jr., who disputes some elements of the consenssus, he writes “Okay, I do think that trying to improve the climate debate is commendable, so kudos to Roger for at least trying. ”

But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.

The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.

Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’

A paper published Nov. 29 in the American Institute of Biological Sciences journal ‘Bioscience’ bears the title ‘Internet Blogs, Polar Bears and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy’ calls Susan Crockford a denier. Their evidence is that other unidentified blogs that the paper’s authors call ‘denier’ blogs (without citing them, without showing what it is about those blogs that render them anathema) link to Dr. Crockford’s weblog.

Let’s be clear about this. Dr. Crockford does not deny climate change. She writes about polar bears and clears up some misconceptions being published about them. But because weblogs this paper’s authors don’t like link to Crockford, she is now labeled a ‘denialist.’ But again, the casual dismissal of her life’s work is more personal than professional. She is derided as someone who focused on dogs,with an inferred snigger.

This is actually a common Consensus tactic–when they cannot criticize the science, they go after the scientist. Or even the scientists’s fans… The truth about polar bears is that they have survived warmer periods than those predicted for us by the IPCC. Their numbers are increasing, not decreasing. And the biggest threat to polar bears are hunters–as many as 1,000 per year (out of a total population of about 30,000) are shot.

The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.” Crockford’s publications are listed here and include papers published in Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, Canadian Journal of Zoology and International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, among many others.

It is another attempt to delegitimize a respected and credentialed scientist, based not on what she writes, but on what others write about her.

The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents.

The paper’s authors are Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, Michael E. Mann.

Michael Mann is famous–or infamous–as author of the Hockey Stick chart. But Jeffrey Harvey is not. Harvey is willing to defend Paul Ehrlich, who to my knowledge has never been right about anything, but is willing to throw fellow scientist Susan Crockford under the bus. Here’s Harvey defending Paul Ehrlich:

“Effectively, these scientists – experts with many hundreds of peer-reviewed articles amongst them and with many awards (e.g. Paul Ehrlich has been a past winner of the Crafoord Prize, an equivalent to the Nobel Prize in fields outside of that award) – have drawn conclusions that an ‘expert’ like Fuller disagrees with.”

Stefan Lewandowsky, famed for having retracted his flagship paper and moving out of the country to live down the shame of it, deserves little mention.

The central point emerging from their paper is unintentional on their part. Their opponents are eager to cite scientists in their arguments. Rather than denying science, they are eager consumers of it.

The central point of this post–that climate scientists are dismissive, personal and insulting, and more so when the subject of their disdain are female, is clear just from their quoted remarks.

On Judith Curry:

Bart Verheggen: “Her unfounded allegations are insulting for the whole profession. It increases the polarisation and doesn’t add to the building of bridges (perhaps a one-way bridge).”

Michael Tobis: “Anyone who thinks all is roses in the garden of science has to account for the rise of Dr Curry to a position of responsibility in academia. (Here I am on the sidelines and there sits Judith Curry on top of the heap.”

Michael Mann: “Pathetic #RichardHarris @NPR puffpiece glorifies #JudyCurry for purveying #climatechange distraction & confusion ”

Dana Nuccitelli: “@MichaelEMann I just depuffed the @NPR Judith Curry glorification http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure …”

Michael Tobis: “So has she lost touch, or has she never had much scientific insight to begin with? That’s the only question any of this burbling raises. … On the other hand, to be honest no paper of hers has ever come across my radar in anything I’ve investigated.”

“It’s as if she had heard of science but never seen it done.”

On Susan Crockford:

Richard Littlemore: “Has beens, also-rans, deniers-for-hire on retainer at “think tank”. The scientists, ranging from …a sessional lecturer on the evolution and history of the domestic dog (Susan Crockford), include no top climate scientists currently publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.”

At the end of the day, members of the Consensus will dismiss this blog post in the same way they dismiss Susan Crockford–not because of the accuracy of the quotes listed here, not because of the truth or falsity of its central point, but because of provenance. It is posted on a blog called Climate Scepticism and hence is beyond the Pale.

The paper I am criticizing reminds me of several other junk science publications–‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature’ (Cook, Nuccitelli et al), ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change,’Anderegg, Prall et al and literally anything written by the biggest charlatan in climate science, Stefan Lewandowsky (one of the authors of this paper as well). The purpose of these papers is not to communicate.

It is to excommunicate.

193 thoughts on “Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

  1. Bart was civil and reasonable at one time.
    I wonder what got him to want to join in on a thuggish deceitful gang that maliciously lies about people?
    Or perhaps the true cost of being part of the inside crowd of climate opinion makers is the price at which one will sell out their integrity…..

    Like

  2. Tom,
    Great essay.
    You did remind me why not taking anything Tobis says as reasonable is a good default setting.
    Thanks.

    Like

  3. Interesting that several of the authors of the paper are female.
    What I can never understand is that several criticisms of DR Susan Crockford are blatantly untrue, yet can easily be checked. Furthermore I have read such untruths before. How did the paper get through peer review?; it should have been rejected as not being original as well as containing factual inaccuracies. Ah, but I forget, peer review is dead: long live pal review.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. It’s almost as if there is particular shame and infamy attached to being female, a scientist, and not whole-heartedly embracing the man-made global warming catastrophe consensus. It’s half expected that some white middle aged males will, of course, because science denial for the benefit of Big Oil is part of that colonialist package, But a woman! OMG, the shame!

    I didn’t realise Susan Crockford researched the origins of the domestic dog. I must look up what she has to say.

    I ticked off Ken Rice for yet another cheap shot at Judith on Twitter, criticising her blog post about Darwall’s uncertainty essay (nothing to do with Nazis) by bizarrely associating her choice to cover his work with James Delingpole’s Breitbart article about the roots of environmentalism in Nazi Germany, where he referenced Darwall’s latest book.

    Like

  5. My experience may not be typical. My science -geology- may be different from other subjects. When I was an undergraduate (early 60s) there were very few female geology students. I never met one until I was a post-graduate when I met a few female graduates from other universities at research meetings. Much later, in Canada I met and worked with a very few female geologists in an oil company. There are of course many more female geology graduates now and I have taught and done research with more female research students than male ones. Incidentally, my second wife was a geologist and the reason I returned to the UK.

    My overall impression of female scientists (mostly geologists) is one of awe. If they survive, they have had to break more barriers than men do, and to get appointed and promoted have to be better than most men. When arguing with women I always feel I have to be on my mettle (hi Jaime). Thus reading this current blog came as a surprise. I do not dispute it, but I do wonder if the male authors of the paper know just what they are taking on. I doubt that Judith Curry or Susan Crockford suffer fools.

    Like

  6. This is a very odd post. I happen to have said something positive about Roger Pielke Jr and that is somehow an indication that climate scientists are more restrained when criticising men than women?

    The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.”

    I have just checked Web of Science and cannot find any peer-reviewed papers by Dr Crockford on polar bears. Can you highlight one?

    Jaime,

    I ticked off Ken Rice

    You didn’t tick me off. I just found that whole situation very strange. What I tweeted was true. The only problem that I can see would be if James Delingpole misrepresented Rupert Darwall’s book. However, given that Rupert Darwall seemed to be promoting James Delingpole’s article on Twitter, he didn’t seem to think that he had.

    Like

  7. “I doubt that Judith Curry or Susan Crockford suffer fools.”
    Curry seems to be a fool. Remember her “Wow!” on reading Salby’s drivel. Crockford might garner more respect if she got out on the ice and did some original research on Polar Bear populations. How can someone be an expert on such a subject without that?

    Like

  8. In what way does Judith Curry, author of more than 220 works, seem to be a fool in the eyes of the almighty intellect that is Len Martinez? Do please enlighten us, using your exquisite judgement.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Dana Nuccitelli does his best to depuff and defund Climate Science, writing about something with no Climate Science in it.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ATTP, are you disputing the quote?

    Dr. Crockford’s publication record is linked above. Remind me again of your publications on polar bears? Or for that matter any climate science-related topic?

    Funnily enough I don’t see papers published in journals about your deficiencies as a member of the climate commentariat.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. As I said, remember her “Wow” in response to Salby’s drivel. “…just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow. […] If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. […] While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues.
    – Judith Curry”

    See also https://curryquotes.wordpress.com/

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Tom,

    ATTP, are you disputing the quote?

    No, I’m suggesting that it has no relevance with respect to whether or not climate scientists are more restrained when criticising men than women. I would argue that you have no evidence for this in the first place, but what I said has no relevance whatsoever.

    Dr. Crockford’s publication record is linked above. Remind me again of your publications on polar bears? Or for that matter any climate science-related topic?

    As far as I can see there are no peer-reviewed papers by Susan Crockford on polar bears. If there are, I would appreciate you highlighting them.

    Remind me again of your publications on polar bears? Or for that matter any climate science-related topic?

    I don’t see how my publication record has any bearing on someone else’s publication record.

    Like

  13. Crockford lists a few comments she made on other people’s papers on her About page. That probably counts as a paper in its own right in Tom’s starstruck eyes.

    Like

  14. Len A highly refined and damning judgement based upon a single three-letter word (I’m tempted to repeat it but cannot face your rightful scorn) This word must have been so full of import to influence you so strongly. Journal editors must long for more like you – able to make refined assessments upon so little. Peer assessments would be SO easy.

    I almost overlooked your “drivel” assessment of atmospheric physicist Salby’s essay. Do please share the detailed reasoning behind your refined judgement.

    Like

  15. ‘Starstruck?’ No. Impressed? Yes. Unlike my reaction to your output, Mr. Martinez. Do you really think the audience here is unfamiliar with trolls?

    Like

  16. Pingback: 14 Climate Bullies Attack Susan Crockford For Telling The Truth About Polar Bears | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  17. Journal editors? You’ll struggle in vain to find Salby’s CO2 fantasies in any reputable (or maybe even non-returnable) journals. He specialises in giving lectures to old folks who don’t know enough to dispute his ideas but desperately want to believe – much like those here.

    Impressed Tom? By someone who seems to have no record of research or of peer reviewed publication on the subject she claims expert status. You are perhaps too easily impressionable. Or did you find a body of such work as ATTP asked if you?

    Like

  18. I’m impressed by the evidence she produces. ATTP has no record at all of publishing in related fields. None whatsoever. And yet you seem to worship at his feet. Are you conscious?

    Like

  19. ATTP writes, “I don’t see how my publication record has any bearing on someone else’s publication record.” If you have no relevant expertise in Crockford’s field how are you fit to critcize her? Have you read one of her papers? Have you read any of her blog posts?

    She’s a woman. Perhaps worse, she’s Canadian–Canadian’s are generally in favor of the Konsensus, so she’s a traitress. But worst of all, she uses facts from the field to undermine your doom-laden rants.

    Which is why the hit-job was published. Why do I say hit job? Because there’s no SI. Because there’s no listing of which blogs were evaluated. Because there’s no comparison between other candidate blogs. Do you really think more skeptic blogs link to Crockford than Curry?

    Puerile middle school Mean Girls crap. And you’re out there on the stump, waving the flag of willful ignorance.

    Like

  20. Crockford lists 30 papers on her About page. Yet more proof of Len’s inability to assess or even recognise evidence. No wonder he is such a fanboy for the AGW zealots

    Like

  21. Tom,

    If you have no relevant expertise in Crockford’s field how are you fit to critcize her?

    I’m not criticising Dr Crockford. I’m asking you to back this up

    The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.”

    I can’t find any peer-reviewed papers on polar bears on which Dr Crockford is an author. A peer-reviewed paper is normally the manner in which one presents original research. I’m asking that you highlight – if it exists – a peer-reviewed paper on polar bears on which Dr Crockford is an author.

    Like

  22. Peer review produced the junk science this post is discussing. Make a case for peer review, ATTP.

    Peer review produced Anderegg, Prall et al. Peer review produce Cook, Nuccitelli et al. Peer review produced your idiotic paper defending pub searches as proof of consensus.

    Funnily enough most of the foundational science in your field preceded the era of peer review.

    She has published comments in peer reviewed journals on polar bears. She has written copiously on the subject. You fools have no facts to refute her evidence. Hence the hit job. Funny how much hit job sounds like hijab, which I guess all female scientists should wear.

    Do you think they should be allowed to drive?

    Liked by 2 people

  23. I take it that I cannot find a peer reviewed paper by Ken Rice on social psychology, SNP, polar bears or literary criticism. Again, as in the past, you mistake publication in peer-reviewed journals for expertise or a minimum qualification for consideration. Which led of course to my comment that Michael Mann has more publications than Einstein, Feynman and Newton combined. All hail Michael Mann?

    Full papers? No. Comments considered appropriate for publication in journals such as Science and Current Biology? Yes.

    **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment (May 1) to Hailer et al. 2012. “Nuclear genomic sequences reveal that polar bears are an old and distinct bear lineage.” Science 336:344-347. Follow link and click on “# comments” under the title http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1216424

    **Crockford, S.J. 2012. Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment, with references (May 1) to Edwards et al. 2011. “Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline.” Current Biology 21:1251-1258. to view comments, go through the host website, http://www.Cell.com and find the paper at the Current Biology website. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900645-2#Comments

    Like

  24. Tom,

    Again, as in the past, you mistake publication in peer-reviewed journals for expertise or a minimum qualification for consideration.

    Not at all, I’m simply asking you to back up your claim that the paper flat out lies.

    Comments considered appropriate for publication in journals such as Science and Current Biology? Yes.

    I do not think people regard such comments as having appeared in the journal itself, and they’re certainly not peer-reviewed. Also, I cannot find the latter one which explicitly says Comments will not be peer-reviewed.

    Like

  25. Len wrote. “Crockford lists a few comments she made on other people’s papers.” Are we to assume that you have assiduously examined each and every multiauthored paper, that includes the name Crockford, and using sophisticated textural analysis have identified each minute contribution of the charlatan polar bear “expert”, and found it wanting? Praise be for experts such as you because without your vigilance and dedication we would be so mislead by these fraudsters.

    Like

  26. The whole issue of whether Crockford has any “peer reviewed” articles about polar bears is just a silly rhetorical point deployed to discredit her work. As Tom points out peer review is overrated as a sine qua non of quality. I’ve seen lots of exceptional papers rejected because they said something critical or negative and lots of low quality work accepted because it was fashionable at the time. The quality of the scientific literature is a growing issue as journals proliferate and the science “profession” grows. The Harvey paper is clearly an example of “junk” science.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. ATTP, here’s why I don’t care what you think. You (and the paper we are discussing) are seeking to deligitimize a PhD zoologist who has worked hard and carefully to present evidence on the health of polar bear populations that advances our knowledge of both polar bears and nature.

    You are using peer review as a bar to entry because you are too f**king lazy to evaluate her work in context with other studies of polar bears.

    When Michael Mann and his minions boycott journals, get editors fired and seek to ‘redefine what peer review is’ don’t wave peer review at me or Crockford.

    The paper flat out lies about Crockford, ignoring her PhD and comments on polar bears in peer reviewed literature. But what’s worse is that neither her PhD or her peer review record are relevant at all. It is the evidence she produces that, as with so many of the Konsensus tired fabrications, the story of the polar bear is vastly different to what the world is fed by you loons on a daily basis.

    Because you cannot refute her evidence, you attack her. The same way you attack Curry. The same way you attack Baliunas. The same way you attack Marohasy.

    ‘Tis pity she’s a whore…’

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Pingback: Bioscience article is academic rape: an assertion of power and intimidation | polarbearscience

  29. Tom,
    Does that mean that you do? To save time, few people would regard a comment written into a box on a website as a comment in a peer reviewed journal. This isn’t a criticism of those who write such comments, just a clarification.

    Like

  30. Alan, if she’d written something substantive she would have linked to it in her About page; hell she’s even had the cheek to link to a website comment as if it is a published comment. Talk about desperate.

    Tom, you say she produced evidence, but she’s not known to have researched polar bears on the ice or land or by plane, satellite, whatever. What sort of evidence would be needed to contradict those who really do research on the same subject? It would need to be pretty compelling.

    Barrel, she lists various blog posts and book and some papers but no papers are about bears. Kisses.

    Like

  31. Pingback: Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann — Climate Scepticism – NZ Conservative Coalition

  32. Ah, and I have entered the world of moderation at Bart Verheggen’s blog. Here’s what I wrote:

    Crockford has had extensive comments on polar bears published in high impact journals. Given what the Konsensus has done for the reputation of peer review that should be sufficient.

    And it should have been noted.

    This paper really is a hit job–I’m not being metaphorical. Crockford was in an argument with one of the paper’s authors, Steven Armstrup. She wiped the floor with him and this paper is obviously the cheap and underhanded retaliation we have come to expect from the Crusher Crew.

    Other ways we know it’s a hit job: Release of the letter without the Si, something Bart Verheggen could do in a second on this blog. Equating the paper’s opponents with thugs claiming the Holocaust never occurred (and then amazingly calling for civility in the discussion that follows…) A complete lack of reference to the large body of published work on Social Network Analysis–the subject of the paper was obviously not nearly as important as going after Crockford.

    And again, why Crockford? Why not Curry? She’s also a woman. Why not Donna LaFramboise? She’s also a woman. Why not Jennifer Marohasy? She’s a woman too.

    This is an attempt to smear Crockford by someone she destroyed in another internet venue. I’m not surprised Lewandowsky signed up for it–he’s game for all sorts of idiotic nonsense.

    But Bart? I am genuinely saddened to see your name on this.

    Liked by 4 people

  33. Fuller’s implied, and even direct, support for the guestionable work products of Maurice Salby, J. Curry, Sally Baliunas, Dr Crockford (while ignoring requests for citations of her peer reviewed publications), and J. Marohasy while citing anecdotes as justification for labeling peer reviewed publishing scientists such as Verheggen and Mann as sexist , should leave little doubt about his bias.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. “Curry seems to be a fool.”

    Whereas you Martinez are a total cretin, and a thoroughly pig ignorant, obnoxious one to boot.

    And those are your more endearing features.

    But you know that, don’t you?

    Like

  35. Do the experts on Polar Bears agree that Polar Bear numbers are decreasing or increasing? If Doctor Susan Crockford is correct, tax payers do not need to fund so many Polar Bear Experts, and some of the animal welfare charities can concentrate their fund raising and funds elsewhere.

    If the world finds itself with too many Polar Bear Experts, then they can commend themselves for their success.

    Like

  36. J. Curry: “This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published”.
    Curry would be more convincing if she offered substance. Would be good practice.

    Like

  37. Tom, you really have lost your marbles.
    “Crockford has had extensive comments on polar bears published in high impact journals. “

    No she doesn’t. She posted a comment on the Science website. That’s like you posting a comment on Bart’s blog; worthless as a sign of expertise. The comment was ignored as far as getting any reply from the mag or the authors of the paper. The fact that she even mentions that little embarrassment in her list of “publications” should tell you how weak her claim to expertise is. And she has no published work on polar bears. You and your fellow delusionals here should get out more.

    Weasely one, I love you too.

    Paul, whats the deal with the SI file? Do you just want to see whether Cliscep is there? Or do you think it is not possible to differentiate science blogs from non-science blogs like Cliscep?

    Like

  38. Len, Tom’s already written:

    The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record, saying “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.” Crockford’s publications are listed here and include papers published in Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, Canadian Journal of Zoology and International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, among many others.

    with links provided in his original. You now seem to be implying that Crockford has only ever “posted a comment on the Science website”. Let’s get this free-floating marble correct before judging whose final one it is.

    Like

  39. I wonder what it was about:

    Formulating a hypothesis about how the evolutionary process of speciation actually works at the biological level (in animals like dogs, polar bears, and humans) was the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation, which I completed in 2004.**

    that Mann, Lewandowsky and their cohorts on this far from scholarly hit-piece failed to understand – not to mention the obvious limitations of their diversionary but ignorant cheerleaders such as Rice and Martinez.

    **Source: On being a polar bear expert, among other things

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Mr. Beeton, I believe Judith Curry’s comment was as substantial as the subject deserved.

    Mr. Martinez, if you keep interrupting adult conversations I will have to send you to bed early.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. I will note in passing that scrutiny of subject matter expertise seems to be limited to those critiquing the consensus. I don’t see people commenting on James Hansen’s lack of education in the climate sciences. (Nor should they). But Freeman Dyson? (Second smartest man on the planet). He’s not qualified to talk about climate science! (He only worked in climate science for 15 years.) He… didn’t… publish… in…. peer…reviewed… litrachur!!! (Who qualifies as a peer to the second smartest person on the planet? Stephen Hawkins is too busy doing cameos on The Big Bang Theory…)

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Tom: Interesting you mention James Hansen. His endorsement of Mike Shellenberger for governor of California – and who has the consensusite credentials for such a solemn thing? – had already got me thinking. I was going to put this under ‘Enlightenment and empathy” in my next main post. Freeman Dyson of course never bothered to get a PhD – he was too busy making himself useful to the likes of Richard Feynman. And even Dyson got some things horribly wrong, as he tells nicely against himself:

    Sixty years ago, when I was a young and arrogant physicist, I tried to predict the future of physics and biology. My prediction was an extreme example of wrongness, perhaps a world record in the category of wrong predictions. I was giving advice about future employment to Francis Crick, the great biologist who died in 2005 after a long and brilliant career. He discovered, with Jim Watson, the double helix. They discovered the double helix structure of DNA in 1953, and thereby gave birth to the new science of molecular genetics. Eight years before that, in 1945, before World War 2 came to an end, I met Francis Crick for the first time. He was in Fanum House, a dismal office building in London where the Royal Navy kept a staff of scientists. Crick had been working for the Royal Navy for a long time and was depressed and discouraged. He said he had missed his chance of ever amounting to anything as a scientist. Before World War 2, he had started a promising career as a physicist. But then the war hit him at the worst time, putting a stop to his work in physics and keeping him away from science for six years. The six best years of his life, squandered on naval intelligence, lost and gone forever. Crick was good at naval intelligence, and did important work for the navy. But military intelligence bears the same relation to intelligence as military music bears to music. After six years doing this kind of intelligence, it was far too late for Crick to start all over again as a student and relearn all the stuff he had forgotten. No wonder he was depressed. I came away from Fanum House thinking, “How sad. Such a bright chap. If it hadn’t been for the war, he would probably have been quite a good scientist”.

    A year later, I met Crick again. The war was over and he was much more cheerful. He said he was thinking of giving up physics and making a completely fresh start as a biologist. He said the most exciting science for the next twenty years would be in biology and not in physics. I was then twenty-two years old and very sure of myself. I said, “No, you’re wrong. In the long run biology will be more exciting, but not yet. The next twenty years will still belong to physics. If you switch to biology now, you will be too old to do the exciting stuff when biology finally takes off”. Fortunately, he didn’t listen to me. He went to Cambridge and began thinking about DNA. It took him only seven years to prove me wrong. The moral of this story is clear. Even a smart twenty-two-year-old is not a reliable guide to the future of science. And the twenty-two-year-old has become even less reliable now that he is eighty-two.

    That beats Matt Ridley being chairman of Northern Rock by some margin! But I may well digress.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. I will note that Jeff Harvey’s Wikipedia page has the warning “The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guideline for biographies”. Given my interactions with Jeff on climate weblogs, I can only second Wikipedia’s caution.

    Jeff is a scientist specializing in multitrophic interactions (the interplay between species). Which is not an obvious qualification for writing on social networks in the blogosphere, unless he considers lukewarmers and skeptics to be of a different species than staunch upholders of the Konsensus.

    Although there is a link on Wikipedia to Jeff Harvey’s personal page at the Danish institute where he labors so mightily, that page is blank.

    His peer reviewed publications include works on aphids, beetles,wasps, the cabbage moth and the garlic mustard plant. Nothing about dogs, however. Or polar bears for that matter. Nothing about Social Network Analysis, which might have been useful in the junk science paper that is the subject of this post.

    One wonders what qualified him to attempt this paper? One doesn’t wonder why it failed.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Len Martinez says: “Crockford might garner more respect if she got out on the ice and did some original research on Polar Bear populations.”

    Unlikely. The point of the article is that the slightest deviation from the Dogma is not tolerated. Naomi Oreskes, who is no scientist at all, gets considerable respect from the Consensus. How is that? MSM: Main Stream Media. Far-left media include The New York Times, NPR from her brother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oreskes

    “How can someone be an expert on such a subject without that?”

    Be sure to ask the same question of the writers for Skeptical Science. Maybe they will tell you.

    I am expert on several topics with no Original Research in my name. Perhaps you are an expert in something.

    Like

  45. Richard: “Len, Tom’s already written: The paper flat out lies about Crockford’s publication record,…”
    He wrote it but he is wrong. She has no academic publication record about the bears. Look at her list, it is not hard to see. Tom is the one fibbing about a supposed “extensive comments on polar bears published in high impact journals” when the comment to Science was not published at all and certainly not in the journal. It was a simple website comment form submission that you or I could have made.

    Hilary, have you actually looked at the thesis? There are only six paragraphs of a 100+ page document (plus refs and appendices) in which the author speculates vaguely about the origin of polar bears. It is not hard to understand that this does not make the paper about bears or vaguely relevant to current pressures due to a changing environment. Mann and co. clearly were capable of such understanding; you and others here, not so much.

    Michael: “I am expert on several topics…”
    I’ve seen plenty of CVs that claim expert status on an unlikely number of things. Some people’s idea of being expert is what others might consider just well read.

    Like

  46. Len, I’m happy to leave the rest to Tom, except to say “vaguely relevant to current pressures due to a changing environment” sound typically weaselly words. The issue I’ve seen Crockford write about for a number of years is polar bear populations. That’s pretty basic data, though because of the location (the clue may be in the name) I can imagine it takes some expertise to properly assess. Whether Crockford has got populations right, over time, is the main issue here – and a sensitive one for warmist propaganda. The article meanwhile has many ridiculous aspects, including immediate access to the SI, which Tom and others have rightly exposed.

    Like

  47. You say I’m fibbing, Mr. Martinez? Hmm.

    Let’s let Dr. Crockford speak for herself on the matter:

    “As I have emphasized elsewhere (“About” page), my undergraduate, Bachelor of Science degree is in Zoology (from the University of British Columbia, where polar bear biologist Ian Stirling earned the same degree a few years before me).(Tom’s note: Ian Stirling is one of the authors of the junk science paper under discussion here.) “My core intellectual interest is evolution and that has been true since I was a child.”

    “Questions about dog origins drew me back into questions about evolution but it was the parallels with how other species arose that really captured my intellectual curiosity. Formulating a hypothesis about how the evolutionary process of speciation actually works at the biological level (in animals like dogs, polar bears, and humans) was the topic of my Ph.D. dissertation, which I completed in 2004. I did that Ph.D. work primarily on my own time and largely without funding.”

    “Evolution, paleoecology, and biogeography (see here and here) are the common denominators that tie these diverse projects together for me. I have published peer-reviewed papers on all of these topics (see the list below), among others.

    Over the last 20 years, I have been as interested in how, when, and why polar bears arose as a distinct species as I have been in how, when, and why dogs came to be. Neither of those issues have yet been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction: there are still many questions to be answered..”

    Selected papers:

    **Crockford, S.J. and G. Frederick 2011. Neoglacial sea ice and life history flexibility in ringed and fur seals. pg.65-91 in T. Braje and R. Torrey, eds. Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific. U. California Press, LA.

    *Baichtal, J.F. and Crockford, S.J. 2011. Possibility of kelp during the LGM in SE Alaska and implications for marine mammals. Poster 5-12, 19th Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, FL. Nov. 28-Dec.2.

    **Crockford, S.J. 2008. Be careful what you ask for: archaeozoological evidence of mid-Holocene climate change in the Bering Sea and implications for the origins of Arctic Thule. Pp. 113-131 in G. Clark, F. Leach and S. O’Connor (eds.), Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Terra Australis 29 ANU E Press, Canberra. http://epress.anu.edu.au/ta29_citation.html

    **Crockford, S. and Frederick, G. 2007. Sea ice expansion in the Bering Sea during the Neoglacial: evidence from archaeozoology. The Holocene 17(6):699-706.

    *Crockford, S.J., Frederick, G. & Wigen, R. 2002. The Cape Flattery fur seal: An extinct species of Callorhinus in the eastern north Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26(3):152-174. http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/publications.lasso

    Now the unimaginative among you might say that polar bears are not mentioned in the titles of these papers. The more astute will notice that seals, sea lions and sea otters have one thing in common–their principal land-bound predator. Again, those with a discerning eye might not that sea ice expansion might have just as dramatic an impact on polar bears as the overly-predicted sea ice decline.

    Then, of course, there are the famed comments, one of which ATTP cannot find and Mr. Martinez, up far beyond his bedtime, characterizes as nothing more than blog commentary. Which, if his were the standard, would be poor indeed.

    However, her book ‘Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species’ specifically covers polar bears. The books was reviewed in the Quarterly Review of Biology. The jacket reads “We know much less about how dogs and other domestic animals came to be, and how new breeds are developed, than most scientists will admit. The same is true about the process that turns any kind of wild animal into another: scientists know virtually nothing about how new species are actually generated. I’ve spent more than ten years investigating these issues and have made an exciting breakthrough that finally transcends the current preoccupation with genes. I discovered that a simple biological mechanism exists which explains precisely how wolves became dogs and how all animals, including our human ancestors, changed over time- something neither Darwin nor anyone since his time have done. Rhythms of Life explains fully, but without jargon, how animals transformed from one species to another using familiar and fascinating examples (including dogs, polar bears, extinct dodos, and the newly discovered dwarf hominid, Homo floresiensis)-and how this process continues to affect our daily lives..”

    Crockford wrote Chapter Six in the book ‘Human Evolution Through Developmental Change, which dealt with polar bears as well as humans and even dogs., reviewed by The Proceedings of The Royal Society.

    So Mr. Martinez, Mr. Rice and any other droolers out there–if you wish to limit your definition to a very narrow one, Dr. Crockford doesn’t have a peer reviewed paper specifically about polar bears. However, it will be obvious to all that you are misrepresenting Dr. Crockford’s expertise, interests and focus. Indeed, you will be lying about Dr. Crockford. As did the paper we are discussing, even if their statement about peer-reviewed papers about polar bears written on a Sunday on an IBM Selectric is technically true.

    Indeed, it will be obvious to all that if we discovered a peer-reviewed paper on polar bears by Dr. Crockford that you would then disqualify her on the basis of gender, left-handedness or hair color.

    To those of you so insistent on the virtues of peer review, I submit that you are involved in a terrible game of academic pole climbing that is completely divorced from the advancement of human understanding. You complain loudly and frequently about the publish or perish death match of academia–except when it helps you disqualify your opposition.

    Liked by 5 people

  48. As well as smearing Dr Crockford, there are other aspects of the paper that are of note. One familiar to regulars is here is this claim.

    The vast majority of scientists agree that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is explained by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Cook et al. 2013, Stenhouse et al. 2014, Carlton et al 2015, Verheggen et al. 2015),

    Doran and Zimmerman 2009 asked two questions

    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    Significant” is not synonymous with “most“.

    Cook et. al 2013 looked at the endorsement of AGW theory, not the estimates of how much warming was due to AGW.

    Any proper peer reviewer (someone with knowledge of the literature) should have picked up on this.

    Proper scientists should have referred to the estimates from the data. This from AR5 WG1 Ch10 Page 869

    It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GM

    ST from 1951 to 2010.

    If there was empirical evidence to support the belief that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is from human activities, the IPCC would have presented it. So the authors misrepresented nonsense opinion surveys instead.

    For further details, and for links to check for yourselves, see my post here.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. The significance of my comment at 8.44am about Cook et al. 2013 is especially significant. As one of the authors is Stephan Lewandowsky was the doctoral supervisor of John Cook and Cook et. al 2013 was included in Cook’s doctoral dissertation, there is no excuse for misinterpretation.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. There has been much discussion concerning whether or not comments in Science can be considered scientific literature. I would suggest that they are. First they appear under the Journal’s imprimatur, so the journal must take some responsibility for them, second, that being so I would strongly suggest that the Journal takes care that nothing untoward gets accepted, and finally a reader can get access to a comment by accessing the Journal and, if wishing to quote it refers to the Journal. In other words, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…..

    The Crockford comment is completely outside my field but it is still possible to make some limited judgement (I know Len will disagree but guess what….). The comment is short, tightly written, uses technical language in what appears to be an appropriate way and looks like the work of a competent person familiar with the topic. It makes a contribution to the topic. Furthermore the topic is upon a branch of science that the author is known to have done research and is identified as an established expert.

    To my mind the comment is both published and a valid (but short) technical reference. It conveys the author’s considered and expert thoughts about the topic of the original paper and is a (limited) contribution to our knowledge.

    Like

  51. ATTL. Continuing my exploration of the status of Crockford’s comment, let me put this scenario to you. You are writing a physics paper and in the section reviewing the literature you know of a significant contribution housed within a comment upon another paper both within Science. Presumably, therefore you duly refer to the comment, and in exactly the same manner as you would if it had appeared in a peer-reviewed paper. Furthermore you will list it in your bibliography or references. Why then is it not a valid reference?
    Admittedly not like a fully constructed work, and not reviewed by peers (probably reviewed by an editor however [well I used to when I was an editor]. We used to consider the like as grey (or gray) literature. In my case grey literature ranges from meeting abstracts to a major technical report that took me two years to research and write. There is much stuffyness about what constitutes acceptable scientific literature.

    Like

  52. Alan,
    What I’m pointing out has nothing to do with whether or not something is acceptable. All I’m pointing out is that writing a comment into a box on a website (much like we’re doing here) is not peer-reviewed and does not qualify as a comment in a peer-reviewed journal, even if the website happens to be that of a peer-reviewed journal. I don’t think this is all that controversial a point. As to citing such sources; in my experience, it would be unusual but maybe it does happen in some circumstances.

    Like

  53. Len. I note that you dismiss the section in Crockford’s thesis upon polar bears as “only six paragraphs of a 100+ page document (plus refs and appendices) in which the author speculates vaguely about the origin of polar bears”*. I suppose that, since you have no connection with doctoral work, you might just be excused for your ignorance. The truth of the matter is that doctoral students are encouraged to consider how their work might be expanded, to deliberately speculate as to how it might be utilized in the future. Examiners, in my experience like to focus in on this part of a thesis because it is where the excitement of the science resides. It answers two important questions: is the candidate aware of the wider significance of their work, and how might those advances be achieved? So, I’m sorry to inform you but, almost certainly Crockford would have spent considerable time and effort on those six paragraphs and it would have been most unlikely that they were vague. Especially because at the time of the submission of her thesis she was already interested in polar bear evolution and numbers.

    I also recall a colleague who did very important research into a topic in geology (almost certainly the most significant part by far) but when he came to write up found he had reached his word limit before reaching the topic, so it wasn’t included. Since he never published for decades, by your methodology, you would not identify him as an expert. Strange that! Everybody in the know knew his expertise.

    *BTW did you read the thesis or have you read some one else’s spiteful comments and are passing them off as your own.

    Like

  54. ATTP. You seem to be perpetrating a myth that any tom, dick or harry can get a comment onto the Science site. Try it with some obvious garbage and see how far you get on.

    In any case it’s the worthiness of the Crockford comment that is in question. I tried to evaluate this at 10.12am. Do you disagree or are you so stuck on the gold standard of peer-reviewed papers that anything else offends your scientific nosebuds.

    I wonder how you treat industry geophysicists, whose equipment and methods are so much more advanced than those in academia. They never publish, so lacking peer-reviewed papers, can they be experts in your eyes? Many I have worked with were women as well. Two strikes?

    Like

  55. My daughter is on track to enter a PhD program at Johns Hopkins. Hearing her accounts of how lead scientists she has worked with actually behave, it is not surprising that Mann would find a gang to lead for the purpose of teaching uppity women their proper place.

    Like

  56. Tom,
    Consider the effort Mann and gang took to dehumanize and objectify their intended victim. Gore Vidal once wrote to the effect that “politics is sex”. So stunts like Mann & gang are in effect acts of intellectual violence and dehumanization. There is a term used to describe those kind of assaults. Consider as well how the wannabe gang members here respond. Perhaps you should consider removing the “a”.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove

  58. It’s worth keeping in mind ATTP materialises only to run interference for his co-authors (from different papers). For eg, he started his blog career defending Lewandowsky and Cook’s consensus paper, leveraged that to gain co-authorship on other projects with them, and continued defending them while pretending to be a neutral party blinking innocently at the unfair accusations at his future collaborators.

    Liked by 5 people

  59. “The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents.

    The paper’s authors are Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, Michael E. Mann.”

    The Climate Science Defense Fund uses Michael E. Mann in its publicity, to get donations to help defend scientists from just this sort of attack
    https://www.csldf.org/

    THE WAR ON SCIENCE
    “Science is under siege. Anti-science groups and individuals seek to delegitimize, interfere with, and undermine facts and evidence that threaten their financial interests and ideological beliefs. Aggressive legal action, harassment, and even death threats are standard occurrences for climate researchers. We fight for scientists and defend scientific integrity by exposing and challenging these attacks against science to preserve academic freedom and prevent manipulation of public policy.”

    The Lawyers in Mann vs Steyn may care to consider Mann’s sensitive nature to criticism, based on the Peer Reviewed Literature considered so important by Climate Scientists.

    Like

  60. Pingback: Polar Bears and Arctic sea ice | …and Then There's Physics

  61. Alan, You will notice that ATTP is focused on a single point about peer reviewed contributions of Crockford. He completely ignores the larger context. Harvey et al uses Crockford as an example in their analysis of the blogosphere and tries to denigrate her work without actually showing any substance about her work. That’s in my book a classic smear job. You write a paper about the social science aspects (I’m charitable here) denigrating someone without actually touching on the scientific issues of that person’s work. You merely associate them with “denier” blogs. Classical Mccarthy tactics.

    If you look at Susan’s blog you will see that she is very upset by this content free political smear. She is justified in this anger in my view.

    Liked by 5 people

  62. Another of my comments currently in moderation at Bart Verheggen’s blog:

    “If I may disagree with several commenters, this paper is not about polar bears at all. It is about social networking–which blogs other bloggers link to for support and consider as validating for their point of view.

    The fight about credentials is tangential to this issue–although the paper again is wrong and foolish on the subject, as one of the paper’s authors has exactly the same credential from the same university as Dr. Crockford.

    There is a body of work on Social Network Analysis that was not cited and clearly not consulted in the preparation of this paper, leading to my concerns that this is more personally motivated.

    One of the authors engaged in an online fight with Dr. Crockford some months back. Dr. Crockford apparently got the better of the fight and this paper seems like nothing more than the academic version of revenge porn.

    Indeed, if there is anything at all of value in this paper, we are unable to find it without the SI.

    It is in tone and content very similar to the junk science put out at regular intervals by Stefan Lewandowski, one of this paper’s authors and, as I have said, is intended not to communicate but excommunicate.

    The most surprising feature of this paper is in fact the participation of one Bart Verheggen, something I regret very much and which I venture to guess Bart Verheggen will too, some day.

    Stephen Schneider put his imprint on a piece of junk science shortly before his death–Anderegg, Prall et al PNAS 2010. That paper, dismissed by no less than Spencer Weart on the day of its publication, serves as a sad coda to a distinguished career.

    I hope this paper does not serve as a blight on your own, Bart.

    You have the SI. You can publish it now. I call for you to do so.

    But then, I asked 5 times for the data for Verheggen et al 2013 and you didn’t provide it. I guess that openness in science only goes so far.”

    Liked by 3 people

  63. Barry is I’m sure 100% right, as is Dr Crockford. This is rape and Dana, Ken and Len are enthusiastically taking part, as well as the authors of the original paper. So thank you Tom and all those who despise the rape-trolls. (And well worth noting it was worth consensus rape-enforcement putting some faux distance from the repugnant activity on this thread by two new names appearing on the Royal Society one – with the sly attempt to remind Jaime of earlier doxxing efforts making it quite clear how angry everyone is by the robust resistance on this thread and on Cliscep generally.)

    Liked by 2 people

  64. Richard, whats the deal with the SI file? Do you just want to see whether Cliscep is there? Or do you think it is not possible to differentiate science blogs from non-science blogs like Cliscep? On academic rape, bollocks.

    Tom, so you and others think that Mann and co are lying, yet you admit that what they say is true: she has no publication record on polar bears. You are beyond parody.

    “However, her book ‘Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species’ specifically covers polar bears. The books was reviewed in the Quarterly Review of Biology. The jacket reads…”
    Not exactly about polar bears is it, whatever the jacket reads. You say it was reviewed by QRB, but I guess you didn’t read the review. It’s on JSTOR. The good news is that the book “is easy to read, nontechnical, and presents some refreshing new ideas”. The bad news is that “no evidence is presented for these “thyroid rhythms”” (the latter being the Crockford’s proposed mechanism for speciation), “errors in the descriptions of molecular biology, biochemistry, and endocrinology”, statements that are wrong, inaccurate references and oversimplification of the role of thyroid and ignoring other relevant factors. Not exactly a glowing review, is it? And no mention of bears ‘cos they’re peripheral at best to the subject of the book. And the lack of evidence for the core idea – she wrote a whole book about something for which she has no evidence – WTF!

    Beany, “The significance of my comment at 8.44am about Cook et al. 2013 is especially significant.”. Wow, that sounds significant!

    Alan, back to being petty with ‘ATTL’, eh? Didn’t take long. The thesis is here:
    https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/542/crockford_2004.pdf?sequence=1
    Read it yourself. Polar bears from page 95. Vague was probably the wrong word, but speculation fits well.

    Like

  65. Back to the kiddie table, Mr. Martinez–you’re starting to sound like Lenny Bruce, reading trial transcripts at his own comedy show.

    Grow up, wake up or shut up.

    Like

  66. Len. Thank you for the reference. So the vague comment is purely your own, I will retain that information. Actually that conclusion needn’t be true need it?

    Like

  67. Len, The SI is critical to determining if the methods and analysis of blogs in the paper is scientific or yet another example of Lew’s pseudo-science (and I’m being generous with this characterization).

    Liked by 1 person

  68. Len:

    Richard, whats the deal with the SI file?

    It should have been provided on publication.

    Do you just want to see whether Cliscep is there?

    No.

    On academic rape, bollocks.

    I already felt contempt for what you were doing on this thread. That makes it much worse. First among the rape-trolls, incurring zero reputation cost because (afaik) no climate sceptic here has a clue who you are in real life. All of this does blacken your name, whatever it is.

    Liked by 2 people

  69. I believe there are socities where gang sexual assaults are not exactly acceptable but definitely tolerated if the victim “had it coming”, ir if the gang leader is really upset by the uppity victim’s behavior.
    It probably links back to when wise women were tortured and burned at the stake for daring to be interested in things men of power did not approve of.
    We clearly see which side the trolls, apparently all if them, have chosen no matter how derivative and reactionary the position.
    “Climate consensus”, where holding the line costs all you are.

    Like

  70. Pingback: A new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

  71. Jeff Harvey is famous for his attack on Björn Lomborg in the Scientific American. Apparently he has not learned from that. Pity that he again wasted dutch grant money for his latest faux pas.

    Liked by 3 people

  72. Bioscience encourages but doesn’t require authors to lodge their data at Dryad.

    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/10/871/4411791

    http://datadryad.org/journal/0006-3568

    The data might not appear there, though, and if it does it might not be much use. From Dryad’s FAQ page:

    Dryad does not accept submissions that contain personally identifiable human subject information, since all data is publicly available. Human subjects data must be properly anonymized and prepared under applicable legal and ethical guidelines.

    Since blogs are mostly one-manperson bands, info about who blogged what where might be verboten. But IANAL.

    Like

  73. Pingback: Climate Alarmist Attack Women Scientists | Principia Scientific International

  74. Bart doesn’t seem the type to have got involved with this Tom, I agree. He liked a tweet I made in response to his tweet about contrarian blogs. I think the consensus industry has become a meat-grinder to be honest.

    Like

  75. And Then There’s Physics has retreated to the safety and comfort of his own venue to continue distorting everything we are writing here. We can always hope that Mr. Martinez made the journey with him.

    Like

  76. Academia, eith its thought free “safe zones” is pisiriveky thrilled at havingbgangs of fellow academics deliver the good ol’ what for on those unruly wimmin folks and unworthy men who dare to get out of line. A little gang trench warfare, a quiet visit from the night riders, and a lie or two whispered in the right ear and they can keep the Academy in the “right hands”….

    Liked by 1 person

  77. A new added attraction to Cliscep: rearrange Hunter’s post to get it to make some sense : big BIG prizes.

    Like

  78. Okay, Alan–here’s my try: Academia, with its thought free safe zones, is positively thrilled at having gangs of fellow academics deliver the good ol’ what for on those unruly wimmen folks and unworthy men who dare to get out of line. A little gang-trench warfare, a quiet visit from the night riders and a lie or two whispered in the right ear and they can keep the Academy in the right hands.

    Question: Why not the left ear?

    Alan, what do I win?

    Hunter, how’d I do? Like that predictive texting much?

    Like

  79. Tom, I have often thought you didn’t fit the mold of climate “skeptics” but you have proven me wrong. Crockford has very obviously no published academic record of research or insight on polar bears but you cannot accept that, instead pushing non-existent ‘extensive’ record of comments on papers and even an evidence free book about a thyroid-evolution theory as evidence of such expertise. It is bizarre to see this from a sometimes sensible commenter.

    Richard, why does it qualify as academic ‘rape’ in your eyes? Was something inserted where it didn’t belong? Why not buggery? Why not GBH or assault or mugging? Crockford’s use of the term rape trivializes this extreme violence that many women (and some men) are subject to.

    Like

  80. Pingback: An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken | Newsfeed - Hasslefree allsorts

  81. Here is proof of my point made above about this having nothing to do with science. Admitted to and agreed to by ATTP at his disingenuous blog.

    ATTP: “I don’t really think that Dr Crockford’s credentials are all that relevant to the topic. “

    You’re right. They aren’t. Just as the consensus isn’t relevant to the correctness of climate change science.

    Except the denialists keep saying there is no consensus, so showing there is becomes relevant. And denialists keep presenting Crockford as an an expert on polar bears, so showing she isn’t becomes relevant.

    So why then does a “peer reviewed” journal stoop to publishing something that has little to do with science and why do Verheggen and Mann become authors? Well perhaps that is obvious.

    Like

  82. It’s actually hilarious that you think that online commenting on a scientific article about polar bears (which anyone can do and is subject to scientific review by nobody) is akin to publishing a peer-reviewed original research article about polar bears.

    Please remind me anyone why anyone is supposed to take you clowns seriously again?

    If you can’t admit you’re wrong about this simple thing, then just admit that you are completely unamenable to all evidence of any kind.

    Like

  83. All of Susan Crockford’s comment at WUWT bears reposting here. She sums up neatly and devastatingly the motivations behind the Bioscence paper:

    “Amstrup is pissed off because I criticized his work. He and Stirling are not used to being challenged.

    He and his colleagues had the opportunity to formally demolish my PeerJ preprint online for all the world to see but they didn’t. That might have drawn attention to the issues I raised. They decided it would be best to ignore me.

    Except others who matter (for funding etc) clearly DID read the paper and found merit in my conclusions – that must be true or Amstrup and Stirling would not have concocted this paper. They are trying to demolish me instead of addressing the failed predictions exposed in my paper.

    Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.

    But it’s too late. And your rants about me being unqualified and substandard are as groundless as theirs.

    Colleagues have read my paper and found it to be fully acceptable as a piece of academic scientific work.

    If that were not true, this desperately ridiculous Bioscience paper would never have been published. I have exposed Amstrup’s failure and this is the only way he could think of to stop me: he went to Michael Mann for advice, with predictable results.

    This paper says way more about these co-authors than it does about me. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt them.

    Susan”

    This sounds the death knell for climate alarmist academia.

    Liked by 3 people

  84. “Crockford has very obviously no published academic record of research or insight on polar bears”

    LIAR

    You truly are a profoundly unpleasant little man, aren’t you?

    And a misogynist, a bully and a coward to boot.

    Like

  85. Mosher at ATTP:

    Agree with Joshua:

    “I have to say, it seems to me that the paper that started this dust up is likely to add nothing of value to the public debate about climate change. I’m a bit disappointed that you seem to be positively impressed by it.”

    I am seeing a “consensus” developing here that Harvey et al is a political exercise in pseudo-science.

    Like

  86. FWIW people do sometimes list comments published as letters in the print version of Science on their CVs, generally under unrefereed . They do not as a rule list on-line comments to an article

    Like

  87. Grimage asks: “Please remind me anyone why anyone is supposed to take you clowns seriously again?”

    Why? I think you overestimate how much I care who you take seriously.

    Like

  88. Len Martinez writes: “Some people’s idea of being expert is what others might consider just well read.”

    Quite right. I see you wearing the same shoe.

    Like

  89. Weasel, you have trouble understanding the concept of lying. Perhaps that is another identifying characteristic of a “skeptic”.

    Like

  90. Len Martinez writes: “Perhaps that is another identifying characteristic of a skeptic”.

    I believe that the distinguishing characteristic is two eyes and a bi-cameral brain. Where this combination might not be obvious (sunglasses and a hat), the upraised middle finger sometimes is diagnostic.

    Like

  91. As we used to say in the schoolyard, “I am rubber and I’m also glue. Everything you say makes me want to jump up and down on you.” Wasn’t that it?

    Like

  92. Dr Crockford wrote about failed predictions, largely by the scientists led by Amstrup and Stirling, hence their attack/revenge/smear in this paper. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/25/ten-dire-polar-bear-predictions-that-have-failed-as-global-population-hits-20-31k/
    Of course anything that appears at WUWT makes the person a ‘denier’ in Lewandowsky’s Mann’s view. I expect we will all have go whistle for the SI, or should it be published it will be whilst inadequate, and it not until long after the media have smeared Crockford and sceptic blogs

    Like

  93. Barry Woods. It is possible, I suppose, that sceptical blogs could be smeared further, but I would suggest that, in the view of those promoting CAGW, we are already fairly low down in the toilet.

    I do so hope that Dr Crockford finds some positives in being personally selected for attack. It is positive proof that she is important enough and her work sufficiently significant to be given “the treatment”. It should convey an impetus to continue.

    Like

  94. This is rape and Dana, Ken and Len are enthusiastically taking part

    Just for clarity, I have nothing to do with this paper (I wasn’t involved in any way). All I’ve really pointed out is that the paper’s claim about Dr Crockford not having published any peer-reviewed papers on polar bears appears to be true. That, somehow, warrants being accused of rape. A bit hyperbolic, maybe? I’m not saying this in any expectation that the tone will improve, I’m simply doing so for the record.

    Like

  95. Grimmage
    “It’s actually hilarious that you think that online commenting on a scientific article about polar bears (which anyone can do and is subject to scientific review by nobody) is akin to publishing a peer-reviewed original research article about polar bears”.

    I am pleased you are happy, but sadly I must inform you that your merriment is misplaced. We do not EQUATE different forms of scientific publication. No-one equates comments with fully fledged papers, but neither do we sneer at comments. We also consider appropriate comments to be legitimate forms of scientific information. Crockford’s comment adds to our understanding of polar bears.
    As I have commented earlier, her published comment has every appearance of being an authentic scientific contribution. Evaluate it for its content, not for its packaging.

    Like

  96. Lawyers acting on behalf of Mann and Steyn will note that Climate Scientist sensitivity is part of Mann’s claim.

    Does Mann believe that personal attacks via Peer Reviewed Literature give him immunity from accusations of hypocrisy?

    Liked by 1 person

  97. It’s not rape. Crockford herself only compared it to rape, being, in her opinion, the same kind of ‘power attack’, which is unfortunate because it sets all kinds of people going off at tangents.

    “Characterizing a professional, respected scientist as an unqualified vengeful opinion writer is the same kind of power attack as rape. It’s meant to humiliate and intimidate.”

    Having said that, there’s no doubt there is a strong element of sexist bullying here. The climate justice warriors must be tearing their hair out (well, perhaps not Michael Mann). The social injustices which they purport to despise, mediated via the supposed unequal impacts of climate change, are here on full display for all to see, the perpetrators being none other than a collection of rankled mainly white, middle-aged male scientists ganging up on a lone woman, simply because she had the temerity to question the climate consensus party line. Not climate alarmism’s finest hour.

    Liked by 1 person

  98. Paul Matthews, presumably the Peer Reviewers saw Mann’s name, and were frightened to make a critical comment?

    Like

  99. “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. ”

    Sometimes the academic gaslighting gets even cynical old me. I’m an utter layman but as soon as I read that line I also quickly found out that Crockford *had* published papers mentioning polar bears too. It was so easy to find that, for a moment, I just assumed I was naive to assume that the language needs to precisely mean what it claims in peer reviewed literature, especially in social science peer reviewed literature, and especially with Lewandowsky peer reviewed literature.

    But indeed, as Paul Matthews shows, there *are* published peer reviewed papers by Susan Crockford that refer to polar bears. My layman eyes weren’t lying.That is a gross error.

    I’m sure no doubt the defenders of this paper may desire to respond with ‘you don’t understand the academic meaning here’ or it actually meant ‘she hasn’t done any field research’ – please try it 😉

    Using social science to smear someone to avoid arguing a very testable proposition: i.e. that polar bear populations are not declining while ice cover has declined, has never been so hamfistedly obvious.

    Like

  100. Jaime, with respect, Susan Crockford also used ‘rape’ in the title of her blog post and her tweet to announce it on Saturday:

    It’s a metaphor Susan chose and, I think, a highly accurate one, describing the lying and distorting as a group to destroy the reputation and career of someone who’s being doing good and much needed science, with an article in the Guardian to aid the destruction before anyone can even examine the SI. (Barry’s key point here.) It’s a metaphor and it’s valid. The complaints about it, without dealing with any of the ugliness that makes it appropriate, are, though, typical distraction.

    Like

  101. Added this comment at Fabius website, almost worthy of a blog post, all by itself?

    The not mention your targets academic credential method has been used before in this paper..
    (by Lewandowsky, Cook)

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

    The intent to persuade that sceptics make contradictory statement, and compare it to a psychology paper that this is what conspiracy theorists do.. the lead quotes and title of the paper are not subtle in doing this

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

    “CO2 keeps our planet warm ….”
          — Ian Plimer, Australian climate “skeptic”, Heaven & Earth, p. 411

    “Temperature and CO2are not connected.”
          — Ian Plimer, Australian climate “skeptic”, Heaven & Earth, p. 278

    “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
          — The White Queen, in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There

    “Skeptic”, Ian Plimer is Professor Ian Plimer a highly cited geologist (and well know sceptic Australian opponent of Cook/Lewandowsky) and a former Eureka prize winner.

    I wonder if the peer reviewers knew his academic credentials, they would have bothered to obtained a copy of the book to check the quotes in context?

    The first he is describing the greenhouse effect and ghg gases,and remember water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas. The second quote, he refers to a period more recently (last million years, when CO2 is <0.04% of the atmosphere…and that changes in the warmth of the atmosphere wer not connected with CO2 in an earlier period geological period when CO2 had a low ppm, but temps were higher

    The whole paper is a rehash of a 6 year old Skeptical Science blog post by John Cook.
    https://skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

    BUT earlier Cook uses a longer quote..
    http://sks.to/plimervsplimer

    "Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm so that covered in ice, too hot or devoid of liquid water" Heaven & Earth, 2009 Page 411

    So Lewandowsky, Cook knowing shortened the quote, lest anyone think that 'skeptic' (actually Professor) Plimer might think something slightly different to Lewandowsky's Cook assertions and actually check the references. Even some of the commenters at Cook's website checked the references and didn't think they were contradictory

    They then tie this with the – Dead and Alice" Wood et al Psychology paper, that main claim that individual conspiracy theorists can believe mutually contradictory conspiracy theories at the same time, That Princes Diana was murdered, and she faked her won death – at the same time.. thus Pllmer (and Watts) and sceptics in general are as mad as these guys)

    Problem there, is not a single person in the Dead and Alive paper, actually believed this n=0, none of the 137, 2nd year, 20 year old, mainly female psychology students 'surveyed' believed that. Data is available on request.

    The paper further lists a number of other quotes /contradictions to Plimer and other sceptics (Watts) which on close inspect are not.. They then describe over two hundred other "sceptic contradictions".
    https://skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

    the reference to this just John Cooks website. The quotes are, not actual quotes, very short pharse, no context, no references to a sceptic source, just paraphrases any contributor to the website , could add to the table. Over a hundred written by James Wight, a then teenage home schooled boy, who on his own blog says he is at war with sceptics/deniers (he is also a super admin at Cook's website) .

    An example
    CO2 is just a trace gas – CO2 is plant food – John Cook

    (both are "true", Cook desn't explain the contradiction, or any source to which sceptic said it, in what context )

    four more:
    – It's the sun – Other planets are warming – jyushchyshyn

    – It's the sun – Iapetus is warming – jyushchyshyn

    – It's the sun – Mars is warming -jyushchyshyn

    – It's the sun – Jupiter is warming – jyushchyshyn

    (goodness knows how that is contradictory, they support the argument, Cook allows this, and no explanation)

    – Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming – It snowed somewhere – James Wight

    no quotes, no references, no explanation, just assertions by activists.

    and this passed 'peer review'

    they are laughable contradictions..
    so laughable I added four of my own to the SKS contradictions table which is referenced by this paper and nobody at SkS even noticed! (I just picked 2 items from a drop down list and added a comment)

    one of them

    – China pollutes more – Chinese station data is missing – Barry Woods
    Comment: sounds contradictory, but on close inspection talking about 2 entirely different subjects, not able to link to references of any "sceptics" saying his? this would help.

    https://skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

    There is a pattern of behaviour here perhaps?
    – "activism abusing science as a weapon" ? –
    Prof Henry Markram (referring to Lewandowsky/Cook's actions with the retracted Recursive Fury paper.)

    Write a paper, attack a sceptical opponent, or a sceptic theme, no matter the quality of the paper, get it in a journal and get the headlines?

    Like

  102. Richard,
    Let me just repeat what you said:

    This is rape and Dana, Ken and Len are enthusiastically taking part

    If you’re intending a metaphor (rather than something libelous) maybe you could try harder to make it clearer?

    Like

  103. Richard. We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I personally don’t think the metaphor is that appropriate. Rape is the extremely violent physical and mental violation of a woman, motivated primarily by sexual desire/imperatives. What these people have done is ugly and sexist, demeaning to Susan personally and professionally, but it’s not rape. Women who’ve been raped suffer something above and beyond what Susan has endured. I don’t think she would disagree with that.

    Like

  104. I think rape is an appropriate metaphor for Susan to have used and, precisely because of this, I don’t think it lessens the horrific reality of rape when it’s not a metaphor. But, as far as agreeing to disagree is concerned, let’s face it, it’s what we do best on Cliscep!

    Like

  105. Wonderful, Paul, thanks. Now I know how you tell what a paper is really about: if it contains a picture of a polar bear or the words “polar bear” = it’s about polar bears. Great! No need to read those long and boring titles, like in your example, “Thyroid rhythm phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes”, let alone the abstract or text. No, that paper isn’t about homonid evolution or thyroid rhythms, it is about polar bears of course ‘cos it contains a picture of polar bears and the words “polar bears”.

    Now you can apply your rule everywhere. This post is clearly about polar bears. In fact CliScep is almost an expert site on polar bears, having at least 18 posts about them.

    Like

  106. Len Martinez writes: “Now you can apply your rule everywhere.”

    Indeed; and such a thing is all it takes for a paper to be counted as endorsing global warming is to mention it in passing, perhaps on a paper about sulfur hexafloride as a spark suppressor in circuit breakers.

    Like

  107. I agree with Jaime. The rape analogy is probably not helpful. Crockford herself seems to have used it as an analogy. She is obviously upset by this travesty and there is a deeply personal element to the Harvey et al paper that is disturbing.

    What is troubling for ATTP is just what Joshua said at his blog:
    I have to say, it seems to me that the paper that started this dust up is likely to add nothing of value to the public debate about climate change. I’m a bit disappointed that you [ATTP] seem to be positively impressed by it.

    It’s the latest in a long line of alarmist and propagandist positions that focus on a single strip bark pine tree without seeing the forest.

    Like

  108. Polar Bear experts have run out of science to support themseves. Their forecasts of doom for Polar Bears have been proved wrong, by Polar Bears. Susan Crockford only has to point this out, and Polar Bear experts become offensive.

    Great news for Polar Bears is bad news for Polar Bear Experts.

    Liked by 1 person

  109. David: You call it unhelpful, I call it fighting back. And I call the criticism of Susan Crockford for using rape as a metaphor a clear case of blaming the victim for daring to fight back. They tried to destroy her career and reputation through a dishonest, coordinated attack, including an article in The Guardian before anyone could check what Judy Curry considers the “worst paper ever”. I remain unrepentant in supporting Dr Crockford as she uses an entirely appropriate metaphor. But I agree it is unhelpful – to the rape-trolls. They thoroughly deserve not to be helped.

    Liked by 2 people

  110. This topic is another proof of the dysfunctional nature of internet blog discourse on climate. Here ATTP can comment and does so frequently. At his echo chamber, most people who frequent this site are banned. A sad commentary on how little ATTP values diversity of thought. Disappointing but par for the modern academic leftist course.

    Liked by 1 person

  111. So now the gang member wannabes are blaming the victim for yelling loudly and using metaphors for the intellectual violence committed against her.
    How dare she!
    Those uppity wimmin folk daring to object at the boyz just blowing off a little steam.
    Come on, who was really hurt, anyway?
    Keep up the good work, Len and ATTP.
    Your class is showing loud and clear.

    Like

  112. If only the authors of the paper, including the guy from Greg Laden’s blog we all deride as Jeffie, would go camping in Svalbard without taking precautions against the prime predator

    Like

  113. Len, it took a few responses from a 5 year-old and a centenarian to get one of Lew’s toilet papers published, why should standards be higher for sceptics? I know, you are tacitly accepting that we are more knowledgeable, more highly educated and more intelligent than your mentors and idols. Deal with it

    Like

  114. In my opinion, Dr Crockford is quite right to call it “rape“. The slime paper ignores her expertise and ignores the substance of her work, then repeats the claims she undermines. She knows that if it is not retracted – and the Lewandowsky cabal will not make sure that will not happen again – it will be referenced again and again. The slime paper has violated her integrity and smeared her reputation. Like a  1950s sci-fi B-movie, this paper adds to the growing fetid swamp, submerging reality beneath distortions, conspiracy theories and empty opinion. As an example of the distortion, consider the comment about the original hockey stick.

     Another strategy is to selectively attack prominent lines of research providing compelling evidence of AGW. Mann and colleagues’ (1998) “hockey-stick” graph (see also Mann 2012), in which temperature reconstructions have been made over the past millennium, is a prime example of the latter.

    All the deconstruction of the many layers of distortions in that paper and other hockey stick reconstructions by Steve McIntyre is just blog bias. An example of the blinkered distortion the review of Andrew Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science at Real Climate in 2010 by the Tamino. Steve McIntyre was able to reply to most of the arguments by re-posting “Tamino and the Magic Flute” piece from two years before. Climate Alarmists realize that any rational game is up, which gives room to the likes of Lew and trolls to always have the last word, repeat empty opinions, distort the meanings of words and blank out on any evidence or opinions contrary to their own.

    Liked by 1 person

  115. The funny thing about this paper is that they accept that Polar Bear populations are currently fine. So their premise is simply “just believe us”.

    No offense to the authors of this paper, but Logic > Data > Science. In this case it is a data (observations) vs science (models and hypothesis) debate and data wins.

    Liked by 1 person

  116. Ah the data, Rational Sceptic. Data on polar bears is sparse. They are difficult to count and breeding success over their range is hard to determine. The Arctic is big. Crockford makes sweeping claims in her recent paper about the bears not being at risk from habitat loss on the basis of sparse data from less than ten years of intermittent observations and no data on breeding success or animal physical conditions. The best that can be said is that observed bear numbers have not yet fallen and may in some areas have risen. Crockford goes too far beyond what the quality of the data supports.

    Like

  117. One aim of the Harvey paper is indeed to excommunicate.

    Did sexism play a role? Maybe, but this is not the way to show it. Google Alice Wu EJMR.

    A secondary aim of the Harvey paper is to provoke intemperate discussions like the one above, so let us recall the words of a wise woman, Michelle Obama: When they go low, we go high.

    Liked by 1 person

  118. One aspect of this story has yet to be asked. If Dr Crockford is indeed a reputable researcher worthy of consideration and respect, why hadn’t she a flock of well researched prestigious peer-reviewed papers to her name? She has a few, but nowhere near the output from someone who is able to keep a blog site going that consists almost entirely of her own contributions or those she has repackaged or rewritten? One must also remember that her doctoral degree was obtained not in the usual way, but later, mostly away from the granting institution and self funded. I have enormous respect for people like her who achieve their doctorate by taking a very difficult route.

    I do not know the answers. I have used the web over the past few days but have had no success. I have two hypotheses which could be combined.
    Hypothesis 1. She has powerful enemies that prevent her getting acceptance for her work. No evidence for or against, but I would bet that today such a blockage might exist.
    Hypothesis 2. She has a phobia about submitting her work for approval. [Before you dismiss this out of hand I admit to a recently developed phobia concerning the submission of my last research paper that caused me to delay resubmission for over a year. But for the help of a kindly editor and a colleague it wouldn’t have been published]. It can’t be a writing phobia because she is prolific on her blog. Perhaps its one like mine. Or perhaps she had a bad experience during an early peer review. Or is it simply that she wants to get on with research, and the tedium of writing in a very prescribed format and enduring the formalities of submission and peer review (my problem) are just not to be borne.
    Whatever the reason(s), what cannot be concluded is that a paucity of peer-reviewed literature is an indication of an ill-informed mind.

    Like

  119. Alan, the question you raise is closely related to the only question asked at her open paper. Someone asks

    Would it be possible for you to add the peer reviews you may have received from attempts to publish this paper in peer revewed journals?
    It would be helpful for me to assess the scientific rationale for rejection of previous versions if indeed there was any, or were any.

    She does not provide any. There could be various reasons for this. Perhaps she feels that reviews should be regarded as confidential, for the eyes of author, reviewer and editor only.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s