• 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!

Polar Bears Are Thriving

Threegoofs said:
Well, she’s got a blog.

And published papers on evolutionary theory, a couple of which sorta mentioned polar bears, so that makes her a towering expert on population biology in denier minds.
Click to expand...

snakestretcher said:
Ah, a blog. Yep, that seals it:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

When the orthodox paradigm fails to explain observations, a new paradigm will emerge from the fringes. Please see Thomas Kuhn, ​The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
 
Jack Hays said:
When the orthodox paradigm fails to explain observations, a new paradigm will emerge from the fringes. Please see Thomas Kuhn, ​The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Click to expand...

Fringe, indeed.

What you seem to miss is that there’s lots of fringes, the vast majority of which are raving nutcases.

See homeopathy, anti vaxxers, naturopathy, flat earth theory, etc etc
 
Threegoofs said:
Fringe, indeed.

What you seem to miss is that there’s lots of fringes, the vast majority of which are raving nutcases.

See homeopathy, anti vaxxers, naturopathy, flat earth theory, etc etc
Click to expand...

Irrelevant whataboutism. Crocker has been uniformly right and her critics have been uniformly wrong. That's why they've gone silent.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

You keep saying that.

Must be comforting to have a mantra.
Click to expand...

Failed Amstrup polar bear predictions have climate change community ...


Failed Amstrup polar bear predictions have climate change community in a panic | polarbearscience...



Jan 4, 2018 - Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 16400 polar bears ... the predicted decline of 67% of the population (i.e. 24,500 bears) ...

. . . I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal, which has now been downloaded almost 2,000 times (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2017).
crockford-2017_slide-12-screencap.jpg

My paper demonstrates that the polar bear/seaice decline hypothesis, particularly the one developed by Steven Amstrup, is a failure. I’m not the only one who thinks so, as emails obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service show. The argument the paper lays out and the facts it presents have not been challenged by any one of the consensus polar bear experts who object to it so strenuously. Instead, they have chosen to misrepresent my work, and publicly belittle my credentials and scientific integrity in the published literature (Harvey et al. 2017) and online. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Failed Amstrup polar bear predictions have climate change community ...


Failed Amstrup polar bear predictions have climate change community in a panic | polarbearscience...



Jan 4, 2018 - Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 16400 polar bears ... the predicted decline of 67% of the population (i.e. 24,500 bears) ...

. . . I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal, which has now been downloaded almost 2,000 times (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2017).
crockford-2017_slide-12-screencap.jpg

My paper demonstrates that the polar bear/seaice decline hypothesis, particularly the one developed by Steven Amstrup, is a failure. I’m not the only one who thinks so, as emails obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service show. The argument the paper lays out and the facts it presents have not been challenged by any one of the consensus polar bear experts who object to it so strenuously. Instead, they have chosen to misrepresent my work, and publicly belittle my credentials and scientific integrity in the published literature (Harvey et al. 2017) and online. . . .
Click to expand...

LOL.

Her ‘papers’.

It’s a blog post written for an online journal that most likely charges for publication.

The warning not to take these seriously is prominently displayed at the top!

But, suckers are going to fall for anything they decide they want to hear.

f8cac5f9e839bd2055d201f92e8cb724.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Her ‘papers’.

It’s a blog post written for an online journal that most likely charges for publication.

The warning not to take these seriously is prominently displayed at the top!

But, suckers are going to fall for anything they decide they want to hear.
Click to expand...

It's a perfectly legitimate venue. When you're ready to stop hiding out behind ad hominems let me know. And again, she has been uniformly right while her critics have been uniformly wrong.

PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific mega journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. ... The company is a member of CrossRef, CLOCKSS, ORCID, and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

[h=3]PeerJ - Wikipedia[/h]
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerJ
[/URL]


 
Jack Hays said:
It's a perfectly legitimate venue. When you're ready to stop hiding out behind ad hominems let me know. And again, she has been uniformly right while her critics have been uniformly wrong.

PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific mega journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. ... The company is a member of CrossRef, CLOCKSS, ORCID, and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

[h=3]PeerJ - Wikipedia[/h]
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerJ
[/URL]
Click to expand...

Yeah. But her stuff... isn’t peer reviewed.

Non-gullible people can read the screenshot I posted.

All others will just deny, deny, deny.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. But her stuff... isn’t peer reviewed.

Non-gullible people can read the screenshot I posted.

All others will just deny, deny, deny.
Click to expand...

As you wish.

[FONT=&quot]PeerJ is complemented by a preprint service named PeerJ Preprints which launched on April 3, 2013.[SUP][10][/SUP] The low costs were said to be in part achieved by using cloud infrastructure: both PeerJ and PeerJ Preprints run on Amazon EC2, with the content stored on Amazon S3.[SUP][11][/SUP][/FONT]
 
snakestretcher said:
Ah, a blog. Yep, that seals it:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Ah the lack of any cogent counterpoints on your part, invalidates your childish attempts to smear people you don't like. Jack is correct because she made her case well, which is why their response was a very public smearing lying attack. That is why after many rational people responded in her defense, they went quiet not long after.

Cheers.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but they've published nothing to contradict her. And they're keeping quiet about their earlier predictions of a bear apocalypse. They know better now.
Click to expand...

I always find it hilarious that they can't bother to try a real debate on it, just smear and complain is what they offer, which is self defeating and damages their credibility.

lwf in this thread was the only one who tried to discuss it, and his reply to my reply was calm and useful (Thank You). It would be nice if others tried a real debate, but alas...……………...
 
Sunsettommy said:
I always find it hilarious that they can't bother to try a real debate on it, just smear and complain is what they offer, which is self defeating and damages their credibility.

lwf in this thread was the only one who tried to discuss it, and his reply to my reply was calm and useful (Thank You). It would be nice if others tried a real debate, but alas...……………...
Click to expand...

The ‘real debate’ occurs at scientific meetings and in scientific literature.

Neither of those places feature your bloggers.
 
Jack Hays said:
They will have to catch up to Dr. Crockford first.
Click to expand...

He doesn't seem to realize Dr. Crockford DID post her paper in her expose of the Armstrup contention that Sea Ice cover is critical to the Polar Bears survival, which Crockford shows is unsupportable as the population defiantly continues to go up for the next decade with no change in sight.

I doubt he ever seen her paper at all.
 
Sunsettommy said:
He doesn't seem to realize Dr. Crockford DID post her paper in her expose of the Armstrup contention that Sea Ice cover is critical to the Polar Bears survival, which Crockford shows is unsupportable as the population defiantly continues to go up for the next decade with no change in sight.

I doubt he ever seen her paper at all.
Click to expand...

3d1bae72fc5e1c6df345218cf46ce225.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jack Hays said:
Not an argument, just a smokescreen to cover your retreat. There is no comparable thrashing in science like the one Crockford has administered to her opponents.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, he doesn't realize WHERE they posted the smearing attack paper at all, populated by people who doesn't do ANY research on Polar Bears.

What is Lewandowski, Mann doing on the list?

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

It is just a PDF presentation originally without the bit of data that had be strongly requested, which Verheggen eventually provided.


Here is a good list of responses by ZOOLOGIST Professor Dr. Crockford and others, who scorched that PDF abomination:

Two technical critiques of the Harvey et al. polar bear Bioscience attack paper

Here is excerpted teaser from the link:

UPDATE 19 December 2017: Richard Tol has posted a draft of his critique, which was itself updated 20 December “Lipstick on a bear” in which he concludes:

“In sum, Harvey et al. (2017) play a statistical game of smoke and mirrors. They validate their data, collected by an unclear process, by comparing it to data of unknown provenance. They artificially inflate the dimensionality of their data only to reduce that dimensionality using a principal component analysis. They pretend their results are two dimensional where there is only one dimension. They suggest that there are many nuanced positions where there are only a few stark ones – at least, in their data. On a topic as complex as this, there are of course many nuanced positions; the jitter applied conceals the poor quality of Harvey’s data. They show that these is disagreement on the vulnerability of polar bears to climate change, but offer no new evidence who is right or wrong – apart from a fallacious argument from authority, with a “majority view” taken from an unrepresentative sample. Once the substandard statistical application to poor data is removed, what remains is a not-so-veiled attempt at a colleague’s reputation.”
 
[h=2]This week: New book release & Glenn Beck interview talking about polar bear numbers[/h]Posted on March 17, 2019 | Comments Offon This week: New book release & Glenn Beck interview talking about polar bear numbers
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened is almost here! The book is scheduled for release (in paperback and ebook formats) on Tuesday 19 March 2019. Tuesday is also the day I’ll be talking to Glenn Beck on his radio show (11 am ET) about polar bear population numbers and my book. How many polar bears are really out there now, you ask? My book has a credible new answer that may surprise you. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]This week: New book release & Glenn Beck interview talking about polar bear numbers[/h]Posted on March 17, 2019 | Comments Offon This week: New book release & Glenn Beck interview talking about polar bear numbers
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened is almost here! The book is scheduled for release (in paperback and ebook formats) on Tuesday 19 March 2019. Tuesday is also the day I’ll be talking to Glenn Beck on his radio show (11 am ET) about polar bear population numbers and my book. How many polar bears are really out there now, you ask? My book has a credible new answer that may surprise you. . . .
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck...

Sounds about right.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened

Sounds like a good read.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I’m sure it is for all the Glenn Beck audience.

I guess when you write a book like that, you do all the conspiracy theory shows.

Alex Jones next?

LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
I’m sure it is for all the Glenn Beck audience.

I guess when you write a book like that, you do all the conspiracy theory shows.

Alex Jones next?

LOL
Click to expand...

Her critics have been hiding since being thrashed by the data. Now she's calling them out for a public accounting. Should be fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom