On Jun 30, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Daniel B. Botkin <danielbotkin@rcn.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Reece,
Thanks first for posting my testimony and second for reporting this statement to me. Of course I did not lie and never have.
The documentation concerning Vongraven admissions about the polar bear counts are given below and in attachments.
What shall we do to correct the statement that I “lied’? Do you suggest we put up the entire information below? That is all right with me. If the writer uses a fake name, then that should be called out as well.
The main point, of course, is that Vongraven admits that the IUCN statements that polar bears are declining has no scientific validity. The attack on me is an attempt to hide the reality of this statement, thereby keeping the falsehood that polar bears are declining as if it were true and scientifically correct. This point should also be made on your website.
I mentioned this “lied” statement to colleagues, and they urge me to put up a note to the effect that this is defamation of character and if we can find out the actual name of the writer, I would bring a lawsuit against him. This may be way beyond what is necessary at this point, but I do take these accusations seriously.
Please let me know that you have received this reply.
Dan Botkin
Assertions by Vongraven (see attachments as well).
The Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystem Report of the IPCC 2014 cites: Vongraven, D., and Richardson, E., 2011: Biodiversity - status and trends of polar bears. Arctic Report Card:
Update for 2011, 2012, from http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcar...lar_bears.html. I put this url into my computer just now and it says that this is no longer available. However,
the statement by Vongraven is also on http://polarbearscience.com/tag/dag-...ven/(attached), from which I quote:
Tag Archives: Dag Vongraven
Polar bear population now officially 13,071-24,238 says IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
Posted on February 14, 2014 | Comments Off
Without fanfare of any kind (so far), the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has just announced, via a notice posted on its website, that it has revised the population estimate for polar bears to 18,349 (range 13,071-24,238), based on a new status table posted today.
The average is down slightly from the 2009 estimate of 19,747 (which was officially stated as “20,000-25,000″), but that “decline” is an illusion.
In addition, Vongraven has admitted in writing to Susan Crockford that “It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and “the global estimates were “…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used (see footnote below).” These and additional statements by him are attached.
From: John Reece [mailto:jnareece@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:36 AM
To: dan@danielbbotkin.com
Subject: House of Representatives Written Testimony
Dear Dr. Botkin:
I posted your written testimony before the House of Representatives on a website to which I am a posting member. As a consequence, in response to your point #14, an anonymous college professor of some sort of science who goes by the pseudonym of “lao tzu” posted a rebuttal in which he suggested that you lied in that part of your testimony. I cannot believe you lied, and I do not wish to leave the suggestion that you did unanswered. However, I am an octogenarian in very poor health and am also a neophyte re science, so am not capable of responding in your stead. I hope you can provide a clarification that I may post in defense of your point.
Here is the context in which it was suggested that you lied:
Dear Mr. Reece,
Thanks first for posting my testimony and second for reporting this statement to me. Of course I did not lie and never have.
The documentation concerning Vongraven admissions about the polar bear counts are given below and in attachments.
What shall we do to correct the statement that I “lied’? Do you suggest we put up the entire information below? That is all right with me. If the writer uses a fake name, then that should be called out as well.
The main point, of course, is that Vongraven admits that the IUCN statements that polar bears are declining has no scientific validity. The attack on me is an attempt to hide the reality of this statement, thereby keeping the falsehood that polar bears are declining as if it were true and scientifically correct. This point should also be made on your website.
I mentioned this “lied” statement to colleagues, and they urge me to put up a note to the effect that this is defamation of character and if we can find out the actual name of the writer, I would bring a lawsuit against him. This may be way beyond what is necessary at this point, but I do take these accusations seriously.
Please let me know that you have received this reply.
Dan Botkin
Assertions by Vongraven (see attachments as well).
The Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystem Report of the IPCC 2014 cites: Vongraven, D., and Richardson, E., 2011: Biodiversity - status and trends of polar bears. Arctic Report Card:
Update for 2011, 2012, from http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcar...lar_bears.html. I put this url into my computer just now and it says that this is no longer available. However,
the statement by Vongraven is also on http://polarbearscience.com/tag/dag-...ven/(attached), from which I quote:
Tag Archives: Dag Vongraven
Polar bear population now officially 13,071-24,238 says IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
Posted on February 14, 2014 | Comments Off
Without fanfare of any kind (so far), the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has just announced, via a notice posted on its website, that it has revised the population estimate for polar bears to 18,349 (range 13,071-24,238), based on a new status table posted today.
The average is down slightly from the 2009 estimate of 19,747 (which was officially stated as “20,000-25,000″), but that “decline” is an illusion.
In addition, Vongraven has admitted in writing to Susan Crockford that “It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and “the global estimates were “…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used (see footnote below).” These and additional statements by him are attached.
From: John Reece [mailto:jnareece@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 9:36 AM
To: dan@danielbbotkin.com
Subject: House of Representatives Written Testimony
Dear Dr. Botkin:
I posted your written testimony before the House of Representatives on a website to which I am a posting member. As a consequence, in response to your point #14, an anonymous college professor of some sort of science who goes by the pseudonym of “lao tzu” posted a rebuttal in which he suggested that you lied in that part of your testimony. I cannot believe you lied, and I do not wish to leave the suggestion that you did unanswered. However, I am an octogenarian in very poor health and am also a neophyte re science, so am not capable of responding in your stead. I hope you can provide a clarification that I may post in defense of your point.
Here is the context in which it was suggested that you lied:
Originally posted by lao tzu
Comment