• 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!

Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past

Lord of Planar said:
You actually read them, or trust what the pundits say?
Click to expand...

I have read a few of them.. not all of them. I have read enough of them to know that, well, certain sources the climate deniers rely on are inaccurate
 
RAMOSS said:
I have read a few of them.. not all of them. I have read enough of them to know that, well, certain sources the climate deniers rely on are inaccurate
Click to expand...

I have several subscriptions. The way they are worded is very telling.
 
Rosie1 said:
Tell that to the polar bears.
Click to expand...

The Polar bears who are at their highest population numbers in decades and are doing just fine (not to mention have lived through 100k+ years of climate changing already)?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess when you listen to deniers, bloggers and Fox News, this might be your perception.

But when you ask people who actually devote their careers to studying this stuff...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...oodbye-to-polar-bears/?utm_term=.7220f4a7e97e
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't read your paywall.

I guess when you devote your life to listening to alarmists, it might seem that way. But when you look at actual facts......

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/0...on-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

Summary of polar bear population status per 2017
 
Casper said:
So, in other words, you discount facts that do not meet your opinions, no surprise there.
Click to expand...

They didn't present any facts. They made claims and predictions. And as i noted, they attribute their chicken little claims to sea ice despite the FACTS that Nasa just got done telling us sea ice just the other year was at a new maximum - a RECORD maximum. And every year thus far since has had high sea ice levels.
 
Gondwanaland said:
Sorry, can't read your paywall.

I guess when you devote your life to listening to alarmists, it might seem that way. But when you look at actual facts......

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/0...on-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

Summary of polar bear population status per 2017
Click to expand...

Your blog is written by someone who has literally no peer reviewed publications on Polar Bears in the literature at all, and is only relied on as an expert by science deniers.

Climate denier blogs ignore sea ice and polar bear science, study finds - Technology & Science - CBC News

The climate-science-denying blogs were really highlighting the negative aspects of uncertainty. They were also using rhetorical devices that were also about name-calling, implying that environmental scientists were not trustworthy."

The denier blogs also reinforced each other through mutual links. The same names surfaced again and again, said Harvey.

"There's a bit of an echo chamber."

About 80 per cent of denier blogs cited the work of University of Victoria zoologist Susan Crockford, even though she has published almost no peer-reviewed research on polar bears and hasn't done any field studies.

Crockford, who writes the Polar Bear Science blog, has been associated with think-tank the Heartland Institute, which denies climate change, and spoke at one of its conferences as recently as last spring.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Your blog is written by someone who has literally no peer reviewed publications on Polar Bears in the literature at all, and is only relied on as an expert by science deniers.

Climate denier blogs ignore sea ice and polar bear science, study finds - Technology & Science - CBC News
Click to expand...

What a joke. Harvey et al is trash.


[h=1]Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear[/h]Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…

December 26, 2017 in Polarbeargate.
 
Jack Hays said:
What a joke. Harvey et al is trash.


[h=1]Putting lipstick on Lewandowsky’s pig, er, polar bear[/h]Guest essay by Dr. Richard Tol In their eagerness to discredit a colleague[1] Harvey et al. (2017) got ahead of themselves. The write-up shows signs of haste – typographical errors (“principle component analysis”, “refereces cited”) and nonsensical statements (“95% normal probability”) escaped the attention of the 14 authors, 3 referees and editor – but so does…

December 26, 2017 in Polarbeargate.
Click to expand...

As I said. When you get your information from bloggers (especially the disreputable ones you link), you’re generally wrong.
 
Threegoofs said:
As I said. When you get your information from bloggers (especially the disreputable ones you link), you’re generally wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll take Richard Tol over any of the Harvey et al authors, or all of them together, for that matter.

Richard Tol - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Richard_Tol


Richard S. J. Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is a member of the Academia Europaea. Contents.
Academic career

Climate change

Copenhagen Consensus

Climate change and ...


 
Gondwanaland said:
Sorry, can't read your paywall.

I guess when you devote your life to listening to alarmists, it might seem that way. But when you look at actual facts......

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/0...on-larger-than-previous-thought-almost-30000/

Summary of polar bear population status per 2017
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
As I said. When you get your information from bloggers (especially the disreputable ones you link), you’re generally wrong.
Click to expand...

The dirty little secret is that Crockford has been consistently right and her critics have been consistently wrong. That's why they want to talk about their credentials rather than the data.
 
Jack Hays said:
The dirty little secret is that Crockford has been consistently right and her critics have been consistently wrong. That's why they want to talk about their credentials rather than the data.
Click to expand...

Well... no.

She’s completely on the other side of what actual researchers in the area are finding.

That’s the whole point. She’s repeatedly sourced by deniers to support their views (80% of denier blogs promote her work) but no polar bear experts ever cite her..probably because she has contributed *nothing* to the field.

I mean, it’s a nice little sidelight for her, since she’s literally on the monthly payroll of Heartland.

Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed | DeSmogBlog
 
Threegoofs said:
Well... no.

She’s completely on the other side of what actual researchers in the area are finding.

That’s the whole point. She’s repeatedly sourced by deniers to support their views (80% of denier blogs promote her work) but no polar bear experts ever cite her..probably because she has contributed *nothing* to the field.

I mean, it’s a nice little sidelight for her, since she’s literally on the monthly payroll of Heartland.

Heartland Payments to University of Victoria Professor Susan Crockford Probed | DeSmogBlog
Click to expand...

As you also want to discuss anything but the data. She has been right and they have been wrong. That's why they attack her personally rather than address her research. There's thread about this: Misogyny in Climate Science.

Heartland? Who cares?
 
Jack Hays said:
As you also want to discuss anything but the data. She has been right and they have been wrong. That's why they attack her personally rather than address her research. There's thread about this: Misogyny in Climate Science.

Heartland? Who cares?
Click to expand...

No. One of the points of the paper you cited is that she HAS no research directly related to polar bears!

For someone to be an expert on polar bear populations, most people would expect a person who does field work in the areas of population biology of the bears, or maybe studies the interplay of habitat loss and bear populations.

She...doesn’t.

Literally not ONE peer reviewed paper on the topic!
 
Threegoofs said:
No. One of the points of the paper you cited is that she HAS no research directly related to polar bears!

For someone to be an expert on polar bear populations, most people would expect a person who does field work in the areas of population biology of the bears, or maybe studies the interplay of habitat loss and bear populations.

She...doesn’t.

Literally not ONE peer reviewed paper on the topic!
Click to expand...

Here's the real problem.


[h=1]Ten dire polar bear predictions that have failed as global population hits 20-31k[/h]Guest essay by Dr. Susan Crockford Grim predictions of the imminent demise of polar bears – their “harsh prophetic reality” as it’s been called – have been touted since at least 2001. But such depressing prophesies have so widely missed the mark they can now be said to have failed. While polar bears may…

February 25, 2016 in Polarbeargate.
 
Threegoofs said:
No. One of the points of the paper you cited is that she HAS no research directly related to polar bears!

For someone to be an expert on polar bear populations, most people would expect a person who does field work in the areas of population biology of the bears, or maybe studies the interplay of habitat loss and bear populations.

She...doesn’t.

Literally not ONE peer reviewed paper on the topic!
Click to expand...

Lying about Susan Crockford and others

Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • Leave a comment
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
 
Jack Hays said:
Lying about Susan Crockford and others

Posted on 06 Dec 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • Leave a comment
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
Click to expand...

LOL.

The proof she’s an expert on polar bears is that the mentioned them in a caption for a figure in one paper, and discussed their speciation from brown bears in another!

that’s not research.

And it definitely doesn’t make her an expert, except among crackpots who want to pretend she is because she’s paid to say what they like.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

The proof she’s an expert on polar bears is that the mentioned them in a caption for a figure in one paper, and discussed their speciation from brown bears in another!

that’s not research.

And it definitely doesn’t make her an expert, except among crackpots who want to pretend she is because she’s paid to say what they like.
Click to expand...

And yet she has been consistently right and her critics have been consistently wrong. That's why they have to attack her personally.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

The proof she’s an expert on polar bears is that the mentioned them in a caption for a figure in one paper, and discussed their speciation from brown bears in another!

that’s not research.

And it definitely doesn’t make her an expert, except among crackpots who want to pretend she is because she’s paid to say what they like.
Click to expand...

This is really damning for Crockford's critics.


[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…

December 15, 2017 in Polarbeargate.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

The proof she’s an expert on polar bears is that the mentioned them in a caption for a figure in one paper, and discussed their speciation from brown bears in another!

that’s not research.

And it definitely doesn’t make her an expert, except among crackpots who want to pretend she is because she’s paid to say what they like.
Click to expand...

This should end the nonsense.



An interview with Dr. Susan Crockford on the Harvey et al. attack paper over polar bear research

As many readers know, there was a erroneous and malicious paper recently published by The journal Bioscience titled Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy, (Harvey et al. 2017) covered here and here by WUWT, along with a request for retraction here. The person who was the focus of the 14 authors of the Harvey…

December 7, 2017 in Polarbeargate.

. . . All of the ballyhoo about me being on the “payroll” of The Heartland Institute (or “supported” by them) that keeps making the rounds is nonsense. From 2011 to 2013, I was paid $750 a month (the equivalent of one day’s income for me, on a contract), to make summaries of published papers relating to vertebrate animals (my specialty) that I thought might not be covered by the IPCC report.
These were to be included in the NIPCC report to ensure that a balanced perspective of the literature was available to the public, which the Heartland Institute published. Heartland had no input on what papers I looked at or what I wrote. The monthly payments ended (as did the contract) when my work on the NIPCC report was finished in early 2014. I have not received any money from Heartland since, except for travel expenses to their 2017 conference.
I must say it is insulting beyond words to suggest, as many continue to do, that the output of a respected scientist like me could be “bought” in this way at all, let alone bought so cheaply. Those who make those accusations imply I am not just a whore, but a cheap whore!
Ian Stirling took tens-to-hundreds-of-thousands of dollars worth of oil money during the course of his career to carry out his polar bear research in the Arctic, yet no one questions if this biased his work.
That is the correct response: I have no reason to believe it ever influenced his work one way or another. Despite my criticisms of what Stirling has done recently, I have never suggested that what kind of organization paid for his research over the years ever biased his results. Oil money provided the foundation of polar bear research, now its “greenwash” | polarbearscience . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom