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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great work Dr. Crockford. Will get my copy.
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.
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.
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.
Once again facts with empirical evidence trump projections regarding AGW. Is anyone listening?
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
Dr Crockford’s opinion is far more likely to be closer than yours to reality. Unlike you, she knows what she is talking about.
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.
Why don’t you buy the book and read it. If your questions are not answered then you will have genuine questions to ask
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.
If you want to find her methods, read the book. You aren’t going to find such information in previews.
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.
. . . repeat from 10:08
She, Greta, has a mental/medical issue. Cut her some slack.
Skewer the teachers and parents.
IMO we all suffer from mental issues at some point in our lives.
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.
Seagulls are the experts, from someone who has lost several sandwiches to them.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
All your bears are belong to us.
========================