Tag Archives: science

Polar bear specialist Mitch Taylor on accountability in polar bear science

Polar bear specialist Mitch Taylor emailed me and others his response to the New York Times article that appeared Tuesday (10 April) about the Harvey et al. (2018) BioScience paper attacking my scientific integrity. Here it is in full, with his permission, and my comments. Don’t miss the footnote!

Mother with cubs Russia_shutterstock_71694292_web size

Continue reading

An embarrassment to science: BioScience editor formally rejects retraction request

After four long months of waiting, late last week I finally received an official  response from the editor of BioScience regarding my retraction request for the Harvey et al. paper (Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy), which I sent 5 December 2017.

Crockford 2017_Slide 12 screencap

From the sounds of it, the wait took so long because the paper went through a tedious process of parsing words just so among the 14 co-authors (akin to that used by the IPCC in constructing the Summary for Policy Makers), to convey the authors meaning and retain as much of the original insult as possible. In reality, we know the decision was made barely two weeks after I sent the request (16 December 2017) because that day, BioScience editor Scott Collins told a reporter he had no intention of retracting the paper.

In the end, the authors were compelled to make two small word changes. The editor insists that:

“…prior to publication, the article was peer reviewed by highly reputable scholars with expertise on the topic as per our standard procedures.”

So he says.

But all we can do is judge by the results the reviewers approved: a paper with two prominent spelling errors (“principle” component analysis; “Refereces” cited) as well as several serious errors in the supplemental material that were brought to the editors attention (which does not even break the surface of the statistical errors described in detail by others or the additional errors found after my retraction request was filed, including a case of plagiarism of my blog content by a so-called “science” blog used in the paper).

Harvey et al. hardly needed much analysis for savvy folks to judge its quality: on the day of release, climate scientist Judith Curry’s scathing remark on twitter said it all:

“This is absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”

Among the co-authors of the paper are polar bear specialists Steven Amstrup and Ian Stirling, as well as Stephen Lewandosky and Michael Mann (who now writes for children, competing with my popular polar bear science book for kids):

The online version available today (26 March) did not contain the changes described by the editor in his 23 March 2018 email nor were the spelling errors fixed (pdf here). Errors in the supplementary data file remain (here), although these were identified months ago.

The entire fiasco, start to finish, is an embarrassment to science but apparently, the editor does not care. As I’ve said before, this paper says more about the editor of the journal, the journal’s publishers, and the authors of the paper than it does about me or any of the bloggers discussed within it.

If published as is by the journal, it will go down in history as a low point for science and BioScience will have the dubious honor of being complicit in its production, as will all 14 co-authors. I encourage you to read the paper and see for yourself.

The same morning I received the response from the BioScience editor (text below), Dr. Richard Tol received a rejection notice for the critique of the Harvey et al. paper he and co-author Anand Rajan submitted 25 January 2018 (“LIPSTICK ON A BEAR: A COMMENT ON INTERNET BLOGS, POLAR BEARS, AND CLIMATE-CHANGE DENIAL BY PROXY”), with two reasons given:

“First. author guidelines state that letters are limited to 500 words and must be considered to be constructive. Secondly, and more importantly, your letter has already been published verbatum on line and therefore does not merit re-publication in BioScience.” [my bold]

Odd timing and a bit ironic, isn’t it? Preprint server publication is damned as ‘prior publication’ even though it is dismissed out of hand by vocal champions of scientific virtue because it hasn’t been through a journal-orchestrated review process (as opposed to simply being reviewed by peers).

Such a “dismissal” has occurred with my paper that shows how and why Amsturp and colleagues 2007 polar bear predictions failed so miserably (Crockford 2017), now downloaded more than 2300 times (see a shorter summary in Crockford and Geist 2018, and here). This is the paper Amstrup and Stirling don’t want the public to read.

I’ll let readers decide for themselves if they agree with Collins on whether the changes agreed to by all parties to this sham of a paper come anywhere close to addressing the insult to science and dedicated scientists everywhere.

Continue reading

State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 shows polar bears are thriving

My new report reveals that polar bears are doing well despite recent reductions in sea-ice. It shows in details why this is so, with summaries of critical recent research.

Press release and pdf below. And read my op-ed in the National Post here.

State of Polar Bear Report cover_12 Feb 2018 image with bottom
Continue reading

My Polar Bear Facts & Myths book for kids is being translated into Dutch & Norwegian

In celebration of International Polar Bear Day on Tuesday 27 February, I’m pleased to announce the up-coming publication of Dutch and Norwegian translations of my popular childrens’ science book Polar Bear Facts & Myths.

Lying bear shutterstock_244419640_Cropped_web size

Ijsberen Feiten en Mythen

Isbjørn Fakta og Myter

This means my powerful little book that provides the straight goods for kids on polar bear science will soon be available in five languages: English, French, German, Dutch and Norwegian.

Watch for them!

Coffee house discussion about polar bear science & conservation in Toronto on Tuesday

In conjunction with the launch of my State of the Polar Bear Report in Toronto next week, Benny Peiser (from the Global Warming Policy Foundation) and I will be participating in a coffee house discussion about polar bear conservation and survival issues on the evening of Tuesday, 27 February 2018 at 8:30 pm.

If you’re in town, come and celebrate International Polar Bear Day with a frank discussion about polar bear science.

Grounds for Thought at GreenBeanery_Feb 27 2018

I am very much looking forward to meeting the public at this evening discussion and to chat with media representatives and colleagues at the press luncheon in the early afternoon. Journalist/opinion writer Terry Corcoran recently billed the luncheon as part of a Polar Bear Battle since conservation organization Polar Bears International (where biologist Steven Amstrup, co-author of the Harvey et al. Bioscience paper and developer of the failed 2007 polar bear survival model, is employed as chief scientist) is holding a gala fundraiser dinner the same night, just a block away.

In addition to Benny Peiser from GWPF, a number of familiar names will be at the State of the Polar Bear launch and press luncheon, including Terry Corcoran,  Larry Soloman, Joe Oliver and Conrad Black (all journalist/opinion writers at the Financial Post and/or National Post), journalist/writer Donna Laframboise who blogs at No Frakking Consensus, as well as science colleagues Chris Essex, Ross McKitrick, and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit fame. Details below.

Continue reading

BioScience pushback update and plea for a virtual beer

Writing this blog takes a lot of time and effort but it gives me immense personal and professional satisfaction. I get emails from readers all over the world saying how much they appreciate what I do for science. The fact that my colleagues felt threatened enough to publish a malicious hit piece attacking my scientific credibility tells me I’m reaching a wide and influential audience that are convinced by the science I present.Crockford and Polar bear_0245 sm

My books are getting good reviews. I discount the few Harvey et al. supporters that showed up in the days after the BioScience paper appeared in late November to write some Harveyesque comments in the Amazon review section for my Polar Bear Facts & Myths kids’ science book. A thuggish stunt but predictable given the nasty tone of the paper.

I’m not worried, though: book sales over the last couple of months have been very good, even though my university didn’t issue a press release to promote my kids book like Penn State did today for Harvey et al. co-author Michael Mann. I know that folks will head to Polar Bear Facts & Myths for a child-appropriate science book about polar bears, and to Mann’s Tantrum book if they want their kids to be petulant activists before they finish elementary school.

You might be interested to know I’ve decided not to take legal action against the Harvey cabal responsible for the defamatory BioScience paper.  I’m not backing down. I will definitely be pushing back (already started) but doing so will take time away from my paid work.

Beer clipart-3706-freeSo if you’d like to buy me a virtual beer to help defray costs, it would be much appreciated. I’ll keep you posted on progress.  My new donate button is upper right on the sidebar: “Support Polar Bear Science” — it takes credit cards or PayPal.

Cheers!

 

Blog uses my polar bear info but no link to PBS means they are ‘science-based’

According to Harvey and colleagues (2017), any internet posting that discusses polar bears without a link to PolarBearScience or a mention of my name can be considered a ‘science-based’ blog. But they missed an obvious catch: bloggers who use my content without attribution.

Churchill Polar Bears dot org_header

For example, so-called ‘science-based’ blog Churchill Polar Bears, written by Churchill polar bear guide Steve Seldon, used text and two of the four figures provided in a 15 February 2017 post at PolarBearScience to create a Churchill Polar Bears post on 17 February but did not include a single link to PolarBearScience indicating that’s where he got his information (Wayback machine link here).

Churchill polar bears blog headline 17 Feb 2017

A few would not consider this plagiarism but most do. That is to say, failure to attribute a source when work or information is not your own is a big no-no in science, as it is in all of academia.

Consider this evidence: Continue reading