Skip to content

Susan Crockford Demands Retraction Of “Shoddy and Malicious Paper”

December 6, 2017

By Paul Homewood



Dr Susan Crockford has responded forcefully to the false and malicious paper about her published in the supposedly reputable journal, Bioscience:



Today I sent a letter to the editors of the journal Bioscience requesting retraction of the shoddy and malicious paper by Harvey et al. (Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy) published online last week.

The letter reveals information about the workings of the polar bear expert inner circle not known before now, so grab your popcorn.


Harvey et al. 2018 in press climate denial by proxy using polar bears_Title


I have copied the letter below, which contains emails obtained via FOIA requests to the US Geological Survey and the US Fish and Wildlife Service by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, E&E Legal, and the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (USFWS request; USGS request) and sent to me by lawyer Chris Horner in 2014, unsolicited. I reveal some of them now, with his permission (most of the emails are boring, involving mostly technical topics not relevant to anything, as might be expected).


Susan’s full account can be read here.

But her conclusion in the letter to Bioscience sums it up nicely:


By identifying and discussing the above issues, I do not mean to imply that there aren’t other issues that could be raised about this paper. But these are enough.

You accuse me of having no expertise regarding polar bears, no peer-reviewed papers about polar bears, allege that I support a “scientific uncertainty” frame, and state that I criticize the work of Amstrup and colleagues without supporting evidence.

These allegations are untrue, defamatory and malicious, but in addition, the failure to mention my Ph.D. and my recent scientific critique constitute a falsification of my expertise and work output. In addition, the purported scientific analysis is shoddy and the language used is reprehensible.

I formally request that you retract this paper.

  1. Athelstan permalink
    December 6, 2017 10:55 am

    Good on you, Ms Crockford,

    that was a quite shameful calumniation through neglect to mention your evident expertise not only in Zoology but in the particular field of study namely, Ursus Maritimus.

    I fully endorse your counter and wish you fair wind but don’t expect them to even come clean…………….. let alone apologize.

    It is sad to report.

    For we know that, arguing with cultural Marxists is like punching a big green rubber dummy, the trouble is the establishment encourage and succour the big green rubber dummies and backed by some serious money and living the lie ‘we is saving da planet innit’……. deem themselves inviolable. More, because they are Socialists and certainly not scientists if they took up arms against you in open debate and with your full CV properly, forthrightly, honestly acknowledged then, Harvey et al and Bioscience know full well that they’d have shot out of the room and into a deep space dustbin.

    That’s how they do it, they the greens and ‘watermelons’ are total s***heads. Shamefully that’s how things are, that’s how the green blob do business; by groupthing smear, Omerta of the ‘consensus’, by omission, sleight, lies, calumny and misdirection – they are, scum in other words.

    Go for it Susan, I will be cheering for you.

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 6, 2017 11:18 am

      groupthink even.

  2. 1saveenergy permalink
    December 6, 2017 11:03 am

    I note the ‘distinguished’ bully, lair, cheat & fraud M E Mann is a co-author
    so no need read beyond that to guess what the contents of the Harvey paper is like.

    • December 6, 2017 12:08 pm

      Recently, I ran across this quote from P.J. O’Rourke, an American political satirist and a journalist:

      “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

      It is my contention that PJ’s analysis adequately describes Dr. Crockford’s detractors.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 6, 2017 1:40 pm

        Sounds very appropriate, Joan.

  3. December 6, 2017 11:12 am

    Squeaky bum time for the Bioscience peer reviewers and publishers of the Mann et al ‘paper’.

    Susan Crockford writes: ‘The letter reveals information about the workings of the polar bear expert inner circle not known before now, so grab your popcorn.’

  4. Mike Jackson permalink
    December 6, 2017 11:23 am

    Reading the emails with the ear of a longtime student of language (in journalism mainly but also in dealing with eco-activists) I detect a group of people desperate to find some way of creating credible evidence, stopping short of outright nonsense, to get their way.

    If you were to accuse them of not being scientists they would (rightly) take offence but they are blissfully unaware that their science has become infected by a belief system which demands that polar bears (in this particular case; in other instances it could well have been the RSPB with birds!) should be red-listed, specifically because of global warming.

    The warming is the important bit. The data needs to be “arranged”to fit. The behaviour may well be at least partly sub-conscious. Naturally anyone who gets in their way needs to be removed. The ends justify the means as with any cult. Don’t judge them too harshly; they possbly can’t help themelves.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 6, 2017 1:41 pm

      Marxism, in other words.

  5. December 6, 2017 11:26 am

    One line of attack on Susan Crockford is that she does no field studies, so did Michael Mann do field measurements of tree rings? Of course not, in science there are experimentalists (those who observe and measure), phenomenologists (those who find patterns in the measurements), and theorists. Brahe, Kepler, and Newton are examples of the 3 groups.

    In fact, you don’t need any formal qualifications or experience to be an effective phenomenologist, simply plotting data without cherry-picking is often sufficient to discover those “unhelpful” facts that tend not to get mentioned by scientivists.

    The attack really needs to be turned back on the attackers, clearly a bunch of conservationists using shoddy science to further their cause. You can’t be a conservationist at the same time as claiming to be a scientist. Science cares nothing about emotions.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 6, 2017 1:43 pm

      And in Mann’s case you conveniently ignore tree rings when what they show isn’t what you want. And I believe Steve McIntyre wondered why the actual tree ring data gathering had stopped.

      • December 7, 2017 12:06 pm

        That data set from the Yamal Peninsula was so cherry-picked you could have made a pie. Also tree ring data (dendrochronology) is not useful for CO2 pronouncements as there is too much “noise”. It can be used to date things, it can be used to give climate trends over time, etc. but picking out CO2 as a causative agent is not possible. Likely this is why it was chosen–who can say?????

      • Nigel S permalink
        December 7, 2017 3:38 pm

        Indeed, ‘YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World’.

    • Malcolm Bell permalink
      December 6, 2017 3:48 pm

      Climamrecon – Read “Principia” and you will discover that the reason Newton is great is that he conducted meticulous experiments, observed intesely then worked out the explanation. All three of your characterisations. In so far as you can conduct experiments with planets Brahe and Kepler come close behind.

  6. subtle2 permalink
    December 6, 2017 7:38 pm

    The original taxonomic name of the polar bear says it all:


  7. December 7, 2017 8:36 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: