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.
“but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
Perhaps I shouldn’t point out, as they may be lurking, that the statement is self-incriminating, as it shows they are not scientific.
Gary Pearse, I’m with you. Your ideas appear sound, but I suggest also adding in the concept of a few UAVs (“drones”). They might have to be retooled for the cold temps, and we would need a close base from which to launch and retrieve them. Might not cover all of each region entirely, but better than the SWAG we have.
You know, this would not be so bad if they just admitted up front how they built the estimates, came clean so to speak… Saying that they only used the populations for which they had values would be fine, but somewhere they really should be providing a table that identifies which region has had what population estimate in what year and also identify if and when methods for generating such estimates change, as well as providing a robust qualification as to the expected reliability of each method.
Polar Bear Population Facts – I’ve posted this before, but it bears repeating! 8D
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – Scare Site
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/cites/polar-bear/files/polar-bear-OV.pdf
There are 20,000-25,000 polar bears in existence, 15,000 live in Canada.
32,350 Polar bear specimens (polar bears dead or alive, and their parts and derivatives) were traded internationally for all purposes between 2001 and 2010.
1. That’s well over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally.
2. Of the 600 polar bears killed in Canada each year, the parts of more than half of them are traded internationally.
3. From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold.
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/default/cites/IFAW_brief-sheet-final-POLAR-BEARx.pdf
Canada acknowledges that it allows 3.75 percent of its bears to be killed every year, but the maximum rate of population growth for polar bears is between 4-6 percent per year. In healthy, growing populations, an annual hunt quota of 3.75 percent would slow, and possibly even stop, that growth.
World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/population/
Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the mid-1970’s.
Although most populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
As of 2013, 5 of 19 populations were in decline. (Therefore, 14 were increasing or stable.)
Polar Bears International – Conservation / CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. … We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. (How would I expect? Why not just say it?) … But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. (If this is the most important point, then what less important points are also irrelevant?)
International Business Times (IBT) – Anti-CAGW Promotion Site
http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. (Similar to Russian extrapolation presented in 1956.) A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs'”
If the world is actually feeling threatened that polar bears might cease to exist at some future point of time, why are they still being subjected to legal hunting?
Legal hunting really is the crux of the issue. There are no statistics on the numbers that die each year due to global warming. Are there zero? One? More? How does that compare to “over 3,000 polar bear specimens per year traded internationally” and “From 2007 to 2012, there was a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins sold”?
Food for thought…
As far as I can tell, the only geographic areas where they do have numbers are Canada and Alaska. As a canadian it pains me to say that no figures from official canadian sources, on any matter at all to do with climate, are to be trusted. So IMO any figures they have for bear populations are completely worthless.
Well, “guess” certainly sounds better than “pulled the number from whence the sun doesn’t shine”, although the latter would seem to be more accurate.
So if there was no public demand would they give us “an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense”? If not, why not? Why are we funding these people? All these years of ‘study’ and they have no idea, bearing in mind the gaps in coverage. What a load of sh!t.
Evaluation of petitions to list, delist, or reclassify species
We evaluate whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. For this purpose, “substantial scientific or commercial information” refers to information in support of the petition’s claims such that a reasonable person would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted. Please note that we will not consider conclusions stated in the petition that are not supported by credible scientific or commercial information to be “substantial information.” In making a finding, we consider whether the petition provides the following (50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b)(2)):
The following information is relevant to our determination as to whether the petition provides substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, although it is not mandatory, we strongly recommend you include the following information in your petition:
• A description and map(s) of areas that should be added to or removed from the current designation and the benefits of designating or not designating these specific areas as critical habitat;
• A description of the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of the species and whether those features may require special management considerations or protection;
• Within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating that the specific areas petitioned to be added contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and may require special management considerations or protection;
• Within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating that the specific areas petitioned to be removed do not contain features, including features that allow the area to support the species periodically, over time, that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that these features do not require special management consideration or protections;
• Outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating why the areas petitioned to be added or removed are or are not essential for the conservation of the species.
All from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/petition_guidance_for_internet_final_for_posting_12-7-10.pdf
Looks to me like a false claim to list the polar bears was made if PBSG’s data was used.
Realize that the ecology community has been fogging the numbers and hiding behind such undisclosed caveats for decades. Consider that when the farm and pest control industries tried in 1972 during the EPA’s DDT hearing to (correctly) demonstrate that contiguous 48-state U.S. bald eagle populations had increased from near zero in 1937 to thousands and that therefore there was no evidence that DDT had at all impacted raptor bird populations (they were all nearly extinct long before DDT was ever used!), the Audubon Society successfully sued to keep that data from being admitted into the hearing testimony or evidence. Why? Because the data from the Christmas Bird Count wasn’t “scientific” despite being the only long-term (100 years +) continuous large-scale estimate. They claimed the apparent increase in bald eagles (most rapid during the peak of DDT use) was merely an artifact of more observers.
When I tried to demonstrate to our local newspaper that the subjective apparent increase in local raptor birds (especially red tailed hawks) from the 1980s to 2010 was supported by data from the Patuxent National Wildlife Center (US Fish & Wildlife), they and the newspaper hid behind the “non-scientific” moniker to dismiss the notion that these birds weren’t in need of continued endangered and threatened status.
Susan Crockford has an excellent blog at http://polarbearscience.com and can be followed on twitter on @sjc_pbs. Visit regularly and give her your support…
I wish I had known about this two weeks ago. I just helped 3rd grade students through a flipping penny data collection inquiry. The top part of the form was for their “guess”. The bottom part was a chart to record the actual data of flipping a penny 20 times. So according to our esteemed peer-reviewed climate scientists who want all our students to grow up to be just like them, I should have had them stop at the guess. Who knew.
Thirty years from now these mendacious charlatans will have become an object lesson, laughing stocks. Meantime, not one single, solitary consequence will result from decades of big-mouth Climate Deviants ranting this Big Lie.
We should always be sceptical about sources of data. Understanding precisely where data came from and how it was measured is the first step to understanding what it might mean. Miss that step and you’re already on shaky ground as far as analysis goes…
It puts the grant money in the basket else it gets the guesses again.
“…the circumpolar polar bear action plan…”
————
Circumpolarbear Vortex!
Kinda like the Sharknado:
When a freak circumpolar vortex scoops up polar bears, hilarity ensues as the angry bears are dropped upon the unsuspecting populace.
Coming soon to a theatre near you!
How do you get a circumpolar polar bear? Have these people not learnt even basic language skills?
I think greenies shoud go to the Arctic, for the next ten years, and measure how many of their heads have been ripped from their bodies.
They can publish a headline, “Unarmed Arctic environmentalist explorers are being killed off in unprecedented numbers by declining populations of polar bears. Greenpeace says their Arctic explorers need to be armed”
Global warming is causing more people to run in mountain lion lairs and get attacked.. Global warming is forcing black bears to enter cities to get food.
Global warming is causing Canada geese to breed in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Old Canada breeding grounds are too warm, so they’ve moved hundreds of miles south to breed to escape the Canadian heat.
Devastating, just devastating.
If this were an isolated incident, one would conclude, “Well, you know, there may be a few over-eager or sloppy researchers out there, but overall the discipline has integrity.” But when we see this pattern repeated over and over and over again, it undermines the entire credibility of both government-sponsored research as a category and the prestige and respect of the sciences in general.
What is the message to students and the general public? Science is politics, publicity over probity? Fraud is OK, as long as it’s publicly funded?
“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.”
Because the latter method will reach far fewer people and no one at all via the mainstream media which published the guestimated results in articles with sensational titles.
I get the Problem science and politics, but how is such a disease-virus vaccination arrested? Wait it out, or cut the virus out with a sharp double-bit axe? The vaccine looks like?
Goldstone Deep Space – Mohave Desert, Ft Irwin NTC ingress-egress new roadway 2005-06 (?) Public Comment requirement conducted in Barstow. Desert Tortoise preservation before the fence but the new road was mostly completed, BLM Dept. of Interior. Room with 50+ chairs, 3 or 4 officials presiding, 5 or 6 citizens, and one rookie-novice reporter (High Desert or Desert Dispatch news media). The reporter noted one citizen speaker with a sweat stained cowboy hat, worn blue denim pants snap-button shirt grizzled face sun baked skin that rose and spoke “it ain’t gona work, this fence” (18 inch high to keep auto’s from smashing the slow walking tortoise). The cowboy continued standing silently. The official waited momentarily and then spoke – “thank you” are there any further comments? The cowboy was still standing and eventually set down. The rookie-novice caught up with the old cowboy outside and, as a good reporter would do, asked ‘what did you mean by ‘it ain’t gona work’, this fence’? Cowboy, ‘Those tortoise turtles have only several natural enemies that do harm. Mostly man (statutory $10,000 fine for harassment- no harm) and Coyote. The fence is man harm, the coyote is food looking-eating. The fence with those under road pipe tunnels-with squeeze shoot’ fencing ever so often, o’l coyote will wait up on a look-out for the next tortoise to come to the tunnel, and then go down and have a meal’. 2011-12 BLM experts have Identified a new problem – coyotes are killing more than the auto ever did (the Tortoise estimate, as it turns out is like the polar bear guess). What should we do asks the experts.
In my own needs to be using this new fenced roadway never saw any coyotes eating at the tunnels but saw dozens perched on a rock ‘just a wait-in’. Metastatic virus or an allergy?
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening, right now. I have 50 x 100 ft lots on the seafront of the Arctic in Alaska going for cheap, at $25,000. Prime oceanfront property. One block from the beach only $10,000. Send checks to my cousin in Nigeria, he’s totally honest.
If you don’t, you’re going to fry. People are already deserting Florida and Arizona for upstate New York and Minnesota, and the smart money is buying Nome Alaska condos in droves. The “Sunbelt” states are already being deserted, and they’re going to have zero populations by 2030. It’s a fact, my computer model proves it. There’s no debate, the science is settled. Every smart investor is putting their money on the seacoasts of Nunavut and Northwestern Territory right now. You don’t have buy this prime real estate for yourself. Buy it for your kids and grandkids.
I’m sorry, I grew up on Mad Magazine when Al Gaines was leading it. Don’t be afraid to use some satire and parody when confronting idiocy. Like Michael Mann vs. Mark Steyn. Mr. Mann, I’m sorry, DOCTOR Mann invented the global warming hockey stick. Did anyone notice it took him 5 years to earn his bachelor’s degree, and 9 years to get his PhD? As opposed to geniuses getting their B.A. in 3 years and their PhD’s in another 4 years? Total 14 years vs. 7 years. In my calculus, those aren’t equivalencies. Also being chosen to be a lead author for an IPCC report before/ just about the time he had earned a PhD. Smells fishy to me.
Ok how many millions upon millions were spent over the decades to “study” the polar bear? Everyday for years going into work,day in day out and now admit they don’t actually know how many polar bears exist? What have you been doing for years and years everyday?
WHAT “Public Demand” ????
More like their “public grant money’s demand”.