Crockford Fights Back

[IanC]

Retraction request to Bioscience: FOIA emails document another harsh criticism of Amstrup’s 2007 polar bear model

Michael Mann and a gang of climate crusaders just published a slanderous paper deriding 'denier blogs'.

Crockford was singled out to send a warning to any scientist that might break with climate consensus.

She is fighting back by producing evidence for her position and demanding the paper be retracted.

She has been vocal on the weaknesses of the evidence provided to put Polar Bears on the threatened list. Interestingly enough, a tranche of emails obtained by someone else shows that many of scientists in the main working group for polar bears expressed the same concerns and were not pleased that incomplete and misleading materials were put forward leading to the wrong conclusion.


This latest paper with Mann as an author is emblematic of the problems of climate science. Poor peer review, advocacy rather than science, bullying of alternate views, etc.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee -- you think restricting permits for HUNTING Polar Bears -- might be a 1st step? Obviously, if many nations are doing it -- they must not be endangered enough....

 

[IanC]

Gee -- you think restricting permits for HUNTING Polar Bears -- might be a 1st step? Obviously, if many nations are doing it -- they must not be endangered enough....

Sure, I guess.

I'm more concerned about the misdirections. I don't remember the exact numbers but it goes like this. There are ten subpopulations, four are thriving, four are remaining constant and two are dwindling. The two that are dwindling only account for five percent of the total population and it is unclear as to how long their numbers have been dropping and what the reasons are. Animal populations always change. Focusing on the evolutionary losers may not be the best method of checking the health of the species as a whole.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee -- you think restricting permits for HUNTING Polar Bears -- might be a 1st step? Obviously, if many nations are doing it -- they must not be endangered enough....

Sure, I guess.

I'm more concerned about the misdirections. I don't remember the exact numbers but it goes like this. There are ten subpopulations, four are thriving, four are remaining constant and two are dwindling. The two that are dwindling only account for five percent of the total population and it is unclear as to how long their numbers have been dropping and what the reasons are. Animal populations always change. Focusing on the evolutionary losers may not be the best method of checking the health of the species as a whole.

Sorry to trip you up.. LOL.. It just seems like high caliber rifles are a BIGGER threat to Polar Bears right now than Global Warming..

 

[IanC]

Gee -- you think restricting permits for HUNTING Polar Bears -- might be a 1st step? Obviously, if many nations are doing it -- they must not be endangered enough....

Sure, I guess.

I'm more concerned about the misdirections. I don't remember the exact numbers but it goes like this. There are ten subpopulations, four are thriving, four are remaining constant and two are dwindling. The two that are dwindling only account for five percent of the total population and it is unclear as to how long their numbers have been dropping and what the reasons are. Animal populations always change. Focusing on the evolutionary losers may not be the best method of checking the health of the species as a whole.

Sorry to trip you up.. LOL.. It just seems like high caliber rifles are a BIGGER threat to Polar Bears right now than Global Warming..

Yes, especially in Russia.

A few years ago Crockford posted up the paths taken by tagged bears. One female spent over a month swimming in an area that supposedly had no ice in it. Who should we believe? I know bears are strong swimmers but really.... I wonder if she had cubs with her.

 

[mamooth]

The good paper:

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy | BioScience | Oxford Academic

It points out how deniers are herd animals. The only reference each other's crap science, and willfully refuse to look at any accurate science. Hence, the paper really triggered the deniers, because they hate it when you point out how they act. Plus, Lewandowsky was one of the 14 authors, and deniers have sworn jihad against him, being he keeps pointing out how deniers work so hard to fool themselves. It's part of the denier Alinskyite strategy -- always attack the person, not the substance. See how Ian attacked Mann?

The paper that Crockford put forth as her opus and demanded everyone look at was not peer-reviewed, thus reinforcing the point that she's done no peer-reviewed science on polar bears. The paper also makes a fundamental mistake of assuming summer sea ice coverage and September sea ice coverage are the same thing. Peer review would have caught that humongous blunder.