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.
That little film clip from 1958 was from a movie about an hour long. That clip is only about a minute and a half.Dr Research, Prof Frank Baxter, actually a PHd English Lit professor was most likely presenting a theory or possibility as what could happen, not cut and dry fact.Those films were excellent and entertaining. It was one of the Bell system films that were originally televised in the late 1950’s I was about 5 years old or so when I first saw them usually on a winter Sunday afternoon. Perhaps they were already in reruns. That film was about the weather as far as I remember.Disney produced a film on weather at about that time called “The Storm” ,I believe, which trace a storm developing in the far away Pacific and moved into the US mainland.
Moving to the mid 1960’s, when I was in the 7th and 8th grades I along with my buddy were the projectionists(16mm, of course) for the elementary school and I showed two of those films, one was about the sun the other about the heart, I don’t remember showing “Unchained Godess”.Back in those days the telephone company supplied the films, and when done after a few days, I was allowed to go downtown to the telephone companies main office, got paid a quarter or fifty cents to do that, and signed them in and was asked a series of questions by the person at the desk that were recorded asking if the kids found the films informative ,etc.
Also at the time , I was able to buy for a under a dollar each, a Little Golden Books series on trees, rocks and minerals and of course, weather. In that little book published around 1955 or so and reprinted numerous times, there was a page or two on the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere most likely caused by man. It also said it was still uncertain what exactly would happen , because we don’t have enough information yet.
So yes, there was some mention of CO2 and global warming but there was trememdous uncertainty about it.
Things were different in the late 1950’s and 1960’s , NASA’s golden age and man’s potential was unlimited. And there was actually some educational stuff on TV.
Bill Junga (13:44:25) :
that little film clips from 1958 was from a movie about an hour long. That clip is only about a minute and a half. Dr Research, Prof Frank Baxter, actually a PhD English Lit professor was most likely presenting a theory or possibility as what could happen, not cut and dry fact.
Yes, it happened as you say. I recommend the readers here not to take the stuff on a glacial age like a dry fact, but only like a possibility to the far future. The possibilities of being wrong about the occurrence of an Ice Age are 50%, so the same is on the possibilities of the occurrence of a warmhouse. It’s better to talk about a cooling period, not on ice ages.
Nasif Nahle (13:42:13) :
Phil. (12:56:11) :
“By creating energy from nothingness or something like it? When you will understand that the carbon dioxide is not a primary source of energy?
The only person talking about the ‘creation of energy from nothingness’ is you. As you correctly point out that is scientific nonsense so I don’t know why you do so.
Hah! I wrote: “By creating energy from nothingness or something like it?” Have you realized it is a question, not an assertion? Need reading classes also?
Actually your rather poor english makes it difficult to follow, however you said “Sorry, Phil, I didn’t… I know enough thermodynamics, climate physics and heat transfer as to say that barbarity. Warmists did.”, which I interpret as your accusing ‘warmists’ of making that statement.
What do you wish I teach you more clearly? Just tell me.
As to your ability to teach anything on this subject, you have yet to demonstrate any capability in that area.
Hah and Hah! I am certified on every one of those disciplines… Sorry, it doesn’t work with me, Phil… 🙂
Considering the rubbish you’ve spouted above perhaps that should be reviewed, e.g. “If you don’t have a source of energy which heats the carbon dioxide up, the sun for example, the carbon dioxide would be thermally inert. Point.” The sun does not heat the CO2 up.
Phil. (14:31:18) :
Actually your rather poor english makes it difficult to follow, however you said “Sorry, Phil, I didn’t… I know enough thermodynamics, climate physics and heat transfer as to say that barbarity. Warmists did.”, which I interpret as your accusing ‘warmists’ of making that statement.
That’s because English is not my mother’s language. I would prefer Hebrew or Spanish, but I have to follow the rules of this blog.
Considering the rubbish you’ve spouted above perhaps that should be reviewed…
Uh! Oh! That rubish is IPCC preferred Arrhenius formula… Heh!
e.g. “If you don’t have a source of energy which heats the carbon dioxide up, the sun for example, the carbon dioxide would be thermally inert. Point.” The sun does not heat the CO2 up.
Yes, you’re right! You’re learning something, at least. The Sun does not heat the CO2 up; the Sun heats the surface up and the surface heats the atmosphere up. However, the CO2 absorbs a small amount of solar SW radiation directly (Lesson No. 2).
Lesson No. 3: The carbon dioxide is not a primary source of energy and has to be heated up by the energy transferred from other systems which can absorb SW radiation.
Warming caused by CO2 increase isn’t “dictated by the computer models” of the IPCC (which is itself wrong, as the models don’t belong to the IPCC anyway) – it’s “dictated” by basic radiative principles.
Hey, someone alert the GCM scientists: they can scrap all that and just go with “basic radiative principles.”
Boy, are their faces going to be red when they realize all the time and effort they wasted.
For the record, the amount of warming attributable to basic radiative principles is about a fifth of what is claimed by GCMs. Apparently Gary either hasn’t heard of feedbacks or doesn’t believe in them.
Heh, this thread reminds me of when I meet people who claim Venus’ high temperatures and 95% CO2 atmosphere prove carbon dioxide causes warming.
No matter how many times I see it, I still love the expression of dismay when I point out Mars also has a 95% CO2 atmosphere and is rather frigid.
The difference, of course, is density.
Yes well. Of course Venus is rather warm and Mars a trifle chilly. Possibly some of this may be due to CO2.
But personally I rather think it has more to do with their respective proximity, mean orbital distance of course, H/T LS, to the sun.
Kindest Regards
I’m not surprised that members from a specialist group are to be denied access to a government meeting. I suppose governments would not be granted access to a specialist group meeting either.
[snip – both of you children, stop it]
Gary Strand (10:57:46) : (etc…)
Gary – You obviously hold the position that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.”
Could you please answer a couple of questions.
[1] What are the falsification criteria for the above idea?
[2] If a dogmatic, religeous idea was masquerading as science – how would you tell, what would be the criteria that you would use to tell the difference?
[3] Do you hold with the recent notion that “Global Warming” means “Climate Change”? (I.e. includings cooling…)
[4] IF – Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Climate Change (instead of just “Global Warming”) – What would be the falsification criteria of that idea?
Hopefully waiting for your answers.
Here’s a link to the whole article by the insufferable Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1
Remember the MIT model games that made scary headlines? Krugman swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker:
The MIT ‘study’ he mentions (no citation) was discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/#more-8018
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/how-not-to-make-a-climate-photo-op/#more-8038
It hard to imagine a more egregious column than this one.
/Mr Lynn
FWIW, I sent Krugman an e-pistle, using the form on his Times blog page:
/Mr Lynn
Graeme Rodaughan (00:01:47) :
[3] Do you hold with the recent notion that “Global Warming” means “Climate Change”? (I.e. includings cooling…)
Recent? As in 1988 when the IPCC was set up? You do know what the CC in IPCC means don’t you?
tulbobroke (06:22:36) :
Graeme Rodaughan (00:01:47) :
[3] Do you hold with the recent notion that “Global Warming” means “Climate Change”? (I.e. includings cooling…)
Recent? As in 1988 when the IPCC was set up? You do know what the CC in IPCC means don’t you?
tulbobroke – Good point. Yes I do, I’m actually referring to the “media shift” that has occured in recent times (over the last few years) where it is no longer “Global Warming” – But “Climate Change”.
Of course nearly everyone participating in this deabate realises that “Climate Changes”. The distinction is what causes it, natural variation, or human activity.
In the context of my earlier post I was going to the idea that “Climate Change” is not disprovable by events, i.e. is supported by the world getting warmer, cooler, wetter, dryer, etc.
Sorry for being imprecise, and now somewhat long winded…
Gary – still waiting.
Gary – BTW – IMHO the idea that “Man Made Emissions of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming is simply a notion that is masquerading as Science, embedded in a Pseudo-Religeous Green Myth, .
The key criteria for judging this are as follows.
[1] The dogmatic assertions based on appeals to authority (Classic Religeous Behaviour).
[2] The ad-hominen attacks (No appeal to Evidence).
[3] The crushing of Dissent (just like Catholic Church in the 1600s vi Heliocentric theory). – Pertinent to the topic of this thread.
[4] Science is willing to engage with contrary evidence – This Green Myth isn’t.
So Gary – how can you tell that you arn’t simply a deluded devotee to a pseudo-religion.
Interesting article, for anyone who’s interested, invited specialists include WWF and PBI (polar bears international), whom Derocher is a scientific advisor too. Both lobby groups that look to sympathetic public for donations…much like greenpeace, etc.
Amanda Byrd’s picture (awesome grab shot….I’m jealous) of the ‘stranded’ polar bears is a perfect example of something I’ve known about all wild bears in general for years….after working with wildlife biologists on Black Bear studies in my old job. They are playful highly intelligent knuckleheads with a keen sense of adventure. Anytime I had a chance encounter with a bear they were always f*rting around like labrador puppies….until they spotted me.
When I first saw the shot I knew exactly what these wookies were up to. It was obvious to any observant bear afficionado. They were messing around on a frozen jungle gym. It’s characteristic behavior of higher mammals. They were bored and swam out to it because it was there and felt the need to check it out.
There’s an amazing picture taken through the periscope of a sub that surfaced through the polar ice of a family of curious polar bears sniffing around it and touching the hull. They might be thinking “Wow! This Walrus will feed us for years!” I don’t know how to link to stuff yet….but I saw it on an official US Navy image bank.
The truth will out:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
” Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement. Dr. Taylor years ago was involved in drafting the rules that govern our Group – we are restricted to 20 members of which 15 are appointed by the 5 nations with polar bears in their range and 5 members are appointed by the Chair. I appointed 5 people that are active in polar bear issues on an ongoing basis.
It was an unfortunate article and it was grossly misleading. For example, I never was a student of Dr. Taylor’s and for him to suggest so is more than a little surprising to me. I have know Dr. Taylor for over 25 years but I can assure you that at no point did he ever supervise me in any capacity.
I am unsure what the intent of Dr. Taylor’s comments were but I can assure you that the PBSG has broad representation. Given the 20 members and my appointing of only 5, it is largely up to the 5 nations to construct the Group that I Chair. The Chair position rotates by nation – my term is up and it will be up to the next Chair to appoint 5 members because my term will end and my membership in the PBSG will end. I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field.
I hope this clarifies the situation some. This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.”