• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Avail

ThoughtEx.

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
5,138
Reaction score
2,124
Location
North America
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Your reply makes clear you don't know Dr. Crockford well since she has been confining her articles to Polar Bears, their Health and population numbers, with a small side of Walrus and Seals, very little else on her blog. You chose to be ignorant that way because you didn't look through her blog in the first place, which means you spoke from ignorance from the start.

Polar Bear - Ursus maritimus They are natural swimmers and been found going 60-400 miles in swimming in the frigid waters.

Long-distance swimming by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water

Excerpt:



Your ignorance comes from ignoring their life cycle since LOW Summer Ice cover is not significant factor in their prey availability. There have been periods of far lower to NO Summer ice at all for hundreds of years at a time in the early Holocene time, yet they survived anyway despite CO2 being around the 240-260 ppm at the time.

Since the stabilized Sea Ice cover in the Summer has remained about the same since 2007, Polar Bears manage to increase their population anyway in part because they have eaten most of their calories for the year by mid July long before Sea Ice has broken up significantly. The rest of the year they are meat scavengers who eat some berries and plants while they move long distances for carcasses and the rare meal of a live animal.

:2wave:
I live in Northern Canada, I don't give a flying **** if every polar bear in the world just suddenly dies. Doesn't mean **** to our climate or how it's changing.

Because some sad sacks care about polar bears and are trying to raise concerns about their environment doesn't mean they themselves are environmental scientists our knows **** all about climate. They are biologists.

Just because they been bitching at the people you align yourself with for decades, and it turns out that polar bears can ****ing swim, doesn't negate climate science.

I know bears can swim and hunt. It'd be a retard bear of any species that couldn't.

Pointing out that a population boom, after decades of conservation effort fails to save the ice and they start swimming for their food proves climate scientists wrong is stupid on a level Forest Gump would go, damn that's pretty dumb.
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Their silence is their concession.
No. Their silence is understandable because no expert is going to deal with some amateur blogger, no matter how much Watts loves her.

I mean... my God... they basically exposed her as a fraud in the scientific literature. Why would anyone serious take her seriously?
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I live in Northern Canada, I don't give a flying **** if every polar bear in the world just suddenly dies. Doesn't mean **** to our climate or how it's changing.

Because some sad sacks care about polar bears and are trying to raise concerns about their environment doesn't mean they themselves are environmental scientists our knows **** all about climate. They are biologists.

Just because they been bitching at the people you align yourself with for decades, and it turns out that polar bears can ****ing swim, doesn't negate climate science.

I know bears can swim and hunt. It'd be a retard bear of any species that couldn't.

Pointing out that a population boom, after decades of conservation effort fails to save the ice and they start swimming for their food proves climate scientists wrong is stupid on a level Forest Gump would go, damn that's pretty dumb.
Did some Polar Bears eat your garden up recently? Your prized Cabbage perhaps?

Your anger and rants didn't address what Dr. Crockford talked about, which to this point has been completely unaddressed.

:lol:

Here is YOUR first post, which I initially ignored as it was a stupid rant. You made clear that you didn't read that first post article at all...… :lamo

But now that you are being exposed as a boring ranter, will go expose your data/evidence free blather for what it really is.

Your quotes, my reply in red:

"So climate change isn't happening and inuits are climate deniers because it turns out polar bears can swim and hunt."

No one said climate didn't change and Inuits didn't deny climate changes in the thread or the article, YOU are the first to say it.

"How did they make that observation if the ice were not in fact melting. hmmm, hmmmm, I wonder..."

No one said ice isn't melting in the thread or the article, YOU are the first to say it.

"Are polar bears some magical animal that keeps the world from catching on fire? Didn't realize their continued existence somehow is what's stopping super storms and flooding on the coasts, and droughts inland."

Ha ha ha, no need to comment on this baloney, since no one else here talked like that and not in the article either, YOU are the ONLY one who write this nonsense here.

"Or are you confusing some wildlife scientists concerned what a climate scientist is saying will affect the animals he studies as a climate scientist. And thus by extensions their observations that bears hunt on the ice being wrong invalidates 97 percent of the climate scientists worldwide."

The dumbest line of all, since NO ONE made such statements here and in the article, the delusion is all YOURS!

"If so, that's a stretch."

Anything YOU say is a stretch...….

Then your next post was dead on arrival since you never read her article:

A person who studies polar bears is not a climate scientist. Asking a biologist about climate is stupid. They take findings from climate scientists and try to correlate what they are observing. They then have other people check those observations and prove them wrong, that's how science works. It could very well be, these current findings will be invalidated when the methodology is put to the test.

This victory march of ignorance over climate change being false because of polar bears able to swim when the ice melts. Is well pretty ****ing ignorant.
Now your latest reply is sillier than ever since you STILL don't know what Dr. Crockford actually said in the article you never read. You post straight from ignorance, thinking that is a clever debate tactic, when it isn't even beyond kindergarten level thinking.

It was the bandwagon full of ignorant warmists who pushed the Polar Bears are doomed because of declining sea ice propaganda, Skeptics and now a few scientists published research are showing that even with low summer sea ice, the Polar Bears population kept increasing for over 10 years after 2007 low anyway...…...

You are A one note little boy.

:2wave:
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,362
Reaction score
27,968
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did some Polar Bears eat your garden up recently? Your prized Cabbage perhaps?

Your anger and rants didn't address what Dr. Crockford talked about, which to this point has been completely unaddressed.

:lol:

Here is YOUR first post, which I initially ignored as it was a stupid rant. You made clear that you didn't read that first post article at all...… :lamo

But now that you are being exposed as a boring ranter, will go expose your data/evidence free blather for what it really is.

Your quotes, my reply in red:

"So climate change isn't happening and inuits are climate deniers because it turns out polar bears can swim and hunt."

No one said climate didn't change and Inuits didn't deny climate changes in the thread or the article, YOU are the first to say it.

"How did they make that observation if the ice were not in fact melting. hmmm, hmmmm, I wonder..."

No one said ice isn't melting in the thread or the article, YOU are the first to say it.

"Are polar bears some magical animal that keeps the world from catching on fire? Didn't realize their continued existence somehow is what's stopping super storms and flooding on the coasts, and droughts inland."

Ha ha ha, no need to comment on this baloney, since no one else here talked like that and not in the article either, YOU are the ONLY one who write this nonsense here.

"Or are you confusing some wildlife scientists concerned what a climate scientist is saying will affect the animals he studies as a climate scientist. And thus by extensions their observations that bears hunt on the ice being wrong invalidates 97 percent of the climate scientists worldwide."

The dumbest line of all, since NO ONE made such statements here and in the article, the delusion is all YOURS!

"If so, that's a stretch."

Anything YOU say is a stretch...….

Then your next post was dead on arrival since you never read her article:



Now your latest reply is sillier than ever since you STILL don't know what Dr. Crockford actually said in the article you never read. You post straight from ignorance, thinking that is a clever debate tactic, when it isn't even beyond kindergarten level thinking.

It was the bandwagon full of ignorant warmists who pushed the Polar Bears are doomed because of declining sea ice propaganda, Skeptics and now a few scientists published research are showing that even with low summer sea ice, the Polar Bears population kept increasing for over 10 years after 2007 low anyway...…...

You are A one note little boy.

:2wave:
:bomb::thumbs:
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
She has thrashed them.
He still doesn't realize that they DID try to address her statements with a many authored published paper (which was unprofessional and stupid), her replies to it is what thrashed them, they have been largely quiet ever since.

Goofboy is speaking from ignorance or in denial of recent history surrounding Dr. Crockford and the authors of the slimy junk paper.

:lol:
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He still doesn't realize that they DID try to address her statements with a many authored published paper (which was unprofessional and stupid), her replies to it is what thrashed them, they have been largely quiet ever since.

Goofboy is speaking from ignorance or in denial of recent history surrounding Dr. Crockford and the authors of the slimy junk paper.

:lol:
LOL.

They’ve been ‘quiet ever since’ because they basically dismantled her credibility and the credibility of the people who rely on her ‘expertise’.


They didn’t ‘address her statements’. They demonstrated that guys like you get all you knowledge from blogs like hers, whereas the biology community saying completely different things. And the biology community published their work, rather than ‘publishing’ stuff via denial think tank vanity presses.


That’s why she’s only talked about by anonymous deniers like you on internet message boards, and has little to no standing in the biology academic community, much less among actual PB researchers.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,362
Reaction score
27,968
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL.

They’ve been ‘quiet ever since’ because they basically dismantled her credibility and the credibility of the people who rely on her ‘expertise’.


They didn’t ‘address her statements’. They demonstrated that guys like you get all you knowledge from blogs like hers, whereas the biology community saying completely different things. And the biology community published their work, rather than ‘publishing’ stuff via denial think tank vanity presses.


That’s why she’s only talked about by anonymous deniers like you on internet message boards, and has little to no standing in the biology academic community, much less among actual PB researchers.
Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. After their smear paper, which did not address the substance of her work, her critics have gone silent on the points of disagreement. They remain saddled with a laughable prediction of polar bear population decline --the population has in fact grown steadily-- and cannot recover their credibility until they recant.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. After their smear paper, which did not address the substance of her work, her critics have gone silent on the points of disagreement. They remain saddled with a laughable prediction of polar bear population decline --the population has in fact grown steadily-- and cannot recover their credibility until they recant.
Ha ha ha, he never read the paper, Jack. How could he know?

He is determined to defend the indefensible, and will do it in total ignorance of what happened between Dr. Crockford and about nine authors (Dr. Mann is one of them) of the paper.

What an ignorant funny guy he is!
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is that paper with FIFTEEN authors attacking DR. Crockford in an unprofessional way, They lied, make personal attacks and avoid her debating points.

Here are the list of authors for the paper:

By Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, and Michael E. Mann.

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

There was NO data when it was published, it was provided later and under pressure.

===============================

Here is the backround response to the ugly unprofessional paper:

An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

Excerpts:

By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: An important (but fatally flawed) new peer-reviewed paper about climate change reveals much about climate science, the public policy debate, and the role of science institutions in America. Here is a quick look at it and its lessons for us.
From the paper:

“Indeed, credible estimates suggest that the entire Arctic may be ice-free during summer within several decades (Snape and Forster 2014, Stroeve and Notz 2015, Notz and Stroeve 2017), a process that, as has been suggested by both theoretical and empirical evidence, will drastically reduce polar-bear populations across their range …”

The authors fail to mention previous “credible estimates” that have proven to be false. To mention a few…

2002: “Arctic melting will open new sea passages“, in which Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge says “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there.” Not by 2012. Not by 2017.

2007: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” “Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. …So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Nope.

2008: “NSIDC — Arctic melt passes the point of no return, “We hate to say we told you so, but we did.” But the polar ice minimum extents in 2008 and 2017 were almost identical.
From the paper:

“To characterize how blogs and related online sources frame the topic of AGW, we identified a total of 90 blogs covering climate-change topics that mentioned both polar bears and sea ice.”

This is climate science, so the paper neither identifies the 90 blogs nor the methodology used in this analysis. There is no Supplement with that additional information.
From the paper:

“Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”

This is a serious misrepresentation of relevant facts. The authors fail to mention her Ph.D. in zoology (her dissertation mentions polar bear evolution) and her peer-reviewed publications (details here). She is even cited in a paper published in Bioscience. As for relevance, there is a long tradition of scientists leveraging their basic training into other fields. Darwin’s education before joining HMS Beagle gave him little preparation to discover evolution. Stephen Jay Gould — the great paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science — did his empirical research studying snails.
From the paper:

“Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”

This is a deliberate lie. Nobody who has read her work can honestly say that. See this post, for example. Also see her major paper, described below. One can question her evidence and logic, but not that she provides much evidence.
What a mess!
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ha ha ha, he never read the paper, Jack. How could he know?

He is determined to defend the indefensible, and will do it in total ignorance of what happened between Dr. Crockford and about nine authors (Dr. Mann is one of them) of the paper.

What an ignorant funny guy he is!
An alarmist troll more like. Its the politics of envy in a green veil that motivates this guy and he has been pedaling this tripe for many years just to get a reaction from any new skeptical poster who comes here

He just wants your money
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The SI (and data) for the Harvey et al. attack paper on Dr. Susan Crockford’s polar bear views

Anthony Watts / December 5, 2017

EXCERPT:

While the journal still has not released the Supplementary information (SI) file for the Harvey et al. paper, viewable here. I have a copy of the SI here that lists the blogs used (45 on each side of the issue) and the methodology. After some prodding on his blog and on Twitter, co-author Bart Verheggen released it.

I offer it here in full for analysis and commentary, without comment of my own. That will come later. A PDF of it is also available, see the bottom of this post – Anthony


It was later updated to this:

UPDATE: Dr. Richard Tol advises in comments that the data from Harvey et al. is now available, here: Data from: Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy - Dryad

======================

Here is another background response to an unfair NYT article:

Pushing back against "The stupidest scientific paper ever published"

=====================

Here is the presentation DR. Crockford published which they disliked so much, but never answered it in a professional manner:

Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. After their smear paper, which did not address the substance of her work, her critics have gone silent on the points of disagreement. They remain saddled with a laughable prediction of polar bear population decline --the population has in fact grown steadily-- and cannot recover their credibility until they recant.
That’s funny.

Arctic research goes on, and a Crocford, having been called out, continues to be irrelevant, since she publishes essentially nothing.

And guys like you think she ‘won’ something....
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here is that paper with FIFTEEN authors attacking DR. Crockford in an unprofessional way, They lied, make personal attacks and avoid her debating points.

Here are the list of authors for the paper:




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

There was NO data when it was published, it was provided later and under pressure.

===============================

Here is the backround response to the ugly unprofessional paper:

An ugly new paper shows why the climate policy debate is broken

Excerpts:


From the paper:

“Indeed, credible estimates suggest that the entire Arctic may be ice-free during summer within several decades (Snape and Forster 2014, Stroeve and Notz 2015, Notz and Stroeve 2017), a process that, as has been suggested by both theoretical and empirical evidence, will drastically reduce polar-bear populations across their range …”



From the paper:

“To characterize how blogs and related online sources frame the topic of AGW, we identified a total of 90 blogs covering climate-change topics that mentioned both polar bears and sea ice.”



From the paper:

“Approximately 80% of the denier blogs cited here referred to one particular denier blog, Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford, as their primary source of discussion and debate on the status of polar bears. Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears. …scientists such as Crockford who are described as “experts” on denier blogs in fact typically have little in the way of relevant expertise, and their expertise is often self-manufactured to serve alternative agendas.”



From the paper:

“Crockford vigorously criticizes, without supporting evidence, the findings of several leading researchers who have studied polar bears in the field for decades.”



What a mess!
Ooo. A website says that?

Wow!

It must be true!

Hey- here’s a pretty reliable and extensively referenced website ( it has FORTY TWO references! So you know it’s real sciency!) that details how much bull**** this Heartland funded whore shovels into deniers mouths.

Susan Crockford | DeSmogBlog
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Polar Bear Science

Steve Amstrup is lying to the media about my critique of his 2007 model

Posted on April 12, 2018

Excerpt:

Until now, my scientific paper post at PeerJ Preprints for review, about the failure of Steve Amstrup’s 2007 USGS polar bear survival model (Crockford 2017), has been formally ignored by Amstrup and his colleagues. But now Amstrup and his colleagues have taken to lying to the media about my analysis because he can’t refute it in a scholarly manner.

LINK

=========================

The lies are easy to see, but only when you bother to read it to see it in vivid color.
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ooo. A website says that?

Wow!

It must be true!

Hey- here’s a pretty reliable and extensively referenced website ( it has FORTY TWO references! So you know it’s real sciency!) that details how much bull**** this Heartland funded whore shovels into deniers mouths.

Susan Crockford | DeSmogBlog
Wow, another data/evidence free reply from YOU, how did you manage to be this good at it?

I am envious at your undoubted skill in posting nothing of substance, and look good at it!

Don't worry we understand what you forget everyday...….

:2wave:
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,362
Reaction score
27,968
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That’s funny.

Arctic research goes on, and a Crocford, having been called out, continues to be irrelevant, since she publishes essentially nothing.

And guys like you think she ‘won’ something....
You have it backward.
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow, another data/evidence free reply from YOU, how did you manage to be this good at it?

I am envious at your undoubted skill in posting nothing of substance, and look good at it!

Don't worry we understand what you forget everyday...….

:2wave:
What?

My link had FOarTY TOO references!
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Polar Bear Science

Steve Amstrup is lying to the media about my critique of his 2007 model

Posted on April 12, 2018

Excerpt:

Until now, my scientific paper post at PeerJ Preprints for review, about the failure of Steve Amstrup’s 2007 USGS polar bear survival model (Crockford 2017), has been formally ignored by Amstrup and his colleagues. But now Amstrup and his colleagues have taken to lying to the media about my analysis because he can’t refute it in a scholarly manner.

LINK

=========================

The lies are easy to see, but only when you bother to read it to see it in vivid color.
LOL.

Peer J Preprints.

It’s like PNAS.

But not.
 

Threegoofs

Potential COVID carrier
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
49,242
Reaction score
16,962
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An attempted procedural defense against a substantive challenge.
Maybe tonight I’ll get some free time and submit to Peer J Preprints.

‘A Study of Deniers on an Anonymous Website: the Black Knight Phenomenon and the Origin of Incomprehensible Stupidity’.

I could probably write it up in an hour or two, just like a real denier!
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,362
Reaction score
27,968
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maybe tonight I’ll get some free time and submit to Peer J Preprints.

‘A Study of Deniers on an Anonymous Website: the Black Knight Phenomenon and the Origin of Incomprehensible Stupidity’.

I could probably write it up in an hour or two, just like a real denier!
And now, after the procedural defense was brushed aside, it's on to the insults. Ever think of taking up the substance?
 

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
875
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have it backward.
He is lying since he didn't read any of it, thus he has no idea what was being discussed and what was being exposed as errors, which are well exposed by Dr. Crockford.

He is the perfect example of the climate religionist, one who avoids debate, make blanket unsupported assertions against opponents and post personal attacks as if that was a normal way to dispute someone.

He is always scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 
Top Bottom