Climate Alarmists Maul Inconvenient Polar Bear Expert
Susan Crockford is a polar bear expert with a message that climate alarmists don’t want to hear: polar bear populations are thriving and are certainly in no danger from thinning summer sea ice supposedly caused by ‘man-made global warming.’
That’s why the alarmist establishment is currently trying to destroy her.
First came a hatchet job in Bioscience, described by climate scientist Judith Curry as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”
Crockford’s rebuttal is epic and can be read in full here.
Now, the New York Times has weighed in with a piece entitled ‘Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back’.
The headline has been poorly subbed. “Scientists” should be in danger quotation marks.
Its introductory paragraph will give you a taste of its quality:
Furry, button-nosed and dependent on sea ice for their survival, polar bears have long been poster animals for climate change.
But at a time when established climate science is being questioned at the highest levels of government, climate denialists are turning the charismatic bears to their own uses, capitalizing on their symbolic heft to spread doubts about the threat of global warming.
Yep, the “furry, button-nosed” and “charismatic” are dead giveaways. This is not an article remotely interested in the actual species Ursus maritimus, only the fantasy creature that appears in David Attenborough documentaries and the like in order to serve one overriding purpose: to act as the cute, fluffy, white ursine harbinger of man-made climate doom.
The reality is rather different, as Dr. Crockford, a Canadian zoologist and polar bear expert, summarized in a recent paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Its findings are summarized here:
• Global polar bear numbers have been stable or risen slightly since 2005, despite the fact that summer sea ice since 2007 hit levels not expected until mid-century: the predicted 67{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} decline in polar bear numbers did not occur.
• Abundant prey and adequate sea ice in spring and early summer since 2007 appear to explain why global polar bear numbers have not declined, as might have been expected as a result of low summer sea ice levels.
• The greatest change in sea ice habitat since 1979 was experienced by the Barents Sea polar bears and the least by those in Southern Hudson Bay, the most southerly region inhabited by bears.
• As far as is known, the record low extent of sea ice in March 2017 had no impact on polar bear health or survival.
• Some studies show bears are lighter in weight than they were in the 1980s, but none showed an increase in the number of individuals starving to death or too thin to reproduce.
• A just-released report of Southern Beaufort Sea bears having difficulty finding prey in 2014– 2016 suggests that the thick ice events that have impacted the region every ten years or so since the 1960s have continued despite reduced summer sea ice.
• Claims of widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies were disproven by DNA studies.
• Overly pessimistic media responses to recent polar bear issues have made heartbreaking news out of scientifically insignificant events, suggesting an attempt is being made to restore the status of this failed global warming icon.
Naturally, this all went down like a cup of frozen narwhal sick with the climate loons. Hence this current series of very personalized attacks, designed to discredit Crockford’s expertise. They can’t attack Crockford’s science because it’s rock solid. So instead they have resorted to the usual ad hominem.
There’s perhaps one person in the world who knows more about polar bears than Crockford: Mitchell “Mitch” Taylor who has been studying polar bears since 1978.
His verdict on this sorry affair is well worth a read:
It has become a lot more difficult to talk about polar bears since they became an icon for climate change as a cause. The information has become secondary to the mission for a number of people who were formerly chiefly concerned with research and management of polar bears.
The mission is nothing less than saving the planet by saving the polar bears, and ironically the biggest obstacle to this initiative has been the polar bears themselves. The real story has been the extent to which polar bears have managed to mitigate the demographic effects of sea ice loss so far. In retrospect, this is perhaps not so surprising because polar bears have been around since the Pliocene which means they have persisted through not only glacial cycles but also through all the natural climate cycles during the glacial periods and interglacial periods.
Did Susan misrepresent the predictions from Amstrup’s “Belief Network”? Has she misunderstood the population estimates provided by the various technical committees and specialists groups? That is easy to check because these papers are published. They are part of the record.
I have been active in polar bears since 1978. I didn’t recognize 12 of the 14 names written on the paper criticizing Susan for publishing an article about polar bears because she does not have any direct experience in polar bear research or management. Does anyone need to point out how hypocritical this is? Since when does anyone need to tag a polar bear to compare what was predicted to what has happened, based on published information?
It is also germane that the IUCN Redbook authority was unwilling to continue listing polar bears as a “vulnerable” species based on current population estimates and Amstrup’s Bayesian Network model expectations.
This was somehow not mentioned in the article criticizing Susan. Polar bears remain an IUCN “vulnerable” species, but now that is based on a Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) polar bear population model that is driven by speculation but is also presented as “expert” predictive. The new guarantees that polar bears will decline was achieved by decoupling the model population projections from climate model forecasts of sea ice conditions … and just using the time-series regression of sea ice decline since 1980 to forecast sea ice (index for polar bear carrying capacity) forward. And the IUCN went for it.
There is an International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears, and occasionally the parties to that Agreement (USA, Canada, Denmark-Greenland, Norway, and Russia) have a formal meeting. The signatory nations (parties) have no independent scientific advisors, and they take their information only from the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group (PBSG). If you don’t believe that climate science is settled, you can’t be a member of the PBSG, even if you started working on polar bears in 1978. Susan is also not a member.
There are two ways to get a scientific consensus. One is to present the data and the analysis in a manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced. The other way is to exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree. This occurs so commonly now that it has become an accepted practice. The practice of science has become secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends justify the means.
The response to Susan’s work is politically motivated, not an argument against her conclusions. The journal’s response to this article and to her complaint was also political. Sadly, BioScience not a credible scientific journal anymore.
We have fake news and fake science. Is it really so difficult to see what the Amstup predictions were indexed to, to see if that index has changed, and see if the demographic data are consistent with Amstrup’s predictions or not? Susan has already done the work to show that the polar bear demographic data and sea ice data (all collected and reported by others) do not support the Amstrup et al. (2007) predictions.
If you can’t refute the argument, the only thing left is to discredit the author. Where did they get their funding? How many bears have they tagged? Are they in the club or not? … and if not in the club, what the hell are they doing voicing an opinion.
How are right-thinking good people like us going to maintain the impression of omnipotent knowledge and scientific consensus if people like Susan are allowed to hold us accountable for what we publish? Bad enough that the IUCN won’t do as its told, at least not without a new crystal ball.
There are currently some valid indications that some polar bear subpopulations may be experiencing demographic impacts from reduced sea ice. There are also methodology issues and high variance associated with those studies.
Much of the past work has become dated and much of the population work in the last decade is either agenda driven and unreliable or compromised by data collection issues to the point that accurate population demography estimates are not possible. However, there are also many new studies that report their findings objectively. So just because some researchers and journals have lost perspective does not mean polar bears are not currently impacted by sea ice decline or never will be.
To me, the loss of credible information is the real harm that has resulted from turning scientific inquiry into an agenda driven exercise … even for a good cause.
Some may see parallels within climate science world to the polar bear experience.
There are a number of crimes which have been committed by the climate alarmist establishment. Not the least of these is the damage these charlatans, cheats, and bullies have done to the integrity of science and scientists.
Read more at Breitbart
Trackback from your site.
EllBee
| #
Delingpole is one of the worst “yellow journalists” there is in the climate change denialist fantasy world. He knows no science and depends on other backyard scientist hacks for the crap he writes based on summaries of their data. And this piece of b..s is a prime example.
Dr. Crockford is “not” a scientist with any credentials related to the study of polar bears nor their environment. She depends totally on the work of others who have lived in the Arctic doing the research necessary to make genuine, well informed observations and publishing that data in peer reviewed papers. Cherry picking data from genuine scientific papers and then writing ill-informed commentaries based on her lack of understanding of the science and the environment, is not only disingenuous but serves no useful purpose other than to advance the anti-science alt-right fossil fuel funded industry narrative. She does not deserve to be given any credibility for her op-eds, which are not based on her own scientific endeavors but rather that of other “real” scientists.
For those of you who may have read this far and think what I have said is wrong, check this link along with the Bioscience and New York Times links in Delingpole’s article.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/financial-post-publishes-misleading-opinion-misrepresents-science-polar-bears-peril-susan-crockford/
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, ‘real’ scientists are not shills to any political ideology – so why aren’t you condemning those junk scientists like Michael Oppenheimer, who Dr Crockford exposed?
Oppenheimer spent two decades cashing paycheques at the overtly activist Environmental Defense Fund. We can smell your rabid hypocrisy from here.
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – When I say “real” scientists I am, of course, referring to those professionally trained researchers who produce work based on their expertise in those areas for which they have been trained, In which they study, and to which they have dedicated themselves to improving the knowledge thereof! Dr. Crockford, of course, does not fit that definition. Her alt-right political ideology, and your’s as well I might add, are totally at odds with climate science and is totally dependent, directly or indirectly, on the fossil fuel industry’s largess in ensuring the ongoing fostering of doubts, misinformation and PR pronouncements absolving the polluters of our common atmosphere from any wrong doing.
The fossil fuel industry, exemplified by the Koch brothers and Exxon have bought and paid for you, Crockford, Tim Ball, Tony Heller, et al. If it weren’t for your defense of them, this site wouldn’t exist and you and your kind would have been relegated to the fringes along with the Flat Earthers and Electric Universe crowd.
Ask Dr. Crockford to spend a couple of seasons tramping around the Arctic with bona fide scientists and then write a scholarly paper about what she learns. It may not be too late to recover some degree of credibility! However, if she continues to accept money from the fossil fuel industry, her credibility in the world of science will continue to remain on the fringes and serious consideration of what she calls her “scientific” endeavors will continue to remain suspect.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, Spare me your conspiracy theories. I have no ‘alt-right’ ideology nor does PSI. As CEO of PSI I comply with UK law to run PSI as a registered CIC (‘ community interest company’). By law we are a non-profit with no political affiliation. Our membership comprises over 1,200 scientists who share our mission to promote non-political discussion on science matters. We survive only on grassroots member donations. No ‘Big Oil’ money comes our way (I wish!)
My politics are my own business but I am not ashamed to admit that the only political party I have ever voted for is the UK Labour Party, many years ago. I think that makes you dead wrong in your nonsensical and ignorant rant.
Take a look at the UK government’s CIC website and educate yourself further: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – It would seem as though your reliance on obviously biased, unarguably right wing, and overtly misleading bloggers for your content have led me to my conclusion that your stance and that of your contributors is blatantly political. Hiding behind the cover of your status as CEO of PSI and of PSI’s status as a registered CIC you may try to justify your supposed impartiality but of course you can’t. You are required to flaunt your editorial prowess with misleading headlines and fawning opinion pieces in order to keep your 1,200 scientists on topic.
Speaking of which, these 1,200 scientists you mention, are any of them involved in “real” science? Not the backyard science of Tony Heller, Tim Ball, Dr. Crockford, et al? I mean the “in the field”, observational, hands on science, the kind that means something and which actually contributes to the advancement of human knowledge? Or are they all like those I mentioned above, pseudo scientists peddling junk science in a public relations propaganda campaign marching to the drummers of the Koch brothers, Exxon and others of the fossil fuel industry?
James McGinn
| #
Ellbee:
When I say “real” scientists I am, of course, referring to those professionally trained researchers who produce work based on their expertise in those areas for which they have been trained,
James McGinn:
How do you feel about the fact that these supposedly real scientists won’t discuss the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidene that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm?
Shouldn’t a real scientist want to make this scientific truth apparent to the public?
Gary Mullennix
| #
Insanity is repeating the same behavior in the face of repeated failure. I suggest you cease spending digital moments advancing cogent arguments to Ellbee. He or she doesn’t listen.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
EllBee….this is a rigged, three sided fake debate between Alarmist BIG Warmists, Luke LITTLE Warmists and Learned NO Warmists. There is NO greenhouse gas….
“Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” at FauxScienceSlayer
Delingpole (art degree)….Monckton (journalism degree)….Morano (poli-sci degree)
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, Indeed we have a very rich mix of applied scientists, academics, PhD-credentialed engineers, award-winning researchers, ex NASA scientists/engineers, space scientists, PhD climate scientists, multi-patent holders, etc. Some are happy for us to share their bios online. See here:
https://principia-scientific.com/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
We have zero contact/input from any reps from the Koch bros, Big Oil, Trump, Russia, or any other such third party. I know it’s hard for conspiracy theorists like you to grasp the reality of it but PSI is genuinely a grassroots, non-political body doing our own research and evaluation on many scientific matters (not just climate).
Dr Tim Ball was our founding chair but since 2013 John Sanderson, Past President of the Royal College of Science Association, took over as Chairman.
We address the strength and veracity of the science, not the policies stemming from it. We hold true to the scientific method as specifically espoused by Karl Popper. We have our Articles of Association online, so do please check it:
https://principia-scientific.com/articles-of-association/
Reply
James McGinn
| #
J. O’s:
We hold true to the scientific method as specifically espoused by Karl Popper.
James McGinn:
Nonsense, Jon, I’ve provided you and your fellow pretend scientists multiple opportunities to demonstrate compliance with Popper and you have all failed.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – It was the fossil fuel industry funded think tanks and their PR propagandists – borrowing from the tobacco company’s funded campaign to fight the anti-smoking activists – that first came up with the climate change conspiracy theory tag, applying it to the thousands of genuine climate scientists working in government, academia and industry. What they have been unable to explain as yet is how thousands of scientists could have colluded to provide what they seem to think is bad science. Your accepted philosophy now seems to be the same as the right-wing christian fundamentalist Discovery Institute’s push to put religion in the science classroom of public schools, as it applies to evolution. They say, “Teach the controversy” when there is none! The same as what you and your fellows at PSI are doing in relation to climate science.
You and your organization endorse bogus science, junk science, pseudo science, all because you think you are smarter than the real scientists and are therefore better able to tell the world what is happening to the global climate. Scientists working in fields directly and/or indirectly related to climate change whose results were seen by the fossil fuel industry’s PR people as shining a bad light on their activities are being accused of conspiring to manipulate data, to omit data, to include data, to make up data, etc. Why? To discredit them! Why? To keep the “gas” fires burning and the money rolling in!
A few final words. Here is what one of your colleagues had to say back in September 2008.
“If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it.”
Dr. Martin Hertzberg
That last sentence is so very applicable to this article and it’s main subject, don’t you think? Climate scientists are working for all of us, including you! The PR propagandists working for the fossil fuel industry are not working for any of us. They only work for their paymasters – the Koch’s, Exxon, et al and their right wing political masters.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, Government climate scientists provide governments with the self-serving secret science required to prop up unpalatable policies. Climate scientists make a mockery of the scientific method. Their preferred method is: No transparency, no accountability. Take the money, don’t allow dissent. We know this because in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) issued it’s formal request for immunity from prosecution to “protect” researchers who have provided “evidence” supportive of the man-made global warming scare story now that real scientists like Tim Ball have proved it is a scam, a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme.
Ball and others showed the scam was concocted in the late 1970’s. Dr Ball watched climatology replaced by climatism – an activist-driven, political ideology that took climatology from a backwater, underfunded field focused on global cooling and switching focus to junk science (purely theoretical) claims about warming due to CO2. The scam succeeded insofar as some fraudsters like Michael Mann pocketed millions. We know this because one of the original ringleaders, Syukuro Manabe (a Japanese meteorologist) admitted it in his farewell lecture held on October 26, 2001 in Tokyo as follows:
“Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”
In short, invent crisis; provide solution; raise taxes, make money.
Climate scientists are NOT “working for us all”.
In case you don’t know, Manabe confesses he did not resolve the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate and made an estimate which was falsely entered as “fact,” contrary to modern government expert claims that such work was rigorous “settled science.” In short, Manabe admits it is junk science, made up, fudged crap.
At PSI our own scientists have been at the sharp end of the criminal activity of Dr Michael Mann. Mann truly belongs in the ‘state pen, not Penn State.’ We know this because Mann is on the cusp of losing his multi-million dollar SLAPP suit versus Tim Ball- all because Mann refuses to show his ‘secret science’ metadata in court. Mann’s excuse is that his data is his own “proprietary work product” even though he was funded exclusively using tax payer dollars! So much for saving the planet!
In conclusion, you are either just another useful idiot easily played by these crooks or you know full well it is all a fraud but you have your own self-serving agenda in play.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Actually, PSI caters to scientists that are only slightly more Popperian than are climate scientists:
Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. It’s an intellectual bait and switch scheme. If asked believers will supply you with a mountain of data. The data will do little more than vaguely suggest some alarming eventualities in the indeterminate future. If you then ask them to delineate the connection to carbon dioxide you can then expect to be called all kinds of derogatory names implying that you are self centered and don’t care about future generations.
The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.
My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the links below to see what all the excitement is about. Thank you for your support.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
tom0mason
| #
The peculiar thing is that all the animals (including Polar Bears), fish, and plants etc., that are alive today had forebears that survive both the Roman and Medieval Warm Period. Periods when temperatures were either as warm, or warmer than today.
I wonder how the alarmist square with that?
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – First, this discussion is about Delingpole’s article here defending Dr. Crockford’s pseudo science. Simply put, in summary, she has not done any actual climate science, apparently has no plans to do any actual climate science and without the requisite training has no credibility when it comes to the actual science of climate change. And I might add, that also goes for most of your contributors on the subject.
You say, “Government climate scientists provide governments with the self-serving secret science required to prop up unpalatable policies.” That is a patently false statement which I am sure you are well aware of. Even contrarian scientists such as Christy, Lindzen, Spencer, et al, are funded by government grants. Governments base their policy decisions on the results of science and the recommendations of the scientists. You may believe that there is science/government collusion and/or coverup as part of your conspiracy theory scenario but thankfully the majority of well-informed people disagree with your anti-science assessment.
Now let’s take a look at that climate fraudster, Tim Ball. He has not done any actual climate science, apparently has no plans to do any actual climate science and without the requisite training has no credibility when it comes to the actual science of climate change. Sound familiar? Ball already had a day in court against Dr. Andrew Weaver and yes, Ball got off! Or did he? When the judge, in his decision wrote, in reference to Ball’s attack on the integrity of Weaver, “the court found that certain published comments (Ball’s) were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff (Weaver) in the minds of right-thinking persons.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/
Is Dr. Ball ready for more shame and humiliation when he finally gets his day in court with Dr. Michael Mann? Will Ball’s junk science stand up against the scrutiny of the court when compared to the life’s work of Michael Mann. I seriously doubt it!
Lastly, the example you state to confirm your claim that scientists like Michael Mann pocketed million’s of dollars (I’m sure he’ll be checking his pockets if he reads that here) is certainly stretching the truth, even for you. You base that claim on what you state above, “ We know this because one of the original ringleaders, Syukuro Manabe (a Japanese meteorologist) admitted it in his farewell lecture held on October 26, 2001 in Tokyo as follows:
“Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”
Here you quote Kyoji Kimoto, one of your questionably qualified contributors quoting Manabe. Kimoto is Japanese and the talk by Manabe was in Japanese but it is unclear as to whether or not Kimoto got the quote first hand or from the text of the talk. I’ll let you be the judge based on the Google translation and see if you can discern the not so subtle difference. The relevant Google passage translated from the talk states, “A group of about 10 people each year. About 3 million dollars every year for salary and calculator fee. As money now, I use about 12 billion yen in 40 years.”
https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~taikan/Dabun/2001l/manabe2001/&prev=search
Finally, you and your scientists are not at the “sharp end” of anything. None of your so-called scientists, and that is especially true of Tim Ball, are even remotely qualified to discuss the science of Michael Mann with any degree of credibility. Why? Because most, if not all of them, are cherry picking “backyard scientists” with varying degrees of training or knowledge about the science of climate change which in fact is irrelevant to their presentations. Their “science” is a sideshow to distract from their main agenda which is to muddy the waters for their fossil fuel backers and their front organizations such as the Heartland Institute. Enough said!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, It is conspicuous your long reply doesn’t even attempt any defense of Manabe’s stark admission that he and his colleagues knowingly created junk science and then passed it off as ‘settled.’
You disingenuously refer to ““backyard scientists” with varying degrees of training or knowledge about the science of climate change.” Now that definition would certainly include the following:
James Hansen – PhD in Physics
Michael Mann – PhD in Physics
Manabe – meteorologist
Gavin Schmidt – PhD Physics
But just contrast and compare those non-climate scientists with our very own qualified actual climate scientists:
Dr. Duane Thresher – PhD, Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Columbia University and NASA GISS (working for Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Gavin Schmidt)
Dr. Claudia Kubatzki – Doctorate, Natural Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany
Dr Tim Ball – PhD in Geography “with a specific focus on historical climatology” from the University of London, England, Queen Mary College)
Dr Thresher had this to say of his experiences working with ‘climate scientists’ such as Hansen & Schmidt:
“The unqualified physicists and mathematicians carpetbagged it into climate science…. we used to make fun of the physicists/mathematicians at the National Bomb Labs for getting into climate modeling.) Taxpayer money was shovelled at them. For my master’s in atmospheric science, I was at the University of Arizona. My advisor was Dr. Robert Dickinson, a climate big shot at the time from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He could really haul in the grant money.
They got a supercomputer, a “mini” but still very expensive. Supercomputers need to be cooled. They put the supercomputer in the supply closet off the terminal room and shut the door. It crashed frequently due to overheating. They opened the door and put a fan on the floor in the doorway. It crashed less frequently. Climate scientists are not noble. They are no better ethically than anyone else.”
Read more whistleblower revelations from inside of NASA’s climate science scam here:
https://principia-scientific.com/dr-duane-thresher-follow-the-money-ii/
As for Dr Tim Ball’s impending victory over that fraudster, Michael Mann, you should be aware that in February 2017 Mann breached a written undertaking made between the parties during the case. As such, he is liable to a contempt ruling plus a spoliation inference against him for the intentional withholding of evidence (punishable by dismissal of his action). Mann has run away from appearing in court for six years and counting. He relies on delay tactics as he knows he can’t win. When he loses he faces criminal prosecution and serious jail time.
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – You have obviously read Dr. Thresher’s website as you have quoted him here as one of your, “…very own qualified actual climate scientists..”. How can you possibly take him seriously as a climate scientist? He does not portray himself as an accomplished scientist but rather as an angry, disgruntled ex-scientist with an axe to grind. If he were half as good as he seems to think he is, he would be leading the pack of climate change deniers but instead he spends his time assuring people like you of his bona fides by blowing his own whistle, and you lap it all up! Even Tim Ball makes an attempt at talking about the science, admittedly not very convincingly!
You and your organization have taken up the cudgel of what you perceive to be the downtrodden, anti-science, right wing, fossil fuel funded fringe elements of climate science. The sad part in all of this is that it is obvious that there is a tremendous waste of educated talented in advancing the science of climate change, and by that I mean the real science of climate change. Whether the mainstream science is right or wrong, isn’t it worth the effort to work within it than without? You’ve mentioned the scientific method espoused by Dr. Karl Popper as being used by your “scientists”. Does that make their methods and experiments any different from those of the Hansens, Schmidts, Manns, etc. It would seem to me that it all comes down to the peer reviewed results, in which your “scientists” continually come up short.
Finally, in your last paragraph you mention that Dr. Mann breached a written undertaking between the two parties! I put it to you that that statement is at least misleading or totally bogus. I will leave you with a statement (one with which I’m sure you’re well familiar by now) from Dr. Mann’s lawyer for your readers to digest!
“Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose. Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent. O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real. So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.”
Roger D. McConchie
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, You obviously are not just merely deluded but parrot the Big Green spin like another paid promoter of the climate fraud cabal. Who is funding you?
You trash talk any and all independent scientists brave enough to risk their careers to expose the intentional fraud of climate ‘scientists’ like Manabe, Hansen and Mann. Dr Thresher was recruited as an expert climate scientist by NASA under James Hansen. But seeing the corruption in play he turned ‘denier’ and blew the whistle on NASA’s rotten cabal. So, in your perverse mind, he’s now discredited and no longer a ‘real’ scientist. You’re a joke!
You write: “Whether the mainstream science is right or wrong, isn’t it worth the effort to work within it than without?”
Are you serious? The whole ‘pal review’ system within climate journals is co-opted and controlled by Big Green. Didn’t you read the ‘Climategate’ emails?
In those emails Michael Mann made a shocking admission about how the gatekeepers in this fraud keep skeptic papers from being published. Mann wrote:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Indeed, in 2014 after publishing papers that went against the junk science ‘consensus’, an entire journal ( Pattern Recognition in Physics) was forced to close down. See here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/
‘Real’ scientists – if they are “working for us” to save the planet – don’t keep their work secret or conspire to unethically (and/or fraudulently) rig the system. Hansen, Mann & co. have no ethics and are mere politicized shills. This is why no other field of science has any respect for climate scientists.
When our real scientists like Tim Ball exposed your scam scientists they retaliated by misusing the courts, filing multi-million dollar SLAPP suits in desperation to keep their fraud hidden from taxpayers. That gambit is now failing badly. So why not just come clean with the public and admit it was a con trick?
McConchie (the self-styled lawyer who “wrote the book on Canadian libel law”) has already been soundly beaten at trial by Tim Ball’s lawyers. McConchie has now represented three separate cases where Big Green clients sued Dr Ball. His win-loss rate in that regard is woeful. He has zero credibility here. As I said, you only have to wait for the outcome of Mann’s case to see who wins or loses.
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – You state, “Dr Thresher was recruited as an expert climate scientist by NASA under James Hansen.” In his own words, while working for Dr. James Hansen, Dr.Gavin Schmidt and others at NASA, where he was credited in several papers, “My significant contribution to these papers was programming the climate model. I was never asked if I agreed with the conclusions.” Enough said!
I would really like to comment on your Climategate email quote attributed to Dr. Michael Mann but I can’t seem to find it! Could you help me out with a link to that email?
As for what happened with the “Pattern Recognition in Physics” journal, I thought this link might help you separate the wheat from the chaff. I find it somewhat more readable than the trash talk you promote by citing a JoNova blogpost.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/stormy-times-climate-research
When you state that, “‘Real’ scientists don’t keep their work secret….” I am assuming that you are talking about Dr. Mann. In which case you are obviously fudging the facts. Dr. Mann’s data and methodologies were well known in the scientific community before Tim Ball’s attack! That is why when other climate scientists used Mann’s data and their own models, the results confirmed Mann’s work. It’s ironic that if Tim Ball were capable of doing the science, he would have produced the same results with Dr. Mann’s data as did many other climate scientists.
You talk about lawsuits brought against, “real scientists like Tim Ball..”. You are, of course, joking! The dishonesty, the lack of integrity, the sheer ignorance of people like Ball in their efforts to denigrate climate scientists, in order to satisfy the scions of the fossil fuel industry, goes beyond all norms of rational, reasoned, civilized discourse. Tim Ball, along with most of your so-called “expert” opinion writers at PSI, being too ignorant of climate science, too intellectually lazy to learn climate science or to even make an attempt at understanding climate science, continue to insist that the real science and real scientists involved in climate science are frauds. It is much easier taking the fossil fuel industry’s easy money and talking trash, which is cheap, rather than having to put any real effort into learning what it is you are talking about.
Finally, as for your assessment of Dr. Mann’s lawyer. To say he, “has already been soundly beaten at trial by Tim Ball’s lawyers.” is certainly stretching it, even for you. In the three cases you refer to that Mr. Conchie was/is involved with, 1. Ball (as plaintiff) withdrew his lawsuit against Dr. Johnson and the Calgary Herald, 2. a Pyrrhic victory in his case against Dr. Weaver (being appealed) and, 3. a yet to be heard case against Dr. Mann. Enough said!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, You provide a link to non-credible commentary from Clare Goodess, University of East Anglia. This is the very same UEA that condones criminal conduct by UEA ‘scientists’.
We know this because ‘Professor’ Phil Jones was permitted to return to his position as head of climate studies soon after admitting he unlawfully breached FOIA requests from independent scientists onto his scam. Jones also criminally destroyed inconvenient and irreplaceable raw temperature data from various countries and provinces. The only reason Uncle Phil escaped criminal prosecution was because the statute of limitations already expired. Jones and the UEA are a disgrace to science.
The meaning of this is clear: Computer models are the sole basis of all forecasts used by alarmists. These models used temperature data that is now known to be suspect or completely wrong.
You are lying when you state: “Dr. Mann’s data and methodologies were well known in the scientific community before Tim Ball’s attack!”
Nowhere, not even in the court proceedings against Tim Ball, has Mann disclosed his r-squared cross-validation results for his hockey stick graph. From what evidence we see in the public domain, we find Mann found that over most of his reconstruction there was essentially no match (in other words the r-squared data was telling Mann his graph was junk). In fact, the r-squared numbers are what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment in the Climategate emails was about.
We know Mann did, indeed, perform this important due diligence test because he let on that he got r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match. We also see it in the code he eventually was forced to publish.
You request from me the actual climategate emails I referred to. Well, they are in the public domain, just like Mann’s data you say is “well known in the scientific community.” Go find it yourself!
Mann is the king of ‘secret science’ from the words of Michael Mann himself. He calls it his ‘proprietary work product.’
Ball’s lawyers prevailed on the point Mann cannot withhold it in those proceeding in the BC Supreme Court. Mann’s r2 regresion numbers MUST be disclosed in open court if he has any hope of prevailing in his lawsuit. In that regard, Mann made legally-binding ‘concessions’ to release such data in February 2017. But he then cynically broke that undertaking (a contempt of court ruling is pending).
As Tim Ball reported at the time:
“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
The rest of your ignorant and ill-informed comment is handwaving drivel. Bottom line: both Phil Jones and Michael Mann are criminals and deserve locking up.
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – Damn, I’m no scientist, (like you), and even less of a lawyer, (like you), so this latest response of yours is truly baffling! Everything I have read here and elsewhere that you have written in your defense of Tim Ball leads me to the conclusion that you are attempting to argue a legal case in the same manner as Ball attempts to argue climate change – by misleading, misrepresenting and massaging of the facts! Since Dr. Mann and Tim Ball have not had their day in court yet, how can Mann be in contempt of anything? I know that Mr. McConchie submitted a statement of claim and I assume Tim Ball’s lawyer responded. We only have Tim Ball’s word that a judge ordered disclosure of the results of Dr. Mann’s research and based on Ball’s pseudo scientific pronouncements, I wouldn’t put much faith in his word!
We are a long way away from the b…s article by Delingpole but what the hell! “In for a dime – In for a dollar” You obviously are not interested in reading long, informed texts to ensure your facts are correct (not to mention impartial texts) but rather you prefer to rely on summaries like Delingpole. So catering to you, in that spirit of simplistic enlightenment, I will offer you two links with my pointers to those passages I think can purvey my thoughts more coherently and cogently than I.
Regarding Dr. Phil Jones –
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
The whole report is worth a read, but the pertinent part for my rebuttal to your Climategate assertions concerning Dr. Phil Jones in particular, are “summarized” in the “Summary” at page 3.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf
Again, the whole report is worth a read, but the pertinent part for my rebuttal to your Climategate assertions concerning Dr. Phil Jones in particular, are “summarized” in the “Conclusions” at page 11.
Now, as for, “You are lying ….. “ down to, “ (a contempt of court ruling is pending).” and everything in between! You really ought to leave the misinterpretation of Dr. Mann’s work to Tim Ball. He has a much more refined pseudo scientific vocabulary designed to obfuscate and confuse, before he resorts to denigration and insults. He’s much more proficient at it than you are!
Finally, you quote Ball attempting to be sincere in his pronouncement concerning the documents he’s seeking from Dr. Mann in court. Like every other one of your so-called “experts” and real scientists that sue for genuine data, they get their marching orders from the front men in the PR agencies, the alt-right, anti-science Republican “stink”tanks and their fossil fuel industry backers, that use this tactic to intimidate and distract scientists from their work, thus sowing doubt and mistrust in the eyes of the public. But then again, I guess we should be thankful that we’re not talking about cancer research here using stem cells or whatever. Then it would be the alt-right, anti-science christian fundamentalist Rebublicans we’d have to deal with. As it is, this entire charade that you and your ilk are involved in is a natural follow on to your attacks on anti-tobacco campaigners over the past 30 years. Same scum, different topic!
PS: I’m still actively searching for the Climategate email from the discussion above. Still not willing to give up a link?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, Once again you prove you are ill-informed. Once again you have failed to back up your claims when challenged. I specifically identified for you that Mann has not submitted his r2 regression numbers which he has repeatedly refused to disclose because he claims they are his “intellectual property.” Mann admits he hasn’t submitted them. Your persistence on this point compounds your ignorance and stupidity.
You now provide two links to self-serving UK government ‘investigations’ into UK government climate ‘scientists.’ These were the ‘Russell inquiry’ and ‘Oxburgh inquiry.’ Russell is Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), with known conflicts of interest, but worse, was APPOINTED BY UEA to head the inquiry (a sham investigation).
‘Oxburgh’ produced a short report and did not reassess the science. Oxburgh confessed it was never in his remit. “The science was not the subject of our study,” he confirmed: https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/#more-11331 At the time Labour MP Graham Stringer provided a summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
Stringer concluded “The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash.”
In both inquiries NONE of the independent scientists who filed FOI requests on UEA were interviewed or allowed to testify. Only Jones was allowed to testify in Parliament. Both ‘investigations’ were rush jobs made just prior to an election and Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the evidence.
A bemused Stringer asked:
“Why did they [Jones, etc] delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell. Russell had promised and open investigation yet witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published.”
As both an MP and scientist Stringer “was surprised at Phil Jones’ answers to the questions I asked him [in Parliament]. The work was never replicable,” said Stringer.
Since 2004 Jones refused to share his data explaining that “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” In short, a damning admission that it would not withstand scrutiny.
You ignorantly state: “Since Dr. Mann and Tim Ball have not had their day in court yet, how can Mann be in contempt of anything?”
Mann (and his lawyer) breached a written undertaking provided DURING litigation, which is unlawful, you dullard.
I again refer you to Tim Ball’s public statement:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
Mann and McConchie made a written undertaking in consideration of giving them a time extension. Rules regarding undertakings, under canadian civil law can be viewed here: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/Undertaking.aspx
There are many rules Mann and his hot shot lawyer have breached. (inc. but not limited to: B.C. Court Rules; (19)’ An order under subrule (18) (an ‘Order by consent’); Rule 7-2 (1) (a); (2) (a) through (e); (14); Rule 7-7 — Admissions, etc).
The penalty for that breach includes summary dismissal of the claim upon application from Ball alongside an adverse inference that the breach was an intentional spoliation of evidence (see spoliation doctrine and ‘adverse inference’) http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/law-adverse-inference-exlpained-bc-brain-injury-case
Please desist in posting any further half-baked nonsense as I have better things to do with my time than to educate the willfully ignorant.
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – You obviously were not impressed with the perceived lack of response by Dr. Mann to Tim Ball’s assertion that he was entitled to Dr. Mann’s “r2 regression numbers”. And for that tidbit of gossip you expect me to take Tim Ball’s word for it? Sorry, neither his credibility nor your’s, merits that consideration. And my persistence on this is an attempt to get you to understand that until Ball has his day in court, his motives, his credibility and his so-called science, will remain suspect!
As for your rant against the Parliamentary Inquiry, you are quick to accuse climate scientists of criminal behavior but have never mentioned the criminal behavior of the hackers. You and your friends say it was about access to data but what happened when you went to Russia and retrieved the emails? You called in the cavalry of your alt-right, alt-facts, right wing anti-science establishment PR hacks and “stink” tankers. Why? Because you perceived an opportunity to destroy not only the science of climate change but primarily the climate scientists themselves. And if anybody could do it, that would be you and your cohorts on the wrong side of the fence of common sense and decency. Every email provided the grist for your “Climategate” conspiracy theory. No matter it no longer had anything to do with the science. Your PR hacks, pseudo scientists, and ignorant right wing political shills all weighed in to try and destroy the reputation of climate scientists, no matter what. Just like your pseudo scientist Tim Ball, cherry picking genuine data and then manipulating and massaging it to fit his preconceived narrative, you and your PR hacks cherry picked snippets of email conversations and then presented them completely out of context but exactly to the prearranged scripts of your fossil fuel money masters – the Kochs, Exxon, et al.
I’m not going to provide the links again to the Parliamentary Inquiry but I will quote the first two paragraphs of the Summary for anyone who might be interested. You can skip over it!
“The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 had the potential to damage the reputation of the climate science and the scientists involved.
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular,has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.”
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia”supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit.”
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as “false.”
An Associated Press review of the emails found that they “don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
To end this here, I have it on good authority that there have been no court rulings of any nature adverse to Dr. Mann. If you have proof to the contrary, hang on to it for when Dr. Mann and Tim Ball meet again in Vancouver.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Ellbee, You have been provided with all the facts. Instead, you remain wedded to the Establishment’s self-serving misrepresentations. Why bother continuing this exchange?
Goverments and their paid lackeys in government-funded posts aren’t going to admit they misuse science to further their own agenda. You keep repeating the same old ad homs against independent scientists who keep exposing the secret science of corrupt govt ‘scientists.’
Penn State Uni also had an official investigation into Jerry Sandusky and cleared him of all those grave accusations of pedophilia against students. Lo and behold a year later Sandusky was convicted, sentenced and jailed for a very long time for the very same offenses PSU had exonerated him. Go figure!
Phil Jones and his UEA ‘scientists’ destroyed emails and raw temperature data. You are ok with that because it fits your warped agenda. So you hide behind the politician’s exoneration of criminal and unethical practices.
As with Phil Jones in the UK so with Michael Mann in the US. Are you really so blinkered/dumb?
And you cite Factcheck.org and Politifact.com as authorities? Really? You are a joke.
You then end stating “I have it on good authority that there have been no court rulings of any nature adverse to Dr. Mann.”
What has that got to do with what I cited? If you cannot comprehend civil court rules and procedures and grasp that Mann and his lawyer have breached a legally binding undertaking to release Mann’s hidden r2 regression data then you’re out of your depth here. As I said before, I have better things to do with my time than entertain your nonsense. We let you have your say. Move on now. Goodbye.
SteveQ
| #
John Sullivan: “PS: I’m still actively searching for the Climategate email from the discussion above. Still not willing to give up a link?”
Either you provide the link or it doesn’t exist and is just one more example of the made-up b-s that you and lap up.
Reply
SteveQ
| #
John O’Sullivan: “PS: I’m still actively searching for the Climategate email from the discussion above. Still not willing to give up a link?”
Either provide the link or everyone will realize it’s just more evidence of the b-s you write!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
‘Steve’ – knock yourself out – they can be accessed via here: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
Why you and ‘Ellbee’ need to be shown how to do basic research suggests you are comfortable on the government propaganda teat.
Reply
retireme
| #
More to follow, I hope…
Reply
EllBee
| #
retireme – Working on it!
Reply
retireme
| #
I was rather hoping it wouldn’t be from you, Sir! I have heard enough of your rhetoric to last me a lifetime. Unfortunately, I am sure that is not going to be the case. I can dream though, can’t I?
Reply
EllBee
| #
John O’Sullivan – When your fossil fuel funded pseudo scientists go looking for the real scientific data of real scientists, they do it for one reason and one reason only – to advance the agenda of their funding masters on cue from their PR front organizations like yours. It is not about questioning the science. It is not about quelling any doubts they may have about the science. Their sole purpose is to cherry pick an insignificant detail(s) buried deep in a scientific paper, (which they barely understand themselves), and promptly manipulate, mangle and massage it before misinterpreting it and misrepresenting it to an uninformed public. The new wave of the alt-right political machine is alive and well doling out the dollars to you and yours to keep their money making machine profitable, by any means possible.
You say, “Goverments and their paid lackeys in government-funded posts aren’t going to admit they misuse science to further their own agenda.” And yet, until people like you came along and jumped into bed with the fossil fuel industry’s PR shills, using the same devious and deceptive tactics derived from their study of the Discovery Institute’s christian fundamentalist, “Teach the controversy!” playbook, neither politics nor controversy were involved in climate science. There was dissent, certainly, based on the actual science, which was then resolved by those involved. You and your anti-science propaganda proponents have, as a result of your right-wing puppet masters’ mercenary agenda, decided to drag climate science down, and by extension all science, to new levels of ignorance not seen in 50 years.
Oh, and your reference to the Sandusky affair. I believe he was cleared by Penn State but convicted by the State. As for Dr. Mann, he was cleared by Penn State but convicted by Tim Ball. There is some irony in that, don’t you think? Perhaps you’re not quite as familiar with the laws in the State of Pennsylvania as you seem to be with the laws in British Columbia.
I don’t pretend to be a lawyer, like you do, so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance of your “legal” explanations of the issues surrounding Ball’s data request. You state, “…Mann and his lawyer have breached a legally binding undertaking to release Mann’s hidden r2 regression data…”, and from a previous post, “But he then cynically broke that undertaking (a contempt of court ruling is pending).” Would you please clarify for me whether or not a hearing on a charge of contempt against Dr. Mann would be heard separately from and/or heard along with, the defamation suit? Or would a contempt charge be filed separately, before or after the defamation case, and whether or not it would make a difference when it was filed?
I really don’t care if you reply to this or not. We have strayed way beyond the disgusting “yellow journalism” of James Delingpole and his fawning defense of the pseudo climate change/polar bear scientist Dr. Susan Crockford! It’s time for another Tony Heller “fake” “commentary” “personal opinion” “historical weather report” column with his conclusion that the earth is cooling and heading into another ice age! It’s been interesting, John.
Reply