Prof. who found polar bears thriving despite climate change is fired.

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   
   This is one more example that Climate Change is no longer science based on facts and research.  It has become a political ideology fueled by misinformation.  It is now a tool to punish those who don't want to follow this failed ideology.
   
   
   “After 15 years as an adjunct assistant professor, Ms. Crockford said the University of Victoria rejected without explanation in May her renewal application, despite her high profile as a speaker and author stemming from her widely cited research on polar bears and dog domestication.
   
   Ms. Crockford accused officials at the Canadian university of bowing to “outside pressure,” the result of her research showing that polar bear populations are stable and even thriving, not plummeting as a result of shrinking Arctic sea ice, defying claims of the climate change movement.”
   
   https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … -bears-th/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Why do you make this stuff up? Do you think it can't be researched and found to be false?"
      
      Sound familiar?
      
      In this case it's not a typo. Even simple research will show overwhelming evidence of polar bear decline.
      
      Crockford also was getting paid off by the climate-denying Heartland Institute. No wonder she got fired.
      
      "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."
      
      Any more fake news to share?
      
      https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/p … ge-action#
      https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/clim … -1.4424956
      https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-pa … ord-probed

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         As usual, this was reported by Rush Limbaugh earlier today. His loyal listeners fall for hisfake  crap every time, as we see on this thread. 

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't know you listened to Rush Limbaugh. Are you one of his loyal listeners?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I like to hear what the radical right puts their faith in, Mike. I use all sorts of info for my opinions, not just those I agree with. Fox listeners and watchers seem to only believe their opinionated spiel, such as this subject...

               replyreport
      2. 96

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         “Ms. Crockford cited numerous instances of the university promoting her interviews and work, including her participation in a 2007 PBS “Nature” documentary about dog domestication and evolution, as well as her appearances at K-12 schools and adult groups for 10 years through the University of Victoria Speakers Bureau.”
         
         SO, for over a decade she was a favorite of the University as long as she towed the line.
         
         “The statement fell short of denying that Ms. Crockford’s dismissal was linked to her polar bear scholarship, which almost single-handedly blew up the climate change movement’s promotion of the bears as iconic victims of anthropogenic global warming.
         
         Her books include “The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened,” published in February, in which she said the bears are not threatened. She noted that the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s 2015 Red List of Threatened Species puts polar bear numbers at 22,000 to 31,000 despite a widespread belief that the population has dropped to a few thousand.”
         
         So, everything was good for over 15 years until she published a book and started to doubt Polar Bears being threatened.
         
         She is not alone.
         
         “Even the National Geographic, which put out the video, was somewhat circumspect in its conclusion about the bear, noting, "As a whole, polar bear populations around the world are not in immediate peril."
         
         https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … lar-bears/
         
         “Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying.”
         
         https://business.financialpost.com/opin … eyre-dying
         
         You may need to work on your comprehension of the concept of fake news.  Just a suggestion.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for fulfilling my request for more fake news.
            
            Your first link gooes to an opinion column on a financial website that caters to conservative readers.
            
            The second link goes to a column by the very same Crockford who got fired for taking payoffs from climate deniers.
            
            That's your idea of credibility?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               See, in news organizations, people take stories from other publications to make a story.  It is very common.  So, the publication really doesn't matter.  The places it referenced are what you should complain about.  If you have an issue with National Geographic it's on you.  I thought you'd know about such a thing.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL. That makes zero sense.
                  
                  One more time, but simpler. You are defending Crockburn's credibility with her own opinion piece.
                  
                  That's like claiming Trump is the greatest president in American history just because Trump wrote an article claiming that he is.

                  replyreport
            2. 96

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Wrong again.  She provides research data.  She makes a claim and then provides research.  If you looked at both links you'd find National Geographic and others support her theory.
               
               Frome the Canadian Government - "As the Canadian Post noted, "According to data collected by the federal government, polar bears along the entire west coast of Baffin Island are 'stable.' On the southeastern side of the island (around the Nunavut capital of Iqaluit) polar bears have even experienced a 'likely increase.' It's only on the island's northeastern corner — in a management area that meets Greenland — that polar bears are suspected to be in decline."
               
               
               According to the Norwegian Polar Institute - “It should be noted that in other countries with significant polar bear populations, including Norway and Russia, polar bear populations are increasing. On Norway's Svalbard Island, for instance, the Norwegian Polar Institute reported a 42% increase from 2004 to 2015. Russia also reports increases."
               
               So, she is not alone. 
               
               Also, the University never denied they fired her because of her views about Polar bear populations.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Deflection from my points.
                  
                  Regardless, provide links to back up these new cherrypicking claims

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     They're in the story I provided.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Endless entertainment. Once again, you are backing up your claims with opinions from discredited sources.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           If you want to call the Canadian government, Norwegian Polar Institute and National Geographic discredited sources, that speaks volumes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              No, goofy guy, that's what your fired professor claimed.
                              
                              Get proof from credible sources and not from a part-time teacher who got fired for taking payoffs from climate deniers.

                              replyreport
                              1. 96

                                 Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, should you ever want me to impress me with your reading skills, you will find those quotes and that information from article.  There are links to that research.  This is what THESE organizations claim.

                                 replyreport
         2. 0

            promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            By the way, Crockford was an "adjunct" assistant professor for 15 years at the same university. You apparently don't know what an adjunct professor is.
            
            It's someone who teaches a few classes part-time without tenure. They get an annual contract that the unversity can renew or not.
            
            That means Crockford was not a good enough teacher or researcher to get full-time tenture after 15 years of working there.
            
            You may need to read more. Just a suggestion.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               "That means Crockford was not a good enough teacher or researcher to get full-time tenture after 15 years of working there."
               
               You should provide more facts and less of your blatant assumptions.  Just saying.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Prove that I'm wrong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Why? You can't prove you're right.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I already did. Adjunct professors don't have tenure.
                        
                        She even said herself in your own link that she didn't get a contract renewal. Tenured professors don't have annual job security contracts.
                        
                        Maybe you should read your own propaganda sources more closely.
                        
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjunct_p … e%2Dtrack.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           You really don't understand facts.  How sad.  You are assuming, speculating and ignoring ONE fact.  The University NEVER said they had issue with her work.  Again, impress me with your reading skills and read the article.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my comment about tenure and adjunct professors.
                              
                              But at least you are consistent.

                              replyreport
   2. 81

      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Which is more likely?
      
      A. Local environmental groups are spending money as part of a world-wide conspiracy in conjunction with the majority of the world's published climate scientists and National Academies of Science, to create a hoax for the purpose of tanking the economy.
      
      B. The gas and oil industry is using their vast profits to bribe anyone it can to cast doubt on climate change, to protect their vast profits, just like the Tobacco industry did to cast doubt on the connection between smoking and cancer before them.
      
      I was going to say, if you chose A you're an idiot, but I won't as that would be unkind. Instead I'll just say if you chose A, there is a very strong possibility you have an intelligence deficit, or are in a state of delusion, or both.

      replyreport
   3. 88

      crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The science is climate change is actually pretty simple. The earth is heating up. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, which causes surface temperatures to rise. If you don't understand it, you simply don't believe in science. You probably believe the moon is made of cheese and the sun revolves around the earth. And you'd be stupid.
      
      The evidence suggests that the Right doesn't believe in science and the left does. This thread proves it.
      
      Pure ignorance.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         You do know the topic is if a professor was fired by a University because she disagreed with the decline of polar bear populations. She stated her facts and her reasoning.  Her theory of increasing polar bear populations is based on research done by the governments of other countries.
         
         Should a scientist who disagrees with others at their University be fired because their research has taken them in a direction that is unpopular, or should she be permitted to state her case and display her research free from consequences.
         
         THAT is the issue.

         replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         This is exactly what I meant.  The death of polar bears is attributed to climate change and is an indication that it is happening.  A researcher finds polar bears are NOT dying off, which means climate change might be in doubt (or not; there is a plethora of other evidence for warming of the earth).
         
         But such things go against the conclusion demanded, so we see:
         
         If you don't understand it, you simply don't believe in science.
         You probably believe the moon is made of cheese and the sun revolves around the earth.
         And you'd be stupid.
         The evidence suggests that the Right doesn't believe in science and the left does.
         This thread proves it.
         Pure ignorance.
         
         In other words, a litany of attacks, mostly without any connection to the polar bears or the topic (firing of a professor), but all designed to somehow "protect" that desired statement that climate change is decimating bear populations.  It doesn't, of course - name calling never does and telling a professor that her data is wrong because you don't want to hear it does nothing either.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I completely agree with you.

            replyreport
2. 77

   DoubleScorpionposted 4 years ago

   Well...looking into this shows that it is about 50-50 as to if the bears are doing good or they are declining...
   There are reports that some areas are seeing reduced populations, but don't clarify if the bears are dying off or are moving to  other locations.
   There are also reports that areas are seeing increase in population and are creating problems for the locals...
   
   So...this looks to be a choice of deciding what who you want to believe or choosing the report that supports your argument of pro/con...

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose we could agree that it is a theory with no defined conclusion. So, all we actually have are opinions based on a wide variety of different types of data.  Nobody is right and nobody is wrong.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Scientists are right. Propagandists are wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure many people on the left can't comprehend there is a difference.  Just saying.

            replyreport
      2. 77

         DoubleScorpionposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Probably...
         
         It seems that we didn't really keep track of these bears back in the 60-70's...

         replyreport
         1. 96

            Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Excellent point.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Why repent a lie that the Corporation-ism press and their bought off researcher gave and sold us down river on.
               
               One time there were 5 times more grizzly bears living in North America than people. Not counting other kinds of bears with greater numbers.
               
               You could not pass through the arctic northwest passage til 1969. Today in the summer you can travel everywhere.
               
               The total mass weight of humans and their livestock mammals on earth is 96%. Meaning mammal wildlife mass weight is only 4%. The Polar bear is the largest predators mammal on the earth. When most of wildlife has died on earth since I was a young man.  Does it not make perfect sense why the largest predators on earth are dying off too.
               
               It's not bad enough these corporations are the worse liars, They are the worst BSers meaning they don't even care they are liars.
               
               Deepest shame I can Imagine.

               replyreport
3. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago

   For actually doing bear security in Northern  Canada and natural environment research. Also Built artwork snow playgrounds and ice hotels in every region in the Arctic except Alaska.  Where hunting polar bears is Illegal anyways.
   
   I can tell you first hand from locals who hunt polar bear of each region and know the Ice is melting massively. There is a great decrease in polar bears. Only area have increased for polar bears are in rare towns like Churchill Canada for tourism and dumps. Some very rare town like in Russia starving bears living around garbage dumps to survive sometime invading a whole town. Met also NASA and National geographic workers along the way and shared stories.
   
   Corporation dominant the press and will suck the life out of every living creatures on the planet due to their plague greed disease.

   replyreport
4. 95

   wildernessposted 4 years ago

   The back and forth in this thread brings to mind the problem scientists and researchers have always had when their results are not appreciated by the powers that be.
   
   From Galileo, imprisoned in 1642 to the end of his life for his heretical findings, to Darwin, refusing to publish for years for fear of backlash from the church, to modern scientists "punished" for research that goes against the wishes of politicians and big money corporations, it has been the same story.  Do not propose theories or data that disagree with what the power structure wants to hear.  The only real change is that it has gone from the church doing the "punishment" to a matter of political power and money instead.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely correct.  Instead of taking a person down into the dungeon of a church and showing them a torture chamber for people who disagree with the church, the left is different.  If you are a scientist who disagrees with the status quo, you lose your job and have bad things said about you on social media.
      
      I guess the ignorance of the left hasn't changed for centuries.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Your screwed both ways, make your own path.

         replyreport