@FriendsOScience @POTUS @realDonaldTrump Here is the science that backs up my claims in full scientific format, downloaded > 3700 times. Some may complain it's not 'peer reviewed' but even if it had been, they would reject the chosen journal. Judge the paper on it's content https://t.co/gBveasaI5t
@tan123 "As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected,---similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed.
@theresphysics @TinusPulles https://t.co/IQhOtw8AYa
This is her main paper in the discussion and I think it is a valid contribution to the discussion although it is not officially peer reviewed. It's not even mentioned by Harvey et al
@AEDerocher Re: "Maybe submit it as a comment"
She claims to have submitted comment papers, but I don't see how they support her blog contentions:
Her recent, main supporting article is not peer-reviewed: