Thank you all for the comments about Susan Crockford.
Just to be clear about my position, I fully accept that we have had a rise of approximately 1 degree C in Average Global Near Surface Temperatures over the last 100 odd years, and that it is anthropogenic. My problem with the problem is the alarmist type of terminology and early predictions associated with the problem since the 1990s. The use of emotional terms such as 'global warming', 'climate crisis' and 'climate catastrophe', in addition to the faith in carbon dioxide as a focus of attention, without any evaluation of the measures taken to date, certainly make me query anything and everything associated with the official IPCC position on the problem.
I appear to have opened a can of worms by citing that 2019 article on the Arctic ice and polar bears by Susan Crockford. I looked at all of those references you all cited and some of their offshoots. It appears that polar bears and the Arctic ice may have become symbolic of Climate Change.
It also appears that there is anything but consensus on the issue.
I noted the criticisms of a 2018 paper by Susan Crockford. It seems that there is more dispute than consensus in the Arctic/Polar Bear/Climate Change debate! But has anybody seen a critique of the 2019 article I referenced? The 2019 article I posted has a graph of the extent of ice sheets seasonally over the last decades and it seems quite acceptable to me; there is no deception evident that I could attribute to Susan Crockford.
The more I delve into areas of science outside of my own field, the more uncertain I become about accepting anybody's 'expert' opinions.
For example, this was a sideshoot reference from one of Serpent's references --
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/so-many-b ... -1.4173058 -- It's titled
Inuit differ from 'scientific' evaluations and written by a Bob Weber of the The Canadian Press. It was published in November 2018 and here are some excerpts -- --
"There are too many polar bears in parts of Nunavut and climate change hasn't yet affected any of them, says a draft management plan from the territorial government that contradicts much of conventional scientific thinking. ... The plan leans heavily on Inuit knowledge, which yields population estimates higher than those suggested by western science for almost all of the 13 included bear populations. Scientists say only one population of bears is growing; Inuit say there are nine. Environment Canada says four populations are shrinking; Inuit say none are. ... "(Inuit knowledge) has not always been sufficiently incorporated by decision-makers," says a document submitted by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit land-claim organization. The disconnect between the sentiment in certain scientific communities and (Inuit knowledge) has been pronounced. ... The territory's wildlife management board will take what it hears at the public hearings and include it in a final document, which will go before the Nunavut cabinet for approval."So where do we stand? A Susan Crockford (who apparently makes a living out of keeping in touch with the Arctic environment and its animals) produces an article that other professionals in the field regard as 'poor science'. But her position appears to be supported by Inuit Communities.
I note that
Serpent provided a reference to an article By Sheila Watt-Cloutier November 15, 2018 in the Canadian Geographic that's titled
It’s time to listen to the Inuit on climate change --
"Because temperatures in the Arctic are rising faster than anywhere else in the world, we must look to the experiences of Inuit as a harbinger of what is to come — and seek their guidance on how to live sustainably." That sounds sensible to me but what this lady did not say was that the Inuit do not appear to be agreeing with the official findings of the scientists who study the region.
I'll see if I can uncover something about the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. I couldn't find anything useful except the article by Bob Weber above. There was one article by Tania Kohut on this site --
https://globalnews.ca/news/3112257/pola ... 050-study/, suggesting that the disagreement between the Inuit and the so-called scientific accounts is that those scientific accounts are projections based on climate models and the way they PREDICT the state of the arctic in 2050.
My interpretation is that once again the scientists are using 'modelling' to predict a huge decline of polar bears by 2050, but the Inuit are saying that we have had climate change for decades now, and as far as they can see, the polar bears are adapting very well; in fact, they are becoming a nuisance around their settlements.
To my mind, it comes down to scientific projections of theoretical models against feet-on-the-ground observations by Inuits in the area. I could not find references to
"Scientists say only one population of bears is growing; Inuit say there are nine. Environment Canada says four populations are shrinking." I would like to critically review such evidence and would really appreciate it if anyone in this forum could give me a lead. Has anyone come across any helpful leads?