Reposted from Polar Bear Science
Posted on October 16, 2019 | Comments Off on UVic bows to outside pressure and rescinds my adjunct professor status
As you may have heard, this summer I lost my status as Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Anthropology Department at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada (UVic), a position I had held for 15 years. This action followed my expulsion from the roster of the university’s volunteer Speakers Bureau in May 2017. However, until April 2017 the university and the Anthropology department proudly promoted my work, including my critical polar bear commentary, which suggests someone with influence (and perhaps political clout) intervened to silence my scientific criticism.
Journalist Donna LaFramboise has exposed this travesty in the National Post (16 October 2019), which you can read here. I have provided more background below and Donna’s blog post is here.
Losing my adjunct status
An adjunct professorship is an unpaid position with a few responsibilities that in return allow a scholar to operate as a qualified member of the academic community, such as making applications for research funding. However, an adjunct has no rights. Adjunct status must be renewed every three years or so, at the discretion of the individual department. I was first appointed as an adjunct in the Department of Anthropology in 2004, shortly after I had successfully defended my Ph.D. dissertation at UVic.
When I approached members of the Anthropology Department with a request to undertake an interdisciplinary Ph.D. (in Anthropology and Biology) on the evolution of humans and animals, they could not have been more welcoming and supportive. Both Anthropology and Biology departments and the Faculty of Graduate Studies enthusiastically accepted my research proposal despite the fact that it challenged all conventional thinkers about how one species transforms into another: not only historical heavy-weights but contemporary experts in evolutionary theory as well.
My testable hypothesis that thyroid hormones (in part due to their actions on genes) provide a mechanism for evolution to work via natural selection was truly innovative and revolutionary. No one at the university suggested it was inappropriate to question accepted authorities on this topic. In fact, they applauded it.
After my book based on my dissertation was published (above), the university PR department promoted my participation in a 2007, two-hour NATURE documentary (“Dogs That Changed the World”), which came with widespread media attention. I was chosen, out of all the people involved in the film, to work with the executive producer of NATURE to promote the show via a ‘satellite media tour’ of TV and radio interviews taped in New York City.
Our local paper, the Victoria Times-Colonist, produced an above-the-fold feature on the story of my evolution research that challenged conventional wisdom (see below), and at least one major US newspaper carried a similar story.
[Dog domestication is an important component of my testable scientific theory because it’s an aspect of evolution that the public can wrap their heads around. But the theory is scientifically powerful because it applies to virtually all species: it explains the rise of polar bears and humans from their ancestors, as well as all mammal, fish, bird, and reptile species. It may also explain the origin of invertebrate and unicellular species.]
More importantly, the university Provost Office supported me in 2012 after a letter from Greenpeace was sent to the university president suggesting I should be fired for conflict of interest for having taken a small contract from a think tank called The Heartland Institute for some research on their Climate Change Reconsidered II report. The information about this contract was made public by scientist Peter Gleick, who was so obsessed with knowing who funded Heartland that he used someone else’s email address to fraudulently obtain private documents. Since I was not a paid employee of UVic at the time and thus could not be fired, the issue was moot but I was contacted by the provost because the letter to the university president had also been sent to the media.
Despite the negative international media attention the Greenpeace stunt generated, going forward I continued to give free lectures about polar bears as well as on dog domestication and speciation to the public through the university’s Speakers Bureau, which I had done since 2009. In 2016, the Anthropology Department happily renewed my adjunct status application for 2016-2019: my acceptance letter said the decision was unanimous. Even at that time, the department was not only fully aware of my activities with regard to the polar bear status controversy, but proudly shared that information.
For example, twice – in June 2013 and again in January 2015 – the department published announcements on their news webpage regarding opinion pieces on the status of polar bear populations I had written (see below from 2015). The 2015 Financial Post article also garnered a mention in the newsletter sent out to department alumni that year.
As late as 12 April 2017, the university was also on board: on that date, the University Media Relations department tweeted an announcement about an interview I had done with the CBC about the status of Newfoundland polar bears:
In addition, the university also paid me to give several expanded polar bear conservation lectures for its students and the public. I gave a two hour lecture for the English Language Centre in 2014 and again in 2017 for students whose first language was not English and developed a two-part lecture series for adults offered through the Continuing Education Department in April 2015. I had also been giving free lectures to the public on polar bears, in my own time, through the University’s Speakers Bureau since 2009 (see discussion below).
In other words, up until mid-April 2017, both the Anthropology Department and the University at large were not only aware of my work that was critical of some aspects of polar bear science (as well as the controversy it was generating), but they were happy to tell others about it and to have their students learn about it.
As far as I am aware there had been no complaints registered regarding the performance of my adjunct duties or polar bear research activities: if there were concerns or complaints, no one mentioned them to me.
In May 2019 my appointment was up for renewal for 2019-2021 and I submitted my application by the due date. However, the Department Chair, April Nowell, citing a decision by the department’s ARPT committee (‘Appointment/Reaapointment/Promotion/Tenure’), refused to renew the appointment. No reason whatsoever was given for this decision, nor was there any avenue offered for appeal (it is my understanding that all tenured faculty members vote on such ARPT decisions and the fact that “unanimously” was not part of the announced decision, as it had been in 2016, leads me to believe not everyone on the faculty was on board with this outcome).
I did point out in my request for renewal that my position on polar bear conservation supports that of Inuit in Nunavut, who are fighting against sanctioned scientists and the Canadian government regarding the status of polar bears because their lives are threatened by an abundance of these dangerous predators. Two young Inuk men were fatally mauled by polar bears in 2018 and there have been many close calls before and since. Anthropologists at UVic are avid champions of aboriginal rights – but apparently, that support goes out the door when it comes to polar bears.
Expulsion from the Speakers Bureau in 2017
The seeds for losing my adjunct status were planted when I was expelled from the UVic Speakers Bureau in May 2017.
It appears the impetus for that action was a lecture on polar bears I had given at the International Climate Change Conference hosted by the Heartland Institute on 23 March 2017 that was video-taped and posted online in early April. During the question and answer session after my lecture, I happened to mention that during my talks about polar bears to elementary school classes over the past year (through the university’s Speakers Bureau), I had been astonished to learn that every single teacher believed that only a few hundred to a few thousand polar bears were left in the world. This was in stark contrast to reality, since the 2015 official IUCN Red List assessment of the species put the global population size at 22,000-31,000 (and which I contend is plausibly higher still).
I believe that someone in Victoria with political clout saw the video-taped Heartland Q & A session (posted online 5 April 2017) and that they, alone or along with others, contacted the university to complain about me talking to school children about polar bears. But this time, no one involved the media.
About two weeks after the Heartland lecture was posted online, on April 20 an email notice arrived to my in-box regarding the annual renewal of topics for the Speakers Bureau, addressed “Dear Adjunct Faculty Member”. The email explained that this year there was a new requirement that adjunct professors had to have departmental approval to participate in this free community lecture service. When I asked for an explanation, this is what I was told (my bold):
With this change, we’re recognizing that the nature of the relationship between adjuncts and the university can vary widely from Faculty to Faculty and that it is substantially different than that with employees, whether faculty or staff. By asking the head of the unit to approve the participation of their adjuncts, we’re asking someone with direct knowledge of the individual and accountability to UVic to confirm that the volunteer speaker is able to represent the university on their intended topics.
Graduate students are also allowed to give such presentations to the community: did they also need permission? Were all adjunct faculty sent the same email? It all seemed very odd but I decided to go along and asked permission. My department chair, Dr. Ann Stahl, refused. She said only this:
“While I respect issues of academic freedom, your talks at schools have generated concern among parents regarding balance that have been shared with various levels of the university.”
That is all: no further information about what these unspecified “concerns” from “parents” entailed, except a vague suggestion that my lectures at schools lacked unspecified “balance” and that those “concerns” had perhaps reached the highest echelon of the university. The chair did not request a copy of my school presentation or question me in any way about my Speakers Bureau participation. Polar bears were not specifically mentioned and I was not presented with any avenue of appeal. I suspect the details of this decision were not revealed to the rest of the department, although undoubtedly some colleagues and staff would have been made aware that the administration was not prepared to defend my academic freedom on this issue.
Thus began an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors.
I should add as background that although I had been speaking to adult audiences about polar bears since September 2009 (in a popular lecture called “Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change”), I did not add a presentation geared specifically towards elementary school children until September 2016, which I called “Polar Bears: Facts and Myths.” I did so because teachers kept asking me to speak about polar bears to their classes. As far as I am aware, Mandy Crocker, who managed the Speakers Bureau, had no misgivings when I submitted the description of the presentation for elementary school audiences to her for approval in May 2016. Her actual words were: “This will be a popular [topic] with the community for sure.”
I had heard nothing from the Speakers Bureau or anyone else regarding complaints or concerns from parents or teachers of children I had spoken to in the 2016-2017 school year.
Anthropology Chair’s refusal to allow me to participate in the Speakers Bureau meant I could no longer connect to any community members, even adults, about anything: not even my evolution research of which the department was previously so proud. I dared to tell children the truth – that polar bears are not currently on the verge of extinction – and for that I have been pilloried and drummed out of the university community.
The measures taken to have me removed from the Speakers Bureau are characteristic of a bureaucracy trying to cover an impropriety: the failure to inform me of complaints, the pretense that I was not being singled out for censure, and the carefully-worded correspondence. Moreover, the refusal of the female Chair of my department to support me had ‘pressured from above’ written all over it.
I didn’t know it then, but this was the beginning of the end of my academic career.
Stifling scientific criticism
It appears certain to me that the Anthropology Department bowed to pressure from the administration, who themselves bowed to pressure from outside the university community, in an attempt to stifle my legitimate scientific criticisms of polar bear conservation issues. This kind of bullying has been happening far too often at universities, even in Canada.
Recall that until my Heartland conference lecture was posted online in early April 2017, both the department and the university had been supportive of my work that was critical of accepted authorities on the topics of evolutionary theory and polar bear conservation status. I had been a valued adjunct professor for 15 years: someone from outside the university applied the pressure that turned that support on a dime. When push came to shove, UVic threw me under the bus rather than stand up for my academic freedom.
An adjunct professor is the most vulnerable member of an academic community: how a university treats its adjuncts regarding issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech is a true reflection of how they value those principles. Clearly, these are not concepts UVic holds in high regard, especially for women.
The university administration poisoned the well of departmental support I might have garnered for my adjunct renewal in 2019 when they insisted (over the Speakers Bureau expulsion two years earlier) that the department deny me the academic freedom tenured faculty enjoy.
I am sure there will be some people clapping their hands in glee at this development, like sly children do when they think they have gotten their own way through manipulation. However, the loss of adjunct status will primarily prevent me from continuing scientific research on speciation and domestication mechanisms in evolution: without an academic affiliation I will be unable to secure research funds or academic collaborations.
My scientific credentials are not diminished: they stand on my career accomplishments.
What a lack of academic affiliation has not done – and cannot do – is stop me from investigating and commenting on the failures and inconsistencies of science that I see in published polar bear research papers and reflected in public statements made by polar bear specialists.
I am still a former adjunct professor and I will not be silenced.
At the moment, I am en-route to Oslo to talk about the polar bear catastrophe that never happened – and then it’s on to London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Munich for more of the same. If you’d like to help defray incidental but unavoidable travel costs not covered by the organizers over my five weeks in Europe, that would be very much appreciated: there is a button on the upper right on the sidebar of my blog (“Support Polar Bear Science”) that will accept your donation via credit card or PayPal.
References
Crockford, S. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3
Harvey, J.A., van den Berg, D., Ellers, J., Kampen, R., Crowther, T.W., Roessingh, P., Verheggen, B., Nuijten, R. J. M., Post, E., Lewandowsky, S., Stirling, I., Balgopal, M., Amstrup, S.C., and Mann, M.E. 2017. Internet blogs, polar bears, and climate-change denial by proxy. Bioscience 68: 281-287. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix133 Open Access, available here. Supplementary data file available here and the data for the principal component analysis is available here and (h/t to R. Tol), the R code is available here Corrigendum here (issued 28 March 2018). Scheduled for the April print issue.
Rajan, A. and Tol, R.S. 2018. Lipstick on a bear: a comment on internet blogs, polar bears, and climate change denial by proxy. Open Science Framework osf.io/7j3z2. January 2018, DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.18048.12804. Available here.
See a list of some of my publications, reports, books, and videos here.
Those who are opposed to free and open debate and the frank unfettered give and take of honest scientific debate are bullies. Small minded, intellectually fearful bullies. And like all bullies, they are cowards. They cannot face being challenged. They are terrified of being found wrong. There is no brain room available for the sheer joy of discovery, no muscular delight in the struggle of debate. They are to be pitied for having such cramped narrow minds, such feeble thoughts.
True but there’s nothing to debate here. Plenty of P bears, Climate change not affecting them. End of story
The propaganda effort requires that the public, including and especially the propagandists’ most effective tool, the children, not be exposed to the facts.
BTW: ‘They’ clearly have people whose job it is to sit there and watch Heartland videos, looking for vulnerable heretics.
That’s exactly what the denier industry does. They hire people, using millions of dollars, to troll Clare change research to create deliberately contrary and obfuscating talking points. It’s blatantly anti-science.
Clearly the polar bears are at fault here. Scientists took a vote and decided that global warming would reduce their numbers, yet the polar bears refused to comply.
Yes, I think they should let loose a few of the cuddly critters in San Francisco, LA, London, New York, Paris, and especially Stockholm. Might also solve some other pressing problems, as well.
How do you know that? Have you read ALL the research, or just her blog? You do realize her expertise is canine evolution, not polar bears, do you not?
Have YOU read all the research? You do realize she’s right, I hope, that polar bear populations are NOT threatened and have been increasingly steadily in recent years. This is not a secret, however much some people might want to keep it one.
What could have been unbalanced in her presentations?
Susan: “There are too many polar bears!”
Elizabeth Mays children: “So, we must eat the babies?”
Susan: No, we’re not going to eat the babies.
Elizabeth Mays children: “That is so unbalanced!”
According to who? You should look up a dude at U of A named DeRicher. You light see a different perspective.
Link?
Do you have some research that backs up your statement? I haven’t seen anyone actually publish anything that refutes what
They are criminals (not just bullies) misusing public funds in a fraudulent and criminal enterprise.
Are the names and positions of the bullies available? Seems like that would be fair.
It would also be fair if readers followed the link provided by Crawford on the Corrigendum of the one peer-reviewed article she published. In it, you can read from her co-authors she has never published any peer-reviewed data on polar bears, and failed to declare a conflict in that she was previously paid to write for the Heartland Institute, a US lobby group that supports climate change denial, tobacco safety and safety of gas fracking.
Anyone can read this Corrigendum by following the link provided in the references.
Anyone can follow the link to her “published” works, none of which were peer-reviewed and her PeerJ maniscript is just a preprint server, and has not been published in any journal since 2017.
I see a newbie who is pushing another funding canard, who idiotically declares that since she didn’t, publish a paper on Polar Bears, that makes her unqualified to talk about them.
This is truly dumb stuff here, a person who ignored her EDUCATION and published papers mainly in the Arctic region over several animals.
He doesn’t care that she was maliciously attacked by a group of 15 people, some who have ZERO animal research and education background at all!!!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
SNIP
[you have IP adddresses in the same day in Mexico, Texas, and Georgia – you’re a FAKE – BANNED – mod]
SNIP
[you have IP addresses in the same day in Mexico, Texas, and Georgia – you’re a FAKE – BANNED – mod]
Susan,
I think a couple of well executed FOIs may rattle UVics cage and let some of the dross fall into the open, and if it is the likes of Greenpeace or similar that turn up in that dross then you may have options for further legal actions?
But at the least find out who the malfeasants are skulking around in the shadows, manipulating outcomes to suit their warped agendas!
How do you know that? Have you read ALL the research, or just her blog? You do realize her expertise is canine evolution, not polar bears, do you not?
Lyle,
Dr. Crockford has a PHD in ZOOLOGY.
Do you know what ZOOLOGY consist of?
Point me to her polar bear research publications. I didn’t find any.
Lyle, you can easily find Crockford’s publications yourself, including the ones on polar bears, listed on her blog, but that would involve an open mind and intellectual effort. To make it easy for you since you appear to lack the will or the capacity:
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
Stinkerp,
this silly boy (Lyle) ignored the most important part, her PHD in ZOOLOGY and several papers published for animal that lives/ had lived in the Arctic region
She has the qualification to assess Polar Bear research and discuss it with fellow researchers.
His whiny insistence over something not relevant, is just immature and ignorant.
Sounds to me like she was speaking about something that she had little actual expertise in. She hadn’t actually published any research about polar bears and was likely saying things that were false, without collaborating with experts to ensure the accuracy of her claims.
It seems that people like Lyle tries to make false narratives without evidence to support it. His unsupported claims against Dr. Crockford sounds a lot like an attack on her because he doesn’t like what she says. He will ignore that Zoology degree, because it is inconvenient to his belief system, which is what he is running on.
It seems clear you are just another unpleasant person trying to fling mud on people.
Show me links to her research. Or are you just trolling me, attacking me because you don’t like what I say?
I thought this site would filter personal attacks out, but I guess not. Shame. I had hopes of having an adult discussion.
We take personal attacks seriously here. I read his posts and they don’t contain ‘personal attacks’ against you. Mod
“you are just another unpleasant person ” is not a personal attack?
That’s a stunner.
(You have repeatedly attacked people with the word DENIER many times, yet your comments are allowed anyway. But you whine over a simple mild rebuke and you go bananas, read up on the word Hypocrisy.
A reminder of what YOU posted just about your complaint that a Moderator replied to) SUNMOD
(You make a group personal attack, make unsupported lies and end with a whimper with yet another lie.) SUNMOD
Lyle, obviously you aren’t interested in Crockford’s publications because you can easily find them on her blog. But here you go in case you change your mind. They will refute your ideas about polar bears and are supported with extensive documentation.
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
It seems that people like Tommy will accept anything from anyone as long as not suits their narrative. You can attack me, but you don’t seem able to produce any research she’s done.
This guy also has a zoology degree. Do you take his statements on the same level as you do Crickford’s? And BTW, ha ALSO has teams of published research about POLAR BEARS. Which do you think carries more credibility?
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acv.12439
I await your response containing references to her work on PILAR BEARS, since that’s what she professed expertise about.
Crockford has debunked Derocher’s studies and claims several times in blog posts. Here is a listing:
https://polarbearscience.com/?s=derocher
Having a study published in a sympathetic journal is no indication of accuracy. Event the vaunted Nature has published corrections and retractions.
There are no peer-reviewed publications about polar bears in Dr. Crockford’s publication list.
Blogs, youtube, media interviews, preprint servers are not peer reviewed, anyone can stick anything up in there.
Stinkerp, sunsettommy, I suggest you read the corrigendum link in this article, down in references, because this article fails to declare that Dr. Crockford has been previously paid by the Heartland Institute to write articles. This US-based institute also supports the tobacco lobby and the fracking industry.
Be very careful about where your information is coming from.
Please read the link and make your own conclusions.
I am well aware of her research, her blog and her being maliciously publicly attacked by her peers.
Your funding canard is irrelevant, the contents of her science research and her published papers is what is relevant. Since you didn’t say anything about her research at all, I presume you have no argument to sell beyond fallacies.
I started this thread with this title: New Research Finds Polar Bear Numbers Up 42% Since 2004 – Survival Rates Unaffected By Sea Ice Availible
It is now 48 pages long with a lot of links to Polar Bears situation, some of it from Dr. Crockford herself.
Her Education
LINK
===
Papers on the Arctic Habitat and Animals that live in it
LINK
===
This you I made a fool of?
LINK
===
The 15 authors who made a malicious attack on her
LINK
===
More on the ugly attack on Dr. Crockford
LINK
===
Accuses Dr. Armstrup of lying and back it up
LINK
There are more showing that I am well aware of the topic, her research and the ugly attacks she has endured. Your typical ignorance will hurt you as long as you keep being uninterested in the evidence.
SNIP
[you have IP addresses in the same day in Mexico, Texas, and Georgia – you’re a FAKE – BANNED – mod]
[snip -you have IP addresses in the same day in Mexico, Texas, and Georgia – you’re a FAKE – BANNED – mod]
Crockford failed to declare where her money comes from. She was never paid by U Vic.
She was paid to write by the Heartland Institute. This is a US-based lobby group that supports climate change denial, the tobacco industry, and the gas fracking industry.
Anyone can read this by following the Corrigendum link in the references.
This would make it clearer as to why UVic has severed any connections to her.
https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/harvey-et-al-2018-corrigendum_in-print-april-issue.pdf
The University has yet to explain their actions, thus you don’t know what it is.
Sounds to me like you are speaking about something you know very little about.
Google is your friend: https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/
Its Peter Ridd all over again.
MJE VK5ELL
Absolutely!!
+ Bob Carter + Murray Salby + …
https://www.spectator.com.au/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f
I had the privilege and honor to share the speaker’s podium with Bob Carter on two occasions. He was a powerful voice who dared to speak out against scientific corruption in the field of climate science. His voice is sorely missed.
Between about 2005 and 2010, I attended semi-regular meetings at the Astronomy/Physics Department at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), in the city of Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, Australia. During this time, I had no formal position with the University, other than I was (temporarily) employed to evaluate projects, essays, and dissertations submitted by students. Throughout this period, I was treated with the utmost respect by all of the faculty members at USQ with whom I interacted.
One day in 2009 (?), I got a phone call from the USQ Professor who dealt with my interaction with the university. In this call, he expressed concern that my name had appeared on a list of skeptics published on the internet, asserting that I was linked to USQ. I assured him that, I had not given the people who had constructed this list any indication that I was associated with the USQ. I indicated that there was some possibility that the people in the US who had decided to put my name on this list of skeptics might have assumed that I was working at the USQ because he had been a co-author on the paper we had recently published. What was unsaid in this conversation, but clearly implied, was that if my name had appeared on a list of scientists supporting anthropogenic global warming, there would have been no problem.
In order to assuage fears that I had gone over to the dark side of the force, I sent off an email to the list-makers in the US telling them that I was not connected to the USQ in any formal way and asking them to correct my stated affiliation. This seemed to satisfy the pearl-clutching mandarins at the USQ but it left a sour taste in my mouth.
Dealing with dangerous zealots always leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. But just think, they must know they are on the wrong side of the argument, otherwise why would they spend so much time trying to silence those that disagree with them. If they felt they were right, they would just laugh about you in public.
Its more likely you’ve been spreading unverifiable nonsense, and you were dealt with accordingly.
Another IRONIC Lyle babble, one that leaves a nasty taste in everyone else’s mouth.
Don’t you have something more mature and scientific to offer?
No content, just another denier personal attack.
And a denier fail.
(You called him a DENIER…., TWICE!!!, which is a personal attack…., LOL) SUNMOD
Wow. You need to get a grip, Lyle.
Add another one, this time a Uni Exec who told the truth.
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/university-of-alberta-executive-resigns-over-controversial-ad
Heterodox Academy is devoted to free speech on campus and diversity of opinion.
After skimming over a podcast “Episode 68: Matthew H. Goldberg, From Christian Identity to Climate Action” advertised on the front page, I was drawn to believe this academy is more of a totalitarian climate action propaganda hub. Anyone with a weak stomach should not listen to it. However, it is helpful to master the art of propaganda.
Yep, I just listened to some of that and I have the distinct impression that their use of the word “diversity” conforms strictly to the leftist definition.
Diversity is one of the road signs “Slow down — Beware of Propaganda.”
‘and another one bites the dust’ – so the mob continues to rule – just like in the dark ages – when they burned people at the stake – chopped their heads off – or whatever took their fancy – if they dared to go against the mob – now it’s the media mob – THE BEST THING THOUGH THAT HAS CHANGED – is the law – thank goodness for that! – she will live on to fight another day – HATS OFF TO ANYONE WHO STANDS UP TO THEM – YOU GO GIRL!! KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT! – there are those that don’t go with the mob – we’re behind you all the way –
Were the ‘complaints from parents’ dreamt up in the same way as in the Lindsay Shepherd affair at Laurier university?
I.e. by university academics who disagreed with her. Subsequently found to be without basis.
yeah its funny how they cant PROVE by paper mail or email or recorded calls just what who etc the supposed complaints came from and the specifics
but they accuse and remove using those tactic
Susan has my support n sympathy
its going to keep happening unless enough lawsuits stop it.
Likely, only one ” deep-pocketed” alumni that had a hissy fit.
Agreed, it is Dr Peter Ridd all over again. He has shown the way, she should look at crowd funding & talk to her lawyers.
Universities are no longer there to be an open portal for knowledge, information, and debate. They are simply there as propaganda centers.
It’s getting worse. At times in the UK it seems that if you are even thought to disagree with almost any tenet of the global “liberal-left” religion (not just climate change) you were find yourself kettled into an uncomfortable position, de-platformed and dismissed on trumped-up charges. University management boards cravenly yield to government pressure (via funding manipulation) to toe the Party line and hence bully, threaten or dismiss dissidents. Globally and historically this pressure is not unprecedented; the Chinese Cultural Revolution saw many academics dismissed or harassed, as did the Iranian.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic that ultimately the climate fraud will dissipate, but it will probably happen only when politicians of all hues (but especially the Left) find that a cause they have appropriated becomes toxic and is dumped. Perhaps when the Cult of St Greta reaches Peak Nuts there will be a significant change
It´s good to be optimistic. Unfortunately this climate fraud seems to be climate heaven to politicians. They see this situation as an opportunity to control every aspect of our lives. This is clearly visible already. And with the fact that policians are not the brightest minds to think…
Fraud will dissipate if UN/IPCC want it to dissipate. But they won´t. As our president said “there will be a new world order and that is a change in governance”. Of course there might be many explanations to that sentence, but I think none of them is for the good to people. I feel very strong that this is the beginning of 1984. Control, control, control…
it seems that if you are even thought to disagree with almost any tenet of the global “liberal-left” religion
Getting closer & closer to George Orwell’s 1984 Thought Police:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
The poster behind Susan in the photo at the top of this article — Marine Mammals of the Northern Crysophere — included a comparison of millennial minimums and maximums of Arctic Sea Ice Extent. It showed that the present Arctic sea ice extent was greater than the millennial minimum. This did not sit well with certain people in the Society for Marine Mammalogy (of which I am a charter member). One person in particular controlled significant funding for global warming research in Antarctica. Consequently, after 25 years and 15 biennial conferences for which I produced commemorative posters that provided tens of thousands of dollars for the Society’s Awards and a cash prize for Excellence in Science Communication, subsequent conference organizers were told to reject any conference commemorative poster by me. The five-figure account for awards attributed to my work disappeared into the Society’s accounts. I had contributed 125 illustrations to a species reference pages on the Society’s web site that were taken down. Academic bullying is real.
Pieter, I’m sad to read your comment, it’s a real shame that these scientific societies are just so incompetent. Nevertheless, I just wanted to say how much I have appreciated your work over the years.
Pieter,
Does the society own these illustrations, or do you have rights to reproduce and distribute / sell them? They could be quite interesting to have posted here, for example.
rip
rip, I own all the rights and they have been formally copyrighted. The commemorative posters I created for the Bennials were at no cost to the Society. They only benefitted from them. The first was done in 1984. I can post an image of the Cryosphere poster here if there is interest.
Another SMM commemorative that may interest folks on WUWT is “A Phylogeny of Cetacea” on which I have a reconstruction of Cenozoic sea levels calibrated to the Gradstein GTS. It showed a tremendous correlation between major climate changes and the extinction and emergence of family-level taxa.
BTW, Susan and I co-hosted a workshop on climate and evolution at an SMM Biennial a few years back.
Thanks Pieter. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d love to see your work. I’m such a sucker for good visuals…especially ones that convey useful and interesting information.
rip
I fear that the green/left movement may well have unleashed a monster upon themselves. We can only hope!
Frankenstein’s monster also terrorized the innocent villagers.
There is an African proverb regarding political squabbles:
“When elephants fight it’s the grass that gets trampled.”
hint: we aren’t the elephants
Thanks to all of you for your support and to Charles for reposting this. I arrived last night in Oslo and getting ready to talk to European audiences about polar bears and the failure of academic freedom. I may not be able to respond to comments as much as usual but wanted to touch base this morning before I head out.
Peter Ridd is here in Oslo as well: I’m sure there will be a lot of talk about academic freedom!
best regards,
Susan
Immense thanks for your work and publishing the truth about polar bear numbers. It has enlightened me and given me solid facts to communicate to others. I never cease to surprise those around me ( including school aged ones ) who all seem to think there are only a couple of hundred left.
I will make a donation to your fund.
Thanks also to WUWT for giving your work a wider audience.
Susan Crockford,
Please make good contact with Peter Ridd so you can emulate his ‘fight back’.
Hopefully, each of you will win big and be fully compensated while ‘outing’ all who have attacked you.
Be assured of the multitude of people around the world who are willing and eager to support your defence.
Richard
Susan,
Thank you for your good work.
Have you considered suing them like is going on in Australia? The court awarded damages to the scientist and the university is appealing. So it is not very pleasant, but might help scientific freedom.
Susan, your views on polar bears are completely at odds with those of researchers who actually do field studies, whose sole subject is polar bear research. Your conclusions seem to me to be directly at odds with the evidence about the state of the arctic sea ice.
So you seem honestly to be motivated from a political stance, not a scientific one. I can respect that, but you have to choose science or politics – like Judith Curry has done.
griff,
First, kudos on a respectful dissent.
Second…hacks and frauds are (usually) easily debunked and shown to be wrong. The fact that Susan’s work is attacked, often vehemently, but isn’t conclusively debunked should give one pause. Sure, one would normally be inclined to believe field researchers, but that doesn’t give them carte blanche authority. Challenges should be dealt with on the merits, and Susan’s conclusions seem well reasoned and are certainly possible.
As for the claim that it’s mostly political, this is an odd position to take, since it’s only because the catastrophic alarmists have insisted on injecting this general topic into the political sphere. That is, without the alarmists, this wouldn’t be a political topic at all. It would just be a semi-interesting field of study.
rip
Funny we never seem to see Griff demanding that the entire rest of the “97%” of climate scientists be chose between politics and science. If the did we would not be in this ridiculous mess.
He also make a classic “it seems to me” appeal to authority fallacy instead of questioning any factual claims made by Dr Cockford.
Since her claims about population numbers are not speculative projections based on the state of the ice, there is no way they can be ” at odds” with the state of the ice. That is just problem with the claims of endangerment which are based on assumptions which the current population levels show to be totally erroneous.
Finally if those doing field research would just publish their recent data we would all be much better informed. It says a lot about how political and unscientific they are that they do not release data some of it going back many years. Why not ?? Are the figures unfavorable to their agenda? Since they are the ones claiming polar bears need protection, it seems odd they do not want back up their claims with the data they have.
Now would be a good time to apologise for past indiscretions , perhaps !!
“As for the claim that it’s mostly political,”
That’s Griff’s way of dismissing the data.
First, kudos on a respectful dissent.
Why give kudos for what should be standard behavior? And the grifter is only being “respectful” now because he knows his previous vileness against Dr Crockford got him rightfully on the border of banishment here.
(He is in Permanent Moderation here, his comments require approval) SUNMOD
I prefer positive reinforcement. Even if, as you say, respect should be the norm, not the exception.
Show us her work. I can’t find any about polar bears.
Griff, Susan has come up against P-bear folks at DFO and SMM who crave the research monies with the global warming tinge. I have engaged them too and they have no interest in even discussing the issue(s). I asked one of the most prominent among them about what did the P-bears due during Interglacial Climate Optimums such as the Minoian Warm Period or Eemian Interglacial. I got the impression that he was aware that such warm times ran against the meme that the warm regime of the 1980s and 90s were the “warmest in history,” and so he did not want to be challenged. The Nunavut are also at odds with these folks.
Unfortunately, “being at odds” with researchers who benefit from climate alarmism research money has become more political in nature than scientific. Just follow the history of Michael Mann.
Did either of those warming periods extend over the entire polar regions and last as long as the one we’re experiencing now?
What expertise do you bring to bear on the subject?
“those of researchers who actually do field studies, whose sole subject is polar bear research”
Hitting the booze so early you forget to provide any names, or research.
If he did, it wouldn’t support the position he’s taken any way.
DeRocher at U of A.
griffter,
Did you read her book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, published 2019? Has anyone rebutted the data and analyses presented therein? Have you? If not, then you have no basis for your ignorant, dishonest and grossly political attach on Dr. Susan Crockford.
Has she published any any of her data somewhere other than in her book?
Say What?
Dr. Crockford points out that polar bear numbers are not decreasing. Can you point to a paper that says different?
Dr. Crockford points out that polar bears have survived periods when there was much less arctic ice than presently exists. Can you point to a paper that says different?
If I were to study the quantity of polar bears, the FIRST place I would begin my research would be with the people who have to live with them – the Inuit and other first nation tribes of their habitat. Those peoples may not be ‘scientific’ in the sense we like to use the term, nor do they publish esoteric articles in the ‘best’ publications but when there are Polar Bears killing your children you pay serious attention! Too many? too few? they KNOW!
All a researcher has to do is go and talk to them. If you have to learn their language then you will learn more about Polar Bears. It is very simple and straight forward.
On the other hand, Dr. Crockford’s work actually corresponds to the data, unlike the work of your friends.
Now this is funny, a troll complaining about how skeptics have politicized climate science.
Griff doesn’t care anyway. If Dr. Crockford replied to him, he would ignore it.
Griff who uses the Guardian as his number one source you are not in a position to lecture anyone about science you troll.
Griff
Your statement gives no evidence that you knew what a polar bear is before being informed by Dr Crockford. No-one with an IQ higher than their shoe size is capable with honesty of believing the imbecilic fairy tales of climate warming for the first time ever in 4 billion years and all life facing imminent extinction all caused by CO2 and the colour of Donald Trump’s hair. It’s an embarrassment to the human race that this debate is even happening.
Susan,
Keep up the good work. Let us know if you consider a legal challenge.
Jay
At least they didn’t make you stay locked up in your house, Susan, the way the Church did Galileo when he published his work against their orders. Hang in there.
That’s the problem with adjunct positions as opposed to tenured positions, you’re always vulnerable, even changes in the department chair can cause problems. Unfortunately more universities are increasing the number of adjuncts for financial reasons. Good luck with finding a new position.
The Chronicle of Higher Education had an article last year on “How to Fix the Adjunct Crisis”.
Susan
I’m more keen than ever to hear you soon in Paris, and will try and find your book Rythms of Life
Best – Daniel
Can you point us to any of your published polar bear research? Other than your book, that is.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Voltaire, actually.
Incorrect, Ed. It was attributed to Voltaire when Evelyn Hall wrote his biography.
Well, if he didn’t say it he should have!
“In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs. This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.”
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNSIwBrSu7kI17IzzCMpCMUBfY62lg:1572268385959&q=i+may+disagree+with+what+you+say+but+i+will+defend+your+right+to+say+it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOw4uVhL_lAhWIxcQBHRdLC80Q1QIwCHoECBUQEQ&biw=360&bih=574
Andrew Weaver, formerly a UVic climate modeler professor now leader of the Green Party is stepping down and not seeking reelection. Looking for a new job? Returning to UVic? Coincidence?
That could be a couple of things.
1. He is just lining his pockets by accepting a sinecure
2. He can see the tide starting to turn and is one of the first to jump ship.
I do hope it is the second of these.
I know it is not related but compare Susan’s story to this case currently unfolding in Australia.
The chap in question still holds his job.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-17/unsw-skin-cancer-levon-khachigian-allegations-and-retractions/11585768
Blimey! That photomicrograph is as bent as a hockey-stick.
‘Both Professor Brooks and Professor Vaux are calling for a national office of research integrity to handle these cases.
“Because of the way the system is set up, the university is supposedly investigating themselves, and I think they do have significant conflicts of interest,” Professor Brooks said.
Professor Vaux agrees: “We really need to have a research integrity commission set up that’s independent of certainly the universities and the medical research money agencies as well.
“In 23 European countries, the US, Japan, China, there are national offices for research integrity that handle these things. In Australia, it’s a self-regulation model, where institutions handle things internally and in secret.”‘
OTOH you think it’s about time for an overaching integrity body until they mention 23 countries that have them and then you think about all the climastrology waved through without a murmur. It won’t be the science that brings them down but their unscientific prescriptions and the clock’s ticking on that.
So someone, somewhere expressed some “concerns” and an academic is removed from academia and cut off from funding, without any due process or any means to defend herself and her actions nor any means of appeal.
Maybe her department head needs to hear from more than a few “woke” parents who object to school children being given the facts about polar bear numbers.
Anyone wishing to inform her about the wider damage this action does to the credibility and objectivity of science in general and the image of her university in particular can write to her at the following address.
Remain polite and avoid assuming you “know” her motivations and beliefs beyond the information presented here.
https://www.uvic.ca/socialsciences/anthropology/people/faculty/stahlann.php
stahlann@uvic.ca
I would be willing to bet the next mortgage payment that not a single parent expressed “concern” and that the department chair was flat-out lying.
Hey, don’t forget this is Canada. There certainly was at least one WOKE parent who thinks that showing scientific facts to young people is totally unacceptable. How else can you convince them the join the “church” of pseudo-scientology ?
This issue here is why is this all done behind closed doors and zero accountability.
Were they facts? How were they verified?
Dr. Crockford’s opening statement appears to be false. There is a huge difference between
‘rescinds’ and ‘declines to renew’. She makes it clear that her appointment was for a fixed term
and the University declined to renew it. This is a very different matter from rescinding an appointment.
And if Dr. Crockford is making the misleading or even false statements in her opening statement then
the rest of her statement should also be taken with a grain of salt.
That said it is true that adjunct professors are routinely badly treated at universities. See for example
https://gawker.com/the-academics-who-are-treated-as-less-than-janitors-1775518734
from 2016 or
https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/women-in-science/can-academia-treat-adjunct-faculty-fairly-117139210/
from Nature or
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/higher-education-college-adjunct-professor-salary/404461/
all of which suggests that there could be many reasons for the University failing to renew her position.
Izaak Walton – I reject your opening paragraphs as despicable innuendo.
I have met Dr. Susan Crockford and enjoyed an evening after her Calgary talk with Susan, Dr. Benny Peiser and Dr. Willie Soon. She is a highly intelligent person, knowledgeable, courageous, kind and of excellent character.
It is abundantly clear that you possess none of these qualities.
Regarding the University of Victoria, its conduct is beneath contempt. Alumni should express their displeasure by announcing they will make no more donations to this university – ever!
Allan,
This is Dr. Crockford’s own statement:
“In May 2019 my appointment was up for renewal for 2019-2021 and I submitted my application by the due date. However, the Department Chair, April Nowell, citing a decision by the department’s ARPT committee (‘Appointment/Reaapointment/Promotion/Tenure’), refused to renew the appointment.”
Note the phrase “refused to renew the appointment” this is completely different from “rescinds”
which means “revoke” or “cancel”. So her claim that her appointment was rescinded is contradicted by her own statement. One of those statements is false.
Adjunct professors always live on borrowed time, they have an extremely precarious status and
are almost always badly treated by their Universities. But at present no evidence has been presented
as to why Dr. Crockford lost her status and there could be many different reasons.
My suggestion is that the moderators decline to renew Izzak’s ability to post on this site.
Don’t ban him, just simply decline his to renew.
So it makes it OK if your whole group (adjunct professors) are treated badly? This has been going on, probably increasing, along with the prejudice against teaching for more than a generation, plenty of examples have and will turn up. Research is important, but proper research results are too often more important than skeptical (thoughtful) and the prime function of a university is (was?) teaching in the various ways.
Izaak,
You say: “There is a huge difference between ‘rescinds’ and ‘declines to renew’.”
No there is not. Her status was rescinded and therefore they declined to renew. In fact they could not have declined to renew her contract if they had not rescinded her status.
Your comment is pointless whataboutery and Ad Hominen attack from then on.
Kind regards
When you can’t argue the facts, just make up your own.
Jay,
Your claim appears to be contradicted by Dr. Crockford’s own statement:
“In May 2019 my appointment was up for renewal for 2019-2021 and I submitted my application by the due date. However, the Department Chair, April Nowell, citing a decision by the department’s ARPT committee (‘Appointment/Reaapointment/Promotion/Tenure’), refused to renew the appointment.”
The timeline is clear: In May 2019 her appointment finished and so she had to apply to get it renewed. Her appointed was never rescinded but rather it was only ever for a fixed term. Similarly had Dr. Crockford
decided not to apply again she would no longer be an adjunct professor since her appointment would
have ended.
There is a huge difference between ‘rescinds’ and ‘declines to renew’.
Just another form of the patronizing “Depends on what the definition of “is” is”.
Beng,
It is a huge difference. Peter Ridd’s appointment was rescinded. Which was why he was
able to get legal redress for unfair dismissal. If his contract was simply not renewed then
he would have not had any chance of getting a judge to support him. This is why Tenure is
important and why Universities are desperate to remove it and make all staff temporary.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
Donated via your site. Have a great trip.
There is no greater sin than to counter a newsworthy narrative on climate change by a competent academic. Just ask Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr., Susan Crockford and others
I didn’t know it then, but this was the beginning of the end of my academic career.
Hopefully, like Mark Twain, reports of her (academic) death are greatly exaggerated…
I also hope this.
Unless she’s developed a strong distaste for the academic environment and declines to search, there should be a university somewhere (or a think tank?) willing to take on such a determined and diligent scholar, regardless of putative controversies.
I doubt it…she lacks the rigour needed to succeed in an academic environment. She even admits herself that she’s done no field research. All of her work that I can find is self-published on her own blog.
I know you are banned, but want to say that your IGNORANCE of her education and numerous published papers on several animals that actually lives or once lived in the Arctic region makes her qualified to assess Polar Bears and the published research behind it.
You repeatedly asked a question about whether she published a paper on Polar Bears, as if that was some point you have, but no it is a desperate deflection is all it is.
For Susan Crockford;
Wear you badge of expulsion from a cult as a proud medal of honour, akin to the WWI and 2 veterans that fought for your rights to free and independent research.
“Style is when they’re running you out of town and you make it look like you’re leading the parade.” William Battie
Or Sally Stanford’s paraphrase https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjZ98qMl6PlAhWJH3AKHYHOCQgQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fquote%2F595931&psig=AOvVaw2zDeaiKZjkzAR1J81FaQKf&ust=1571397736173315
I would contact Patrick Moore if I were you and have a Labatts to celebrate…..
Sue them.
Serious discussions about cutting off the public funding of Academic institutions are in order.
It seems clear that these institutions are involved in the active deconstruction of Western Civilization.
They share none of the values that are the very foundations of our civilization. They strongly OPPOSE them…just ask them.
The good is far outweighed by the harm done by Academia by way of selective Censorship on Campuses and Anti-Western Social Engineering (Identity Politics and Political Correctness) and outright Fraud and Illegitimate Power exercised in the administration and execution of Science.
They are using our $Money to destroy us.
There may be something going on.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/14/universities-making-budget-cuts-taxpayers-interested-funding-campus-kooks-column/3970822002/
One of the causes of increased costs has been the in the number of college administrators and their salaries. I used to think that my problem with certain administrators was my fault, some truth there, but looking back, they were getting worse. An old salt, rest his soul, in my department who only taught, was loved by the students, but when we got “modern” predicted that these sorts of things would happen. He told you and the administrators what he thought, had tenure, was polite and had a sense of humor so they were afraid to fire him, but otherwise treated him badly. More stories there and elsewhere.
There’s a reason why most of the leftists want to make college education free, for all.
Taxpayer-funded indoctrination. What could be better for the “cause”.
Keep up the good work. Donation made.
Sadly yet another “academic” institution outwardly displaying their skewed bias rather than hosting open debate and critical thinking. This is all very sad. The part that really irks me here is I am alumni and I have family there. The part I will most thoroughly enjoy is when they call asking for support and money again. I feel sorry for that person who has the misfortune to call me.
I understand why people in employment are reluctant to speak out, they can’t afford to be fired as they have families to support. However it is pleasing to see that when some of them retire they speak freely. As time passes we should see more of this class of person. Hurray
Susan’s iodine hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21669854/
Dr. Crockford – I am in the same boat in Re my adjunct status. I have been a consulting structural geologist for 36 years and 30 of those were spent also teaching college geology at night, mostly at one college but with brief forays into a couple other institutions for a semester now and then.
Last year, after one of my discussions went into Earth’s climate history, a student complained to the dean that I don’t agree with the climate consensus. I was told by the head of the department and the senior geology professor that I had to toe the party line. I decided at that point I would not continue after last semester, but I decided to wait to see what they would do. I did not resign and left at the end of the semester with no notice of my intent. Predictably, I have been eliminated from the roster of adjuncts.
Luckily, I still have my consulting career and I have gone back to teaching continuing education courses to other licensed professional geologists – I’ll leave the snowflakes to melt in their own good time.
All the best to you.
“Last year, after one of my discussions went into Earth’s climate history, a student complained to the dean that I don’t agree with the climate consensus. I was told by the head of the department and the senior geology professor that I had to toe the party line.”
That’s an outrage!
We have lost our institutions of higher learning. They have been compromised by leftwing political operatives.
If it keeps up, the credibility of the Institutions of Higher Learning will be in the toilet along with the Leftwing Media.
People should think long and hard about where they are going to send their kids for higher education. If they are not careful, all they will get is political indoctrination instead instead of an education.
Restricting the flow of ideas should be anathema to these institutions.
Defund and revoke accreditation of these universities that are transforming into seminaries.
Only weak constructs fear exposure to the elements.
I would not be surprised at all if there was outside pressure and it probably came from the fake Nobel Laureate Andrew Weaver and possibly the head fruit fly David Suzuki.
Shame on UVic. My alma mater and Andrew Weaver’s as well. Also Dr Weaver is on leacve from his tenured position at UVic to lead. The BC Green Party. Stepping down to return to UVIC soon I hear. Enough said.
wow, lost a “An adjunct professorship is an unpaid position with a few responsibilities”. The HORROR!
Basically, adjunct _assistant_ “professorship means ‘instructor’ – at least in the US. Such jobs are mostly dependent on enrollment in courses for the coming semester. So it seems there was not enough work to keep this person on the roster. Sort of letting go a footballer who was on-loan from a lower division team.
why doesn’t she keep her job the old fashioned way: claiming sexual discrimination?
sheesh, get a life.
Losing the position has consequences.
It’s rather important to have some kind of academic affiliation. An unpaid position looks way better on a CV than unemployment.
The position also granted her access to various academic resources.
Gee Chris, can’t see what is not spoken of?
The University hasn’t stated WHY they dropped her off the list, despite requests for explanation.
They are being unprofessional about it.
(You have been banned) SUNMOD
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5894087/
Lewndowski and Mann in the list of authors, and “denier” or “denial” in every section header??!!
Top-notch scientific research. not so much.
Which conclusion they make do you disagree with?
All of them.
So Dr. Crockford, when can we expect your first peer reviewed scientific paper on your research to be published in a journal about polar bears?
You misspelled Pal ……
You should know better Sweet Old Bob. Susan has published in “pal” reviewed places. Check out her publications at the GWPF. However, she can claim that her work on dog domestication and prehistoric dogs does qualify as “peer reviewed.” There is a serious lack of anything with respect to polar bears.
You can blow smoke all you want .
Dr Crockford has the advantage of speaking the truth .
You don’t like that .
She might be speaking the “truth” but she’s no expert when it comes to polar bears. Maybe she should do some real research in the field, and publish.
By the same standard, Mann hasn’t had anything peer reviewed, only pal reviewed.
So, Jeff, please provide us with links to Crockford’s research on polar bears that has been published in reputable scientific journals. Thank you in advance.
Ron really does seem to believe that it’s only science when it’s published in a journal that he agrees with.
It’s easier than having to actually deal with science. Just make sure it never gets published.
You see here Ron applying the standard global warming logic.
Any journal that publishes something that I disagree with, is automatically disqualified as a competent journal.
Translation: Unless you can get your research past my gate keepers, I won’t pay any attention to it.
PS: There are journals about polar bears?
Anybody can get anything published. There are plenty of vanity journals that will do so for a fee. Just ask Pat Frank.
The only good thing to take from Dr Crockford’s experience (for us anyway – obviously not so much for her) is that it gives ‘us’ (Sceptics) another fine example when combating arguments by warmists, of why more academics, researchers and PHDs don’t come forward in support of the anti-AGW position.
Please start a “go fund me” page. Begin a lawsuit and see how many “scholars” will stand by you. Also be sure to try to find an attorney that has great personal courage.
Donated.
I’ve been saying for quite a while now; Responsible, caring parents should not allow their children to attend university.
I think I need also add to such conversations; Responsible, honorable educators should disassociate themselves from universities.
The polar vortex forecasts for early November show strong blocking in the stratosphere over the Bering Sea.
The high temperature in the stratosphere over the Bering Sea changes the direction of jet streams in the stratosphere. The jet streams move north over the Bering Strait. The air from Siberia directly reaches North America. The polar vortex lengthens over North America. It is a permanent circulation that will cause the inflow of Arctic air to the US.
Another forecast of the stratospheric polar vortex.
She doesn’t have any expertise in polar bears. Her entire defence was based on everything but her polar bear research, even though she was representing herself as an expert. The university was right to discipline her, though I suppose a warning would have been more appropriate. Though everyone in academia knows that being an adjunct is a very vulnerable position. She should have known better than to take money from a known anti-academic group like the HI and to speak on topics for which she had no specific ideas expertise.
Off topic but does anyone know why this site won’t post something it says is a “duplicate”, despite it not being one? It feels like censorship.
She is invited to speak all over the planet , has dedicated a good part of her career to the field but the University of Victoria knows better . Surprised they didn’t paint a big red X on her door too .
Why am I not surprised, Andrew Weaver the Green Party leader was a prof at the University of Victoria .
Connect the dots .
Shame on U Vic for suppressing expression. Living in a cage; listening to the same stories and opinions.
Never follow the herd as it heads to the abyss.