Lying about Susan Crockford and others

This post summarises some of the lies associated with the recent Harvey et al paper. There’s also a request for reader input! See bold italics below.

1. Harvey et al claim that Crockford hasn’t published anything on polar bears.

I had a quick look at two of her papers.

This 2007 paper mentions polar bears, including this figure:

There’s also a 2003 paper that again is not primarily about polar bears, but includes this:

Reader exercise: Can you find other papers by Crockford that discuss polar bears?

2. Amstrup lying to Motherboard about Crockford

Then there’s this, from one of the senior authors of the paper, Dr Steven Amstrup, from a Motherboard article on the story.

Crockford says in her recent blog post “I wrote Motherboard and asked for clarification that this was indeed what Amstrup said because I know it to be a lie. Check for yourself using the search function on my blog, it’s easy to do. I have never used any of those terms to refer to anyone, let alone a fellow scientist.”

Note that Amstrup’s follow-up is also a lie. If he had meant to refer to the “climate denier community as a whole” he would have written that. He expicitly said “her material”.

3. Lying about Crockford and others in the paper and in the SI

The text of Harvey et al claims that Anthony Watts denies AGW, which is untrue. It also falsely claims that Crockford’s blog is “AGW-denying”.

Bart Verheggen has released a list of the blogs used, which confirms Tom’s point about the circular reasoning (“Their evidence is that other unidentified blogs that the paper’s authors call ‘denier’ blogs link to Dr. Crockford’s weblog”). Verheggen’s file labels the blogs of Ridley, Lomborg and many others as “AGW denying blogs”.  This is of course a lie. Anyone can look at Lomborg’s web page and see that he says “For more information about global warming, you might visit the website of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner research institute, the IPCC”. A glance at Lomborg’s Wikipedia page can also confirm that he “accepts the reality of man-made global warming”.

Bart and his co-authors cannot pretend that they did not know Lomborg’s view on global warming. Bart Verheggen, or whoever it was who drew up this list, you are a liar.

Reader exercise: For others on the list labelled as AGW denying blogs, find clear evidence that they do not deny AGW, as I have done here for Lomborg.

If you spot other examples of lies in the paper, in the SI or from any of the authors elsewhere, please put those in the comments too.  

Update:

Barry in the comments finds clear evidence that Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) is not an AGW denier, so Harvey et al lied about him as well.

As well as the lies, there are some silly errors in the SI file. The Daily Caller is listed twice. Jim Steele’s sceptical blog is wrongly put in the alarmist section.

70 thoughts on “Lying about Susan Crockford and others

  1. In searching, remember the Matthews doctrine: if it contains the words “polar” and “bear”, preferably together, it is about polar bears.

    I’d agree that “AGW denying” is inaccurate. But those listed as such do deny the need to do anything about AGW, so it amounts to the same thing.

    [PM: It’s no surprise to find our most prolific liar standing up in support of his fellow liars.]

    Like

  2. There are two characteristics of this gang assault paper that are worth pondering for possible inights into how the dysfunction of the consensus operates.
    The first is reliance on the misuse of proxies.
    The second is reliance on dehumanizing their selected victims
    Mann built a successful career using what has turned out to be dubious (at best) proxies. Lewandowsky took tge technique to a new level, using it to dehumanize and misrepresent his chosen victims.

    Like

  3. Len believes it…

    I’d agree that “AGW denying” is inaccurate. But those listed as such do deny the need to do anything about AGW, so it amounts to the same thing.

    Should we believe it because he believes it?

    Arguments to ‘do something about it’ are always vague.

    If we all agree to think about it for once a month, and donate 20p to stopping climate change, would that satisfy him that we think we need to ‘do something about it’?

    He wants rather more than that, I suspect.

    And I suspect he wants rather a lot. Like many others, the plight of the polar bear has been key to narrating that story. Now we know polar bears are doing just fine, he’s surprised that people take Susan Crockford and her analysis more seriously that angry researchers who claim that the polar bear apocalypse has been deferred.

    Apocalypse is always deferred. That’s the point.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Has anyone asked the WWF to confirm the source of their claims about Polar Bears requiring charitable donations to survive? They are showing Adverts on UK Television at the moment.

    This from 2006 quotes Amstrup
    http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?105780/Polar-bears-struggling-in-Beaufort-Sea

    This from Susan Crockford mentions Amstrup’s increased role until 2016
    https://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/06/polar-bear-specialist-group-adds-wwf-and-pbi-activists-as-full-voting-members/

    Has Amstrup explained any conflict of financial interest in his scence reporting?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Len,
    Cook used (poorly and incoherentky) the same technique in his so-called 97% paper.
    We wait with bated breath your condemnation of Cook.
    It is notable, Len, that your favorite position, that of reactionary deceiver, requires you to actually not read that which you react against.

    Like

  6. Jeez, Hunter… Have you been taking typing lessons from Barry Woods?

    [Lay off Barry. It was you who told me he comments on his phone while collecting his daughters from ballet school. – Geoff]

    Like

  7. Where have I lied, Paul?

    [Right here you lying liar. When you said that it amounts to the same thing. And several previous examples at this blog. You go and find them if you like.]

    Like

  8. Len, you’ve been staunch in your support of a group of liars bent on destroying a good scientist who has had the integrity to expose their dodgy predictions for polar bears. Susan Crockford has, in my view quite legitimately, used rape as a controlling metaphor for what is now going on. So I dubbed you a rape-troll. Two things to note: 1) it’s a metaphor and 2) it’s not good. In fact, it’s dreadful. What a thing to give your time to.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. LEN MARTINEZ says:

    06 Dec 17 at 2:50 pm

    In searching, remember the Matthews doctrine: if it contains the words “polar” and “bear”, preferably together, it is about polar bears.

    I’d agree that “AGW denying” is inaccurate. But those listed as such do deny the need to do anything about AGW, so it amounts to the same thing.

    [PM: It’s no surprise to find our most prolific liar standing up in support of his fellow liars.]

    Do you mean Amstrup, Mann, Lewandowsky or someone else? What are you denying about them, and their qualifications and experience in character assassinations?

    Why are the WWF advertising for donations to “save” Polar Bears, if their numbers are stable or increasing?

    What have Polar Bear Experts been spending money on, to save Polar Bears? How many inaccurate Polar Bear Experts does it take to make Polar Bear statistics inaccurate?

    In the Fake News era, this Nonscience story is just what Trump needs, a Christmas bonus from Harvey et al, which may require further investigation.

    Like

  10. Golf Charlie: “Has anyone asked the WWF to confirm the source of their claims about Polar Bears requiring charitable donations to survive?”

    WWF, Arctic Travel Agents:
    See my comment on previous “icon” post. WWF are selling Polar Bear tours, including local charter flights, to see the bears around Churchill.

    https://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours/classic-polar-bear-expedition/

    https://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours/classic-polar-bear-expedition/dates-fees/
    “6 or 7 Days / From $6695”

    “This flagship polar bear expedition has been our most popular adventure for more than two decades. Its longstanding success is due to the extraordinary polar bear viewing opportunities our guests enjoy…

    There is a bit of a disconnect here with their unashamedly lying fund raising adverts, surprise, surprise. The bears are in good condition and only seem threatened by the WWF/NatHab Polar Rovers, powered by International 240 H.P. DT466 diesel truck engines:

    “Regarding polar bears in general: Polar bears are typically in the Churchill area all year round. The highest concentration occurs in October and November as the bears gather to await freeze-up on Hudson Bay and the beginning of their winter hunting season. Sometimes the best viewing happens at the beginning of the season, sometimes it occurs in the middle, and sometimes it’s at the end—we never know for sure. Once the bay freezes, many of them depart. Historically, this has happened in early December, but an unusually early cold spell can sometimes occur, hastening their departure.”

    No mention of starving polar bears or disappearing ice, for some reason I can’t fathom…

    Liked by 3 people

  11. https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2010/10/07/steven_amstrup_polar_bears_international/

    Interview with Polar Bears International Chief Scientist Steven Amstrup

    Posted by David Maxwell Braun of National Geographic Society on October 7, 2010

    “Steven C. Amstrup, a former chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group and a world authority on polar bears, has joined the conservation group Polar Bears International as senior scientist. A long time scientific advisor to PBI, Amstrup was previously wildlife biologist with the United States Geological Surveys’s Alaska Science Center in Anchorage. He led the team of international researchers that prepared documents used in the decision to list polar bears as a threatened species.”

    “In his new position at PBI, Amstrup will be able to work more directly with the organization’s educators, conservationists and administrators to focus on the most urgently needed research, outreach, and capacity building to help at-risk populations of polar bears in a rapidly warming Arctic. “Attracting the talents of this world-class biologist full-time speaks to the reputation of our organization,” said PBI President Robert Buchanan in a news statement earlier this year. “This solidifies our role as a conservation group based upon science. Governments, other nonprofits, and the public look to PBI as a trustworthy source of information–and inspiration.””

    Surely Polar Bear Experts would not want to be associated with untrustworthy sources within Polar Bears International, if Governments can’t trust them?

    One might expect that Polar Bear Experts would be pleased that fears for Polar Bears were based on limited observations made over a short time period, linked to Global Warming, and not based on any acceptance of our ever changing climate.

    Like

  12. Richard, if the aim is to normalise a word that should shock, you’ve nailed it for the cliscep team.

    Like

  13. It’s not normalised and never will be. And one day what this group is doing to destroy a good scientist, with your full support, won’t be either.

    Like

  14. Pingback: Polar-Bear-Gate | Climate Scepticism

  15. More to the point is the fact that denier blogs (denogs) like WUWT and Bishop Hill link to notorious warmist sites. Does this compromise them? Using the paper’s logic that calls Susan Crowford a denier because denogs link to her blog site, Tamino (and its like) are also to be considered dens of rank deniers. Confusing isn’t it?

    Like

  16. Amazing! She once included a photo of a tooth in a paper primarily about an unrelated topic, and she used polar bears as an evidence-free example of a hypothetical speciation process!

    That definitely counts as publishing “peer-reviewed research about polar bears”! Because she mentioned them once!

    She is a true expert on polar bear ecology!

    Like

  17. These activists live in a cocoon of their own propaganda. They call all who oppose them: ‘denier’. They promote climate catastrophe, premised on extreme models. In their own words, they are waging ‘trench warfare’ against climate apathy. I suppose they imagine themselves as a special, volunteer army of climate warriors. Like a 21st century version of the International Brigades fighting the climate resistance to Franco.

    ‘Denier’ was long ago redefined to mean anyone who isn’t their supporter. I witnessed Judith Curry, Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke Jr. all called ‘deniers’ years ago. What’s new is they made it official by publishing in the academic literature. From now on, ‘science’ is on their side too. Scientific publishing has been a political tool of activists for many decades now.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Grimage, this is the world of climate skepticism where context doesn’t matter, words can be redefined and two words can change an article entirely. You could write an article about making an omelette and mention polar bear eggs** and find you’ve actually written about polar bears and are considered an expert on them.

    **”Skeptics” note that bears don’t lay eggs; don’t go googling.

    Like

  19. Meanwhile, how many polar bears can stand on Len’s head? Since Len is an alarmist, there are no polar bears.. So he can rest calmly in Spitzbergen without any threat from predators

    [PM: As BH used to say, “raise the tone please”. Two derogatory comments from you have not been approved.]

    Like

  20. Sorry not to have replied directly here. I indicated at my own post
    https://cliscep.com/2017/12/06/who-wrote-the-worlds-worst-scientific-paper/
    an interesting lie by lead author Harvey in an article cited when he says:
    those who deny AGW do not hesitate to attack their opponents with insults, and have smeared scientists by calling them names such as “eco-fascists,” “fraudsters,” or “green terrorists” or by accusing them of being part of a global “scam” or “hoax.”

    No doubt all those terms have been used somewhere or other on the internet. What epithet hasn’t been uttered, after all? In the course of 300+ articles I have used the terms “shite” and “bollocks” and no doubt others unacceptable to our Dutch friends. I once used the term “ecofascist” then apologised. What app would pick that up? But that’s life outside peer reviewed science.

    Harvey’s accusation must be addressed to the 45 blogs cited in the article. Do they ALL use terms like eco-fascists etc.? If not, they have grounds for demanding the retraction of the article. It’s the least we can do.

    Like

  21. Len, talking of words, I said earlier

    And one day what this group is doing to destroy a good scientist, with your full support, won’t be [normalised] either.

    I’ve said similar things to you since Tom’s original post on 1st December. You’ve taken great exception to some of what I’ve said but you’ve never sought to correct these two assertions:

    1. this group of authors, plus Dana in the Guardian, is seeking to destroy Susan Crockford
    2. you fully support them doing so.

    Like the dog that didn’t bark you show what really matters to you.

    Like

  22. Sorry about the typos.
    I am actually typing from my car (rolling office) for most posts.
    It is clearly not working out so well.

    Like

  23. Pingback: ‘Polar-Bear-Gate’ Emails Revealed | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  24. Pingback: ‘Polar-Bear-Gate’ Emails Revealed | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  25. The very first sentence of the abstract contains a falsehood:

    Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world.

    Increasing surface temperatures are evidence of global warming alright, but not of anthropogenic global warming. It’s the kind of nitpicking detail that won’t impress folks outside our little world, but it’s details like that that make the difference between science and the Big Lie.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Geoff, the nitpicking may be worse than you thought. Imagine that the sentence said this:

    Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss and other earth science phenomena are acknowledged as evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by every major scientific organization in the world.

    But it cleverly avoids making this claim. If one reads it like a lawyer.

    Deniability. I’m a denier for spotting it, of course.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Paul. I now agree with the need for homework. Strangely this arose after reading some of ATTL’s blog to try to understand the other side’s understanding. Summarizing this appears to be – blogs challenging the effects of climate change in the Arctic and causing adverse effects on polar bear numbers rely upon only one source – Susan Crockford and she has no or few peer-reviewed published papers upon polar bears. It is also claimed that publications of polar bear “experts” were not cited. This suggests some homework is needed to establish
    1. Referencing other sources used in “denier” blogs with similar views to Susan,
    2. Referencing expert sources in “denier” blogs,
    and a more reasonable discussion of the results.

    What struck me however was the unfairness of using polar bears as a test subject. A subject with a very small number of practitioners, most of whom cooperate within a tight group. It is therefore unsurprising that there might only be one person in opposition. Why didn’t the 14 authors of the paper chose a topic to examine where there might be a divergence of opinion between “scientific” and “denier” blogs but where the later have access to and use more diverse support? Topics like the Medieval Warm Period or the Climate Sensitivity values. Bet they would get different results.

    Like

  28. Richard, what do you mean by destroying DrC? She doesn’t have an obvious good reputation that can be destroyed in the polar bear or climate science academic community.

    Hans, thanks, they might come in handy.

    Like

  29. Geoff,

    “The vast majority of scientists agree that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution is explained by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations”

    This is a lie.

    Like

  30. Further to Jaime’s comment of 10.28 pm, I think the comment is far more complex and interesting than a straightforward lie. The full statement, with references, is:-

    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),

    There is a compatible statement, made by the last IPCC report. AR5 WG1 Ch10 Page 869 states

    More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.

    Notwithstanding that my comments of a few months ago about the wider statement IPCC concerning human activities on warming being deeply flawed also applies to the attribution to the narrower GHG concentrations, a statistical test of the data should be preferable to the opinions of people in the field. Further, the IPCC is in business to make the strongest statements to back up the AGW theory. But, the IPCC statement only applies to a 60 year period, whilst the claimed scientific consensus applies to a period of over 200 years. If the references support the statement the scientific consensus would have beliefs unsupported by the scientific evidence. If the references do not support the statement, then it is false. Given that 14 authors have put their names to it, and therefore should have checked it could be either a sign of incompetence or a lie.
    I cannot find in the five references any statement that asks the question like

    What fraction of global warming since the industrial revolution can be attributed to human-induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations?

    I will help people to contradict my claim. The furthest from the attribution statement is Cook et. al 2013. This looked at the endorsement of AGW theory, not the beliefs of how much warming in the past was due to AGW. The nearest I can find is Verheggen et al 2014 Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming. The relevant questions (with authors comments) are:-

    Q1. What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human-induced increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations? Quantitative answer options in percentage ranges of GHG contribution. Answer options included >100% (i.e., GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosol cooling) and <0% (i.e., GHG caused cooling).
    Q1b. What confidence level would you ascribe to the anthropogenic GHG contribution being more/less than 50%? Answer options according to the IPCC likelihood scale.
    Q3. How would you characterize the contribution of the following factors to the reported global warming of ∼0.8 °C since preindustrial times: GHGs, aerosols, land use, sun, internal variability, spurious warming? Qualitative answer options ranged from “strong cooling” to “strong warming”. “Spurious warming” refers to global mean surface temperature change being overestimated due to artifacts in the data, such as Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

    Dependent on the responses, it might be possible to infer a belief that most of the warming since the Industrial Revolution was due to GHG emissions, without actually getting the respondents to say something that is not backed by the evidence.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Kevin, “data should be preferable to opinions of people in the field.”

    Yes, of course. Precisely this point came up in the polar-bear-gate emails. When the red-list guy made this point, it was almost as if this was a novel concept to the team of polar bear scientists.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Manic, there’s no evidence that the “vast majority” of scientists subscribe to the view that most of the warming since the industrial age is due to man-made GHGs. There is no official statement to this effect from the IPCC. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s a lie. Given the list of authors, I cannot possibly imagine that at least some of them would not be aware that there is no overwhelming scientific consensus that most of the warming since circa 1850 is man-made and indeed that there is no overwhelming scientific evidence to back up that view.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Peeling back and looking under the rock Len calls home, this is what his lstest actually means:
    “She was a slutty nobody with no good reputation who had it coming. How dare she complain about the simple justice the gang if her betters used to to put her in her place”?
    Keep up the good work, Len. Yer doing a great job.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. Paul @ 11.13pm
    The preference for data over opinions is the sign of the true scientist over the activist. Dr Crockford prefers the data, whereas the 14 authors clearly support the banal opinions of the consensus.

    Liked by 4 people

  35. Jamie @ 11.51pm
    I most profoundly disagree with your approach. My view is that in any academic field, particularly in science it is not to say I have an opinion (which may be strongly supported by the evidence) and therefore anything else is a lie. What academics have done is to put the different view. Broadly expressed it is:-
    “I have an opinion and values that are shared by others who spend their lives studying. That you do not agree with the opinion makes you a dangerous irrelevance.”
    The subject is switched to your lack of academic credentials, you errant views, or the possibility that you are paid by some vested interests to lie.
    True science is perverse. New understanding of the world around us often stems from finding differences between established opinions (or conjectures or hypotheses) and observations.From this can establish a better understanding. The onus on the true scientist is to support the statements with real-world evidence. The activist consensus scientist will send you on a wild goose chase proving they are wrong, then not even acknowledging that you can have a valid opinion contrary to their own.

    Like

  36. One last attempt to crowdsource this, for a future post:

    Reader exercise: For others on the list labelled as AGW denying blogs, find clear evidence that they do not deny AGW, as I have done here for Lomborg.

    1. Look at the Harvey et al list of “AGW denying” blogs.
    2. Choose one who you know is not AGW denying.
    3. Find clear evidence from that blog that it is not AGW denying, such as a specific quote.
    4. Post the answer here.

    Like

  37. That’s fine Manic. You disagree with me. I can’t quite follow your argument why you disagree. My premise is simple. If you make an assertion that something is so, knowing full well it is not backed up by any evidence, or if you intentionally omit context which would qualify that statement, then you are a liar.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Paul. Looked through blogs of Bishop Hill to beginning of last year, without success. I took the liberty of asking at BH if regulars can recall any appropriate quotation. (I have my doubts we will find one).
    Perhaps regulars at other blogs could be asked to suggest appropriate quotations.

    Like

  39. Agree with Paul on the idea of crowdsourcing but haven’t contributed, beyond overstating the case originally :

    But surely none of these deny AGW. They deny, or at least question, CAGW.

    I’m sure there are some that deny the greenhouse effect in there. Worth reading this from a week ago if that strain of ‘scepticism’, and how it should be treated, interests you. But Lomborg and Ridley? Please. Enough already.

    On the disagreement between Jaime and Manic, I’m on both sides at once, like Tevye in an early scene of Fiddler on the Roof. This was the point of my nitpicking comment to Geoff yesterday. Of course, by now, such lawyerly tricks, plus the online trolls trained to go down every unproductive avenue of distraction, amount to lying. But Manic is wonderful in doing some of the unpicking. The problem is, the other side have far too much money for us to chase down every small corner of the Mandelbrot set of CAGW micro-deceptions. As Geoff implies, it’s the Big Lie that matters.

    Like

  40. What is the Big Lie Richard? As far as I can see it is the deception that:

    1. Scientists know enough about the climate and how it changes to pronounce with a reasonable level of confidence that AGW is a reality and that it is dangerous.
    2. There exists sufficient empirical evidence to back up 1.
    3. The combination of 1. and 2. requires that we take urgent action to mitigate ‘dangerous’ AGW.

    Thereafter, we have, as you say, the entire Mandelbrot set of CAGW micro-deceptions employed by the Warmist faithful to back up this Big Lie – and when micro-deceptions fail, they switch to micro (and not so micro) aggressions in an attempt to quell dissent.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. The Big Lie includes the fact that the science says that we, through mitigation policies, can change the rise in temperature down to something that we know is not a threat. But we have no idea we can do this. Certainly current policies, very harmful though they are to human flourishing, cannot remotely be shown to do this. It’s what I call the “We must do something, however stupid” syndrome. Or as Matt Ridley puts it, policies that are judged by their motive, not their real world effects.

    Liked by 4 people

  42. Agreed Richard. I guess we could actually identify two Big Lies:

    1. Scientists know that AGW is real and dangerous.
    2. The mitigation policies put in place are cost-effective and indeed effective.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Harvey et al SI:

    Blogs were assigned ‘science-based’ and ‘denier’ categories on the basis of their positions taken relative to those drawn by the IPCC on global warming (e.g. whether it is warming or not and the anthropogenic contribution).

    I haven’t read The Resilient Earth for a while but I don’t think its position was very far from the IPCC’s. It might not have diverged at all. As I recall, it used to attack alarmism and misrepresentation.

    Not that it matters. The blog now exists only at Wayback. Its last post was nearly a year ago. Doug Hoffman has retired and now concentrates on writing science fiction. So Resilient Earth really belongs in a third category: ‘defunct’.

    As does World Climate Report. Its last post was more than five years ago.

    And Skeptic’s Corner (jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.nl/), which hasn’t posted anything for more than three years.

    And Climate Sanity: no posts for nearly two years.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Ha! The latest post at the first blog in the ‘science-based’ list, A Walk on the Natural Side, says that polar bears shouldn’t have been classed as ‘endangered’ because ‘research shows polar bear populations have continued to thrive and increase’ despite reductions in sea ice.

    http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/listinbearded-seal-as-threatened.html

    Its author doesn’t cite Susan Crockford but she’s linked in his sidebar (along with Bishop Hill, Climate Resistance and a host of other ‘denier’ blogs).

    Were Harvey et al asleep when they wrote this paper?

    Liked by 4 people

  45. Vinny, haha, good spot.
    This is more evidence that the so-called supplementary data file was hurriedly put together at the last minute. As well as putting Daily Caller in twice, they put Jim Steele’s blog in the wrong list!

    Like

  46. Andrew Monford – Bishop Hill

    isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2125495

    Also in summary here:
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

    I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I’m less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don’t believe it’s beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It’s more the case that we don’t know and I haven’t seen anything credible to persuade me there’s a problem.”

    https://web.archive.org/web/20110812093642/http://beta.thecourier.co.uk/Living/Outdoors/article/348/bishop-hill-the-blogger-putting-climate-science-to-test.html

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Donna – No Frakking consensus

    “As a journalist, I have no opinion on whether human activity is having a significant (as opposed to a minor) impact on the world’s climate. What I can tell you is that there are many highly credentialed, experienced, reputable scientists who doubt this. I consider it my job to let the public know that those views exist.

    Read more at: http://www.sify.com/news/pachauri-is-neither-a-nobel-laureate-nor-a-climate-scientist-news-columns-pdmoSGdhjbjfe.html

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Paul “trolling” through the Bishop Hill archives this afternoon I came across a 2014 discussion thread – “The new heresy”. This essentially discusses a movement (called the dragon slayers) that denies warming by greenhouse gases. Since CO2 is a GHG and humans have been increasing it in the atmosphere, humans are probably causing some AGW (however small).
    Reading entries on the discussion thread reveals quotations of every variety. You could select one to demonstrate Bishop Hill denies AGW and another to show it supports it.
    Perhaps a more realistic separation between the two types of blog is that one type is more dogmatic than the other.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2344073

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Alan – anyone can comment at a blog – those quotes sort of irrelevant – the issue – for this paper, is the blog owner, as only they can write the blog posts – or allow a blog post to be written.

    Liked by 3 people

  50. Barry. Surely not true. The varied content of blogs like BH (and this one) is itself an indication of the attitude of the owner. The contrast is between those where all sides of an argument are tolerated and there is minimal editing and those where only the acceptable content is maintained.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. As far as deciding which side of the fence a blog is, there is no doubt. Whether to call your side AGW denying, skeptical or disdainful doesn’t matter. Some on your side do deny, all are disdainful, a few might even be truly skeptical (though I couldn’t identify any). What’s in a name?

    As for your Big Lie, that’s nuts.

    Like

  52. Alan, do you see that contrast as being between consensus and AGW denying blogs?

    Like

  53. Here are the titles of some recent articles at EcoInternet, one of Harvey et al’s ‘science-based’ blogs:

    The Appalling Meaningless of Being in a Post-Modern, Pre-Apocalyptic World

    Time of Great Dying: Population Bomb Bursts, the End of Old-Growth Forests, and the Great Awakening

    Grotesque Global Inequity Threatens Ecological Collapse and Horrific Death for All

    Never Forget “Western Civilization” Based upon Murderous Ecocidal Evil

    They are all by Dr Glen Barry, who describes himself as ‘a leading global ecological visionary, public intellectual, and environmental policy critic’.

    This one’s good:

    https://ecointernet.org/2017/03/16/on-ecology-and-climate-sad-to-say-scientists-told-you-so/

    Given long-predicted and self-evident abrupt climate change and ecosystem collapse, and resultant perma-war and rise of fascism, despite decades of scientific warnings which went unheeded; will you now listen to science, embrace an ecology ethic, and act to avoid biosphere collapse and the end of being before it is too late?

    Mmmm, science!

    Science or not, I don’t know how EcoInternet ended up on a list of blogs with something to say about polar bears. Its built-in search engine finds only one blogpost mentioning them, and that was in the comments. A Google search finds a couple more but they were from 2006 and 2008 and they no longer exist at ecointernet.org. (A recent change?) To find them, you have to look at Wayback saves of a different Dr Glen Barry website, http://www.climateark.org.

    Here’s a Wayback of the 2008 Dr Glen Barry blog mentioning polar bears:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080830001257/http://www.climateark.org:80/blog/2008/08/arctic_going_to_hell_in_a_hand.asp

    Polar bears mentioned only in passing, none of the links were to scientific sources, science was being a bloody nuisance by refusing to attribute things to climate change, ‘the end of being’ was nigh as always and…

    Only profound revolutionary personal and social transformation can save us now.

    Mmmm, more science!

    Dr Glen Barry, you are not just a global ecological visionary, public intellectual and environmental policy critic, you are the alarmist’s alarmist. The next time someone says there’s no such thing as alarmism, I shall refer them to you, and if they say yeah but that’s just some nutter on the Interwebs, I shall point them at the recent peer-reviewed paper by Harvey et al, which says that your blitherings are ‘science-based’.

    Liked by 2 people

  54. Alan, you’re wrong if you think that consensus blogs filter while AGW denying blogs don’t, you are just wrong. It’s a nice fantasy but it is untrue, which you’d know if you’d ever tried to oppose the party line at, say, Paul Homewood’s blog.

    Like

  55. Strangely Len the only site where I was banned (?) was here when I tried to slip a post entirely in Cyrillic script into the melee.

    Like

  56. LEN MARTINEZ says:

    08 Dec 17 at 8:50 pm

    “Alan, you’re wrong if you think that consensus blogs filter while AGW denying blogs don’t…. ”

    Len, is that based on evidence submitted by Consensus blogs?

    Like

  57. I don’t know how the Crockford criterium was applied.

    “Ice age now” scored as “no Crockford” but here is the link: https://www.iceagenow.info/spring-ice-threatens-alaskan-polar-bears/

    Same for a search on the Bishop hill weblog:
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=crockford&moduleId=1282578&moduleFilter=&categoryFilter=&startAt=0

    So the supplementary data is unreliable, or it was just a poorly performed rush job.

    Like

  58. Charlie, from personal experience. BH and Cliscep don’t filter much (although on occasion they do). Watts obviously has a tight filter, as does Homewood. Their blog, their choice. But don’t claim some high moral ground.

    Skeptics can and do post over at ATTP, but generally, once they turn up the discussion goes downhill from being about science or sense to being about their nuttery. Maybe you think the same is true here; once I or turn up the talk about nuttery is interrupted by science and sense.

    Like

  59. Len Martinez, haven’t you just demonstrated how threads go downhill when you accuse people of being wrong, when they are not?

    Did you accept the findings of Harvey et al about the credibility of Dr Susan Crockford because they were Peer Reviewed, included Mann and Lewandowsky as authors, the paper was featured at ATTP with this as a concluding statement?

    “Also, if you’re running a blog that purports to be presenting scientific information about a topic, ideally don’t base everything on one source, especially if that source is someone who has never published a peer-reviewed paper on the topic. Of course, if your goal is to promote a particular agenda, then maybe basing everything on a single source who says what you want to hear is precisely what you should do – feature, rather than bug?”

    How many sources was that based on?

    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