Opinion: Dr. Susan Crockford describes her expulsion from the University of Victoria as ‘an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors’
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford says that, contrary to the claims of environmental activists, polar bears are currently thriving and are at no risk of extinction from climate change.Postmedia
October 16, 2019
6:30 AM EDT
Last Updated
October 16, 2019
10:18 AM EDT
By Donna Laframboise
A world-renowned expert in animal bone identification has lost her position at the University of Victoria (UVic), she believes for telling school kids politically incorrect facts about polar bears.
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford is routinely hired by biologists and archeologists in Canada and abroad to identify the remains of mammals, birds and fish. She has helped catalog museum collections, and assisted police with forensic analyses. But UVic students will no longer benefit from her expertise, and her ability to apply for research grants has come to a screeching halt. In May, the Anthropology Department withdrew her Adjunct Professor status, depriving her of a university affiliation.
Crockford describes her expulsion as “an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors.” After being renewed unanimously in 2016 for a three-year term, her adjunct status was not renewed the next time around.
Crockford is the author of a popular blog, polarbearscience.com, as well as five books about these animals. Polar Bear Facts and Myths has been translated into four languages. She says that, contrary to the claims of environmental activists, polar bears are currently thriving and are at no risk of extinction from climate change.
- Netflix is lying about those falling walruses. It’s another ‘tragedy porn’ climate hoax
- Don’t blame melting ice for polar bear attacks. Blame a bear baby boom
- Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying
Informing the public of these plain facts now appears to be unacceptable to UVic. After 15 years, Crockford was advised in May that an internal Appointment Reappointment Promotion and Tenure (ARPT) committee had “voted not to renew your Adjunct Status.” No reasons were provided. Having undergone hip surgery in the interim, Crockford is only now going public.
When contacted by the National Post recently, UVic spokesman Paul Marck refused to say how many people were on the ARPT committee, how many voted against Crockford, or how many were zoologists in a position to make an informed decision about her abilities.
The position of Adjunct Professor is unpaid. In exchange for mentoring students, sitting on thesis committees, and delivering occasional lectures, adjuncts gain official academic standing and full access to library research services. When asked what safeguards ensure that adjuncts can’t be excommunicated merely for expressing unpopular ideas, spokesman Marck declined to respond, citing provincial privacy legislation. In his words, the university doesn’t disclose “information about internal processes. We must respect the privacy rights of all members of our campus community.”
In this case, the university is not protecting Crockford’s right to privacy. Instead, it is using a privacy smokescreen to protect members of a committee who have decided to purge an adjunct professor without reason or explanation.
Absent any other plausible explanation, Crockford has concluded that she was removed in order to suppress views on polar bears and related climate change issues and prevent her from continuing to challenge the high-profile academics who claim polar bear populations are in crisis.
G. Cornelis van Kooten, a UVic professor of economics who also holds a Canada Research Chair in environmental studies, says he is “appalled and distressed” by the Crockford removal. When, he asks, did “universities turn against open debate? There’s now a climate of fear on campus.”
Academia is a “publish or perish” workplace, and Crockford is an accomplished scholar. Last year, she was co-author of a paper published in Science, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals. On any campus, the number of professors whose recent work appears in that journal is small. Once again citing privacy concerns, UVic spokesman Marck declined to tell the National Post how many other UVic professors have met this high standard.
Crockford says she isn’t entirely surprised by her expulsion, given her previous ban from the UVic Speakers Bureau. For the better part of a decade, that entity had arranged for her to deliver unpaid lectures to elementary and high school students, as well as to adult community groups. One talk concerned the early origins of domestic dogs. The other was titled Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change.
There is every indication she was a popular speaker. But in 2017, UVic Speakers Bureau co-ordinator Mandy Crocker advised her of a policy change. The chair of the Anthropology Department now needed to confirm that Crockford was “able to represent the university” when discussing these topics.
Crockford’s 2004 dissertation broke new ground with regard to the mechanisms by which wolves evolved into domestic dogs. UVic awarded her a PhD for that research. Yet 13 years later, Dr. Ann Stahl, as Chair of the Anthropology Department, banned Crockford from telling members of the public about it as a representative of the school.
In April 2017, Stahl advised: “I will not be endorsing your request to be included in the Speakers Bureau roster for 2017-2018.” Admitting that she couldn’t prevent Crockford from speaking elsewhere as a private citizen, Stahl drew the line at her doing so “as a representative of UVic.”
Stahl said she respected “issues of academic freedom,” but Crockford’s talks at schools had “generated concern among parents regarding balance” and that this concern had “been shared with various levels of the university.” Stahl did not respond to a request by the National Post for an interview.
That was the first time Crockford was made aware of any problems. Because no one from the Speakers Bureau or the Anthropology Department has ever advised her of any specific complaint, she was never given an opportunity to defend herself.
The Speakers Bureau draws its volunteers from UVic “faculty, staff, graduate students and retirees.” Prospective speakers complete a form on its website, which says nothing about departmental approval. There is no suggestion that presentations must be balanced, and many appear to be overtly political.
For example, Social Studies associate professor Jason Price currently delivers a lecture titled Education and the Revolution: Climate Change and the Curriculum of Life, to students as young as kindergarten age. Patrick Makokoro, a UVic graduate student, offers a presentation to audiences as young as 10 about social justice.
Dwight Owens, an employee of Ocean Networks Canada, an entity affiliated with UVic, has no scientific training. His BA is in Chinese language and literature. His MA is in educational technology. Nevertheless, under the auspices of the UVic Speakers Bureau, he has been giving talks about ocean chemistry and climate change for years.
The National Post asked UVic spokesman Marck how many people have been forbidden from participating in the Speakers Bureau, and what mechanisms are in place to vet presentations about controversial topics. Marck refused to address either of these matters. Speakers Bureau co-ordinator Crocker also declined to be interviewed.
Peter Ridd all over again.
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought SHOULD still apply; maybe not in Canada.
And not in spain.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/470992-catalonia-protest-hongkong-media-orwell/
My thoughts too. Once upon a time, if people spoke out in opposition they were “disappeared”. Now, destroying a reputation and career is enough to shutdown the opposition.
It’s how the left roll.
Here is the UN IPCC in AR5 (2013) on polar bears-
“ Our analyses highlight the potential for large reductions in the global polar bear population if sea ice loss continues which is forecast by climate models and other studies.”
As Dr. Susan Crockford has clearly shown in her papers and books-
1. Polar Bear numbers are increasing strongly with latest estimates well above 33,000 and possibly over 50,000. In 1960 the estimates were 7000.
2. Polar bear numbers are increasing where ice loss is occurring. The bears do fine without ice floes.
3. Polar bears have been in existence for over 100,000 years and on some estimates up to 260,000 years. They have survived much warmer climatic episodes than today.
How does the IPCC maintain such anti-scientific nonsense? Models?
“… highlight the potential for large reductions… if sea ice loss continues”
Potential.
If.
Personally I have the potential to become internationally famous if I pursue a successful music career. Now there is nothing in that sentence that isn’t factual, but it is still total bollocks.
And people like that weird Nordic kid wonder why we laugh at them when they try and wave IPCC reports in our faces.
And I have the potential to win the lottery if I buy a ticket with the correct numbers.
Actually, you have the potential to win the lottery only if the numbers you pick are not correct. Up until the time that the numbers are drawn, none are “correct”. In fact, once you know what the numbers are, and can therefore select the “correct” numbers, it’s too late, and you have lost all potential!
I love our convoluted language 🙂
Well, climate science has the potential to actually get something correct some time, if it actually does science…
A broken clock is correct two times a day.
My broken sundial says that is not correct…
My broken digital clock agrees…
My broken 24h clock says it’s half right…
Like solar panels, sundials don’t work half the day at night.
Not if it only displays military time i.e 24-hour clock..
“There’s now a climate of fear on campus.”
Professor Van Kooten wins the Internet Pun of the Week award there.
Another ‘university’ corrupted to core.
Professor Peter Ridd II. Get a lawyer and open a go fund me. Keep up the good work, Dr. Crockford.
ya she can get the lost wages of her unpaid gig
Laugh, while you continue to get the wages of your paid one.
Mosher
She might well be entitled to more than that. If I were her, I certainly wouldn’t be asking you for legal advice. Don’t you have anything better to do than act like a paid troll?
Asking a paid troll not to act like a paid troll.
He’s not acting, Clyde.
she spoke to kids.
their parents complained.
she was remove from the speakers bureau 2 years ago.
now she was not renewed.
no job is secure. not even ones that pay you nothing.
steve, the point is that they have refused to provide any documentation regarding the claim that parents complained.
As usual, steve assumes that any statement coming from somone he agrees with, is correct and you just aren’t allowed to disagree.
PS: So what if the parents complained. As long as she was presenting accurate information (and she was) the only reason for complaining is ideology and we get back to the point of her being punished for not having politically correct views.
“steve, the point is that they have refused to provide any documentation regarding the claim that parents complained.”
No employer is required to give you the information you simply demand.
If a customer complains about my sales person, I might just let that person
go. I dont owe them a copy of the complaining customer.
As usual, steve assumes that any statement coming from somone he agrees with, is correct and you just aren’t allowed to disagree.
Oh you are allowed to disagree. But in general I would side with employers
because I am a libertarian. You are free to say whatever shit you want.
I am free to let you go. with or without cause. maybe you stink and I have no
obligation to tell you stink and should bathe.
PS: So what if the parents complained. As long as she was presenting accurate information (and she was) the only reason for complaining is ideology and we get back to the point of her being punished for not having politically correct views.
I would also side with parents. If some religious school had a speaker who told
the kids that evolution was true and the world wasnt created in one day. I would
say those parents have a right to complain to the school and the school had a right
to CHOOSE WHO THEY LIKE AS SPEAKERS.
Folks are punished all the time for having politically incorrect views. Communists
nazis, socialists, libertarians. Grow up.
Finally, you have no clue what she said. neither do I. got tapes? if you want to
play the skeptic game.
Simple facts: She has no right to be on the speakers bureau. She was removed
2 years ago. Political? ya so what. If they removed a radical muslim, or nazi,
or XR nutcase, I’d not complain either. Their bureau, their decision.
Now, in 2019 they choose not to renew her for her non paying gig.
They were not getting their moneys worth!!!
you think holding contrary views entitles you to a job? Insulates you from
not being renewed? That would be weird. Hey I believe in the violent
otherthrow of X, therefore you cant sack me because it would be political.
This is interesting… I can agree with Mosher (I do, this time, employers have a great deal of freedom, as they should) and also agree with Dr Crockford (I do, I believe her nonrenewal was because of he un-PC position on not only polar bear populations but also climate change) and find their is no conflict. Both can be correct. But riddle me this, Mosher, if you are a libertarian, why can’t you simply allow others to bitch and piss and moan to their hearts’ content? What’s it to you?
*doh* Wrong “their” there!
Steve, life is more than just wages. Not that you would know.
Ouch!
I felt that burn from here 🙂
Mosher losses don’t have to be direct, they simply have to be a consequence.
If you want to see it in action in reverse a Whistleblower is being sued by Murdoch university because there release of details impacted the university bottom line
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-11/murdoch-university-sues-four-corners-whistleblower/11591520
That is why the University has not given a public reason to do so would put them at risk of a damages claim and suggests they took legal advice.
What an nice guy.
You can say that again…
What a nice guy.
Go on. And again!
What a really nice guy.
And he goes for the hat trick.
Reputations are priceless.
Don’t forget to take off your red nose and frizzy wig before you go to bed tonight, Mosher.
This experience is now routine in UK universities for students as well as adjunct professors in the US, especially if you on a postgraduate degree leading to a teaching qualification. If you are even suspected of not toeing the party line on almost topic, you are liable to sanctions. The sanctions and reasons may not be explicit or may be a fabricated allegation to disguise the real reason. The danger zone for students is the written assignment. Although the declared objective is that you need to demonstrate your ability to explain an issue in writing, perhaps in a disinterested style on a controversial issue, the underlying agenda may be to ascertain your own viewpoint on that issue and ensure that it is “correct thinking”.
Why are the left always the same ?. The backlash is coming however, Greta and XR are losing the battle for them, and they are too dumb to notice.
“One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason.”
Thomas Sowell
Yeah, Stephen Heins, one day, when real justice of the old fashioned kind has to be dusted off and put back into service, they’ll be asterisking PhD – lites in the droves. I would suspect 90% will be so categorized.
I didn’t used to mind Mosher’s clever obtuse remarks because he was a very smart guy and he often made one think on certain points. He definitely wasn’t like he his now. There is no cleverness in his snips these days. This quip about someone who has been treated like Susan Crockford was pure meaness. I wish he had a close friend who could tell him this.
People like that don’t have friends.
Susan Crockford’s University of Victoria hosts the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, founded in 2008 with the largest grant in Canadian history, nearly $100,000,000 from the BC government.
Climate 101, their first project, originally billed as an education for 40,000 civil servants to get them singing from the same page, is now free for all with special advice on “avoiding common myths and misconceptions”.
U Vic’s exchange agreement with James Cook University may extend beyond course equivalencies to administrative policy as with Prof Peter Ridd, so fraternizing with Dr. Crockford could be hazardous to your academic standing and financial health.
https://pics.uvic.ca/education/climate-insights-101
If the climate cools, such extra funding will become a thing of the past. Maybe de-funding will become the new normal.
It is potentially an unethical and academic travesty, but not necessarily a legal tort.
We do not know the rules/regulations as to who is selected for or denied adjunct professor status at the university in question.
Regardless it does not look good.
Perhaps its just a Canada thing? Will ‘sorry’ work?
Because the IPCC is not interested in facts. Its objective is World Government
So just about all of its various utterances are Propaganda.
MJR VK5ELL
No university wants to debate what is being said. They are devoid of intellect and enquiring minds. Shutting down a person is so much easier than engaging with them in a robust conversation.
No the universities are simply protecting revenue and you can not say anything that endangers that.
It’s not just AGW skepticism that gets you removed from Universities. Look at any of the staffs in a University and you’ll see a petri dish of Socialists/Communists. And they aren’t shy about spouting where they stand with their ideology. While we slept we allowed the media and our schooling to be taken over in the name of social justice.
UVic can not or will not even communicate why she has been removed from the Speakers Bureau. Very fine communication, great courage – not.
Something is rotten in … Victoria.
The position of Adjunct Professor is unpaid.
Question for you folks – does this kill any chance of Crockford filing some type of lawsuit? Since it’s an unpaid position, I’m not sure what damages are involved, besides for damage to reputation.
A lawsuit would be unlikely to succeed since in fact the University has not done anything Dr. Crockford’s
contract with the university expired and it was not renewed. Adjuct professors are like zero hours contracts for Uber drivers in that they provide zero security for the employee and allow companies to
hire and fire them at will.
What no-one seems to be asking is why an Anthropology department would need or want an Adjunct Professor with a Ph.D zoology specialising in polar bears. The department does offer some courses on evolutionary theory but most of the courses are related to humans. Hence it would not be surprising if teaching requirements have changed and so the needs for staff have changed as well.
You didn’t read the article, did you Izaak.
Perhaps there is a Canadian organization of professors dedicated to protecting professors from being censored or punished for their views. They might raise a fuss about this.
now that right there is funny.
LOL!
Purposely censoring a person to destroy their career makes U of Vic suable.
Especially since U of Vic and Stahl apply secretive sets of standards they apply unequally. That leaves Dr. Crockford and others absolutely no sense of error or corrections needed; all they get is arbitrary punishment.
The salary is not the issue; the damage is to her reputation through arbitrary censoring and punishment.
RICO, i.e. one of the conditions of racketeering applies causing damage to a person’s career. References to lost salaries is simply a metric to evaluate the loss. Prove there is damage to Dr. Crockford’s career and continue from there.
They are not censoring anyone. The University is declining to renew a contract. The reason why
Universities love Adjunct positions is that they can keep their staff on short term contracts and thus
do have to have reasons to fire anyone since all they have to do is wait 3 months and not renew their contracts. This is why tenure is important and why Peter Ridd can sue the University. If you want Universities to be places where free speech is protected then you need to join a union and fight for decent employee rights. Otherwise they will get screwed, just as Uber drivers are.
Uber isn’t an institution of higher learning and free promotion of ideas. Apparently neither are universities any more.
Jeff,
Both Uber and Universities are actively working to destroy employee rights. Uber claims its drivers are not employees but independent contracts and thus don’t deserve holidays, maternity pay, overtime, minimum wage etc. Universities employ staff on repeated short term contracts to deprive them of tenure and the rights that go along with that. Unions need to be stronger to fight this or people will end up being driven in poverty.
Can you provide any evidence that uber drivers aren’t contractors?
PS: The only right an employee has, are those spelled out in the employment contract.
Like most socialists Izaak is all about forcing other people to provide him with more stuff.
Uber drivers enter into their contracts willingly. Uber drivers are also free to make their own schedules, so they can have as many holidays as they want.
And the trolls continue to ask why many of us prefer not to post under our full names.
Yep. I don’t feel safe exposing my details among the skeptic community
I might counsel you to not expose yourself in any community. We take no joy in you embarrassing yourself.
Well griff, I think it is wise to avoid leaving “details” anywhere we can avoid. Even though in today’s goldfish bowl world, no one with a rating above “hacker, apprentice,” would need more than a couple of hours to dig up more about either of us than we would want even our spouses to know; we still shouldn’t go out of our way to make it easy for them.
Can you name a single person who was fired because he didn’t toe the global warming line?
I can name hundreds who were fired because they didn’t.
Can you name a single person who had their house picketed and family threatened because they didn’t to the global warming line?
I can name dozens who suffered through such attacks because the didn’t.
As usual, griff tries to change the subject in order to take attention away from the bad behavior of his co-religionists.
Question:
If any gas (N2, O2, etc.) emits radiation once warmed via conduction, convection, and radiation; then aren’t all gases in Earth’s atmosphere ‘Greenhouse Gases’?
No, they are not, please familiarise yourself with some essential physics first.
No, GHG absorb in solar radiation IR (900-about 3) micrometer wavelength (and emit at others).
Molecular oxygen, nitrogen don’t do that. Ozone does, however.
N2, O2 and Ar that make up almost all of dry air are made up of non-polar molecules with zero electric dipole moment. Therefore they cannot and do not absorb or emit any significant amount of infrared (IR) radiation.
Water vapour is made up of bent H-O-H molecules (bond angle 104 degrees), with the oxygen slightly negative and the hydrogen atoms slightly positive (the molecule as a whole is electrically neutral), which means there is a non-zero electric dipole moment, so water vapour is a greenhouse gas (in fact, the main one). The CO2 molecule is linear, O=C=O in the ground vibrational state, with the oxygen atoms slightly negative and the carbon atom slightly positive; the two bond dipoles are equal and in opposite directions, so overall the molecule is non-polar. However, in bond bending vibration, there is a changing electric dipole moment perpendicular to the O=C=O axis, so CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with a main absorption centered around 667 cm^-1.
For background physics of molecular IR spectra, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html for the HCl (hydrogen chloride) molecule. The Cl-35 isotope is about 3 times more abundant than the Cl-37 isotope (explaining why the average atomic mass of chlorine is 35.5). Therefore the author of this article is puzzled why the HCl-35 lines are not 3 times as high as the absorption lines for HCl-37. The author has failed to understand that at high gas concentrations, the lines become saturated, and therefore absorption line heights are not linear with concentration. Therefore one must not always accept published articles as gospel truth, beyond questioning.
Because the main gases of the atmosphere do not absorb or emit any significant amount of IR radiation, it is physically wrong to assume that the troposphere is composed of black body layers emitting Planck black body radiation. Yes, the 667 cm^-1 CO2 lines are completely saturated so the IR signal observed by satellites looking down on the Earth sees “220 K” emission from the stratosphere (10-20 km).
However it is physically wrong to say that the 240 W/m^2 IR net emission to space, which would correspond to a 255 K Planck black body, comes from IR photons that “finally escape to outer space at an altitude of 4.85 km (where the temperature is 255 K)”. The reason is that the IR spectrum is far from that of a smooth Planck black body spectrum [see the Guam spectrum available at http://climateaudit.org/?p=2572 (Fig. 3) ]. Therefore the “explanation” given by Sir John Houghton in the article is garbage (as is the literature explanation cited by the IPCC et al).
“Question:”
Why are you posting grossly off-topic?
Michael Mann et al went after Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, pushing Harvard’s admins to distant themselves from them for simply vicing skepticism. Michael Mann et al also went after the journal Climate Research for simply publishing their thoroughly peer reviewed paper that simply disagreed with Mann’s beliefs. Several climate scientists have reported Mann et al’s bullying. Mann urged governments to list polar bears as endangered in accord with Mann’s dire predictions. Mann recently co-authored a paper with Harvey et al that was a simply a hit peace against Dr. Crockford because she blogged news and peer reviewed research showing polar bears were increasing. I would bet Mann et al were likewise involved in pushing the University of Victoria to terminate Crockford.
Mann et al are the Greatest Threat to the scientific process, a process that demands debate and a thorough accounting of alternative explanations. If you don’t agree with Mann’s “climate crisis”, his thuggery will work relentlessly to denigrate you and marginalize you. He can’t win the scientific argument, so he attacks the arguers. What a POS!
Read A Disgrace to his Profession
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE
Please don’t forget that John Holdren, Obama’s Science advisor, bragged in “leaked” e-mails how he disparaged the characters of Willie and Sallie in Harvard lunchrooms with academicians in other disciplines, to undermine their study that refuted Mann’s findings.
George, can send me the John Holdren pieces at stephenheins@gmail.com. I can’t find them. Steve
He’s about the most vindictive of them, for sure. I don’t know how he gets away with it.
I’d like to be there for a Q&A session if he gave a talk. (He doesn’t do that.)
Boy, would I get hostile! Wow.
It seems a Freedom Of Information request about correspondence relating to this termination could be quite revealing. Including a specific tag for Mann et al.
The timing is quite suspect. Mann and friends did that paper not long ago, just about the time this must have been in the works.
They do have similar legislation in Australia about public information , don’t they?
The biggest threat to science, Jim, is the moral cowardice of journal editors and publishers and of university administrators. They always seem to roll right over.
The alternative is that the editors, publishers, and administrators actually agree with Mann, because they hold progressive politics. In that case, in censoring they are holy and defend the faith.
I do believe that the second possibility describes a wide-spread phenomenon.
Pat, it also doesn’t help that skeptical scientists leave major organizations, instead of fighting from within. The only thing leaving does is increase the consensus.
The problem is that most skeptics have families to support. They can’t afford to spend lots of time on politics. Beyond that, they can’t afford to put their careers at risk by publicly disagreeing with the professional politicians.
Every time we hear of someone leaving AGU, for example, it’s out of disgust for their position statements or policies, not for fear of losing employment.
Dr Crockford has been Shepherded.
I can see it now: the University’s PhDs (Spin.) draft a damage-control letter stating that “a number of students/parents expressed concern” at the lack of balance in Crockford’s statistics.
Only with the aid of some PhDs (Law/Dent.) does Crockford manage, at length, to extract the truth from the mouths of these speakers of furcate factoids.
Oh, so sorry, did we say we’d received “a number” of complaints? Well then, here’s the expert testimony of 85 U.Vic. PhDs (Math.) who agree: technically, zero IS a number.
Shepherded.
In passing, I thought balance was supposed to be a *bad* thing in climate-change-related outreach?
“Who will Ridd us of this turbulent expert?”
—internal email obtained from U. Vic. under FOI
Why would any employer consider hiring a U Vic grad, now that this narrow and biased thinking is exposed? Cross U Vic grads off my list please.
The problem is that north or south of the US/Canadian border there are few options left of major Universities that avoid narrow and biased thinking.
The good news is that very good careers are available in institutions of technical learning, weather in BS or occupational programs. We can only hope that the best and brightest see past this and can use the available resources to lead us back to sanity.
The funding and academic direction of the “elites” need major overhaul and I’m at a loss as to where that is going to come from.
Steve Turley posted a video on Youtube yesterday on the forthcoming financial crisis of Leftist Universities in the US. I am willing to bet that Canadian institutions are not exempt.
The English translation of the Hebrew language motto for the University of Victoria is “Let There Be Light.” (My daughter graduated from UVic.) Well, as long as one isn’t rocking the boat about polar bears, that is. Recently we have read posts on WUWT about professors Peter Ridd, Cliff Mass, and now Susan Crockford, academics on the receiving end of what I believe is nothing more than fear. Fear on the part of administrators who worry the gravy train will end when the average citizen learns there is no compelling reason to fear the state of health for coral reefs, ocean acidification or polar bears. No problems to study means millions of AU, US and CA $ not awarded to keep the lights on in the new research buildings.
(For anyone that can help Susan, polarbearscience.com has a Donate tab.)
The alarmists have invested a lot in the demise of the polar bear and can’t afford to have the truth revealed.
Rather simplifies my Christmas Shopping, books on Polar Bears from one of my favorite authors for most of my shopping list.
I live in BC and have watched these academic fascists undermine scientific research that is not in accord with the climate change orthodoxy. This is an outrageous insult again civilized discourse. I shall provide a donation to any legal actions that Professor Crockford initiates. UBC is just as bad and I no longer donate to any academic institutions in BC.
People need to wake up and follow the money….there are a number of Super Billionaires in the world that have no true “country” affiliation…they are in it for the Power and found a route to greater wealth/power… first Global Warming, then Climate Change was a mechanism to move governments out of their way to control vastly more areas, people, wealth. Who is funding all this? …the schools/universities, the activist, the protesters, the media propaganda with doctored charts/graphs of radical climate change….solar panel fields which are failing to produce, wind turbines farms that are broken and not producing (never did)…but someone profited from those companies that made/sold all that equipment eating up lots of taxpayer funding. Somewhere down the road of time, it will be easy to look back and see…if the world has not collapsed into a few Kingdoms of the Trillionaires.
Thank you – wattsupwiththat- for offering us some glimmer of avoiding the doom of this Fake Crisis
Well hang on: there are quite a number of billionaires giving money to skeptic institutions.
I don’t think Heartland is entirely funded by contributions from blue collar workers, for example?
There is no lie so old, or so disproven, that griff won’t tell it. Over and over again.
That you don’t think at all is amply demonstrated.
Disgusted with UVic. As an alumni I can now say I will have some rather terse discussions when they phone for alumni contributions, at least I will enjoy that.
Sue them
Craven cowards, the lot of them.
And the rest of the UVic profs who are working under that ‘climate of fear’? Grow a pair!
Don’t worry- she’s still on the Heartland Institute payroll.
Never argue with a democratic aristocracy.
Hopefully, being located near a nice Quaternary active seismic fault, a Magnitude 7 will take care of this institution.
Also the sentences:
“Academia is a “publish or perish” workplace, and Crockford is an accomplished scholar. Last year, she was co-author of a paper published in Science, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals.”
only tell half the story. Looking on Scopus Dr. Crockford has published 20 papers in 22 years which
have been cited a total of 389 times and she has a h-index of 9. The science article mentioned
has over 50 authors the first five “contributed equally to the work”, the last two “co-supervised the work”
and Dr. Crockford is in the middle of the author list. As the article states Academia is a publish or perish workplace and Dr. Crockford is failing to publish at what is now-a-days seen as an acceptable rate.
She has also had a hip replaced recently, a book written and various gigs.
The late Professor Bob Carter of JCU in Queensland , while retired was allowed to have a connection with the University.
But as with this lady, he Bob Carter said things about CC which the University did not approve of, and they terminated his “” Rights “””” at the University.
MJE VK5ELL
Climate change and retreating arctic sea ice is certainly affecting walrus populations – here is a useful summary.
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2015/ArtMID/5037/ArticleID/226/Walruses-in-a-Time-of-Climate-Change
Note there are populations which are increasing, due to cessation of hunting: a parallel with polar bear populations post 1970s. But the long term outlook clearly shows pressure on walrus and limitations on population when haul outs replace use of ice floes…
And just how many walruses (walri?) should there be? How does that number compare to the recent past, distant past and far distant past? If the numbers are all different, what accounted for it?
Once again, currently they are doing well, but according to the models they are about to all die.
It really is amazing how trolls actually believe that models must be true.
So people that know little about polar bears get someone who knows about polar bears sacked because she knows too much ?
My fear is that, as an American citizen, seeing what’s happening in Australia is just a foretaste of the poison in American universities. I know that’s the biggest understatement of the century but it boggles the mind how deep the corruption goes.
article: Dwight Owens, an employee of Ocean Networks Canada, an entity affiliated with UVic, has no scientific training. His BA is in Chinese language and literature. His MA is in educational technology. Nevertheless, under the auspices of the UVic Speakers Bureau, he has been giving talks about ocean chemistry and climate change for years.
How quaint, it is not his knowledge of science that is important but his ability to support climate change while a real scientific authority is dismissed from work and speaking. No guessing the quality of education.
So, what can we do for her?
“After being renewed unanimously in 2016 for a three-year term, her adjunct status was not renewed the next time around.”
Wish we had known she was on double-secret probation. Could’ve had a polar bear toga party.