From Bob WeberThe Canadian Press
An investigation of dozens of sites that question that the threat climate change poses to polar bears has discovered that the writers dismiss all of the science on sea ice and bears.
The study, published in the journal BioScience, indicates the sites utilize the two topics to create uncertainty about climate change. And it discovered that there is still a Canadian scientist a major source of the arguments.
“If they could push over the polar bear domino, then all other examples of climate change have been disregarded by association,” said lead author Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology.
Harvey’s study was co-authored by an A-list of biologists and climatologists that have between them printed hundreds of newspapers on climate change and its effect.
Researchers looked. Half supported the consensus view that changes are occurring and are the result of human activity. The other half didn’t.
“Not one of the blogs or internet sources expressed opinions with respect to (climate change) which were really in the center,” the study says. “They dropped quite easily to two teams.”
The denier sites incorporate destinations such as Climate Depot, Watts Up With That and Waste Science.
Researchers compared the arguments employed by both classes to 92 peer-reviewed, printed papers that talk about polar bears and sea ice — practically ” said Harvey.
“Just as we know, this really is it. There aren’t any other newspapers that combined both.”
None of the denier blogs routinely contradicted them and agreed in the 92 papers that were printed.
“The climate-science-based sites were acknowledging that there is uncertainty, but admitting that the mounting signs … in changing Arctic sea ice standing and the polar bears,” stated co-author Meena Balgopal of the University of Colorado.
“The climate-science-denying sites were really highlighting the negative aspects of uncertainty. They were also using rhetorical devices which were also about name-calling, suggesting that environmental scientists weren’t trustworthy.”
The denier blogs additionally strengthened each other. The same names surfaced again and again, ” said Harvey.
“There’s a bit of an echo chamber.”
Approximately 80 per cent of denier sites cited University of Victoria zoologist Susan Crockford’s work, even though she hasn’t done any field studies also has published virtually no study.
Crockford, that writes that the Polar Bear Science has been associated with think-tank that the Heartland Institute, that spoke at one of its conventions, also denies climate change.
She also looks in mainstream press and North American.
“Inform your readers to take a peek at my blog and see to their own,” Crockford stated in an email address. “They will also see exactly what my credentials actually are, as opposed to the way they are portrayed by the writers of this paper.”
Crockford claims bear numbers indicates the bears will be able to adapt to changes in sea ice and stay strong.
Most scientists say that although some people do fine, others — notably southern ones — are unhealthy. They say once sea ice shrinks a lot of, all of populations risk collapse.
Harvey said he expects that the paper will encourage people to think critically.
“I want them to question the veracity of what they read online.”
The newspaper is also a call to arms for scientists.
“We feel that many scientists erroneously believe that discussions together with deniers over the causes and consequences of climate change are all only science-driven,” it says.
“In fact, the situation using deniers is probably more akin to a street fight according to those deniers’ political or financial agendas.”