This is a rare example in the climate debate where the evidence is clear cut: one side lies and the other tells the truth, and it's obvious. Counting polar bears is quite simple (compared to most other climate science).
That's why I picked this example. It's impossible to disagree on the science without lying.
- Climate alarmists say that polar bear populations are on the decline because the arctic ice is melting. On this side we have the Royal Society twitter account, Desmogblog, National Geographic, and The National Wildlife Federation, etc.
- Climate 'deniers' say that polar bear populations are increasing since we banned hunting them. On this side is zoologist Susan Crockford who's studied polar bears extensively and wrote a few books on them. She tweeted.
Crockford 2017 https://t.co/prBw00Zp1Z
— Susan Crockford (@sjc_pbs) March 2, 2017
Armstrong et al, 2008 were right (in critique of USGS #polarbear survival forecasting) to conclude: pic.twitter.com/OF7vu1EkFP
The challenge is: If Susan Crockford is wrong on polar bears, read her paper and explain to me how and where she goes wrong. If you believe Susan Crockford is wrong and Desmogblog are right, but you can't point out an error in Susan's paper then you are anti-science.
No comments:
Post a Comment