From the UK Telegraph 26 June 2009
Christopher Booker
POLAR BEAR EXPERT BARRED BY WARMISTS
Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission, will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.
This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with the views of the rest of the group.
Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching into the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.
Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming in the past 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.
He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause.
The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the ‘wind-sculpted ice’ they were standing on made such a striking image.
[Added by Anthony: Please follow this link to the original photographer. See the bottom right photo.
She just wanted a photograph more of the “wind-sculpted ice” than of the bears. Byrd writes:
“[You] have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”
]
Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: ‘it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition’.
Dr Taylor was told that his views running ‘counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful’. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as the radiation of the sun and changing ocean currents – was ‘inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG’.
So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of ‘ scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice’. But check out also on Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. Average temperatures at midsummer were still below zero – the latest date this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping – and after last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time, The bears are doing fine.
(Note – this was sent to me via email as an advance copy. Also I should add that the photo was not originally part of the story sent to me, I added the photo since I know the reference. – Anthony)
Related WUWT story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony
For your references on the scientific pursuit of global cooling in the 1970’s – if you don’t have this already
Nature Vol 271 23 Feb 1978 Reviews
Climatic shifts John Gribbin
“Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather. By Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray. Pp. xv + 171 (American University Publishers Group: London, 1977) 6.75 UK Pounds.
Professor Bryson is perhaps the leading proponent of the view that anthrogenic pollution of the atmosphere is hastening the world into a pronounced cooling – at least a little ice age – through the effects of aerosol particles blocking out some of the heat from the Sun. – – -“
Jimmy Haigh (23:50:56) :
The above reference (1978) refers to Bryson as a belonging to a “peer group of climatologists”
Ray (22:56:59) :
smallz79 (22:45:28) :
Do you have a problem with “Charles the Moderator”? ‘wink, wink’
To answer your question, no, he does a great job.
smallz79
Arrhenius, while a brilliant scientist for his day, was quite wrong in his original paper – not unlike the current estimates of the influence of carbonic acid in the air on temperatures at the surface.
Arrhenius’ calculations from the original paper would have temperatures up by about +3.0C or so already. (See Table VII from the paper.)
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
Since he is off by about 80% so far, I imagine his CO2 doubling estimate of +5.25C could also be cut by 80% as well to about 1.05C per CO2 doubling.
So, when the warmists trot out Arrhenius, one should note that while the theory has been around for quite some time now, that just means it has been wrong for even longer than now thought.
The “conversation” has turned out about as I expected. Attacks on Al Gore, using the popular media in lieu of the actual science, smears of climate scientists and climate science as a whole, irrelevant demands, and so on.
WUWT isn’t “hostile”, it’s immature.
REPLY: Gary, you aren’t impressing anyone, and you duck the issues put before you by hurling labels. You could run along to the comfort zone of RC then, instead of dealing with citizens of the real world, or you can tough it out here. Running to that zone is what most of NCAR/UCAR and the climate scientists community does, rather than deal with that inconvenient public. It seems you simply can’t handle regular people. If you move on to RC or some of the other blogs, you’ll get to interact with people like “dhogaza” that think skeptics should try out sarin nerve gas experiments on themselves. No kidding. Here we’ll have lively discussion, and such sorts of things won’t be said. But you have to do your part by maintaining some degree of civility also. Your choice. – Anthony
Another Ian (02:16:08) :
Jimmy Haigh (23:50:56) :
The above reference (1978) refers to Bryson as a belonging to a “peer group of climatologists”
Perhaps I should have said, then, that there were no global warmers before 1988 or thereabouts. (Who then evolved into climate scientists a few of years ago when the temperatures started dropping.)
Here’s Professor Reid A. Bryson’s Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
Here is the introduction.
“Reid Bryson. (7 June 1920 – 11 June 2008. He was an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist. He was a professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed a B.A. in geology at Denison University in 1941 and a Ph.D. in meteorology from University of Chicago in 1948. In 1946 he joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 1948 he became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970.
He was, indeed, a climatologist. But I suspect that he may not have been welcome in the world of modern climate science…
Gary:
Your arguments boil down to “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be causing global warming.” Correct or incorrect?
Gary – You make such a big deal of CO2. The way I see it, CO2 is merely the pilot light of our Earths temperature regulation mechanism. It is necessary for the good (good for life as we know it that is) functioning of the climate. You add a little more of it, the pilot light gets a little hotter, but otherwise no big deal. The real purpose the pilot light does serve is to keep in play the real and necessary GHG that keeps our Earth warm and regulated: Water.
“Gary, you aren’t impressing anyone, and you duck the issues put before you by hurling labels. You could run along to the comfort zone of RC then, instead of dealing with citizens of the real world, or you can tough it out here. Running to that zone is what most of NCAR/UCAR and the climate scientists community does, rather than deal with that inconvenient public. It seems you simply can’t handle regular people.”
And you’re basing this on what? I do request civility, respect, and intellectual honesty – things in short supply around here, based on this thread.
Re-read the comments addressed to me – they’re bereft of those three. Why is that? Because the overall tenor allows it. Anthony, you’re happy to sit back and let folks take potshots, issue smears and slurs, and otherwise engage in silly games.
Like I said way back, that’s why WUWT (and CA, and the other skeptic sites) aren’t taken seriously by scientists.
REPLY: OK then, address the issues put before you and leave the external arguments out. I made my point (based on personal experience with science and the media) about science and the media and you responded with this:
Yet you didn’t address the premise of the argument I made, you only put up a deflection. Address the issues directly without adding deflections and you won’t have to worry about other comments you don’t like.
So here are the questions: What age were you in 1978? “no spring chicken” doesn’t count as an answer, it is not a data point.
Do you believe that science drove the media stories then, yes/no?
– Anthony
Jim (08:17:16) : And many others!
I think Gary might have a pretty full WUWT ‘inbox’ when he gets to work on Monday morning…
Jimmy Haigh (08:54:11) :
I think Gary might have a pretty full WUWT ‘inbox’ when he gets to work on Monday morning…
And maybe we should all have a look at his webcam!
Gary Strand (08:37:06) :
“I do request civility, respect, and intellectual honesty – things in short supply around here, based on this thread.”
Gary. You have stopped being funny now and are flying your true colours.
This comment is just way out of order.
REPLY: No he has that right, lets give the man some air. I’ve asked two simple questions, let him respond. – Anthony
Mike D. (00:44:25)
UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Governance:
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/
Financial Statements:
http://www.fin.ucar.edu/treasury/afs/audfin08a133.pdf
http://www.fin.ucar.edu/treasury/afs/audfin08.pdf
Not surprisingly, they are heavily financed by the Government as well as foreign entities. Tax payer money in use to further the global warming BS.
http://www.ucar.edu/governance/meetings/feb00/sept99fin.html
Wow, Gary. After looking at some of your papers, I can see you have no monetary interest whatsoever in keeping the CO2 hoax alive. Right.
Gary Strand (08:37:06) : Anthony, you’re happy to sit back and let folks take potshots, issue smears and slurs, and otherwise engage in silly games.
Mr. Strand, once again I request that you divulge the budget of your organization, the funding source, and the salaries of the people involved.
That is not a “potshot”. It is a reasonable request. I wish to know your financial stake in these matters. After all, I am NOT a public employee — I am one of those who pays their salaries.
Just to clarify: I pay you, you do not pay me. You work for me, I do not work for you. You are a public servant, I am a member of the public who is (allegedly) served.
Therefore it is proper and just that you comply with my request for full disclosure. If you are unable to do so, then please reveal the name of your immediate supervisor so that we query him on the matter.
so that we may query him
I was reading a book called “Champlain’s Dream” by David Hackett Fischer (a very good book by the way). He described Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as having a dangerous population of polar bears during Champlain’s time in the early 1600’s. He didn’t have that fact footnoted, so I couldn’t check his sources. This seems terribly far south for them–they surely would have had to be able to survive without ice for very long periods. What do you Canadians think? Have you heard this before and would it have been possible?
Thank you Jim. Our posts crossed. Am studying UCAR’s financial statement now.
Mike D. (09:31:22) :
Jim (09:17:08)
WOW indeed! Good work guys.
Hey, Gary! Can you spare a dime?
Gary Strand there’s two simple questions for you inline in your comment above.
I’ll hold all other comments so that you can answer them without any interference. Also, you would score some points if you apologized for the inappropriateness of your “black bile” comment. – Anthony
If you want to discuss what the media covers, and how it covers it, that’s fine, Anthony – but that’s not the science.
What my age has to do with anything…
REPLY: The point is that people with first hand observation (including myself) see it differently. Do you discount the value of first hand observation? If you were 5 years old in 1978, you would have no first hand observation and would be arguing without that benefit. That is why it is relevant to the media issue.
Two simple questions, again which you’ve deflected. Will you answer them directly? The floor is yours, no other commenters will be allowed so that you can do so without any interference. – Anthony
The “black bile” comment was an appropriate analogy – as medicine has become scientific and matured, it has abandoned and/or altered previous theories. Likewise, as climate science has matured, it has abandoned and/or altered previous theories.
Referencing the late 19th century and the mid-1970s (using the popular media [!]) as some sort of means to dismiss current climate science is no more honest than referencing the Middle Ages and the medicine of that time to somehow dismiss current medical knowledge.
REPLY: The comment’s snark is the issue, not the historical perspective. You used it to denigrate, not to enlighten. Which is why an apology is in order. Nobody here is trying to dismiss the current climate science, we only point out that then, the science, and popular press went another direction. Yet there are people who write whole papers trying to argue that historical event didn’t happen. – Anthony
for Gary Strand
In case you missed them in the inline comment
Here are the questions again:
What age were you in 1978? “no spring chicken” doesn’t count as an answer, it is not a data point.
Do you believe that science drove the media stories then, yes/no?
The floor is yours.
– Anthony
The US is now poised to take leadership on the CO2 issue by passing the Cap and Tax bill. I’m sure if the Senate follows the House in this massive fraud China and India will soon follow suit and Europe will jump aboard the Obama Express driven to the abyss by Al Gore. Why do I think the US will be out on that Iceberg all alone instead of the Polar Bears with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Anointed One playing Pied Piper to the rest of the world. Obama is trying to be Mr. Popularity at the expense of the US and taking us to places no man has gone before. What a horrible joke these people.
Those Polar Bears looked pretty content. I don’t think Obama will find the US public so content when word filters down about this massive tax he is trying to impose and what miss directed racketeers he has in his employ and how few they represent outside the circles of power. So much in common with the European Parliament.