"The End Of The World"

[BRICKBURN]

The End of the World



Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented

Wikipedia


Enter National Geographic and a Photographer pushing an AGENDA. Not science.

paulnicklen
The video of an emaciated bear.

1.1m views

15.6k comments



My entire at Sea_Legacy team was pushing through their tears and emotions while documenting this dying polar bear. It’s a soul-crushing scene that still haunts me, but I know we need to share both the beautiful and the heartbreaking if we are going to break down the walls of apathy. This is what starvation looks like. The muscles atrophy. No energy. It’s a slow, painful death. When scientists say polar bears will be extinct in the next 100 years, I think of the global population of 25,000 bears dying in this manner. There is no band aid solution. There was no saving this individual bear. People think that we can put platforms in the ocean or we can feed the odd starving bear. The simple truth is this—if the Earth continues to warm, we will lose bears and entire polar ecosystems. This large male bear was not old, and he certainly died within hours or days of this moment. But there are solutions. We must reduce our carbon footprint, eat the right food, stop cutting down our forests, and begin putting the Earth—our home—first. Please join us at sea_legacy as we search for and implement solutions for the oceans and the animals that rely on them—including us humans. Thank you your support in keeping my at sea_legacy team in the field. To license or use in a commercial player please contact …………….


The suppositions about the bears age, it’s health and the etiology of the bears demise are pure speculation.




Wait for it …… Can you imagine with all the references in post to his organization that there would not be a DONATE BUTTON?

READ:
The truth about polar bears

Depending on whom you ask, the North’s sentinel species is either on the edge of extinction or an environmental success story. An in-depth look at the complicated, contradictory and controversial science behind the sound bites.
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears


They managed a picture of a well fed bear with snow in the picture.

The African connection


The Drought in Kruger

Three big differences in the stories:

African: Actual Scientist

African: No Agenda

African: No Donate Button

 

[Hank2211]

There is no animal issue which cannot - and will not - be used as a fund raising opportunity. Whether it's a sick polar bear (and we have no way of know ing why this particular bear was in this condition) or - the local issue here last week - the raising of dogs for food in the Far East - these things are the life blood of the animal rights/anti-hunting/save the whatever industries.

Where they don't exist in nature, they are invented. Whatever, there are no truth in fundraising laws that I am aware of.

 

[Shootist43]

The old saying "figures don't lie but liars figure" comes to mind. Anything that boosts their agenda is "fine."

 

[sambarhunter]

That bear looks injured to me,whether hips/hind quarters etc. If there was a food shortage wouldn't all the bears be affected?

maybe he could have shot a walrus for the bear..IF HE HAD A GUN THAT IS!

 

[CAustin]

Follow the money!

 

[Hank2211]

This article appeared in Canada's National Post Newspaper. Hopefully, attribution will keep them happy with the fact that I've copied the entire article!

"Canadian finds polar bears are doing fine - and gets climate-mauled

By Terence Corcoran

We take you now deep out onto the frozen floes of Arctic science and polar bears, where the most dangerous threat known to man and bear alike is lurking among the icebergs: Junk science.

As a starting point, we look to a story published December 1st on Vice News’s tech site, Motherboard, that included an interview with U.S. polar bear scientist/activist Stephen Amstrup. In the article, Amstrup accuses Canadian polar bear scientist Susan Crockford of filling her bear research with extreme allegations. Climate activists have targeted Crockford, a zoologist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Victoria, because her research inconveniently finds that, despite their claims, polar bears are not at risk. “You don’t have to read far in her material to see that it is full of unsubstantiated statements and personal attacks on scientists, using names like eco-terrorists, fraudsters, green terrorists and scammers,” Amstrup claimed.

A few days later, Motherboard published a slithery retraction. After Crockford complained that Amstrup’s comments about her were “a lie” and that she has never used such terms, Amstrup “clarified” his comments. He said that when he accused Crockford of calling scientists fraudsters, he really meant to accuse “climate deniers as a whole, rather than Crockford in particular.”

Ah, well, mix-ups like wrongly accusing a scientist of slanderous language are the kind of things that can happen given the context. It’s all part of an escalating epic of polar bear junk science. It begins with a paper in which Amstrup, who heads the activist group Polar Bears International, and other climate scientists — including famed temperature hockey-stick maker Michael Mann — produce what must be one of the most pathetic scientific smear jobs in the already sorry history of climate change science smear campaigns. Also along for the hatchet job was Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian psychologist who asserts that people who have doubts about climate policy are wacky conspiracy theorists who would also tend to believe the 1969 moon landing was faked.

In their new paper published November 29th, in the journal BioScience, Mann, Lewandowsky, Amstrup and a dozen other authors, headed by Jeffrey Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, attack Crockford as an unqualified climate “denier.”

Crockford is fighting back. On Wednesday, she demanded that BioScience retract the paper. She describes it, in part, as “simply malicious, and an egregious breach of professional ethics” and filled with “untrue statements.”

The sole personal target of the BioScience paper is Crockford. Crockford has written books on polar bears for children and adults (such as Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change) and runs Polar Bear Science, a blog site that for years has drilled holes in many of the claims and predictions of mainstream climate scientists. One recent postshowed that polar bear populations around Churchill, Man. were in good shape, amid lots of sea ice. Another recent item said Amstrup’s claims of sea-ice loss were inaccurate.

Climate scientists in the Amstrup/Mann/Lewandowsky camp have apparently had enough of Crockford’s steady debunking of many of their polar bear alarmist claims and have set out to destroy her and her reputation via what can only be called a vicious personal attack.

The BioScience paper claimed to have conducted a rigorous analysis of blog sites that have, over time, mentioned polar bears, Arctic ice and climate change.

Polar bears, the authors say, have become the “poster species” of the official “consensus” on the threat of man-made global warming. As a result, however, polar bears have also become the poster species target of climate change “deniers.” Those deniers, the paper claims, have succeeded in creating a “consensus gap” between official science and public opinion, a gap that the paper says has now reached the proportion of a “chasm.”

To get to the bottom of the chasm, Amstrup and associates claim to have analyzed 90 polar-bear-related blog sites, half of them described as “science-based blogs” and half described as “denier blogs.” At first, BioScience did not release the research data, but as the data began to leak out this week, it became clear it was warped to nail Crockford.

Of the 45 “science-based” blogs many are … well, not exactly what one would expect. There’s Discovery Kids and Gizmodo, along with such deeply academic sites as The David Suzuki Foundation and World Wildlife Fund Canada. Also listed as “science-based” sites are news blogs such as grist.org and a company that sells photo services.

For “denier” blogs, the paper tapped into two news services, Breitbart and The Daily Caller. Also listed are the blogs of Danish author Bjorn Lomborg and Calgary’s Friends of Science. The “analysis” apparently shows that 80 per cent of the 45 denier blogs had “referenced” Crockford’s polar bear research.

So here’s the summary of this so-called science paper: We compare the blogs that agree with us on polar bears with blogs that don’t. We label those that don’t agree with us “deniers” and smear one of the scientists whose work is cited on those denier sites.

If this is science, we are all doomed. Out on the ice, the polar bears seem to be safe for now. But it’s us humans who are at risk of succumbing to the malicious catechism of the high priests of climate change."​

I am tempted to say "'nuff said," but I feel the need to point out that when I worked in a public company, we were prohibited by law from making false or misleading statements.

No such laws apply to environmentalists. It's about time they did.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I wish it were that any "fundraiser" actually were accountable under some law.

Perhaps, we should bring suit on the Polar Bears behalf for the misuse of their brand!

.............. But it’s us humans who are at risk of succumbing to the malicious catechism of the high priests of (enter your poison here) .............. ."........

Good line.

 

[MAdcox]

I’ve always heard “never confuse a liberal Progressive with the facts” as a funny catch phrase. But in reality it is INSANELY frustrating to keep putting facts in front of so called scientists and have them just keep spewing their nonsense.

 

[Scott Slough]

I would certainly prefer my facts from a scientist over someone on a listserve.

 

[PLM]

They know the facts, they just choose to ignore them because the facts don't support their cause. It does not matter what particular "cause" they happen to be promoting at the time, animal rights, global warming, anti hunting, gun control, etc., they will never admit the science is there to prove them wrong.

 

[Scott Slough]

You don't know a lot about science. A scientist must prove their points through blind peer review that has NO place for "causes" ... It is the nonscientists who judge through causes. A scientist who tries to make points based on causes will not be able to publish in reputable journals, get funding, etc.

 

[PLM]

Ok, Maybe I misused the word. My point was that the facts are there, they just choose not to acknowledge them. I think you know what I meant to say.

 

[Scott Slough]

No I don't know what your point is.

I read your post as scientists are liberals and therefore ignore science to support their liberal agenda.

 

[MAdcox]

Certainly not all. But there certainly seem to be a lot who worship at the alter of global warming and ignore data that doesn’t make their point and scream “denier” when challenged y other scientists with facts that contradict them.

 

[Scott Slough]

I am not a person who wastes my time labeling others (i.e., deniers) but I will absolutely put my list if scientist s and facts against anybody on the planet's list of scientists and facts on global climate change (the term that scientists prefer as included MUCH more than warming such as increased numbers and intensity of climate related events like forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, etc.) and let the highest cited climate researchers decide who is right....sorry, that is not fair as they will ALL be on my list.

 

[MAdcox]

Didn't mean to rile you up. Obviously we will disagree and neither change the other ones mind. Which is fine, that's what makes discussions. But they would obviously not all be on your side as shown by the article that started this whole thread and the one shared by @Hank2211 . But thank you for proving point.

 

[IdaRam]

In the Natural History Museum at the University of Utah there is a graph on the wall showing global climate change over millenia. I wish I had taken a picture. This graph shows periods in our earth’s history, as I recall about 150 thousand years ago and 300 thousands years ago (and prior) when the climate was warmer than it is now. Also shows periods in between that were significantly cooler. I think the graph goes back several million years, but I don’t recall for sure. The graph is very consistent with many peaks and valleys at relatively consistent intervals.
So my question is, if we’re going to blame climate change on humans and the use of fossil fuels, who were the humans inhabiting the earth and burning fossil fuels hundreds of thousands of years ago?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe climate change is real. Has been for millions of years. Are humans and fossil fuels a contributor? Possibly. But the primary contributor? Millions of years of history would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Scott Slough]

I have seen the graph...it is in several of the textbooks that I teach with...

 

[Scott Slough]

Sorry meant to hit the backspace button not the post button. I am pretty sure the maxima that you are referring to are the reason that scientists are so certain about what we know. The largest was the PaleoEoceneThermalMaxima (PETM) which was caused by a rapid increase in CO2 and is used as a model to understand today's climate. Just search PETM for more background.

 

[IdaRam]

Ha ha, I find that very easy to do on my I-Pad
I think a lot of people recognize that climate change is real, but there are groups out there that are quick to go on the attack and brand them as “non-believers”. I’m speaking of what we commonly witness in the media.
Climate change is an immensely complex issue, but many want to attribute it solely to humans causing the destruction of the planet. Although there can be no doubt our explosive population growth is stressing the environment in countless ways, I believe there are many contributing factors to climate change, some of which may be greater than the human factor.