Scientific papers are often dull, worthy screeds, difficult to read and hard to understand without considerable effort, but sometimes they are an absolute pleasure. I can heartily recommend Amstrup et al. Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”, Interfaces (2009) pp. 1-17 [PDF, Woods Hole press release] as a fine example of clarity and concision — and a classic slap down of “researchers” who haven’t taken the trouble to understand what they’re writing about. The rebuttal is of a paper by Armstrong, Green and Soon (AGS) (Armstrong et al. Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, Interfaces (2008) pp. 382-405 [PDF]) in the same journal last year. AGS was highly critical of two US Geological Survey papers that were instrumental in persuading the authorities to list polar bears as an endangered species. The AGS “audit” paper is extensively quoted in Ian Wishart’s Air Con, in the chapter where he explains why the bears aren’t in trouble, so by way of correction (because you won’t be getting one from him), here’s what Amstrup et al have to say…
Skip to content
Global warming and the future of New Zealand