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/
"Why do you make this stuff up? Do you think it can't be researched and found to be false?"
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
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.
I didn't know you listened to Rush Limbaugh. Are you one of his loyal listeners?
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Deflection from my points.
Regardless, provide links to back up these new cherrypicking claims
Endless entertainment. Once again, you are backing up your claims with opinions from discredited sources.
If you want to call the Canadian government, Norwegian Polar Institute and National Geographic discredited sources, that speaks volumes.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Scientists are right. Propagandists are wrong.
It seems that we didn't really keep track of these bears back in the 60-70's...
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Castlepaloma 2 years ago
https://youtu.be/29v0hphT-PgWhen someone can take their own weakness then turn it into a strength.Then take it beyond, like Greta. That disability can turn into your abillity of your own superpower.
by ThunderKeys 10 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
by pinetreehugger 8 years ago
What does it mean when you dream that you have a baby polar bear as a pet?
by Rhys Baker 9 years ago
Why is science so poorly understood by the general public?E.g. Evolution, climate change, gm crops, bioengineering, stem cell research.
by Jack Lee 5 months ago
Recently, Doc Snow and I decided to each create a hub on the topic of "How accurate are climate change predictions." Here are our opposing hubs - http://hubpages.com/education/Climate-C … e-Are-Theyhttp://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Ch … hey-ReallyWe are asking people to...
by PeterStip 6 years ago
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate warming up..Why still argue ?There is a 99% Probability that Manmade Emissions Have Caused Climate ChangeWhy do we still debate if there is a climate change at all ?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|