| From SDA sponsor Susan Crockford*: “A versatile, full-color polar bear science summary appropriate for ages 7 and up: Polar Bear Facts and Myths. It’s laid out in a question and answerformat with language that’s straightforward but not condescending, making it a great polar bear book for adults and kids to read together.” |  |
*Sorry for the misspelling, Susan!
Because who better to teach children about polar bear facts and myths than Dr. Susan Crockford, dog archeologist.
Not entirely sure what Eli is trying to say – perhaps Dr Crockford would be more credible to him if she had a degree in fruit flies?
Is it realistic to expect Eli to read the book before commenting?
Susan CrockFORD – please correct…
“Not entirely sure what Eli is trying to say – perhaps Dr Crockford would be more credible to him if she had a degree in fruit flies?”
Perhaps. That, and 45+ years of award-winning experience in popular science broadcasting, with a professional team behind her responsible for research and fact-checking.
But, fair point — if you concede that someone with a degree in fruit flies can still speak and write credibly on climate change and other scientific topics, then I will happily do the same of someone with a degree in dog archaeology.
“if you concede that someone with a degree in fruit flies can still speak and write credibly on climate change”
That credibility ended when Suzuki called for people whose opinions about CAGW differed from his to be imprisoned.
Because being a journalist would add SO MUCH credibility to her resume!
Said no thinking person, ever.
Exactly! He never had any credibility except among the leftists, the gullible and the brainwashed.He should go back to smokin weed and crying to the trees.
I get paid 85 bucks hourly for freelancing. I never thought I can manage to do it but my good friend is making 10000 dollars each month by doing this job and she recommended me to check it out. Try it out on following website, you have nothing to lose…
Click this link………… http://migre.me/uK8Np
Jeez …it’s a kids book about polar bears … there may be some mythology in there, I don’t know as I didn’t read it …….. BUT …… it’s a kid’s book
THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ IF YOU DON’T LIKE DOG ARCHITECTURE! OR THAT IDIOT SUZUKI :0)
Sometimes … at Christmas for example, “if you cannot say something nice,do not say anything at all”. I know that is an old concept, but it’s makes for a much more civil society.
So Eli … if the KId’s Polar Bear Book is inaccurate, then it is encimbant on you to write a truthful version eh wot?
Sorry for the typos/spelling etc … not awake yet.
Yes class, polar bears have black skin.
No, their fur is not white but it appears to be.
Things are not always as they seem.
Nature is very clever.
Actually, Eli, I am a zoologist (like polar bear specialist Ian Stirling) with a Ph.D. I did my undergraduate degree at the same university as Stirling.
My specialty is evolution – it is the foundation of everything I do.
I am indeed considered an expert on dog evolution (which requires dealing with archaeological material – only someone intent on slander would conclude that makes me a “dog archaeologist”).
I am also an expert in several other particular aspects of evolution, including the transformation of brown bear to polar bear.
To understand how and why evolution works requires an intimate understanding of animal ecology and geological climate change. I’ve written several scientific journal articles on those topics.
Only someone intent on slander would suggest or imply that only those who collect data on polar bears are qualified to comment about the significance of that data or its implications.
Dr. Susan Crockford, zoologist
Hi there. There’s nothing wrong with weed. And this ‘crying to the trees’ thing… I mean I get you’re trying to cast environmental commitments as a ludicrous emotional attachment to objects that don’t merit it, but it’s a pretty condescending way to discuss these issues.
Twelve dollars for a 44 page book? I think I’ll wait for the Kindle version.RER
Dr Susan is awesome.
Eli and Tim in contrast, are from the species annular orifice.
Suspiciously similar language in this ‘review’ posted yesterday at Amazon.com with the comment left by Eli above just after midnight:
“By E.K. on December 21, 2016
Caveat emptor: the author’s vague self-description as “a professional zoologist who has studied polar bear ecology and evolution for more than 20 years” appears intended to mask the facts that her PhD and professional work are in the field of canine archaeology, and that she has no formal training or expertise in polar bear science. Up to you to decide whether she’s the best source of information for you and your kids on polar bear facts and myths.”
This is a reprehensible attack on my credentials, not a book review, and it tells us more about the kind of person the writer is.
People like this want at any cost to prevent people from thinking for themselves. They must fear there is information like that in my book.
Dr. Susan Crockford, zoologist
Hi there. I’ll be honest: you can insult me all you like, I will still make fair arguments in good faith. “Tree hugging,” or, in this case the phrase “crying to the trees” is a belittling label meant to minimize environmental concerns and committments. I mean, do you disagree? Isn’t that the intended purpose?
Toughen up Suzie.
Just setting the record straight, anonymous poster.
I see you have nothing useful to contribute, just a strong need to say *something* as long as no one knows who you are.
Time for the youths with their brains full of mindless mush from Greenpeace to know that polarbears are predators and they eats little baby seals for their din din
“are predators and they eats little baby seals for their din din”
And little baby Eskimos – they probably even eat more of those than Stephen Harper.
See, here’s another trope I don’t understand. “All these environmentalists don’t understand that the animals they love so much are predators!” I mean… how is that a point against anything at all? Honestly tell me – do you seriously believe people involved in Greenpeace don’t understand that polar bears are carnivores?
Merry Christmas.
Thanks for your fine work and honest reporting .
Do not let the super brave totally anonymous trolls get you down.
The Eloi of this age will act as they always have.
Remember in their world authority trumps science, belief is all.
Where as, the uncertainty inherent in using the scientific method , is contrary to our nature.
To not know until we actually look, measure ,test, doubt and retest and then be unsure we gleaned any information of value, this is not the progressive way.
Here in the North the abuse of office through policy driven evidence manufacturing is obvious and ought to be an embarrassment to those involved.
How ever, the quality of work and personal ethics from GNWT employees, is best described as “Good Enough for Government”.
The “vanished” Caribou of 2009 have not been counted ,as in a complete count, since then and the ever decreasing polar bears just keep growing in number.
No government official has yet admitted the “rediscovery of the missing 300 000 ” of Nov 2011, yet the same biologist ,Nahgy?, is their “expert for the claim of sudden drop in numbers 2009 ,used to impose drastic rules onto all hunters.
The fact you have had to create your own blog to counter propaganda from our kleptocrats, pretty much says it all.
Great work , please keep it up, the slander and crud being cast your way, could be because you are right and on target.
Where do all these Marxists keep coming from?
So what you’re saying is that a lot of statistics are made up. A lot of people around here believe the same thing. A common belief is that open water kills polar bears but a range that seems to be thriving is Hudson’s Bay with 3 months of open water. You see a lot of pictures of fat polar bears on land but they usually find a photo of one frail sick one, dying of maybe cancer, to prove they are starving to death.
Thank you. Well said.
“To not know until we actually look, measure, test, doubt and retest…”
Right, which is precisely why Dr. Crockford should not be considered an expert in polar bear science — she’s done no measuring, testing, and retesting (a.k.a. empirical research) of her own in this field.
And?
You have?
Done what?
Your appeal to credentialism, to authority.
pretty rich irony for an anonymous poster.
Are you missing an o between the l&i?
No, I haven’t, which is why I don’t declare myself to be an expert in this particular field of study.
As for “appealing to credentialism, to authority” — please. As though acknowledging that scientific expertise in any given domain requires advanced study, concentrated practice, and peer engagement is somehow a logical flaw?
Tell me, what’s in your resumé? Your educational attainments, perhaps? Your professional achievements? The summation of your authority over your chosen occupation?
Another example: Kate’s an expert in breeding Miniature Schnauzers — why? Because of her credentials as a breeder, the competitive show performance of her dogs, her years of hands-on experience.
You want to claim to be an expert in a scientific field of study? Sorry, but unaccountable blogging about others’ research won’t do. Conduct your own, and subject it to the scrutiny of your fellow scholars. Present at a conference, publish in a peer-reviewed journal — in short, conduct the professional practice of science. Then you might call yourself an expert.
“No, I haven’t, which is why I don’t declare myself to be an expert in this particular field of study.”
So what are you wasting screen space with your inane blithering about Dr C’s credential then?
Oh anonymous waste of skin.
By your own stupid logic… your opinion is worthless.
Eloi by name and nature.
That thing, the method by which we hope to strain truth from superstition.
The scientific method has no space for peer pressure, consensus and self appointed experts.
As all who live up here know, Polar bears are not endangered.
Bear populations are not shrinking.
Yet the propaganda rolls on.
Why would this be?
Are you incredibly gullible?
Or a legend in your own mind?
We’re fortunate to have Dr Susan Crockford commenting on SDA. She brings a level of credibility sometimes missing from the opinions stated. Her work on human-dog co-evolution is well recognized, and she brings the same insight to polar bear research.
the amount of genetic change in dogs indicated they had separated from wild wolves as much as 135,000 years ago. The biological separation of dogs from wolves is almost certainly associated with the domestication of dogs by humans. Canadian zoologist Susan Crockford views the process of domestication not as one of the simple capture and taming of wild animals, but one that involved a complex set of biological and behavioural changes based in hormone physiology, which accompanied the association of dogs with human groups. It was this process that created the new species Canis familiaris.
http://wolfology1.tripod.com/id115.htm
And why are we to accept your expertise on Dr. Crockford? Have you studied her? Followed her around to be sure she hasn’t learned anything about polar bears?
There are things wrong with weed.