Yeah, buddy, I know.
One of the unintended consequences of the”scientist turned political activist” is the increasing sensitivity to butthurt when some scientists in the scientific community stick to science and call out those who are part of “the cause”.
Climate Change (the man made version that wreaks havoc on computer models) has become something of a farce due to failed predictions of catastrophe generated from years of patchwork FORTRAN spaghetti code.
Oh sure, we still have weather, clouds, storms, hurricanes (three managed to hit the US in Trump’s first year of his presidency), forest fires, earthquakes and liberals. So far, though, none of the dire predictions have come to pass, other than Trump became President over presumed de facto winner Hillary Clinton.
As for a change in the climate, liberals have decided media magnates hiding their sexual proclivities in the office is now passe.
Anyway, Susan Crock (bio here at her blog) is a respected and well known Polar Bear scientist and researcher. She published a paper in February 2017, which basically calls out all those other
leading researchers “scientists turned activists” for their failed predictions on polar bear populations under duress from ongoing climate change as calculated by overworked pentium processors.
She’s been studying polar bears her entire career, and is most likely one of the world’s leading experts on those cute, cuddly animals.
Note: I’m not advocating that you go out and buy one. My understanding is that they are bitey and poop a lot. They also hog the bed.
You would think, with her street creds, anyone who breathes would know she is a great source for up to date, objective scientific information about the state of polar bears in the real world, and not those that live in an IBM mainframe where the climate is overheating despite pipes carrying liquid nitrogen running underneath the false floors.
However, she is not one of the members of “the cause”. Her scientific research says that the narratives being pushed by the scientific political elite don’t stand up when you analyze the numbers – you know, well-accepted sciencey stuff.
The activists, feeling a bit butthurt that someone DARED to show they were wrong, have decided not to respond to her paper through the review process nor publish a counter paper showing their work where her results and research were wrong. They chose the more drama laden, passive aggressive approach.
Showing her who was boss, they published a paper performing a scientific analysis comparing so called “denier” (aka, they don’t agree with our cause) blogs versus “scientific” (aka, the ones that openly support our cause because we and our close group of friends regularly write for them) blogs and how the more popular “denier” blogs are affecting the public’s view on what is real science and what isn’t.
Oh, and they didn’t show their work, which would result in 5 demerits from Sister Patricia and a nice smack of the ruler on your knuckles.
In short, without exposing THEIR scientific evidence, they want you to believe that the blog research, applying unknown statistical models to content from both unnamed friendly and unfriendly blogs, that it somehow completely refutes the claims in Dr. Crock’s well-researched paper. And that they dislike “deniers”.
To be fair, they do cite some studies to support claims that have already been debunked or are out of date, and rely on books written by the authors, such as serial litigator and anti-free speech advocate Michael Mann’s “Climate Wars: My Battles with Climategate, a Russian Conspiracy.” There are even a sprinkling or two of IPCC Summary for Policymakers references.
So while it might look like a “well researched” paper, one notable climate scientist has found some minor technical issues..