- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
LOL! Seriously? The Global Warming Policy Foundation? Are you not aware that the GWPF is a right-wing anti-science activist group, not a scientific publisher?
Your propaganda stance is noted, but will be ignored.
It is the propaganda stance of the GWPF that is relevant here. It's their propaganda that you are disseminating.
Discuss the data or withdraw.
Post something something worth discussing (i.e. actual peer-reviewed work rather than right-wing propaganda) or be ignored.
So the fact that they survive DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ICE shows there's no warming? Such resourceful creatures, unlike Climate deniers.
LOL! Seriously? The Global Warming Policy Foundation? Are you not aware that the GWPF is a right-wing anti-science activist group, not a scientific publisher?
This paper has been corrected online and in print in order to clarify Dr. Crockford's scientific expertise and financial links in relation to the arguments made in the paper (BioScience 68: 281–287). The corrected text is as follows:
First change: Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears.
Second change: Some of the most prominent AGW deniers, including Crockford, are linked with or receive support from organizations that downplay AGW (e.g., Dr. Crockford has previously been paid for report writing by the Heartland Institute).
Even worse- it’s written by Susan Crockford, who’s such a well known fake ‘expert’ that she’s actually been highlighted in the scientific literature as the shining example of false authority.
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy | BioScience | Oxford Academic
Corrigendum: Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy | BioScience | Oxford Academic
Caveat: it was published by Oxford University Press (you know, one of the worlds oldest and most respected Universities?) and not an anonymous or pseudonymous internet blog, so many deniers will criticize the source.
All part of the effort to marginalize her by those whom she exposed as laughably in error. The bottom line is that she has been consistently right and they have been repeatedly shown (by her) to be wrong. They are embarrassed and angry. All the ad hominems in the world cannot compensate for her detractors' crushing defeat on the substance.
Yes. I’m sure all the denier blogs say she’s right.
The proof is in the silence of her critics, who literally no longer have a case to make, and the robust population of thriving polar bears.
Her critics are continually publishing research in journals.
She is blogging and writing reports for denier organizations that educated people consider a joke.
Sorry, but they've published nothing to contradict her. And they're keeping quiet about their earlier predictions of a bear apocalypse. They know better now.
Yes, they haven’t published a paper tearing her apart since.... 2018.
:roll:
Polar bears are onshore scavenging, because there's a lack of sea ice on which they can hunt. What a damning indictment of AGW that is.....:doh:lol:
The 2018 paper was a mere personal attack whose publication dishonors its authors, not her. Her research stands unrefuted.
Her research stands... nonexistent.
She’s never published research on polar bear populations.
This would be an embarrassing position to take if one had any self awareness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?