Or, you could read what she writes, evaluate, do your own other research, and come to your own conclusion regarding the merits or lack thereof of any piece of content.
Please explain what you mean by "do your own other research". Searching with Google or scanning social media posts by people you agree with is not research. Someone with no education in the field isn't qualified to do research.
The same people probably are not qualified to call her a quack either.
Well then you'll just have to believe Crockford, who has written many books and research papers about polar bears, and who has also been interviewed in the media as a polar bear expert many times.
I haven't taken a position either way. Media interviews would not count with me. Research papers that survived peer review and were published would count.
Climate academics are on record as saying they manipulate peer review to reject valid science if it would weaken their "message", so that's not a good idea.
DYOR, the calling card of every agent of disinformation.
So weird, up until about 4-5 years ago (or whenever this insanity started), DYOR used to be called reading, but now it’s fully frowned upon and you are even shamed for doing so.
Why is there a flood of accounts coming here to sling ad hominem against the author? Can we discuss the article, please?
An Ad Hominem argument would be pointing out that she's a woman and using that to argue that we shouldn't listen to her. If someone points out that it's in character for the author to deny global warming, and we're seeing her write an article about how global warming isn't that big of a deal, it's valid to criticize it because of her past behavior.
And... you literally just gave two different examples of an argument against the person.
You should be debunking the content of the article in a convincing way, not attacking the author based other content not presented in the thread.