- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,485
- Reaction score
- 28,830
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your claim is false. Her website includes a list of her publications.
And none are on polar bear populations.
Your claim is false. Her website includes a list of her publications.
And none are on polar bear populations.
That too is false. More important, she has been right and her detractors have been wrong, every time.
Again, that’s what your blogs say.
Which is why most treat them as the joke they are.
She's right. They're wrong. Deal with it.
Let us know when someone other than denier blogs back up your assertion.
Crockford's critics have put themselves on the wrong side of the data. That's not a fight they can win.
LOL.
The critics collect and publish the data.
Crockford just reads other people’s work and misrepresents it.
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.
The silence is just their unwillingness to communicate with an idiot. I do the same; why waste their time on morons dealing in pseudo-science, and who delight in fooling the gullible? I'm not pointing any fingers you understand.
Polar Bears International - Ask The Experts
Not thriving. Recovering from over hunting among other things. The fact that the population appears stable is a bad sign. The population would be exploding if climate change weren't taking a toll.
"After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point. Some populations recovered very slowly (e.g., Barents Sea took almost 30 years) but some recovered faster. Some likely never were depressed by hunting that much, but the harvest levels remained too high and the populations subsequently declined. M'Clintock Channel is a good example. The population is currently down by over 60% of historic levels due only to overharvesting. Some populations recovered as harvests were controlled, but have since declined due to climate-related effects (e.g., Western Hudson Bay). In Western Hudson Bay, previously sustainable harvests cannot be maintained as the reproductive and survival rates have declined due to changes in the sea ice."
and,More ice in Hudson Bay and adjacent regions than we’ve seen at this time of year for more than two decades: not since 1993 has there been as much polar bear habitat in the 2nd-last week of November.
LINKLast problem bear report of the season from Churchill (week 20 or after 5 months on land for most bears):
Hudson Bay polar bear habitat is highest in more than two decades for this time of year
Posted on November 22, 2018
EXCERPT:
and,
LINK
One geographically limited statistical outlier certainly doesn't disprove the averages. On average, there is less ice and the bear population overall hasn't recovered from the days when polar bears were over hunted. All things being equal, there should be many more times the number of polar bears than there currently are. One reason for this is warmer winters.
I posted it because your link mentioned part of the Hudson bay, the same areas even.
Go to this long polar bear thread that shows the evidence that Polar Bear population has been on the increase since 2004:
New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Availability
LINK
Your link is to your own thread here on DP. The only link I saw in that thread was to a website called "No Tricks Zone." They are not a reputable source and are well known for spreading provably false information.
Your link is to your own thread here on DP. The only link I saw in that thread was to a website called "No Tricks Zone." They are not a reputable source and are well known for spreading provably false information.
The silence is just their unwillingness to communicate with an idiot. I do the same; why waste their time on morons dealing in pseudo-science, and who delight in fooling the gullible? I'm not pointing any fingers you understand.
Sorry, but the record is clear. She has uniformly been right, and her critics have uniformly been wrong. Their silence is the silence of embarrassed exposure and damaged reputations. Until they concede their error and acknowledge her mastery, they remain compromised and lacking in credibility.
Ah yes, the siren call of a climate change denier. What 'mastery', exactly?
Ah yes, the siren call of a climate change denier. What 'mastery', exactly? 'No Tricks Zone'. Seriously? Perhaps the New York Post would be a better source; y'know, aliens in your cornflakes and WW2 bombers found on the Moon, etc.
Well, she’s got a blog.
And published papers on evolutionary theory, a couple of which sorta mentioned polar bears, so that makes her a towering expert on population biology in denier minds.