The Big Global Warming Lie: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (compared, education)

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Are you on Mars? The right is full of sanctimonious Religious nuts who think they have the corner on morality. Your bias is RUBBISH!


Wrong!

I gave you an example of someone on the left doing exactly that. Please pull up a post from someone on the right saying the AGW peddlers should be banned from this forum.

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

You said, in the very post I was talking about:

Are you going to resort to: "But I didn't SAY she doesn't know"? Because I know what your comment meant. Anyone who reads that knows what your comment meant, so know that before you start pounding away on your keyboard in an attempt to back peddle.

You based that on a couple of paragraphs that you read.

It does not take much to figure out her credentials in climatology - she has a Bachelors in Zoology and is an outlier on whether climate change is negatively affecting polar bears. Her book which was linked to the OP has more than just polar bear claims.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

It does not take much to figure out her credentials in climatology - she has a Bachelors in Zoology and is an outlier on whether climate change is negatively affecting polar bears. Her book which was linked to the OP has more than just polar bear claims.

You are basing your assumptions on a few paragraphs. You do not know this person or what she knows. You haven't even read her book, but you're on here, discrediting her immediately, based on a few paragraphs. That's not how science works.

My statement stands: "You, for starters" have done that.

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

You are basing your assumptions on a few paragraphs. You do not know this person or what she knows. You haven't even read her book, but you're on here, discrediting her immediately, based on a few paragraphs.

My statement stands: "You, for starters" have done that.

They are not assumptions - SHE IS NOT A CLIMATOLOGIST - HELLO! And she is at odds with other polar bear experts. HELLO! I'm telling you that I don't take her seriously if she has no credentials. I am not wasting my time on every person with some degree that has an opinion about climate change when they are not experts.

Originally Posted by Originalist

I gave you an example of someone on the left doing exactly that. Please pull up a post from someone on the right saying the AGW peddlers should be banned from this forum.

You made a generalized claim with this - "Anyone that disagrees with me should be banned" Now its only in regard with AGW. You and you tricks are funny!

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

You are basing your assumptions on a few paragraphs. You do not know this person or what she knows. You haven't even read her book, but you're on here, discrediting her immediately, based on a few paragraphs. That's not how science works.

My statement stands: "You, for starters" have done that.

She is not a Climate SCIENTIST. So your first remarks don't apply to her. I'm basing it on the FACT that she is not a CLIMATE scientist. So if we are talking about climate she is no to be considered as a good source although she may be right about polar population. As such I never said 'nothing' she says is right. It is in the context of climate change and its affects on polar bears. Her book deals with a lot of issues. It certainly does not mean as the OP suggested in the title Global Warming is a Lie.

So let's see: Here is your first comments with my remarks interspersed in bold black:

What cracks me up about these so called "science supporters" on the left is that:

a) They only accept science when it suits them (biology they ignore) She has done no science on climatology. So I can't accept or deny. You just want me to believe her because she has a degree of some sort which is supposed to give her the facade of knowledge. Whoopi doo!

b) They don't even practice what a bonafide scientist would do: Be open to all interpretations. Only if it is by legit scientists in that field. And she is at opposition to all others in her field. She is not an expert in climatology.

Science is never settled. I never said such a thing. Any moron who ever thinks that "the science is settled" knows absolutely nothing about science. And any moron who thinks that "these scientist are the only ones who are right, and all of them are wrong" without even considering those others' interpretations, also knows absolutely nothing about science.

Any two bit blogger can give an interpretation, I'm not wasting my time unless they are in the field and neither should you. Only a moron would try to track down every 'interpretation' before having to come to a reasonable conclusion about AGW.

[Corrie22]

...she's a polar bear scientist...she studies polar bears and effects that weather and climate have on them..including sea ice

she's one of the top polar bear scientists in the world

[Corrie22]

Then it should be easy to prove her wrong......right?

Crockford says there are about 26,500 bears...in 2015

https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04...-are-included/

Stirling says there are about 26,000 bears...in 2015

https://polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears

Originally Posted by Artemsis

This is an interesting read.


There once was a polar bear - science vs. the blogosphere

Blogs and other social media play an important role in spreading misinformation, which fuels the distrust in science.

These blogs would not survive in a world filled with humans that understand science. Since we don't live in such a world it makes sense why these types of blogs survive.

From the link above:

Jeff Harvey, a Canadian ecologist working at the Netherlands Institute for Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) and the Free University of Amsterdam (VU), set out to investigate how the information on blogs relates to the scientific literature. The focus was on conclusions about Arctic sea ice and polar bears. The results have been published in the article “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy” in the journal Bioscience. Disclaimer: I’m a co-author of said article.

So what did we find? There is a clear separation amongst blogs, where approximately half of the 90 blogs investigated agree with the majority of the scientific literature, whereas other blogs took a position that is diametrically opposed to the scientific conclusions. Most of the blogs in the latter group based their opinions on one and the same source: Susan Crockford. Who has zero authority on Polar Bear Science.

Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject.

“If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” said Ian Stirling. “The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert."

Good luck getting Dances with Wolves or whatever he/she goes by to see the facts. Real science not wanted - oh no here comes facts - RUN!

[KS_Referee]

Originally Posted by Artemsis

Yes it's easy to prove your claims about her as being wrong.

I proved wrong your claims that Crockford is "one of the top polar bear scientists in the world".

That was very easy to prove wrong.

She said there are 26,500 polar bears, which other scientists agree with. When there were only 7,000 scientists claimed polar bears would become extinct... but now there are 26,500 polar bears.


No, you didn't prove anyone's SCIENCE wrong. You merely attempted to attack, denigrate, belittle and badmouth someone whose scientific conclusions don't match your demanded "the science is settled" and nonsensical "scientific consensus" narrative.


We have yet another who earned a special place on /ignore.


The difference between ME placing someone on /ignore and what people like you would do if you had your way is I only seek to remove your comments from MY eyes. If you had your way, everyone who disagrees with the SCAM being pushed by global warming alarmists would be silenced and banned from commenting or publishing papers in climate science journals or on climate science blogs.


Buh Bye!