27

A recent paper Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy by a number of very well known climate campaigners/experts addresses some of the media controversy about the effect of climate change on Polar Bears

The paper argues:

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability.

The paper concludes, among many other things, that most skeptical references can be traced to a single blog: Polar Bear Science, authored by Susan Crockford.

Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.

The claim highlighted above seems simple and unambiguous. Is it true?

matt_black
  • 56,186
  • 16
  • 175
  • 373
  • 3
    I wonder if we can focus the question on just the claim? Do we need the first half? – Oddthinking Dec 27 '17 at 13:02
  • She seems to be a dog-researcher (and tuna and so on), but not a researcher about polar bears. – jjack Dec 27 '17 at 13:12
  • 6
    @Oddthinking I thought the context helped explain why the question has been asked. – matt_black Dec 27 '17 at 13:16
  • 4
    IMVHO, the title here is inaccurate vs the problem. There are two distinct questions here (one by OP, one in paper); OP's "Does Susan Crockford have no scientific qualifications related to polar bears?" and vs paper's "is is true that Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.". I'd say that, arguably, she *has* scientific qualifications related to polar bears - just that they are insufficient to make statements as strong as she does, because she didn't do any real peer-reviewed research about them bears. –  Dec 27 '17 at 17:03
  • 21
    Does not being an original polar bear author necessarily render me incapable of finding, reading and accurately understanding the polar bear research that has been done? – PoloHoleSet Dec 27 '17 at 17:14
  • 1
    This question / answer was asked 10 hours ago and already has 4 question upvotes and 14 answer upvotes... and the (fairly detailed) upvoted response showed up very quickly after the question was asked... making this Q/A seem a lot like a planned hit piece. Just saying. – Alkanshel Dec 27 '17 at 22:45
  • 1
    @Amalgovinus the beauty of this site is that you can always post a dissenting answer (if you have good sources and evidence). And you can downvote answers you think are too weak. – matt_black Dec 27 '17 at 22:53
  • @matt_black Well, the last part is technically not true. Amalgovinus doesn't have enough rep to downvote. One downside to questions (like this one) that end up on the HNQ list is that a lot of the people who visit can upvote, but can't downvote. This is a problem across a lot of the smaller stacks, especially ones where controversial topics are discussed. – reirab Dec 27 '17 at 23:12
  • @matt_black Also, vaxquis has a point. Can you please edit the title to better match the question highlighted question in the quote? Perhaps "Does Susan Crockford have no original research or peer-reviewed publications about polar bears?" would work? – reirab Dec 27 '17 at 23:15
  • This Q/A is just so specific that it seems contrived. Inorganic, even. – Alkanshel Dec 28 '17 at 00:03
  • @Amalgovinus welcome to stackexchange ;) (because you seem to be new here) – mathreadler Dec 28 '17 at 11:25
  • 2
    @Amalgovinus: Please default to assuming good intentions of other users. There seems little value in conspiring to answer a question ahead of time when a single user can simply answer their own question, and cut out the need for a co-conspirator. – Oddthinking Dec 28 '17 at 15:45
  • Closely related, possibly a duplicate: *https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/26913/5337* – gerrit Jan 02 '18 at 15:23
  • This leaked [Budget for the Heartland Institute](https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget.pdf) shows Susan Crockford was paid $750/month by them. – anon Jan 24 '19 at 09:15
  • @matt_black your way of replying to Amalgovinus is exactly supporting Amalgovinus suspicion. The question if Crockford is scientifically qualified for publishing about polar bears is a strawman (or rather red herring) hiding the original problem: that her publication seems to be the *only* source that deniers are left with to refer to. – Hartmut Braun Nov 09 '21 at 14:04

1 Answers1

28

I see no reason to doubt the statement.

Crockford herself says that she is

a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field

indicating that she hasn't conducted original research.

In a further blog post, she justifies her relevance as a "polar bear expert" despite not having made scientific contributions in that area:

There’s no doubt that people who do virtually nothing but analyze the results of their field work (e.g. most polar bear biologists) do make a critical contribution to science. However, every field needs “unblindered” people as well – people who continually consider historical perspectives and seek out the distractions of related topics. Every field needs these big-picture thinkers who are capable of pulling together many aspects of scientific knowledge.

I bring just such an essential, big-picture perspective to the issue of polar bear conservation, life history studies, and Arctic ecology. My contributions to polar bear science are vital to the field, even if the data collectors think otherwise. So shame on those who suggest I am unqualified to comment on polar bear research — such lame attempts to silence and discredit me are a ploy to keep polar bear science insular.

[...]

The fact that polar bear biology is such a closed shop virtually guarantees that the only way any critical voices will be heard is via internet publishing, like this blog.

She follows this up with a list of her publications; none of which are both peer reviewed and about polar bears (it's either one or the other).

The publications she lists which are related to polar bears are:

  • a self-published map ("Annotated map of ancient polar bear remains of the world")
  • 2 online comments on a peer reviewed paper ("Directionality in polar bear hybridization. Comment")
  • a book ("Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species")
  • her Ph.D. dissertation ("polar bear evolution discussed in detail" means it's covered in a 3-page example)
  • a contribution to a book ("polar bear evolution discussed" means it's covered in two short paragraphs)

The closest thing to a peer-reviewed publication related to polar bears that she herself lists is:

**Crockford, S.J. 2003. Thyroid rhythm phenotypes and hominid evolution: a new paradigm implicates pulsatile hormone secretion in speciation and adaptation changes. International Journal of Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A Vol. 35 (#1, May issue):105-129. http://www.elsevier.com/ [an invited submission; polar bear evolution discussed]

I only have access to the abstract, but the title and the abstract already show that polar bears were not the main object studied for this paper.

Community
  • 1
tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 2
    Just to make sure I understand your answer correctly, you're saying that the Ph.D. dissertation doesn't count because polar bears aren't specifically the primary focus? – reirab Dec 27 '17 at 21:20
  • 2
    @reirab My main point there is that a dissertation isn't "articles in the peer-reviewed literature". But yes, my secondary point is that using polar bears as one short example for her theory which is otherwise not directly related to polar bears isn't really the same as publishing new research which is directly about polar bears. – tim Dec 27 '17 at 21:33
  • 29
    @tim Hmm... I'm not sure how similar it is in biology, but at least from my experiences in Computer Science, a Ph.D. dissertation really seems to push the limits of "not peer-reviewed literature" to me. It doesn't go through the normal process of, say, a journal paper, but it _does_ go through a formal review process by expert peers (the advisory committee and anyone else who shows up for the defense.) Honestly, I'd argue that the peer review of a Ph.D. dissertation is _significantly more rigorous_ than that of the average journal or conference paper. – reirab Dec 27 '17 at 21:40
  • 6
    @reirab That may be true, but I would still say that it would be a stretch to call it "articles in the peer-reviewed literature" (or to say that it is "on polar bears", when it's on domestication and speciation and only using polar bears as one example). – tim Dec 27 '17 at 22:03
  • 5
    @tim Honestly, at least in Computer Science, I wouldn't say it's a stretch at all to call a published Ph.D. dissertation "an article in the peer-reviewed literature" on a given topic. – reirab Dec 27 '17 at 22:08
  • 3
    @reirab - I've only got a CS Masters', but it had the length and novelty requirements for a PhD dissertation (I tried to talk them up, but they weren't buying it :-) ). The review it got and the defense I made weren't nothing, but I wouldn't put in the same class as a peer-reviewed publication. – T.E.D. Dec 27 '17 at 23:02
  • -1 For a couple reasons. First, the peer-reviewed paper is reproduced at the end of the dissertation so you have access to it and can review it. It also means that the dissertation was the "stapler approach," i.e., a collection of peer-reviewed articles. Second, I'm not sure I agree with you about the need to conduct original research in order to be an expert in a field and I would expect a zoologist to be able to develop a firm grasp on the available literature in order to comment on it. – rjzii Dec 28 '17 at 16:06
  • It seems to me you have two prongs to critique: 1) is field work a requirement for original research in advancing our understanding of polar bears? 2) Has Crockford published any peer-reviewed articled exclusively on polar bears as of 2017? The latter question should be pretty easy (appears to be no), but the former question is a lot harder since different fields have different standards for what constituents original research and field work (or laboratory work) is not always a requirement. – rjzii Dec 28 '17 at 16:11
  • Incidentally I don't think that a solid understanding of polar bear evolution is enough to count as original research either unless the dissertation advanced a new theory about polar bear evolution in some way. – rjzii Dec 28 '17 at 16:12
  • Might also be worth mentioning her preprint which reviews and critiques Amstrup's (and other) models on the effect of environmental change on polar bear populations. – matt_black Dec 28 '17 at 19:20
  • What type of Ph.D. dissertation did she have to do? A regular, standalone, one, or one of those addup publications ones? – jjack Dec 28 '17 at 19:42
  • 1
    @rjzii - you seem to be confusing the answerer directly addressing the specific question asked with the answered making some sort of value judgment about those facts ("I'm not sure I agree with you about the need to conduct original research in order to be an expert in a field" - the answer lays out no such requirements, it is focused on polar-bear specific research because that is what was asked about - we are told, specifically, to address the factual parts of what is being asked, not to opine on whether that is valid reasoning, when we answer). I'd ask that you re-evaluate your -1. – PoloHoleSet Dec 28 '17 at 21:04
  • @PoloHoleSet First, be mindful of timestamps since -1's get locked after awhile baring edits. Second, I outlined some factual issues with the answer that need to be addressed since the manuscript mentioned can in fact be reviewed. Third, the answer is using lack of field work as a sign of no original research (OR) and equates OR to be an expert in the field. So either the OP needs to rephrase that to clarify what they mean or they are arguing that field work is a requirement OR and need to support that claim in some way. – rjzii Dec 28 '17 at 21:12
  • 2
    @rjzii - note that this passage has remained unchanged since the first posting of the question - "**Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.** The claim ***highlighted above*** {my emphasis here} seems simple and unambiguous. Is it true?" This is the main thrust of what the OP is asking, and that is why this answer focuses on that aspect. Again, not an assessment option by the person writing the answer, but an aspect specifically asked about by OP. – PoloHoleSet Dec 28 '17 at 22:24
  • 1
    @rjzii - If you feel OP needs to change their question, why does someone answering get -1 for it (I've never had a problem changing a -1)? Also, maybe the OP doesn't feel it's a valid criteria, but still wants to know if that claim is factually accurate or not, regardless. I don't see that OP is saying "is it true that this person is unqualified because......" only "is it true that they have not done this kind of research?" Believe me, it drives me crazy to ignore the underlying premise, but, again, that's what we're supposed to do if not asked about it. – PoloHoleSet Dec 28 '17 at 22:27
  • @PoloHoleSet StackExchange has had a limit on changing votes for awhile now: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5212/what-are-the-limits-on-how-i-can-cast-change-and-retract-votes – rjzii Dec 29 '17 at 02:21
  • 6
    If she isn’t a polar bear expert, but is an expert in something else, it may be useful to indicate what she is an expert in, and how closely related it is to this topic. Is it analogous to an economist writing about the health effects of above-ground nuclear tests for example? – Andrew Grimm Dec 29 '17 at 23:05