Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[PE Scott + 563]

After researching Polar bears, this professor concluded that their populations were actually thriving, counter to what previous scientist have said. The polar bear has been a poster child for global warming alarmist, their plight analogous to so many other species if the global warming crisis isn't abated. So, when a scientist's comes out with evidence contrary to that narrative, the thing to do would be to peer review the research and confirm its validity, right? Nope, these days that professor is fired, their academic credentials discredited, and their research is ignored. 

Climate alarmists rely on broken and politicised pseudo-science. Evidence to the contrary is completely ignored or treated as hostile. Only the most extreme consequences are endorsed as it fits the sensationalism of the alarmist narrative better. Speak out against that narrative, with credible research, and you're fired.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/

If this kind of thing isn't a red flag to people in the alarmist camp, then what is? 

To be 100% clear, I'm not suggesting the research of this scientist negates all other research done by other scientist in the field. I just think it's incredible that taking a opposing stance to what is popular means you should be fired. Science is about being skeptical and challenging ideas. If healthy skepticism and reviews aren't encouraged, then it's all unsubstantiated drivel.

[Guest]

Oh this isn't at all concerning, and I've certainly not seen scientific bias on here anyway.

Phew. 

[remake it + 288]

On 10/22/2019 at 2:49 AM, PE Scott said:

After researching Polar bears, this professor concluded that their populations were actually thriving, counter to what previous scientist have said. The polar bear has been a poster child for global warming alarmist, their plight analogous to so many other species if the global warming crisis isn't abated. So, when a scientist's comes out with evidence contrary to that narrative, the thing to do would be to peer review the research and confirm its validity, right? Nope, these days that professor is fired, their academic credentials discredited, and their research is ignored. 

Maybe you did not know that Dr Crockford has done no scientific research on polar bears, nor published about them in peer reviewed literature, relying instead on what we all can freely read, the distinction being that for many years Dr Crockford's associations have been with organisations promoting pseudoscience and there is a probability that this taints what she promotes as "science." 

[Guest]

LOL so the thread title bang on it seems.

#hopeless, as ever ... 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Guest

[El Nikko + 2,145]

39 minutes ago, remake it said:

Maybe you did not know that Dr Crockford has done no scientific research on polar bears, nor published about them in peer reviewed literature, relying instead on what we all can freely read, the distinction being that for many years Dr Crockford's associations have been with organisations promoting pseudoscience and there is a probability that this taints what she promotes as "science." 

No one has perfect or exact data, the estimation in 2008 and today is pretty similar so at least there has been no decline. From 1950 it appears their population has increased but again since no one has counted them all it's just an estimation (that means best guess in simple language). They were however hunted for food and fur but they are now are protected which is a good thing.

“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”

 

[Guest]

IGNORED

OH THE RELIEF

#HOPELESS

[remake it + 288]

25 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

LOL so the thread title bang on it seems.

To you, because you consistently prove that you do not understand what you read, which in this case is about a person who has never conducted any scientific research into polar bears but is here being made out to have some level of authority or expertise.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

This reminds me of the situation with the caribou on the US Alaskan North Slope, when the pipeline went in.  There was an alarmist hue and cry about how the pipeline would decimate the herds of caribou.  So, the oil workers were astonished to see that the caribou herds would come and huddle up against the pipe, especially the very young, who would absorb the heat from the hot oil by pressing up against the pipe.  The result: the herds increased in number and health, the die-offs of the young to the cold greatly reduced.  The caribou were actually using antlers to dislodge and rub off the pipe insulation in spots so as to gain increased heat. It was great for the caribou!

Moral of the story:  nothing like a nice warm pipe filled with oil.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

To you, because you consistently prove that you do not understand what you read, which in this case is about a person who has never conducted any scientific research into polar bears but is here being made out to have some level of authority or expertise.

If you had an IQ over room temperature, you could understand the corollary argument.

IF polar bears were nearing extinction, as a dozen "peer reviewed" climate "scientists" were claiming, THAT would definitely show up. However it most assuredly hasn't happened so there's that. But as long as the "experts" get funding and keep making nonsensical predictions, let's not allow this woman to upset the apple cart by mentioning the emperor's lack of clothing. 

[Guest]

@Ward Smith

It's just incredible, any other opinion is completely ignored / ridiculed. Even facts and history are irrelevant.

But to insult his oh so wise opinion is viewed as outrageous and how dare anyone do it??

Remind you of anyone?

10/10 to the Thought Police. Literally turned him into a mini Xi.

#nba #hk #freespeech #brokendroid #freetibet

Edited October 25, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

41 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

If you had an IQ over room temperature, you could understand the corollary argument.

IF polar bears were nearing extinction, as a dozen "peer reviewed" climate "scientists" were claiming, THAT would definitely show up. However it most assuredly hasn't happened so there's that. But as long as the "experts" get funding and keep making nonsensical predictions, let's not allow this woman to upset the apple cart by mentioning the emperor's lack of clothing. 

Why not show who these scientists are rather than make baseless claims, given the science on polar bears is very clear and relates to habitat destruction that has been well understood and led to the USFWS using the ESA to address these concerns.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

33 minutes ago, remake it said:

Why not show who these scientists are rather than make baseless claims, given the science on polar bears is very clear and relates to habitat destruction that has been well understood and led to the USFWS using the ESA to address these concerns.

Here ya go Dickfor 

 

High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear

1. A. M. Pagano1,2,*, 
2. G. M. Durner1, 
3. K. D. Rode1, 
4. T. C. Atwood1, 
5. S. N. Atkinson3, 
6. E. Peacock1, 
7. D. P. Costa2, 
8. M. A. Owen4, 
9. T. M. Williams2

1. 1U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA.
2. 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA.
3. 3Post Office Box 19, Group 7, RR2, Dugald, Manitoba R0E 0K0, Canada.
4. 4Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo Global, San Diego, CA 92027, USA.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Of course one of those "scientists" is from Manitoba, home of the Churchill polar bear tours

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here ya go Dickfor 

High-energy, high-fat lifestyle challenges an Arctic apex predator, the polar bear

Your link proves that there are regional declines and supports USWFS actions to mitigate habitat destruction, viz., "Thus, as sea ice becomes increasingly short-lived annually, polar bears are likely to experience increasingly stressful conditions and higher mortality rates."

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Your link proves that there are regional declines and supports USWFS actions to mitigate habitat destruction, viz., "Thus, as sea ice becomes increasingly short-lived annually, polar bears are likely to experience increasingly stressful conditions and higher mortality rates."

"Likely to". Unfortunately as the good Dr. Crockford pointed out, those polar bears aren't reading those hypothetical studies, continuing to breed and hunt as they have for millennia. Go to Churchill, they've got more bears than ever. Whoops 

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

"Likely to". Unfortunately as the good Dr. Crockford pointed out, those polar bears aren't reading those hypothetical studies, continuing to breed and hunt as they have for millennia. Go to Churchill, they've got more bears than ever. Whoops 

Apart from the fact that their studies were not hypothetical, your link had nothing to do with what you claimed, so do you have evidence that what you linked is not reliable?

Edited October 25, 2019 by remake it
simplified the question.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Apart from the fact that their studies were not hypothetical, your link had nothing to do with what you claimed, so do you have evidence that what you linked is not reliable?

https://canadafreepress.com/article/nat-geo-photographer-admits-viral-photo-of-polar-bear-dying-from-climate-ch Fake National Geographic Story and Photo.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/http-fellowshipoftheminds-com-2018-08-04-fake-news-national-geographics-starving-climate-change-polar-bear  See video here. 

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/09/12/third-world-countries-want-more-than-100b-a-year-in-climate-change-reparations/

https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/

Edited October 25, 2019 by ronwagn
addition

[remake it + 288]

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/nat-geo-photographer-admits-viral-photo-of-polar-bear-dying-from-climate-ch Fake National Geographic Story and Photo.

The photographer had nothing to do with the work of scientist referenced here previously, so that's called a false equivalence.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, remake it said:

The photographer had nothing to do with the work of scientist referenced here previously, so that's called a false equivalence.

National Geographic purports to be a science based publication and its entire stance is now based on a false agenda of green propaganda. Your scientists make similar mistakes in favor of their agenda. Their agenda is designed to stifle the development and economy of free lands in the far north. 

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2019/04/19/national-geographic-society-scientists-call-for-an-ambitious-global-deal-for-nature/

Global Warming AKA Climate Change https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHU2hHXebxpvExT7srNNnX-VM7Qn9Ak_ZmdKCIcUti8/edit

Edited October 25, 2019 by ronwagn
added reference

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 hours ago, remake it said:

To you, because you consistently prove that you do not understand what you read, which in this case is about a person who has never conducted any scientific research into polar bears but is here being made out to have some level of authority or expertise.

The accusation that this guy has not performed any scientific research is unsubstantiated. 
If you have supporting evidence for the accusation, please supply it.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Apart from the fat that their studies were not hypothetical, your link had nothing to do with what you claimed, so do you have evidence that what you linked is not reliable?

The fat is, fat. Hypotheses as yet unproven by experiment or observation. That you're no scientist is painfully obvious. Acting like sea ice extent has NEVER been this low is number one on the list of stupid suppositions. 

Let's look at some newspaper clippings shall we?

Now given that you're imitating a snivelling little internet troll in his mommy's basement I'll anticipate your next response, where you'll claim I'm quoting a bad source, to which I'll reply, "Too bad, so sad, get a life".

Cheers

[Guest]

No no no, it will mention diversion or presenting your case. Then when you do that, and he disagrees, the reply will be some more nonsense or his infamous repetition and accusing you of diverting yet again. It's like a circle of pain and BS, where HIS views are unquestionable fact, because he read them from sources his government approved of before publication. Basically if he doesn't agree with you, it's propaganda or you're diverting.

You have much to learn Ward I'm afraid ...

I've had this for weeks now. He follows everything I post, says ''this is bad journalism'', comments on it, then moves onto another thread of mine that he disagrees with before he even starts, reads it all, comments, and does it again. I have hinted to him about getting a hobby but it is falling on deaf ears. it's much easier to block him and just read instead others schooling him. Way more entertaining.

But you will never be correct, plus he doesn't like facts. I have to read the odd bit of drivel because people quote him, presumably because they can't believe what they just read. The droid has faulty wiring. Fact.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

This reminds me of the situation with the caribou on the US Alaskan North Slope, when the pipeline went in.  There was an alarmist hue and cry about how the pipeline would decimate the herds of caribou.  So, the oil workers were astonished to see that the caribou herds would come and huddle up against the pipe, especially the very young, who would absorb the heat from the hot oil by pressing up against the pipe.  The result: the herds increased in number and health, the die-offs of the young to the cold greatly reduced.  The caribou were actually using antlers to dislodge and rub off the pipe insulation in spots so as to gain increased heat. It was great for the caribou!

Moral of the story:  nothing like a nice warm pipe filled with oil.

No Caribou herds are still suffering.

You are right that it's not the actual pipeline that hurts them; it is the cut lines used for exploration.  The cleared sight lines gives wolves a hunting advantage.  New regulations call for more zig-zags to shorten line-of-sight.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

59 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

No no no, it will mention diversion or presenting your case. Then when you do that, and he disagrees, the reply will be some more nonsense or his infamous repetition and accusing you of diverting yet again. It's like a circle of pain and BS, where HIS views are unquestionable fact, because he read them from sources his government approved of before publication. Basically if he doesn't agree with you, it's propaganda or you're diverting.

You have much to learn Ward I'm afraid ...

I've had this for weeks now. He follows everything I post, says ''this is bad journalism'', comments on it, then moves onto another thread of mine that he disagrees with before he even starts, reads it all, comments, and does it again. I have hinted to him about getting a hobby but it is falling on deaf ears. it's much easier to block him and just read instead others schooling him. Way more entertaining.

But you will never be correct, plus he doesn't like facts. I have to read the odd bit of drivel because people quote him, presumably because they can't believe what they just read. The droid has faulty wiring. Fact.

So "Fake News" and Alternative Facts - just like trump.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Enthalpic