IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”
By Dr. Susan Crockford
Last week (May 22), I received an unsolicited email from Dr. Dag Vongraven, the current chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG).
The email from Vongraven began this way:
“Dr. Crockford
Below you’ll find a footnote that will accompany a total polar bear population size range in the circumpolar polar bear action plan that we are currently drafting together with the Parties to the 1973 Agreement. This might keep you blogging for a day or two.” [my bold]
It appears the PBSG have come to the realization that public outrage (or just confusion) is brewing over their global population estimates and some damage control is perhaps called for. Their solution — bury a statement of clarification within their next official missive (which I have commented upon here).
Instead of issuing a press release to clarify matters to the public immediately, Vongraven decided he would let me take care of informing the public that this global estimate may not be what it seems.
OK, I’ll oblige (I am traveling in Russia on business and finding it very hard to do even short posts – more on that later). The footnote Vongraven sent is below, with some comments from me. You can decide for yourself if the PBSG have been straight-forward about the nature of their global population estimates and transparent about the purpose for issuing it.
Here is the statement that the PBSG proposes to insert as a footnote in their forthcoming Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan draft:
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.” [my bold]
So, the global estimates were “…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used (see footnote below).
All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count.
For example, the PBSG’s most recent global estimate (range 13,071-24,238) ignores five very large subpopulation regions which between them potentially contain 1/3 as many additional bears as the official estimate includes (see map below). The PBSG effectively gives them each an estimate of zero.
Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG “global population estimate”: Chukchi Sea ~2,000-3,000; East Greenland, ~ 2,000-3,000; the two Russian regions together (Laptev Sea and Kara Sea), another ~2,000-3,000 or so, plus 200 or so in the central Arctic Basin. These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size
In other words, rather than assigning a “simple, qualified guess” for these subpopulations that have not been formally counted as well as those that have been counted (generating a total figure that is indeed a “global population estimate,” however inaccurate), the PBSG have been passing off their estimate of counted populations as a true global population estimate, with caveats seldom included.
more here: IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very interesting! I suppose that next we’ll hear from the IPCC as follows:
“It is important to realize that the global average temperature never has been an estimate of the REAL temperature of the Earth in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
Science? What science?
Isn’t it funny how these “qualified guesses” always turn out to slant things in the most alarmist and sensationalist way possible?
I suppose they think that their data was “fake, but accurate.”
Over here in England we have a scientist called Brian Cox. He’s very popular. He is one of those scientists that believes science is pure – he’s also a total believer in man-made climate change. I just wish (whenever these sort of things come up) I could say to him, “See, you believe this? Seriously?”.
When the public wants to be fooled someone will always oblige.
Just a qualified guess but… I’d say the PBSG’s work is pure politics and definitely not science.
And these “… global estimates (that) were “…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates …” were used to determine that polar bears were an endangered species.
So, it COULD be worse than we thought?
Do these people get paid? Do they collect a salary, a stipend? Who funds these fools? Consider all the money spent, all the policy written, all the donations given and all the little kids now in therapy over the pending extinction of these cute polar bears based on a guess. My students guess at answers and I expect that because they are students, We must demand more from scholarly professionals. I suggest these people begin to earn their money and get outta their warm well funded headquarters, head out on the ice and ear tag each and every Bear. They better get moving before winter sets in.
Science? What science…Follow the funding.
Millions of children cried themselves to sleep over fake reports. Remember that when the Church of Global Warming says: “We do for the children.”
Remember when the public was demanding fake polar bear numbers? …I don’t.
Thanks to Dr. Crockford for shining light on this subject. It would appear the bears are doing just fine. But, the image of the polar bear clinging to a small piece of ice will continue to be published repeatedly as a warning of what is in store for us.
Polar bears endangered lots of money , Polar bear numbers healthy and growing bye bye cash .
Now you decided which approach is going to be taken by those looking to do research in this area.
why not?…..it’s the same way they do global warming
The 20-25,000 was actually proof that the population has been expanding. The previous estimate was 5,000.
The PBSG is nothing more than a Marxist vanguard organization. It does not take long reading there publications or the information on their web site to come to this conclusion. Everything that come from them must clear a central comity of ideologues to insure that it provides the proper messaging before release.
The whole reason for having a Polar Bear Specialty Group was because the Bear Specialty Group was too heavily involved with Science. Some bear specialists even have political views contrary to what right thinking lefties hold dear, and they are allowed to have a voice! Its hard to produce consistent agitprop with conditions like this.
clowns
You mean they could not do some modeling to support that the polar bear population is going down? If it has not been done, this should be a great opportunity to submit some research proposals for at least a $100 million.
This is kind of like that game you play with your kids on a long road trip: “I’m thinking of a number between one and one thousand”
The hollow laughter you hear from across the pond is probably mine.
“Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
So based on PBSG’s estimates, no one can say if the “global” polar bear population is stable, growing, or shrinking. We may be able to tell if an individual subpopulation is growing or shrinking, but only if that subpopulation has been well-studied.
According to Polar Bears International, the IUCN PBSG reported in 2013 that 4 subpops are declining, 5 are stable, 1 is growing, and 9 (count ’em) subpops have “insufficient data”. But wait, now Dr. Vongraven admits that even some of the “scientifically valid estimates” are “dated”! So apparently data “insufficient” to even estimate polar bear population trends is sufficient to list polar bears as “threatened”. WUWT?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/science/polar-bear-status-report?gclid=CMDZqfSe3L4CFY17fgod1nYAZQ
I find it puzzling that a supposedly endangered (cough cough) species doesn’t receive at least a semi-serious head count. Is it because of difficulties in conducting one (too cold to go out and do it, perhaps?), or because they don’t really care as much as they’re making out?
No worries! The spotlight has been taken off the polar bears and is now shining on the poor Antarctic penguin. Their numbers are dwindling you know. They’re almost extinct. Did you hear? And there’s only, exactly, roughly, about……ohhh…..132 left. That’s their best guess.
No wait. 123. The counters were dyslexic.
Qualified? Incompetent as it can be or a complete fraud!
A qualified guess of Polar Bear population according to last countings is between 20 000 to 22 000 Polar Bears….. IF the latest value is used for an analyse, in other word if 11,314,078 km2 (June 1, 2014) is divided with the largest estimated number of Polar Bears, this will give EVERY Polar Bear more than 514 square kilometer polar ice to each Polar Bear. In other words the area for each polar bear to be on his/her own on is appriximate close to six times the area of Manhattan (with 2 decimals 5,87) source for Polar Ice Sheet area Arctic Sea Ice Extent, ijis.iarc.uaf.edu for June 1st 2014
Thus it can’t have been an “estimation” the Polar bear group used, the figures for the number of Polar Bear was as incorrect as could have been,
the figures for the Ice Sheet area is a complete fraudic figure,
and the group showed above all incompetence in Mathematic Statistic analyse not to mention that they never understood basic knowledge in Theories of Science.
Some people never learn elementary knowledge needed in Science studies if they are to be called scientists, experts and so on 🙂