Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Maul Inconvenient Polar Bear Expert

breitbart.com ^ | 4/11/2018 | James Delingpole

[rktman]

Susan Crockford is a polar bear expert with a message that climate alarmists don’t want to hear: polar bear populations are thriving and are certainly in no danger from thinning summer sea ice supposedly caused by ‘man-made global warming.’

That’s why the alarmist establishment is currently trying destroy her.

First came a hatchet job in Bioscience, described by climate scientist Judith Curry as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”

[rktman]

Oh noes....... Well, the lady(?) is a polar bear expert NOT a climate expert. Besides, we've all seen the close in tight picture of the stranded polar bear. Right? Thinning summer ice? Apparently not in the southern hemi-sphere since several attempts to access the south pole locations this past summer were thwarted by too much ice. DOH! Lucky there's no polar bears there huh?

[KC_Lion]

+

=

[headstamp 2]

[First came a hatchet job in Bioscience, described by climate scientist Judith Curry as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”]

This passes for reasoned discourse nowadays.

The left feels they just need to insult the opponent and they win the argument.

[Blood of Tyrants]

If sea ice is so important to polar bear’s survival, why didn’t they go extinct during one of the MANY warm periods since the last ice age?

[FatherofFive]

Humans survive in a climate that varies between 80 degrees and higher in summer, to 30 and below in winter. Old people retire to climates far warmer than their northern climates.

How in the world does a 1 degree change kill off the polar bears? Global cooling is real danger.

[pepsionice]

I think polar bears thrive in the ice better because it makes it easier to hunt and capture seals (their favorite choice, after humans). If you remove the ice ‘advantage’...then you are making the polar hunt in lesser advantageous ways.

I noticed a couple of years ago, some Alaskan hunter had come across a bear that he felt was a hybrid....between a grizzly and a polar bear. If there is an issue in surviving....maybe this is the way that the polar bears will adapt.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks rktman.

[chiller]

Let's keep our eyes on that recent NY case in which earth firsters had plans to force EXXON to release docs in the discovery process showing they knew oil was causing climate change.

As it turned, the judge recognized their key piece of evidence as a UN hit piece savaging the oil industry, rather than an in-house EXXON study which would have demonstrated they knew they were wrecking the environment, but didn't care. This totally blew the environmentalists case all to hell. We'll see if they try to continue. Doubtful.

[Slyfox]

Bonafide scientific research is being ignored because it is clashing with made up scientific research.

[jonno]

As the sea supposedly warms, wouldn’t the bears require fewer calories?

IOW - if warming causes less ice, wouldn’t warming also reduces the amount of food the bears need?

[pepsionice]

I doubt if anyone has ever sat down and looked at the calorie count that a polar bear needs in winter and summer. But I would speculate that all that seal ‘fat’ in the winter....is helpful in surviving.

I would be curious what the substitute would be if you can’t catch seals in the warmer periods.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[philled]

Evolution? De-evolution? Bears change but apparently the climate isn’t supposed to. Both grizzlies and polar bears are thought to have evolved from brown bears so who is to tell them how they are to self-identify? The hybrid polar bear you mentioned may have just be renouncing his white privilege.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/arctic-bears-how-grizzlies-evolved-into-polar-bears/777/

[rktman]

🐻😹🍿🍻🇺🇸

[Zeppo]

[First came a hatchet job in Bioscience, described by climate scientist Judith Curry as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.”]

This passes for reasoned discourse nowadays. The left feels they just need to insult the opponent and they win the argument.

Your post is a bit ambiguous.

You do understand that, in the referenced quote, Judith Curry was referring to the Bioscience paper that attempted to trash Susan Crockford and her work (the paper accused her of all sorts of false and ridiculous things, in a disgustingly-personal 'ad hominem' attack), right?

Curry was not attacking Susan Crockford, rather it was the leftist authors of the unseemly and unscientific paper who were attacking Crockford, along with attacking other climate realists.

The paper in question was so far outside the bounds of what is normally required to be considered an actual 'scientific' paper that it richly deserved the appellation of "absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published".

You can get a good feeling for Judith Curry's personal integrity by looking through her blog at https://judithcurry.com/.