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

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (43 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14726269_f1024.jpg
    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/

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 6 weeks 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

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks 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.  lol

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

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

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks 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...

      2. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

        1. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 6 weeks 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?

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 6 weeks 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.

          2. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Deflection from my points.

              Regardless, provide links to back up these new cherrypicking claims

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                They're in the story I provided.

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

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

                  1. Readmikenow profile image97
                    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

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

        2. promisem profile image98
          promisemposted 6 weeks 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.

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

            1. promisem profile image98
              promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Prove that I'm wrong.

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

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

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 6 weeks 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.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image97
                    Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 6 weeks 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.

    3. crankalicious profile image93
      crankaliciousposted 6 weeks 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.

      1. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 6 weeks 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.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          I completely agree with you.

  2. DoubleScorpion profile image78
    DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks 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...

    1. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Scientists are right. Propagandists are wrong.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

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

      2. DoubleScorpion profile image78
        DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Probably...

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

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Excellent point.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image74
            Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks 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.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image74
    Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks 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.

  4. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 6 weeks 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.

    1. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 6 weeks 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.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        Your screwed both ways, make your own path.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)