Polar Bear Battles Continue
The Sep-Oct 2008 issue of Interfaces contained an article by Armstrong, Green, and Soon (AGS) questioning the forecasting methodology used to support listing of polar bears as an endangered species (see this greenOR post). Well, those original forecasters (Amstrup (USGS) et al.) have responded to the criticisms with an article in the July-Aug 2009 issue. A choice quote from the abstract: “We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim.”
I do like the publication of these back and forth arguments, not something you see with most papers. The authors really must dig in deep and support their claims. And the reader is provided with a more in-depth view of the work. A couple of other examples of this were the entropy article mentioned in the previous post, and the green building articles mentioned in this post “Update: LEED building study”.