Has Susan Crockford published ANY peer-reviewed research on polar bears in the last 10 years?

Peer review or not, the arctic's old ice is thinning down, and some of it is completely gone. When winter comes it's not as thick as the old solid ice. I recently answered such a question. Their natural habitat is theathened, they wander down to villages to scavenge for food. I'm not a zoologist, so IDK how many will all adapt but some will, and this shall cause major problems for villages around the arctic circle. Anyone can google and see that more and more have been seen in villages in northern Russia in recent years. Why do they do that? They can't hunt for sea creatures anymore. 

@graphicconception, I'm glad that you are still alive and in good health. And despite what you say about COVID, I hope you get inoculated. I'm going to as soon as I can. We had problems with shipments of Pfizer with the EU, but they are coming in again. Also I think hydroxychloroquin is still used, but as last resort. But prevention is better than cure. I agree with you that Einstein and Newton din't need peer review, pegminer left a comment about Edmun Halley, but still, did he really need to pass peer review to be correct? No, but I guess it helped his work get published. Peer review has it's flaws, especially in ''modern theoretical physics'' but it does not mean it should be regarded as ''all'' flawed, and you know that...

Anyhow, I wish you well GC to you and all your loved ones, and I hope you all get trough this pandemic safe and intact.xx

The Clown is funny, the harder he tries the more ridiculous he sounds. TY for making me laugh Clown, I guess that's what clowns are supposed to do. He thinks his memes are scientific. He is a funny little guy. 

The van guy, probably the poet that claimed he was not the clown gives his opinion, which is completely absurd. This is some moments I might miss, the ridiculously funny moments. Two days left to ask and answer.

To all other users, Skeptic, Jim2, and the insulting ones, I wish you good health to you and your loved ones. 

xx

Peer review is overrated. Newton and Einstein did lots of good work with no peer reviewer involved at all.

In many cases it is used to exert political control over the sciece. If you have a paper that is not supportive of "the narrative" then you will have a lot of trouble both getting your paper accepted by a journal and of getting it past peer review.

Journal editors even conspire with approved scientists to rubbish certain papers. One climatepaper was held up by the journal until the approved scientists had managed to rebut it. It took months to concoct the sceond paper but they were published in successive editions of the journal making it look like the rebuttal was obvious and required no thought at all.

Another editor held up a paper so that a rebuttal could be placed in the same edition of the journal. That was clever because that would not count as a rebuttal. The original scientists could query the second paper but the second group of scientists would then have the last word. Effectively, the first group of scientists were denied the usual right of having the last word by that mechanism.

We also heard recently about how bad hydroxychloroquine was in the fight against COVID-19. The Lancet, a formerly prestigious UK medical journal, published a hastily put together, peer reviewed paper saying how bad hydroxuchloroquine was. They later had to retract the paper because it was not true but the politicians needed to play down any treatment for COVID-19 because if there was a treatment then there would be no emergency vaccine and Bill Gates's chances of making $200 billion from a vaccine would evaporate. See how it really works?

Polar bear poplations are interesting. They are used an emotive icon of Global Warming without much evidence either way. We have data for only about half the area used by the bears and there does not seem to be a huge push to decide the situation one way or the other. Even with polar bears the establishment cheats. Remember when the world's leading polar bear expert was not allowed to speak at one of the climate conferences? He was replaced with a more on-message speaker.

LOL.  You still can't accept someone who disagrees with you, not even a scientist. 

The Crockford stats are actually based on peer review.  It's been posted many times and you delete it.

For anyone who hasn't seen the numbers that still drives Dirac crazy, here it is for possibly the final time on Yahoo:

Polar bears don’t need sea ice to survive. 

I don't know, but I gather that polar bear populations increased because Hunting was banned, and that they are in one Hell of a lot of trouble long term, because they need sea ice to survive.

National Frigging geographic:

"The surprising reason polar bears need sea ice to survive"

"Every winter, Arctic sea ice grows around the pole, its frozen tendrils threading along northern coasts. Right now sea ice has just passed its peak coverage for the year, and will begin to shrink with the coming of spring. It's a crucial time for polar bears, whose food supply is inextricably linked to sea ice.Apr 1, 2019

Lol at anonymous (you know who) claimimg 3 papers written by Crockford. Crockford had nothing to do with any of them and one isn't even a peer reviewed paper. 

You have proven him in a lie yet again. How does he answer a question 15 times and still manage to not, you know, answer the question?😂 Pretty much the only claims that are true by Clown are ones that are irrelevant. Keep destroying his arguments till the end. 

Gosh, I don't know.  I'm not a scientists, but I have the numbers are up because humans and animals are adaptable.   

Apparently not.

That's why she keeps everything to her blog.

---

@Tyler - Which of those did Susan Crockford publish?

And which were peer-reviewed publications?

I'll give you a hand.  The answer to the second question is "two" (not "three"). The answer to the first is "zero."

Posting about other people's published articles on your personal blog isn't "publishing."