• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misogyny in Climate Science

LOL.

Looks like one thing on polar bears...a comment!

The rest is about other stuff....and it looks like it tangentially mentions bears in the context of that other stuff....but a bibliography like that is laughable as a qualification for an academic polar bear expert.

You are parading your ignorance.
 
You are parading your ignorance.

I believe that’s an accurate description of what you did, yes.

An expert in the field generally has multiple publications on the subject of their expertise, and whatever her expertise is... it’s clearly not bears!
 
You are parading your ignorance.

Oh, wait.

In that bibliography, the only thing mentioned was a comment. I figured it must be a published commentary - maybe like a letter to the editor or something- after all, it’s out of ‘Science’, a highly respected journal of the AAAS.

But no!

It’s a ****ing comment on an internet site!

Anyone can write one. And it doesn’t even reference her work- she references other stuff.

Nuclear Genomic Sequences Reveal that Polar Bears Are an Old and Distinct Bear Lineage | Science Comments

Anyone who includes internet posts on their ‘bibliography’ is probably not real distinguished in the field.

Wow. What a spectacular fail. You’re gonna black knight this for a long time.
 
I believe that’s an accurate description of what you did, yes.

An expert in the field generally has multiple publications on the subject of their expertise, and whatever her expertise is... it’s clearly not bears!

Oh, wait.

In that bibliography, the only thing mentioned was a comment. I figured it must be a published commentary - maybe like a letter to the editor or something- after all, it’s out of ‘Science’, a highly respected journal of the AAAS.

But no!

It’s a ****ing comment on an internet site!

Anyone can write one. And it doesn’t even reference her work- she references other stuff.

Nuclear Genomic Sequences Reveal that Polar Bears Are an Old and Distinct Bear Lineage | Science Comments

Anyone who includes internet posts on their ‘bibliography’ is probably not real distinguished in the field.

Wow. What a spectacular fail. You’re gonna black knight this for a long time.

You are free to pick your friends as you see fit. We'll draw our own conclusions.

POLAR-BEAR-GATE

Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 26 Comments
 
I believe that’s an accurate description of what you did, yes.

An expert in the field generally has multiple publications on the subject of their expertise, and whatever her expertise is... it’s clearly not bears!

[h=1]Lying about Susan Crockford and others[/h]Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 50 Comments
This post summarises some of the lies associated with the recent Harvey et al paper. There’s also a request for reader input! See bold italics below. 1. Harvey et al claim that Crockford hasn’t published anything on polar bears. I had a quick look at two of her papers. This 2007 paper mentions polar bears, … Continue reading
 
Oh, wait.

In that bibliography, the only thing mentioned was a comment. I figured it must be a published commentary - maybe like a letter to the editor or something- after all, it’s out of ‘Science’, a highly respected journal of the AAAS.

But no!

It’s a ****ing comment on an internet site!

Anyone can write one. And it doesn’t even reference her work- she references other stuff.

Nuclear Genomic Sequences Reveal that Polar Bears Are an Old and Distinct Bear Lineage | Science Comments

Anyone who includes internet posts on their ‘bibliography’ is probably not real distinguished in the field.

Wow. What a spectacular fail. You’re gonna black knight this for a long time.

[h=3]Terence Corcoran: Canadian finds polar bears are doing fine — and ...[/h]business.financialpost.com/.../terence-corcoran-canadian-finds-polar-bears-are-doing-fin...
1 day ago - Climate activists have targeted Crockford, a zoologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Victoria, because her research inconveniently finds that, despite their claims, polar bears are not at risk. “You don't have to read far in her material to see that it is full of unsubstantiated statements ...
 
You are free to pick your friends as you see fit. We'll draw our own conclusions.

POLAR-BEAR-GATE

Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 26 Comments

Yes. And your conclusion is that someone who has never written a peer reviewed paper on polar bears is a polar bear expert.

That’s astoundingly stupid.

If I write papers on a drug used in surgery, it doesn’t make me an expert on doing the surgery. If I’m an expert on bunnies, it doesn’t make me an expert on hawks because sometimes they prey on bunnies.
 
[h=1]Lying about Susan Crockford and others[/h]Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS50 Comments
This post summarises some of the lies associated with the recent Harvey et al paper. There’s also a request for reader input! See bold italics below. 1. Harvey et al claim that Crockford hasn’t published anything on polar bears. I had a quick look at two of her papers. This 2007 paper mentions polar bears, … Continue reading

Hilarious. The word ‘polar bear’ exists in a paper, so that proves it!

And he desperately asks readers to find other examples for him.

Gee. When faced with an expert, one usually doesn’t have to comb through their papers to find an offhand mention of the sunbelt of their expertise..

What a desperate denier smear job.
 
Oh look, SJWs made it to the climate forum.

And who gives a crap about polar bears? I must once again reiterate that polar bears are ice monsters. Like that thing from Empire Strikes Back. I have no concern whatsoever for the well-being of ice monsters.
 
Yes. And your conclusion is that someone who has never written a peer reviewed paper on polar bears is a polar bear expert.

That’s astoundingly stupid.

If I write papers on a drug used in surgery, it doesn’t make me an expert on doing the surgery. If I’m an expert on bunnies, it doesn’t make me an expert on hawks because sometimes they prey on bunnies.

Hilarious. The word ‘polar bear’ exists in a paper, so that proves it!

And he desperately asks readers to find other examples for him.

Gee. When faced with an expert, one usually doesn’t have to comb through their papers to find an offhand mention of the sunbelt of their expertise..

What a desperate denier smear job.

I suppose denial is one way to deal with embarrassment.
 
Oh look, SJWs made it to the climate forum.

And who gives a crap about polar bears? I must once again reiterate that polar bears are ice monsters. Like that thing from Empire Strikes Back. I have no concern whatsoever for the well-being of ice monsters.

I suppose you think Climate Change will wipe them out like it did the Yeti and Bigfoot.
 
I realize you are a polar bear expert by denier standards (after all, you write anonymously on DP and mention polar bears occasionally!), but National Geographic has a different point of view.

Heart-Wrenching Video Shows Starving Polar Bear on Iceless Land

Of course, National Geographic is not nearly as credible as denier blogs, but yanno....

Polarbeargate
[h=1]Starving polar bears are the fake news face of climate change[/h]By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Climate activists have made polar bears “the face of climate change.” This week we see how they have done so: with fake news. That they do so instead of relying on science tells us much about them — and why they have achieved so few policy…
 
[h=2]Girls rule(s)[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on December 10, 2017 | 24 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
The #MeToo movement is spawning considerable reflection in academia. Here are some reflections and advice from a senior female scientist (moi) who came up through the academic system during the bad old days of the 1970’s and 1980’s, and who has mentored many young female scientists as they navigate the professional world of academia.
Continue reading
 
[h=1]Polar bear attack paper invalidated by non-independent analysis[/h]Posted on 14 Dec 17 by SCEPTICUS 43 Comments
Cross-posted from Shub Niggurath Stephan Lewandowsky has co-authored (yet another) paper attacking climate skeptics. His colleagues-in-arms this time are long-time climate consensusite Jeff Harvey , Bart Verheggen, and a cohort of ecologists along with Michael Mann. First author Harvey is well-known to climate commenters as a rant-prone passionate bulldog for the climate cause. The … Continue r
 

[h=1]The Polar-Bear-Gate Saga: How a picture is worth a thousand lies – Paul Nicklen and Michael Mann vs Susan Crockford[/h]Guest essay by Jim Steele Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism What oddly seems to surprise so many people, reality can quickly disagree with the hypotheses and speculative models of scientists. The polar bear is a rich case in…
Continue reading →
 
[h=2]Polar Bears, Inadequate data and Statistical Lipstick[/h]Dec 18, 2017 – 12:15 PM
lipstbear.jpg

A recent paper Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy by JEFFREY A. HARVEY and 13 others has been creating somewhat of a stir in the blogosphere. The paper’s abstract purports to achieve the following:
Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. 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.* By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.
Reading further into the paper we find that this seems to be yet another piece of propaganda to push a Climate Change agenda. In line with the high standards of climate science “communication”, there are over 50 occurences of various forms of the derogatory labels “denier” or “deny” in a mere five pages of text and two pages of references. Such derogatory language has become commonplace in the climate change academic world and reflects badly on the authors who use it.
Continue reading
 
Polar bears, sexism and climate science denial | HotWhopper

Polar bears, sexism and climate science denial

When a science paper about polar bears generates multiple articles on denier blogs you can see it has hit a nerve. This happened recently when a paper was published, with a classic illustration of how deniers reference each other to make out there is dispute about climate change impacts...

No support for the lone polar bear foe on denier blogs

The protests from deniers came thick and fast. As usual, in writing their articles they amply illustrated the reliability of the findings.

In all the denier articles I looked at, not one of them provided any scientific support for the ideas promoted by Susan Crockford. Not one could find any scientist who agreed with her. Thus providing further evidence supporting the findings of the authors of Harvey17.
 

Just false BS. From the link in #67:

It appears that the paper is meant as a hit piece on Dr. Susan Crockford who has done work on bears and presents some of her results on her blog . She maintains that polar bears are currently doing reasonably well and this seems to have bothered the authors of the paper. Interestingly enough, they reluctantly admit the polar bears ARE doing well enough now, and seem to be upset that others may not be totally convinced that the projected catastrophe will occur as scheduled or that the bears might be able to adapt as they have for centuries.
 
Just false BS. From the link in #67:

It appears that the paper is meant as a hit piece on Dr. Susan Crockford who has done work on bears and presents some of her results on her blog . She maintains that polar bears are currently doing reasonably well and this seems to have bothered the authors of the paper. Interestingly enough, they reluctantly admit the polar bears ARE doing well enough now, and seem to be upset that others may not be totally convinced that the projected catastrophe will occur as scheduled or that the bears might be able to adapt as they have for centuries.

Yes. The polar bear ‘expert’ that you proved was an expert because she commented on an article on polar bears on a website. Once.
 
Yes. The polar bear ‘expert’ that you proved was an expert because she commented on an article on polar bears on a website. Once.

And yet even her vicious, misogynistic critics are compelled to concede she got it right.
 
The remarks are in the linked text.
I will not waste a single erg defending DJT.

The accused scientists in the article may or may not be misogynists. It has nothing to do with the soundness of climate change science.
 
Back
Top Bottom