Inconvenient: Polar Bear Numbers May Have Quadrupled

Researcher says attempts to silence her have failed

Polar bear numbers could easily exceed 40,000, up from a low point of 10,000 or fewer in the 1960s.

In The Polar Bear Catastrophe that Never Happened, a book published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr Susan Crockford uses the latest data as well as revisiting some of the absurd values used in official estimates, and concludes that polar bears are actually thriving:

My scientific estimates make perfect sense and they tally with what the Inuit and other Arctic residents are seeing on the ground. Almost everywhere polar bears come into contact with people, they are much more common than they used to be. It’s a wonderful conservation success story.”

Crockford also describes how, despite the good news, polar bear specialists have consistently tried to low-ball polar bear population figures.

They have also engaged in a relentless smear campaign in an attempt to silence her in order to protect the story of a polar bear catastrophe, and the funding that comes with it.

A few unscrupulous people have been trying to destroy my reputation”, she says. “But the facts are against them, and they have failed”.

Dr Crockford will be discussing population numbers and her new book on the Glenn Beck show on Tuesday 19 March (11am ET).  The book will have its official launch event on 10 April at 12:00pm in Calgary in the Centini Restaurant, where Dr Crockford will be on hand to sign copies.


Susan J. Crockford, Ph.D. (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology)
Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Graduate Studies) email: scrock@uvic.ca
University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada AND
Pacific Identifications Inc. (www.pacificid.com)

About the book

Available in Paperback and on Amazon Kindle

The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It’s the story of how and why the polar bear came to be considered ‘Threatened’ with extinction, and tracks its rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement.

The book also tells the story of Crockford’s role in bringing that failure to public attention and the backlash against her that ensued – and why, among all others who have attempted to do so previously, she was uniquely positioned to do so. In general, this is a cautionary tale of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and later obfuscating inconvenient facts.

For the first time, you’ll see a frank and detailed account of attempts by scientists to conceal population growth as numbers rose from an historical low in the 1960s to the astonishing highs that surely must exist after almost 50 years of protection from overhunting. There is also a blunt account of what truly abundant populations of bears mean for the millions of people who live and work in areas of the Arctic inhabited by polar bears.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
139 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
March 19, 2019 2:36 pm

A bit late, as this posted at 4:35 PM on the 19th, well after the Glenn Beck show aired.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 19, 2019 2:43 pm

You can listen here:

https://omny.fm/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/the-glenn-beck-program-hour-3-3-19-19

My interview was at the top of hour three of his three hour progam, lasts about 15 mins.

HotScot
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 4:24 pm

Susan

Couldn’t you have called it “Bearnado” and had a movie deal from it?

🙂

(Copyright HotScot)…..just in case.

cmarrou
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 11:35 am

Oops! You can’t copyright a title….now, if you make a little bear doll and name it Bearnardo, then you can trademark it.

HotScot
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 4:27 pm

Susan,

BTW, I love the book cover.

I’m trotting along to Kindle as we speak…..Well, as I speak really.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 10:04 pm

Second, on the cover. Whose Idea? Gold star!

Very glad to see this story get published. Go Susan.

Michael Ronayne
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 6:10 pm

Susan,

Could this population expansion also explain the reports of Polar Bear, Grizzly Bear hybrids? More opportunities for male Grizzly Bears to get lucky. The AGW’s true believers have alleged that the hybrids are additional proof of warming, when the truth may be just the opposite. The hybridization process has been going on for a long time and it is not going to stop anytime soon.

Reply to  Michael Ronayne
March 19, 2019 6:14 pm

No. The reports we’ve heard of recently in NW Canada were all the progeny of one female polar bear who mated with two male grizzlies, according to DNA analysis. All of them are dead now and there have been no further reports in the area.

The latest supposed hybrid in Western Hudson Bay was actually a blonde grizzly.

Michael Ronayne
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 8:51 pm

Susan,

Thank you for the update. Were any of the wild hybrids reproductively viable?

In addition to documented hybridization in captive populations, I recall reports of possible gene exchanges between Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear populations in the past. Is that theory still posible or has species differentiation reached the point where wild hybridization is unlikely?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 20, 2019 7:30 am

There is the opportunity for grant money to study the hypothesis Do blonde grizzlies have more fun?”

And why does Mr. Ronayne assume it is the grizzlies that are “getting lucky”? Maybe the polar bears that consider once you go black bear….

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 21, 2019 4:11 am

Apparently, the Polar bears have claimed their Irish roots. At least, such was the claim I heard on the radio the other morning. ‘ All polar bears alive today, have their DNA from a single (Mother) who once roamed the Irish landscape’

In fairness, I didn’t hear much more of the interview. Sorry.

Best to all. Hope you had a good St. Patrick’s day.
Eamon.

mario lento
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 9:15 pm

Susan: I went out for ice cream this evening at 8pm, PDT, and heard Glenn say your story would start in a minute, I caught the tale end of your story when I got back into my car on the way home. What a refreshingly honest as a matter of fact interview!

Doug Hilliard
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 11:05 pm

Thanks for the link! Great work!

Grant
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 19, 2019 3:19 pm

Annnnd?

R Shearer
Reply to  Grant
March 19, 2019 5:27 pm

White privilege, not everyone gets it.

Kevin Butler
March 19, 2019 2:37 pm

In before the narrative reverses to “climate change causing skyrocketing numbers of polar bears, destroying the arctic ecosystem! (And causing polar bear starvation)”.

Clearly it is a catastrophe of opposite polarity! I don’t think I can bear it…

Dave
March 19, 2019 2:45 pm

Are there really “millions” of people who live in arctic areas populated by polar bears? I’m not disputing it. It just seems high to me. Go, Polar Bears!!

Reply to  Dave
March 19, 2019 3:18 pm

Dave,
I understand your skepticism, but you have to remember all of the communities along the coasts of Labrador and northern Newfoundland (including the city of St. John’s with over 100,000), coastal Alaska, Russia and Greenland, as well as pretty much everywhere in Nunavut. Many of those that seem ‘small’ can have 2000-3000 people each or more. It adds up. Not to mention seasonal workers who come only in the summer…

H.R.
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 4:22 pm

And don’t forget tourists, Dr. Crockford, hoping to get a ‘rare’ glimpse of a polar bear ;o)

tty
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 20, 2019 2:51 am

And polar bears even show up pretty regularly on Iceland (pop. 350 000). However they are quickly shot as posing a serious threat to sheep-rearing (and people).

Kevin Butler
Reply to  tty
March 20, 2019 8:44 am

That’s really interesting.

“Polar bears are not native to Iceland but drift to the island occasionally aback an iceberg or on ice floes. The last bear to reach Iceland’s shores was shot by police shortly after being spotted in 2016, the fifth to reach the country this century. Two bears arrived within a short period in 2008. Official procedure dictates that these bears were to be shot, as it has been concluded by a working group set up by the Environmental Ministry that a polar bear away from its natural habitat always poses a threat.” https://www.icenews.is/2018/07/09/polar-bear-spotted-in-northeast-iceland/

Interesting that they consider Iceland “away from its natural habitat”, but arrivals have been a pretty regular occurrence, suggesting that if it weren’t for humans killing the bears, they’d probably have a very happy population in iceland.

http://en.ni.is/zoology/mammals/polar-bears/index.html describes historical records of polar bear arrivals (note that pre-18th centuray statistics are probably much less accurate, as they are from mentions in journals, etc.)

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kevin Butler
March 20, 2019 9:32 am

Is there a restaurant in Iceland that opportunistically dishes polar bear? 🙂

drednicolson
Reply to  Kevin Butler
March 20, 2019 12:51 pm

Don’t order the liver, lest vitamin A toxicity be in your future. 🙂

Duane
Reply to  Dave
March 20, 2019 9:50 am

According to the Arctic Institute at https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/countries/russia/, the total human population in the Arctic region is about 4 million, of which about 2 million reside in Russia alone.

James Snook
March 19, 2019 2:52 pm

Dr Crockford deserves a Nobel Prize for scientific integrity and a copy of her book should be given to Greta Thunberg, who said that she cried during a lesson at her school on ‘the starving polar bears’. Copies to her teachers too!

Dave
Reply to  James Snook
March 19, 2019 3:04 pm

Well said!! The children are being fed propaganda and being used as pawns.

Reply to  James Snook
March 19, 2019 3:12 pm

Did Greta really say that?! I hadn’t heard.

Thanks for that.

Dave
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 3:23 pm

A reported quote of hers to The Guardian… “I remember when I was younger, and in school, our teachers showed us films of plastic in the ocean, starving polar bears and so on. I cried through all the movies. My classmates were concerned when they watched the film, but when it stopped, they started thinking about other things. I couldn’t do that. Those pictures were stuck in my head.”

Maybe she should learn the truth about the current, documented, state of polar bears.
Thanks for your work!

HotScot
Reply to  Dave
March 19, 2019 4:32 pm

Dave

Brexit personified. Watch the reaction of the majority, completely ignore it, and go your own way.

Greta should be a Parliamentarian in Westminster!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Susan Crockford
March 19, 2019 10:08 pm

She, Greta, has a mental/medical issue. Cut her some slack.
Skewer the teachers and parents.

HotScot
Reply to  James Snook
March 19, 2019 4:29 pm

James

Maybe Greta should go and find a starving polar bear. I doubt it would be starving for long.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 4:39 pm

HotScot,

I am certainly a big idiot, and frequently try to interject some levity into the comments.

IMHO, your comment may give ammunition to those who argue with emotions rather than facts. We don’t need to give them any extra ammo.

HotScot
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
March 19, 2019 5:19 pm

Pillage Idiot

There’s something wrong with Greta giving a starving Polar Bear a sandwich?

You inhuman beast!

🙂

LdB
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 6:40 pm

There are no polar bears left according to Griff it is pure propaganda.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 11:15 pm

And according to Griff Dr Crockford isn’t a scientist either. He knows so little about so much.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 7:21 am

Hot Scot,

I feel much better now that you have clarified your meaning!

To redeem my inhuman remark, I think Greta should give the polar bear a Coca Cola along with the sandwich.

The extra 140 calories from the sugar should be quite beneficial to a foraging polar bear nearing the end of winter.

knr
March 19, 2019 3:09 pm

‘Climate changes lead to an explosion in th numbers of polar bears, mass starvation to follow’
Heads you lose, tails I win. climate ‘science ‘ in action.

Duane
Reply to  knr
March 20, 2019 9:52 am

Well, if Global Warming causes Global Cooling, then a Plunging Polar Bear Population Collapse must therefore cause a Catastrophic Polar Bear Population Explosion.

Totally logical.

Cam_S
March 19, 2019 3:11 pm

The cover cartoon looks like it could be the work of Josh!

Rick K
Reply to  Cam_S
March 19, 2019 3:28 pm

It IS excellent! I like seeing the bears land on their feet (unlike in that putrid commercial some years back).

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Cam_S
March 19, 2019 3:55 pm

It’s a great cover, very apt.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Cam_S
March 20, 2019 7:22 am

Actually it reminds me of Windsor McCay and “Nemo is Slumberland”….
http://caad.msstate.edu/wpmu/bharvey/files/2014/09/little-nemo-e1411705506421.jpg

Jeremy
March 19, 2019 3:14 pm

Please correct “millions” to “thousands.” Hardly anyone lives up that far North – for one, it is still extremely cold and inhospitable despite what the doomsayers claim.

nc
Reply to  Jeremy
March 19, 2019 4:07 pm
tty
Reply to  nc
March 20, 2019 3:12 am

Not all of those live in areas where polar bears occur. It is definitely >1 million if you include New Foundland and Iceland, otherwise “hundreds of thousands” would be more correct.

Polar bears are found regularly on both Iceland and New Foundland, but do not breed there and there are no resident populations.

Rhys Read
Reply to  tty
March 21, 2019 4:53 am

The city of Murmansk which is above the arctic circle has a population of over a quarter million people. There are a lot more cities in northern Russia.

tty
Reply to  Rhys Read
March 21, 2019 9:40 am

The sole reason Murmansk exists is that it is an all-year ice-free port. So no Polar Bears there, though they occur further east, but there are no large cities on the sea-coast east of the White Sea, only small settlements.

HotScot
Reply to  Jeremy
March 19, 2019 4:34 pm

Jeremy

Susan has already answered that.

Doh!

Editor
March 19, 2019 3:16 pm

I can predict the reactions of certain people who will just throw a bunch of ad homs around instead of doing what all good skeptics do, look for the evidence and data.

Editor
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 19, 2019 3:25 pm

I see the ad homs already at another forum when the new book is posted. I started a new thread at the forum with excerpt from here to increase exposure, and expect to see the childish replies by people who have not read it.

HotScot
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 19, 2019 4:43 pm

Sunsettommy

Doubtless Peer Review bullshit.

It has been estimated that up to 75% of Peer Reviewed science is not replicable.

I stated this on a blog, supported by a number of scientific papers and had the pleasure of discussing it with Peter Ridd, the Australian coral reef expert who was sacked from James Cook University after 20 years for calling out coral bleaching as an ecological disaster. Peter believes 50% of peer review papers are nonsense, it’s not as high as 75% in his estimation.

So I’ll rephrase my original question. Which 50% of Peer Reviewed climate science would alarmists like to chuck in the bin?!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 5:39 pm

Indeed.

https://retractionwatch.com/

Is a daily read.

Funny, though, how climate science is pristine and perfect. Its almost as if…nah. Couldn’t be…

Grant
March 19, 2019 3:23 pm

There goes the polar bear costume rental business. They’ll have to move on to another creature. Any mammal including seals and sea lions will thrive in a bit warmer world. As for polar bears, they’re intelligent and resourceful and they’ll do just fine if we’re not out there shooting them.

HotScot
Reply to  Grant
March 19, 2019 4:47 pm

Grant

Funny that sharks which have an appetite for humans tend to occupy warm waters around Australia/South Africa etc.

We don’t get many Great Whites around the UK.

Kone Wone
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 7:05 pm

‘Great Whites’? Wotchit, you’ll be accused of ‘white privilege’.

michael hart
Reply to  Kone Wone
March 19, 2019 8:34 pm

There’s not a lot of call for shark costumes either in these parts. But you’ll probably get in even hotter water nowadays if you go with the more traditional gorilla outfit.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  michael hart
March 20, 2019 8:08 am

“There’s not a lot of call for shark costumes either in these parts.”

Clearly, you don’t spend time with toddlers:

Peter
Reply to  Kone Wone
March 20, 2019 2:01 am

You must balance it with mentioning Blacktip Shark all the time.

drednicolson
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 1:24 pm

Bull sharks account for most shark attacks, by sheer virtue of their near-global habitat range. (Any ocean outside the polar regions, plus any fresh water body with a connection to the sea.) But Great Whites get all the press. 🙂

Bruce Clark
Reply to  Grant
March 19, 2019 5:21 pm

We here in Australia have White Lemuroid Ring Tail Possum. It’s natural habitat is tropical rainforest peaks in far Nth Queensland. From what I can gather this little beastie, liviing in the tropics has evolved to such an extent it can’t regulate its own body temperature. There is a brown variety of the same creature but this one does not seem to generate the same excitment.

Report from Courier Mail of July 22 2014.

“SCIENTISTS believe the white lemuroid ringtail possum is Australia’s first mammal on the brink of extinction under global warming.

They claim the cute little possum – the symbol of Queensland’s Wet Tropics – is already “ecologically extinct’’.”

Steve
Reply to  Bruce Clark
March 19, 2019 11:39 pm

Don’t forget the Dropbears

Bruce Clark
Reply to  Steve
March 20, 2019 5:43 am

Thanks for reminding me. I believe they are extremely rare but nevertheless valuable for scaring away gullible city bred folks from the eucalyptus forests. I have never seen one myself but I have heard their numbers are dropping.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Bruce Clark
March 21, 2019 4:31 am

the numbers are dropping because we blabbed!
we NEED uninformed tourists to wander to feed the dropbears;-)

tty
Reply to  Bruce Clark
March 20, 2019 3:16 am

Any number of small Australian mammals have gone extinct during the last 200 years, almost all were wiped out by feral cats and foxes. No invasive predators in northern Queensland?

beng135
Reply to  tty
March 20, 2019 8:26 am

Good point. That should be the first possible issue to look at.

Bruce Clark
Reply to  tty
March 21, 2019 3:45 am

Cane toads, cats, rats, dogs, foxes and pigs for a start.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Bruce Clark
March 20, 2019 7:32 am

Wrote up the entire white lemuroid ringtail saga as one example (of many) in essay No Bodies (concerning climate extinction mythology) in ebook Blowing Smoke.

Bruce Clark
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 21, 2019 3:47 am

Apparently there was a sighting early this year, so it would appear the beast is hanging in there.

DiggerUK
March 19, 2019 3:29 pm

I love the jolly tune in the background to this video from the BBC. Does make me feel that serious jail time for polar bears could be the solution.
Shame on any of you who think serious jail time for alarmists would be helpful, why should the polar bears have to put up with such cell mates…_
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47206685/why-polar-bears-are-invading-human-settlements

beng135
Reply to  DiggerUK
March 20, 2019 8:36 am

Yes. Lock ’em up for bearing themselves in public.

Michael Ronayne
March 19, 2019 3:47 pm

If you live long enough, once and awhile you get to see your predictions come true.

The Polar Bears of Hudson Bay
by Miceal O’Ronain (29 December 2002)
http://www.john-daly.com/p-bears/

As I noted in 2002, the only real danger to Polar Bears is indiscriminate hunting and the lies promoted by environmentalists.

Well done Anthony!

Michael Ronayne

old construction worker
March 19, 2019 3:52 pm

Are they marching on D.C. yet?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  old construction worker
March 19, 2019 4:04 pm

Who – the polar bears?

HotScot
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 19, 2019 4:53 pm

Bruce Cobb

Nah…….Nigels Brexit army. Once they have finished with the scum politicians in Westminster we’ll rent them out to you guys to kick your Democrats out!

O/T – I watched the movie “Free State of Jones” last night. Whilst I knew American Democrats were racist, I didn’t really understand how early they established the KKK.

Man, they have a real cheek accusing Trump of racism.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 5:20 pm

“Man, they [Democrats] have a real cheek accusing Trump of racism.”

Democrats have no shame. The Democrats accuse all their political opponents of being racist. This is their first line of attack. It’s Standard Operating Procedure for the Democrats.

There is no evidence that Trump is a racist but that doesn’t stop the Left from accusing him of being one.

These racism charges must not be working very well for the Left because Trump’s approval ratings among Blacks is up to about 35 percent, doubling since the 2016 election. Trump gets the same increase in favorability from the Hispanic community. A lot of people in these communities must not believe the Democrat lies about Trump.

Lank finds it hard to bear
March 19, 2019 4:01 pm

The next climate change scare will likely be a threatened extinction of Australia’s famous drop bear! https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/

This dangerous but rare bear lives in the warm dry climates of eastern Australia. Many alarmists believe that it is threatened by climate change but I suspect that as Australia’s population grows, and hence food supplies for the animal increase, the Drop Bear population will flourish – just as the polar bear numbers are expanding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj0m-1rvsUw

Lank finds it hard to bear
Reply to  Lank finds it hard to bear
March 19, 2019 4:06 pm
HotScot
Reply to  Lank finds it hard to bear
March 19, 2019 5:03 pm

Lank finds it hard to bear

Love it! Clever bear by the sounds of it. But I nearly wet myself at the description of the deterrents employed by humans. (The context is important here folks).

Drop Bears hunt by ambushing ground dwelling animals from above, waiting up to as much as four hours to make a surprise kill. Once prey is within view, the Drop Bear will drop as much as eight metres to pounce on top of the unsuspecting victim. The initial impact often stuns the prey, allowing it to be bitten on the neck and quickly subdued.

There are some suggested folk remedies that are said to act as a repellent to Drop Bears, these include having forks in the hair or Vegemite or toothpaste spread behind the ears. There is no evidence to suggest that any such repellents work.

My dog adores both Vegemite and toothpaste. I’m ever so glad it’s not a Drop Bear.

And if you find it necessary to wear forks in your hair (I don’t have any hair left so this is a crap deterrent for me) I suspect you shouldn’t be where you find it necessary to wear them.

HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
March 19, 2019 5:09 pm

Good grief, m0dded.

Can’t believe we’re all going to be forced to adopt bizarre descriptions of common terms here just because a small minority adopt inappropriate language to make a point.

Nor can I remember the last time I saw unacceptable language here.

The majority dictated to by the minority, once again. Effing forking lobbox

tty
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 3:22 am

I should think Vegemite would repel just about every living thing except Australians. I usually buy a small jar when I visit Australia and let people at home have a taste.

I won’t describe their reaction and language, since it would probably be moderated.

tty
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 3:23 am

“My dog adores both Vegemite and toothpaste. ”

Wolfs/dogs are carrion eaters, nuff said…

HotScot
Reply to  Lank finds it hard to bear
March 19, 2019 5:16 pm

LOL!

AWG
March 19, 2019 4:10 pm

How many decades ago did government start spending tax money to count polar bears?

Reply to  AWG
March 19, 2019 5:29 pm

Late 1960s, at least for Canada, the US, and Norway

kim
March 19, 2019 4:21 pm

Go baby ice bears, go.
==================

Graemethecat
March 19, 2019 4:44 pm

We’re still waiting for Griff to apologise for impugning Dr Crockford’s reputation.

HotScot
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 19, 2019 5:10 pm

Graemethecat

He’s just a drive by these days. No chance of an apology, not that there ever was from the weasel.

Denier Joe
Reply to  HotScot
March 21, 2019 11:19 am

He’s given up any debate and seems to be limited to just trolling now. sad

March 19, 2019 4:44 pm

As usual its all about the money, more grants paid for by the taxpayers of
course. Plus of course the long term designs of the Green Lobby.

MJE VK5ELL

Javier
March 19, 2019 5:18 pm

Nobody can deny that the main risk to polar bears is anthropogenic.

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
March 19, 2019 6:05 pm

From hunting.

D Matteson
March 19, 2019 5:22 pm

So in the 1960’s there were 10,000 polar bears when Al Gore was growing up, today there are only 40,000 left.

Tom Abbott
March 19, 2019 5:25 pm

People like Susan Crockford give me hope that the truth about this CAGW speculation will eventually come out.

Little Greta definitely needs a copy of this book to dry her tears and relieve her mind of her fears for the fate of the Polar Bears.

Javert Chip
March 19, 2019 5:32 pm

So total 43 comments (so far), 12 from HotScot…all this in an interesting thread about bears & Susan Crockford

Are we done thread-bombing?

MarkW
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 19, 2019 6:04 pm

So, you are complaining that someone else said everything you wanted to say before you had a chance to say it?
Which of HotScot’s comments has you HotScot under the collar? Or are you just here to whine?

Javert Chip
Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2019 6:51 pm

Well, since you asked, it’s more an issue of wanting to hear from Susan as opposed to thread bombs from HotScot. By itself, no single item is too bad, but the collection is a pain in the ass. If Hot Scot wishes to regale us with his wisdom, he should write an article for WUWT & see what readers say.

I understand you consider the following pithy & perhaps offer you deep insights into…something. I just find the smart-assed and probably could have survived without the following::

1) Susan

Couldn’t you have called it “Bearnado” and had a movie deal from it?

(Copyright HotScot)…..just in case.

2) Susan,

BTW, I love the book cover.

I’m trotting along to Kindle as we speak…..Well, as I speak really.

3) Pillage Idiot

There’s something wrong with Greta giving a starving Polar Bear a sandwich?

You inhuman beast!

4) Jeremy

Susan has already answered that.

Doh!

5) Grant

Funny that sharks which have an appetite for humans tend to occupy warm waters around Australia/South Africa etc.

We don’t get many Great Whites around the UK.

6) LOL!

7) Graemethecat

He’s just a drive by these days. No chance of an apology, not that there ever was from the weasel.

8) Bruce Cobb

Nah…….Nigels Brexit army. Once they have finished with the scum politicians in Westminster we’ll rent them out to you guys to kick your Democrats out!

O/T – I watched the movie “Free State of Jones” last night. Whilst I knew American Democrats were racist, I didn’t really understand how early they established the KKK.

Man, they have a real cheek accusing Trump of racism.

9) James

Maybe Greta should go and find a starving polar bear. I doubt it would be starving for long.

MarkW
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 20, 2019 9:32 am

In your opinion, lots of comments from HotScot has prevented Dr. Crawford from commenting?

If so, how?

The fact that you want us to talk about only what you want to talk about is duly noted. And duly ridiculed.

I strongly suggest that you make an attempt to get a life, and stop trying to control what others do.

Javert Chip
Reply to  MarkW
March 19, 2019 7:03 pm

ps…and I don’t really need some buffoon pretending to put words in my mouth.

That’s a particularly annoying Millenial tactic – pretend to listen, then repeat back, with great distortion, what others have said while inserting you own, usually completely off-topic & idiotic opinion.

I’m perfectly able to express opinions, and reading comments from Dr Crockford interspersed with Hot Scot’s 25% thread bombing irritated me. Yea, a few are ok, but 25%?

You asked, I answered. If you didn’t really want an answer, don’t ask.

HotScot
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 20, 2019 2:41 am

Javert Chip

So, just to compound matters you decide to repost my post’s.

And I’m thread bombing?

LOL

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 9:34 am

HotScot, you seem to have really gotten under Javert’s skin.
What did you do, fart in his general direction or something?

Javert Chip
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 20, 2019 8:13 am

Nope; MarkW simply asked which posts I was referring to.

I’m guessing people frequently do things for reasons you don’t comprehend.

MarkW
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 20, 2019 9:35 am

In other words, anyone who talks about something that doesn’t interest you, is a thread bomber.
Got it.
Well people whining about other people talking about stuff that they aren’t interested in, doesn’t interest me.
So by definition, stop thread bombing this site.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Javert Chip
March 20, 2019 7:31 pm

You have a bad habit of pretending to quote while inserting your nonsense.

In the mean time, no more Susan, but lots of you two.

Good job.

Caligula Jones
March 19, 2019 5:54 pm

Last year a video surfaced taken in Northern Canada of a polar bear with a very, very obvious broken foot.

Of course, the video was taken by an advocacy group and used for fund raising in a very, very overcrowded market that uses polar bears as mascots (WWF, Greenpeace, Suzuki, etc.). It was sold as “proof” of “starving” polar bears due to climatechangeglobalwarmingcatastrophe.

Not one of the media outlets who promoted the video (as they don’t actually do any actual journalism these days) asked the very simple questions they should have: did anyone actually perform a necropsy of the bear to determine if it was actually starving? And do you think THE BROKEN FOOT might have something do the starving if so?

Bruce Clark
Reply to  Caligula Jones
March 21, 2019 3:57 am

Polar Bears as Mascots.

Bundaberg Rum based on the east coast of Queensland uses them as advertising mascots. Why I can’t really say as they are not exactly common in the area.

steve case
March 19, 2019 5:58 pm

The book cover immediately reminded me of this video:

Reply to  steve case
March 19, 2019 7:40 pm

It’s the Les Nessman turkey fiasco all over again. Yeah, I used to watch WKRP …

Of course, Les would have to be on steroids to heave out those polar bears, and he’d have to hitch a bigger air ride.

David Chappell
Reply to  steve case
March 19, 2019 8:08 pm

Planestupid indeed.

Dillon
March 19, 2019 6:03 pm

Fun conversation on Twitter.
I haven’t been keeping up on the latest but surely someone here can help Scott Adams catch up on the debate.

Scott Adams:
“Can someone who is smart tell me whether this persuasively debunks climate change predictions of doom or is it just another “cherry picking” situation?”

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1108160913318699008

Gerald Machnee
March 19, 2019 7:05 pm

Great work Dr. Crockford. Will get my copy.

Lank finds it hard to bear
March 19, 2019 7:26 pm

Of course PB numbers are kept ‘under control’ by hunting for the China market…. “Pressure is now being put on Canada, which allows hunting as well as the export of bear hides, especially to China where the demand for the bears’ snowy white fur is high. Polar bear pelts sell for around £4,000, but the best quality ones are worth up £15,000. The number of bear hides shipped from Canada to China increased from 266 in 2005 to 400 in 2013. Polar bear gall bladders are also being exported to China where they are hailed for their ancient medicinal properties.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/1093345/polar-bear-trophy-hunting-michael-gove
As many as 5,000 polar bears are feared to have been killed by hunters in recent years.

Bill
March 19, 2019 7:51 pm

I was under the impression that the first count was in 1955 and there were 5,000 bears then…and I got that from someone involved in it with his family way up Nth.

Reply to  Bill
March 19, 2019 9:37 pm

the facts on this are in the book, with references.

There were a number of estimates generated, based on different things.

The one that I consider most credible is 5,000-15,000 or 10,000 average.

markl
March 19, 2019 8:06 pm

Once again facts with empirical evidence trump projections regarding AGW. Is anyone listening?

kristi silber
March 19, 2019 9:32 pm

I read much of what was available from the Amazon preview of the book, trying unsuccessfully to find anything about the methods Dr. Crockford used for her calculations of the polar bear population. It’s striking that she thinks there may be over 40,000 of them now, when in 2015 the highest estimate she quoted was 28,500. Did I miss it somewhere? How was the estimate of 40,000 made? They are notoriously hard to count, and saying it “may” be above that isn’t particularly informative in itself.

I don’t quite see how a population change over the course of a decade can be assumed to be representative of what will happen by 2050. The hunting ban would still act to increase population size anywhere that it is below carrying capacity; the two effects of that and climate change could be working to counteract each other. The effects of diminishing food could bring bears into greater contact with human populations, which would make it unsurprising that “Almost everywhere polar bears come into contact with people, they are much more common than they used to be.” But less food may have a relatively slow effect on population demographics in a long-lived animal, if it is leading to fewer births. Bears don’t have to starve for food scarcity to be an issue. Even if it’s true that polar bears do not appear to be affected by spending 30 more days/year on land, they are still spending more days on land, and if they have to spend ever more time on land, that could eventually encroach on their important feeding periods.

But is it even true that the bears aren’t affected by change in sea ice? Crockford cites Rodes’s work supporting this idea in the Chukchi Sea, but I saw no mention of her (or others’) research on southern Beaufort bears: “Declines in polar bear body condition, stature, and reproduction have been linked to multi-year trends of declining sea ice (Rode et al. 2010), and an assessment of temporal patterns of feeding ecology found that the number of bears in a physiological fasting state increased from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s (Cherry et al. 2009). These data support the hypothesis that energy balance of polar bears has changed in the southern Beaufort Sea, which may explain observed declines in survival. Sea ice habitat for polar bears is declining due to declines in sea ice extent (Stroeve et al. 2014).” Good science isn’t about trying to make an argument by citing only the research that supports it and ignoring the rest.

(Their increased time on land could be affecting nesting bird populations.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2015.00033/full)

I don’t know the state of the polar bear population, and I make no guesses about what the future holds. My biggest grievance is with the tone of the book. The biased rhetoric taints its scientific credibility. It may well be that Crockford has been smeared, but smearing back only lowers herself to that level (and makes me wonder who smeared first). Publishing a book through an organization that exists solely to push a stance on global warming does nothing for her professional reputation. I’d say the same if someone from the opposite camp did the same things.

mario lento
Reply to  kristi silber
March 19, 2019 9:40 pm

“I read much of what was available from the Amazon preview of the book, trying unsuccessfully to find anything about the methods Dr. Crockford used for her calculations of the polar bear population.”

You sound sad that there may be a lot more bears and seem to hypothesize on the reasons it’s still must somehow be bad… And then you ask which side started the attacks? The CAGW started first and continues, just in case you didn’t know.

And there is the source of your problem. Your ad homs are clear however.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  mario lento
March 20, 2019 3:40 am

“And there is the source of your problem. Your ad homs are clear however.”

No “Ad Homs” there my friend.
But your imagining of them is telling.

I see a perfectly reasonable series of questions is all.

As is often the case an “Ad hom” here is merely someone who doesn’t pile in into the frenzy of echo-chamber his ‘n’ kisses.

sycomputing
Reply to  Anthony Banton
March 20, 2019 4:19 am

I see a perfectly reasonable series of questions is all.

And I see a perfectly irrational series of contradictions is all. For example (emphasis added):

“How was the estimate of 40,000 made? They are notoriously hard to count, and saying it ‘may’ be above that isn’t particularly informative in itself.”

Seems Silber is objecting to some imprecision on the part of Crockford, which is fine as long as you then don’t go on about this or that with your own imprecision, thereby contradicting yourself.

I count quite a few:

” . . . the two effects of that and climate change could be working to . . . ”
” . . . diminishing food could bring bears into greater contact . . . ”
” . . . less food may have a relatively slow effect . . . ”
” . . . that could eventually encroach on their important feeding periods.”
“Their increased time on land could be affecting nesting bird populations.”

And then Silber cites a study that uses exactly the same language as Crockford:

“These data support the hypothesis that energy balance of polar bears has changed in the southern Beaufort Sea, which may explain observed declines in survival.”

Where’s the objection for the above? Why the inconsistency?

Good, objective criticism isn’t about trying to make an argument to imprecision only to then argue exactly with that methodology for your own position. That’s just irrational contradiction.

Sloppy thinking, sloppy conclusions.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  sycomputing
March 20, 2019 6:03 am

Are there denialists on both sides of the issue?
This may be explained if they could eventually study the science so they might gain some possible insight for themselves. /s

WXcycles
Reply to  kristi silber
March 19, 2019 11:35 pm

You probably also find it difficult to ‘process’ how there can possibly be so many more penguins today than anyone knew back in 2015. But a little hint, you could buy the book if you cared so about the science methods (though I bet you don’t), or you could just email her like normal scientists do and ask for it. Though that would have the downside of robbing you of an opportunity to grandstand and cast aspersions, and make somethings out of nothings.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  WXcycles
March 20, 2019 3:49 am

“Though that would have the downside of robbing you of an opportunity to grandstand and cast aspersions, and make somethings out of nothings.”

Another example of turning legitimate questions into an accusation of ad hom.
Isn’t that what science is about?
Be skeptical?
Just because Crockford as a view on it doesn’t me it is the correct one.
Oh, but then this is WUWT.
Silly me.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Anthony Banton
March 20, 2019 7:56 am

Dr Crockford’s opinion is far more likely to be closer than yours to reality. Unlike you, she knows what she is talking about.

drednicolson
Reply to  Anthony Banton
March 20, 2019 1:55 pm

There’s asking questions, and there’s making passive-aggressive insinuations.

And seems scurrilously accusing others of ad hom has become the new ad hom.

Steve richards
Reply to  kristi silber
March 20, 2019 5:08 am

Why don’t you buy the book and read it. If your questions are not answered then you will have genuine questions to ask

Edwin
Reply to  kristi silber
March 20, 2019 7:14 am

Kristi, I was going to pass over your comment until I read it once again in case I had missed something. I had missed something your first sentence.

“I read much of what was available from the Amazon preview of the book, trying unsuccessfully to find anything about the methods Dr. Crockford used for her calculations of the polar bear population.”

You were actually searching for Dr. Crockford’s methods only by reading the Amazon preview and not the book. Amazing! Why don’t you read her book and get back to us. While you posed your comments as questions it is obvious that you would care less if Dr. Crockford actually answered your questions.

MarkW
Reply to  kristi silber
March 20, 2019 9:36 am

If you want to find her methods, read the book. You aren’t going to find such information in previews.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  kristi silber
March 21, 2019 3:56 pm

Kristi, you make a lot of comments about information you couldn’t find while actually acknowledging that you didn’t read the book. Instead of reading “much” of a “preview” of the book,(Is this too obvious?)
why don’t you read the book first, and then comment later.

John F. Hultquist
March 19, 2019 10:14 pm

. . . repeat from 10:08

She, Greta, has a mental/medical issue. Cut her some slack.
Skewer the teachers and parents.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 20, 2019 12:44 am

IMO we all suffer from mental issues at some point in our lives.

Susan
March 20, 2019 1:50 am

The polar bears are behaving like foxes do in the UK. They are finding easier sources of food in towns than they found in their natural habitat so, being intelligent animals, they are adapting. Foxes didn’t need climate change to instigate the move so maybe polar bears don’t either.

climanrecon
Reply to  Susan
March 20, 2019 7:09 am

Seagulls are the experts, from someone who has lost several sandwiches to them.

beng135
Reply to  Susan
March 20, 2019 8:33 am

Like opossums and raccoons here in the central Appalachians (US) that are on the rise partially due to people. Read there are more of those now in the suburban/urban areas than out in the country.

E J Zuiderwijk
March 20, 2019 2:39 am

In the long run the polar bears could always put incredulous eco-warriors on the menu when they in their desperation come to the Arctic to do some counting themselves in order to disprove this wonderful book . That would be what I call a sustainable development.

azeeman
March 20, 2019 9:13 am

Now that the bear populations are up, perhaps some thought should be given to the indigenous populations who have to live with the bears.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4415128/inuit-hunter-killed-polar-bear-attack-nunavut/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4417006/inuit-hunter-killed-polar-bear-friends-survived-nunavut/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/11/polar-bear-invasion-attack-belushya-guba-novaya-zemlya-archipelago-russia/2836171002/
Of course the natives are not quite as photogenic and cuddly as those cute white bears.

Pat Frank
March 20, 2019 9:27 am

They have also engaged in a relentless smear campaign in an attempt to silence her in order to protect the story of a polar bear catastrophe, and the funding that comes with it.

The analogy with the situation Peter Ridd faces could not be more obvious. It’s always the same. The unscrupulous slandering the honest.

AGW pushers have proven to be character assassins, liars, and thieves, all three.

Walt Francis
March 21, 2019 12:58 pm

I bought and read the book the day after the WUWT posting. I think it is a superb job and one of a handful of books I would strongly recommend giving to anyone with an open mind and a healthy curiosity about scientific support for climate alarmism. The polar bear science the book provides is excellently done (and an earlier set of questions from someone who read only a preview is amply answered many times over) and quite convincing. The discussions of the polar bear’s role as a now-failed symbol of the evils of climate change, of press coverage and fake news, of the hostility and dishonesty of polar bear experts getting a new lease on life from the flow of money to climate pimp scientists (my terminology, not hers), and of the fraudulent listing of the polar bear as a “threatened” species through the machinations of a top government scientist are reasons enough to buy the book. The vicious, petty, and dishonest attacks on her by climate alarmists (including Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky) and their ability to get those attacks published in allegedly scientific journals are revealing and scary. Their deliberate falsifications and other methods of distorting or suppressing inconvenient facts alone make this book belong in any library on scientific fraud versus honest scientific method. Buy it, read it, give copies to friends, and donate copies to students willing to learn about the real world of climate science.

kim
March 22, 2019 12:25 pm

All your bears are belong to us.
========================

%d bloggers like this: