The Coming Polar Bear Battle In Toronto

From Dr. Benny Peiser GWPF details on the upcoming battle.

Coming next Tuesday to Toronto’s swanky Yorkville district, it’s the 2018 Polar Bear Showdown, an international display of conflicting views on the state of polar-bear science.

At one corner in Yorkville, in the ballroom of the upmarket Four Seasons Hotel, Polar Bears International (PBI) will stage a grand, $15,000-a-table gala to raise funds to protect the allegedly threatened Arctic species from the ravages of our addiction to fossil fuels.

At another corner, exactly one block away, in the Founders’ Room at the down-market Toronto Reference Library, the Global Warming Policy Foundation of London will launch a new report on the state of polar bears by Susan Crockford, adjunct professor at the University of Victoria. – Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 22 February 2018

“Representatives of other Arctic regions and the scientific community were more concerned about climatic change and its negative effect on polar bears, but these issues do not loom large with us. Both scientific data and traditional knowledge prove that nothing threatens our bears. During spring counts of dens we often find female bears with three cubs, which proves that the population is in good shape and there is no danger of a decrease in the population,” Mr. Vereshchagin said. —The Arctic, 20 February 2018

Coinciding with International Polar Bear Day (27 February), the GWPF’s State of the Polar Bear Report summarizes clear, reliable and concise information on the current state of polar bears in the Arctic since 2014, relative to historical records. It highlights up-to-date data and research findings in a balanced and factual format that avoids hype and exaggeration. It is intended for a wide audience, including scientists, teachers, students, decision-makers and the general public interested in polar bears and Arctic ecology. —Global Warming Policy Foundation, February 2018

The Paris Climate Agreement, far from securing a reduction in global CO2 emissions, is fundamentally a blank cheque that allows China and India to increase their emissions as they see fit in pursuit of economic growth. —Full paper


95 thoughts on “The Coming Polar Bear Battle In Toronto

  1. Sounds like a new paradigm: Schrodinger’s Polar Bear

    According to the alarmist it’s: Trust me its dead. Don’t look in the box.
    Skeptics merely notice that the box is moving about and angry noises are growling from within.

      • Maybe if humans stopped killing a quarter of a million seals each spring and left them for the Polar bears, the bear populations would increase even more.

        Nope. Scratch that. It’s gotta be the CO2 that’s affecting them.

    • They don’t seem to like real work, I’ve found that people of a liberal ilk are very ill equipped to do things like set fence posts for wind bloc, or to plant dune grass shoots, but they seem to be adept at organizing a rally to “save the dunes.”

      • The rally cry of “SOMEBODY needs to do something about this!!!” Not realizing it’s us as individuals that need to act.

      • “PiperPaul February 22, 2018 at 1:07 pm

        Telephone sanitizers could save the world from a plague, you know…”

        Actually, the desk phone at a typical workplace is a horribly filthy thing usually smothered with dirt, dust, food remains, ear jam and spittle. Eeeeew! The only place I worked at that had a “cleaning lady” for desk phones was Renault in the UK. And I was thankful to her for the job she did.

      • It’s amazing that the author of the article linked by Latitude believes that “polar bear habitat” area is decreasing because sea ice is decreasing, and that polar bears need sea ice to hunt.

        Seasonal animations of sea ice extent show that the Arctic is completely frozen over about four months out of the year, but the edge of the sea ice can be hundreds of miles from the coasts in summer.

        When the Arctic is completely frozen over, and the nearby land is snow-covered, polar bears have no access to prey, so they hibernate to conserve energy.

        In summer, when the edge of the sea ice is far from the coast, the polar bears hunt small land mammals and freshwater fish in rivers on snow-free land. Why would they bother swimming hundreds of miles to reach an ice floe when food is abundant on land?

        In spring, when the edge of the sea ice first moves away from the coasts to provide open water, the polar bears are hungry after their hibernation, and are anxious to prey on seals coming to breed. They may hitch a ride on an ice floe to go sea-fishing (it’s less tiring than swimming), but they don’t NEED sea ice as a habitat.

        Polar bears actually need open water and/or snow-free land part of the year in order to have access to their prey. In a mild year, where sea ice melts early and refreezes late, it extends their hunting season, and the polar bears grow fat and happy. In the opposite extreme, if the sea ice never melted over an entire year, polar bears would be cut off from their food supply, and would either die or be forced to move further south.

      • And that quote was provided by “Dr. Steven C. Amstrup”; ex-researcher, now full fledged hand waving shrieking alarmist.

        The real myth is Amstrup as a polar bear researcher.

        $10,000 a table; will Amstrup be there?
        No doubt, giving an inflammatory hate speech towards Dr. Crockford.

      • When there is less sea ice, the seals have to come on land in order to give birth.
        Which makes them even easier for polar bears to catch.

      • By all means, read the link; the post is by PBI Chief Scientist Dr. Steven C. Amstrup. He says the claim that populations are increasing is a “myth”.

        Now if you wanted to refute a myth, how would you go about it? What I would do is either list specific and significant flaws in the research claiming increases, or list other research which shows decreasing populations, preferably both. Amstrup does only a tiny bit of the first, stating that population estimates from the 50’s and 60’s are not reliable:

        The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear’s range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

        Fair enough, I should hope we’d get some improvements in wildlife population studies after 50 or so years of funded research. But he does not cite studies conducted with more modern polar bear science that establishes populations are declining. But hold on, if “Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses”, it’s even worse: we don’t know either past or present bear populations with sufficient accuracy to say whether they’re going up or down. In that case, how can we possibly recommend policy?

        He goes on to say:

        But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn’t matter if polar bears don’t have the required habitat.

        But you can only assert that the disappearing habitat is a requirement if you also have studies that show declining populations. If the populations are holding steady or increasing in spite of declining habitat, then the habitat is not essential (or it is not declining — maybe half of our sea ice measurements are only educated guesses as well?)

        So whatever you think you know about global warming and disappearing sea ice, it is only relevant to the survival of polar bears if the populations are actually declining, which by he own argument we can’t say.

        There may be studies which claim this, but in his answer to the “myth” about increasing populations Amstrup does not take the opportunity to cite any. Since this is his field, I assume he would be well aware of any.

        His logic is basically:
        1) populations can’t be increasing because estimates from 60 years ago are not reliable.
        2) we know global warming is reducing sea ice
        3) sea ice is essential polar bear habitat
        4) therefore global warming reduces polar bear populations

        Notice he never actually refutes the “myth”.

    • it’s incredibly potent to ‘name the game’ in their face, btw.
      tends to achieve peace and silence without having to struggle – kinda like boiling oil on a peasant.
      No Heroic Measures! Do Not Resuscitate.
      another thing that works is to ask if the person is a registered organ donor. that opens the door for the old ‘brain donor, eh?’ quip and moar!
      it is also important to understand that the only relation possible with a lolcow is being one or milking one for the lulz.

  2. But polar bears are soo cute on a posting! They must be endangered by those evil. . .well, it changes.. but whomever we are raising money to oppose.

  3. And you gotta wonder where the money from the $15,000 a table gala actually goes. Do they use it to spread meat for the “starving bears” or for the starving executives of Polar Bears International? My guess is that the polar bears won’t get meat.

    • Some of these green organizations earn hundreds of millions $ annually and their top executives have become millionaires, yet their front line activists are still unpaid volunteers.

      My heart goes out to the execs, it must be tough to keep a straight face everyday.

  4. Want to see our brother the polar bear in action? Google: Video: Terrifying moment polar bear attacks BBC cameraman in pod… We might send one of these cuddly critters to Professor Mann so he can prepare for the Mark Steyn trial. Or not.

    • I do remember seeing that on some Animal Planet(?) program, and wondered how anyone could be as idiotically vain as that guy was. I don’t know why, but people like that still surprise me.

      • That would be cool, but I would prefer to see Dr. Crockford get in the ring with Mann. I would watch it over and over and over…….

        Oh, you meant a debate. Well that would rock too.

  5. Funny how polar bears are the leftists’ poster animal. Maybe it was those animated Coca-cola commercials? In reality they are remorseless carnivores & would just as soon bite your head off as look at you.

  6. Aside from the fact that the polar bear is an apex predator, exactly what IS it that makes the State of the Polar Bear of such vital interest to people who seem to want to either squabble over their welfare, or think they’re some sort of cute, fluffy toy?

    I’m having some real difficulty understanding the quarrel going on. Exactly what WOULD happen if the polar bear as a species went extinct? Since grizzlies have already crossbred with some polar bears, it seems to me that the point is moot.

    There are other species of bears in the far north and in Siberia that are being ignored. Why is it ONLY the polar bear that draws this attention? Is there some prejudice against other bears going on here?

    Seriously, $15,000 per plate?

    • Lest anyone think I’m taking the /sarc thing too far, I have yet to find any kind of similar angst over the fates of the now extinct short-faced cave bear and the giant sloth, the dire wolf, the Irish deer, and the saber-toothed cat. They’re all extinct, have been for some time.

      • There’s no political leverage or money in already extinct species.

        Bears are prime candidates for marketing for many reasons that have their roots deep in history. It is not just polar bears. They use and lie about grizzly bears too – not for the Global Warming cause but to ‘save’ so called wilderness = block development and control people. Like the polar bear population, the grizzly and Alaska brown bear populations (both the same species – brown bear – and also found in Eurasia) as well as the black bear populations are all growing and at historic and prehistoric highs.

        Almost everything you hear about the historic populations of grizzly bears is false, and deliberately misrepresented to make the recent and current situations look as bad as possible.

    • Sara, it’s prb’ly because they’d have a hard time finding any other bear standing on a small piece of ice in the Arctic ocean to take pics of. Of course, polar bears are perfectly at home swimming long distances in the cold water, but the credulous don’t know that…..

  7. I believe that the polar bear is such a popular symbol of climate alarmism because of its association with its cold environment, with all the ice that our evil fossil-fuel addiction is supposed to be melting away.

    Ice — global warming — ice melting — white bears living near ice melting, caused by global warming.

    It seems really logical on one level, as far as a choice of symbols goes. Bears are big. Somehow, a little bird the size of a sparrow would not have the same impact. A BIG, white mammal, on the other hand, has a BIG impact.

    A big brown bear would not have the same effect either, because ice is not brown. Ice is white, and the bears living near ice are white, and so they are walking reflections of the melting white stuff.

    Now brown bears might work, if mud were somehow involved.

    • But the polar bears are soooooo cute, and they really don’t look all that big… until you see one trying to attack an adult walrus on the beach. Then you get an idea of the real scale of things.

      • I don’t know, having one stand with its front feet on hood of truck REALLY gives you an idea how big they are.

      • They may have repaired the window since I was last there; but, the Philadelphia Zoo Polar Bear exhibit has this long window into the polar bear pool.

        Then, one day, there was this long scratch along the window; on the polar bear’s side.

        I tried scratching the visitor side of the window with a key; insubstantial easily overlooked slight mark.

        I like the hippo pool and bison runs better anyway.

    • I’m really p***ed off at those people beating Binky with sticks. That was totally uncalled for, and probably gave him a headache; not to mention traumatic brain injury.
      They should have just let him finish his meal and then let him go about his business.
      After all, it is not every day he has a nice warm and squishy meal delivered to him. He should at least be allowed to enjoy it in peace.

  8. I’m wondering if the $15,000 polar bear meals hucksters are ruing the day they attacked and smeared Susan Crockford. I think so. Susan, you must have looked like easy prey to these cowardly bullies, but now they are going to get a lesson in what a polar bear attack looks like! Eat their lunch! I would love to participate in a crowdsourced funding of a definitive survey of polar bear populations and have Susan pick a team and go for it.

    • The polar bears don’t need to be bothered ( surveyed) anymore than they already have been. I read some time ago that more than half the bears in the Eastern Canadian Arctic had been darted multiple times in the previous 3 years.
      Much more and they’ll have to give them detox clinics.

  9. The reason that nobody funds efforts to save the Northern White Rhinoceros from extinction is that nobody’s figured out a way to make a buck out of it by connecting its demise to dangerous anthropogenic climate change ( yet).


  10. Guys and gals…
    Re the Polar Bears International gala event… it’s NOT $15,000 per plate… it’s ONLY $15,000 per table! If you seat eight at the table, why that’s only $1875 per meal. I’m sure the PBI attendees can well afford such an economical meal… plus they’ll get featured CAGW/Gloom & Doom entertainment! Quite the bargain!

  11. Amen. They are bears for Pete’s sake. A bear will eat damn near anything but a rock.
    As I am a Native Alaskan with personal experience with our bears, which both polar and otherwise are legendary, please consider that I might have expert opinion in this area worth listening to:
    Portraying them as cute and cuddly is a crime. The only greeting anyone dumb enough to approach one is likely to get translates into human speech as “Hello,lunch.”

    Paleface speak with forked tongue? Yeah, we know about that.
    Female person of color \ red.

    • And they call you “Ill Tempered Klavier”?
      For telling it as it really is?
      Or is that playing it as it is?

      Now, those bears might be ill tempered, if they found out someone was selling tables to eco-loons for $15,000; allegedly to save polar bears.
      Not that those bears will ever see or smell a penny of it.

      Great comment I.T. Klavier.

      • If the polar bears get anything it will be another dart in the ass from a helicopter, a fancy collar with a transmitter (we’ll call it a swimming aid), and a headache. But they are doing it for the bears’ children and grandchildren.

  12. The interesting question is what does Polar Bears International actually do that might benefit Polar Bears? A search in Charity Navigator shows that they list major “Program Expenses” as “Education: 67.8%”, and “Research in the Field: 32.2%”. Total program budget is a rather modest $1,156,195. The largest single administrative expense the the salary for Executive Director Krista Wright at $77,547, or 5.16 % of total expenses (All numbers from Fiscal Year ending 2015, filed 2017-02-01).

    A somewhat low efficiency rating of 77% means they use less of the money raised for program expenses in comparison with similar organizations. Some are much worse of course, but there are also conservation organizations with efficiency figures around 95%.

    PBI lists their staff scientists as:

    Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar Bears International; former Chair, IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
    Alysa McCall, Director of Conservation Outreach and Staff Scientist
    Geoff York, Senior Director of Conservation, Polar Bears International

    Presumably these scientists have received some of the “Research in the Field” expenditures. The “Education” category could be almost anything — what is “education” to some is “propaganda” to others. So that $15,000 table they’re selling will finance approximately $3,719 of “research” and approximately $7,831 of running around and telling everyone how endangered polar bears are.

    Their own description of research projects can be found here. Their statement about the “Population Studies” project is:

    Based on projected future sea ice loss, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could disappear within this century.

    Population studies track changes as the polar bear’s habitat shrinks. This research provides governments and management authorities with critical data for making decisions—helping to conserve the bears. We’re currently providing funding for studies in Western Hudson Bay and Southern Hudson Bay.

    • On the one hand, that salary is less than six figures, which is amazing compared to a lot of “charities” (*cough* slush funds *cough*). On the other hand, 5.16 percent of the budget going to one person is a lot unless the staff is really, REALLY small.

      I like your breakdown of what the table is buying. I bet a lot fewer tables and tickets would be purchased for fundraisers if that were provided for each one. Better yet, include such breakdowns but add to the list. Include the specific expense of the fundraiser (e.g., “12 percent is going toward your dinner!”), how much is going to each staff member’s salary (by title, e.g., “5.16 percent to the executive director!”), etc.

      • AllyKat:
        Be careful of assuming a salary is total compensation.
        Other possible compensation packages could:
        • include transportation; e.g. company car, trips, hotels
        • Lodgings
        • per diem
        • lunch and dinner expenses
        • what is affectionately known as a “golden parachute” severance/retirement package.

        Nor are hours worked per week mentioned.

    • That is exactly the question I ask of any charitable endeavor, how much actual goes to their stated charitable cause. For most of them it appears to be around 30-40% of total donations, which is why I donate to so few of them.

    • “This research provides governments and management authorities with critical data for making decisions…” Looks to me like they have stated quite plainly that they are nothing but a naked advocacy group, and strongly hints at rent-seeking.

  13. I do want to say, I love the contrast of these two events. The well-heeled attending a black tie event at 1000+ Loonies per person while the grubbing academics in the “pay” of the oil industry meet in a back room of the library.

  14. On Spitsbergen, an island in the Svalbard archipelago, in 1773, Polar Bears had been swarming in large numbers and were a great danger. Some British mariners arrived to deal with the matter. One of their number was a young Horatio Nelson.

    Nelson, then a midshipman of less than 15-years age, had joined a ship which was attempting to find a North-East passage. This was an event that took place about every hundred years when ice seemed thinner. Nelson’s ship was stopped by ice north of Spitsbergen, and young Nelson set off across the ice to shoot a polar bear or two. On this occasion, unfortunately, his musket misfired, and he then attempted to hit the Polar beast with the butt end of his weapon. This was ill-advised as rifle butts have no effect on Polar Bears, other than to rile them up.

    Fortunately, for Nelson,the bear and he were separated by a break in the ice, larger than the Bear could leap.
    Polar Bears have known how to deal with annoying people for a long time, which has stood them in good stead when threated by modern teams of Global Warming Scientists.

  15. We just need to look at the funding the polar bear groups got and observe that most of their money went to being in-house modelers rather than going outside and counting the bears. Their idea of field work might just be real lame. (Just a guess, however, but 50 years of research and they have no good count on 50% of the area of the arctic?)

  16. When I was in the service I spent a couple of weeks “up north” living in the ice igloo I had constructed close to the shore.
    For entertainment I watched a polar bear and her three cubs sliding on their backs down an incline into the water. Then they would run up the slope, and do it again. On occasion the mama bear would slide down on her back with a cub on her stomach.
    One day I was sitting in my igloo reading a journal on anthropology with lots of glossy pictures when a polar bear stuck her head in through the entrance. She just looked around, grunted, and left.
    After I reconstructed my igloo, I went back to my studies.That’s what you do for excitement on a northern posting.

  17. I called the Toronto Reference Library directly, and we together eventually found this using google since it is a private booking of public library resource (although the activity is likely publicly accessible) and they do not usually list private events:

    Coinciding with International Polar Bear Day (27 February), the GWPF’s State of the Polar Bear Report summarizes clear, reliable and concise information on the current state of polar bears in the Arctic since 2014, relative to historical records. It highlights up-to-date data and research findings in a balanced and factual format that avoids hype and exaggeration. It is intended for a wide audience, including scientists, teachers, students, decision-makers and the general public interested in polar bears and Arctic ecology.

    The launch will be held on Tuesday 27 February at 11:00am at the Toronto Public Library, Founders’ Room, 789 Yonge St, Toronto, ON M4W 2G8.


    * Welcome (Dr Benny Peiser, Director of the GWPF)
    * Introduction: Prof Chris Essex (Chairman of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council)
    * Short video screening
    * Presentation: Dr Susan Crockford (author of the report)

    For further information, please contact Harry Wilkinson (

  18. Keep in mind that’s $15,000 Canadian pesos which should mean less than $12k U.S. Now I’ll bet that sounds like a deal . . . or maybe not. Then again, it is a deal compared to what it would cost to fly in by chopper to some remote ice flow or sail to (almost) Antarctica to stage a protest.

Comments are closed.