5 ms·

> She is known for her blog posts on polar bear biology, which are unsupported by the scientific literature and oppose the scientific consensus that polar bears

> She is known for her blog posts on polar bear biology, which are unsupported by the scientific literature and oppose the scientific consensus that polar bears are threatened by ongoing climate change. > Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration, which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford

sureglymop 3y ago
Thank you for bringing this up!
- loceng 3y ago
  What were you able to derive from those two short quotes that don't really have any substance to them?
throw310822 3y ago
Let me use this occasion for a quick review of her Wikipedia entry. I don't know anything about Crockford but her entry is the typical smear job written by some activist editor who is only concerned with presenting the subject in the worst possible light. This stuff and writing style has no place on a decent encyclopedia, and the persistence of these entries through the years is one of the reasons I'm fed up with Wikipedia. Warning: irony ahead. In the first line of the lede, Susan Crockford is introduced as "a Canadian contract scientist who runs a small business identifying bones and other items in scat of wildlife". (italics mine) It's clear that the lady is just a contract scientist with a small business. We can picture her rummaging the scat of wildlife for "items", presumably keys or other small objects lost perhaps by serious scientists while doing their work. In the "Early life and education" section, we're first told that she "gained her interest in the Arctic in elementary school" and that her scientific interest was stoked at age 11 when she received a dog for her birthday. It's sad how sometimes you don't live up to your childhood dreams and you end up rummaging in wildlife scat. The education part then briefly informs us that she received a doctorate (of which no title is given, but that is specified to be in "Interdisciplinary Studies" despite being about evolutionary biology), and concludes reporting extensively on criticism of her work. Then the "Career" section, divided in four small chapters, in this order: "Business", "Books", "Dogs" and finally "Polar Bears". Then the article ends with a rather large "Criticism" section, which focuses entirely around the climate change issues. Almost all the references throughout the article are coming from a climate change blog or are related to climate controversies.
- loceng 3y ago
  Too much legitimacy to her being a scientist so they couldn't just put "so-called scientist."
loceng 3y ago
Re: "unsupported by the scientific literature" Einstein received the same treatment before relativity was widely accepted. In medicine the man who started the practice of cleaning hands before surgeries and childbirth, was essentially murdered for his preposterous practices: "You'd think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren't thrilled. For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women. ... The sad end to the story is that Semmelweis was probably beaten in the asylum and eventually died of sepsis". - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639... And paraphrasing Dr. Willie Soon, from the recent Tucker Carlson interview - found here - Soon says it only 1 takes scientist to be right - so the "unsupported by scientific literature" should hold little weight as you presented it at some kind of proof point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw All you're doing here is citing, to make it appear legitimate, what essentially is high level ad hominem - as you're not going into any specifics to argue a point, and where I doubt your sources even attempt to counter argue all of the relevant arguments that Soon put forward. You're just parroting propaganda talking points, literally copy/pasting them from a known corrupted-manipulated source: "In a February 2021 interview with Fox News, Sanger stated that Wikipedia's 'ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work'." - Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia.
- arblor 3y ago
  Except those merchants of doubt will always be wrong in 1000 years from now
  - loceng 3y ago
    I presume your "merchants of doubt" is referencing the people and scientists-researchers who don't think CO2 is the existential threat or urgent crisis that is being propagated in MSM and by authoritarian politicians with ulterior motives to manufacture consent with the population for more authoritarian-control policies? That's quite the bold-shalow claim-conclusion with providing no supportive evidence to dismiss all the claims/counter claims and work of these seemingly highly competent and ethical individuals, like these two, for example: Dr. Willie Soon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw Dr. Christopher Essex - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjpBWxvamA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjpBWxvamA If you only put in that much effort into comments, how much effort do you likely put into adequately researching and sorting through the complexity of issues vs. how dismissive are you of talking points that don't fit your narrative, and how much confirmation bias will you likely succumb to?
nvm0n2 3y ago
[flagged]

sureglymop 3y ago

Thank you for bringing this up!

loceng 3y ago
What were you able to derive from those two short quotes that don't really have any substance to them?

throw310822 3y ago

Let me use this occasion for a quick review of her Wikipedia entry. I don't know anything about Crockford but her entry is the typical smear job written by some activist editor who is only concerned with presenting the subject in the worst possible light. This stuff and writing style has no place on a decent encyclopedia, and the persistence of these entries through the years is one of the reasons I'm fed up with Wikipedia. Warning: irony ahead. In the first line of the lede, Susan Crockford is introduced as "a Canadian contract scientist who runs a small business identifying bones and other items in scat of wildlife". (italics mine) It's clear that the lady is just a contract scientist with a small business. We can picture her rummaging the scat of wildlife for "items", presumably keys or other small objects lost perhaps by serious scientists while doing their work. In the "Early life and education" section, we're first told that she "gained her interest in the Arctic in elementary school" and that her scientific interest was stoked at age 11 when she received a dog for her birthday. It's sad how sometimes you don't live up to your childhood dreams and you end up rummaging in wildlife scat. The education part then briefly informs us that she received a doctorate (of which no title is given, but that is specified to be in "Interdisciplinary Studies" despite being about evolutionary biology), and concludes reporting extensively on criticism of her work. Then the "Career" section, divided in four small chapters, in this order: "Business", "Books", "Dogs" and finally "Polar Bears". Then the article ends with a rather large "Criticism" section, which focuses entirely around the climate change issues. Almost all the references throughout the article are coming from a climate change blog or are related to climate controversies.

loceng 3y ago
Too much legitimacy to her being a scientist so they couldn't just put "so-called scientist."

loceng 3y ago

Re: "unsupported by the scientific literature" Einstein received the same treatment before relativity was widely accepted. In medicine the man who started the practice of cleaning hands before surgeries and childbirth, was essentially murdered for his preposterous practices: "You'd think everyone would be thrilled. Semmelweis had solved the problem! But they weren't thrilled. For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis made it look like they were the ones giving childbed fever to the women. ... The sad end to the story is that Semmelweis was probably beaten in the asylum and eventually died of sepsis". - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639... And paraphrasing Dr. Willie Soon, from the recent Tucker Carlson interview - found here - Soon says it only 1 takes scientist to be right - so the "unsupported by scientific literature" should hold little weight as you presented it at some kind of proof point; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw All you're doing here is citing, to make it appear legitimate, what essentially is high level ad hominem - as you're not going into any specifics to argue a point, and where I doubt your sources even attempt to counter argue all of the relevant arguments that Soon put forward. You're just parroting propaganda talking points, literally copy/pasting them from a known corrupted-manipulated source: "In a February 2021 interview with Fox News, Sanger stated that Wikipedia's 'ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work'." - Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia.

arblor 3y ago
Except those merchants of doubt will always be wrong in 1000 years from now
- loceng 3y ago
  I presume your "merchants of doubt" is referencing the people and scientists-researchers who don't think CO2 is the existential threat or urgent crisis that is being propagated in MSM and by authoritarian politicians with ulterior motives to manufacture consent with the population for more authoritarian-control policies? That's quite the bold-shalow claim-conclusion with providing no supportive evidence to dismiss all the claims/counter claims and work of these seemingly highly competent and ethical individuals, like these two, for example: Dr. Willie Soon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7IdLzxzINw Dr. Christopher Essex - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjpBWxvamA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpjpBWxvamA If you only put in that much effort into comments, how much effort do you likely put into adequately researching and sorting through the complexity of issues vs. how dismissive are you of talking points that don't fit your narrative, and how much confirmation bias will you likely succumb to?

nvm0n2 3y ago

[flagged]