From Polar Bear Science
Posted on May 18, 2020 |
Facebook has labelled a recent short PragerU polar bear video as “false information” based on a ClimateFeedback review featuring statements by Andrew Derocher and Ian Stirling published 18 May 2020.
The video, posted on Facebook 5 May 2020, is also available here and here. Also here on the PragerU website.
I was approached yesterday by Nick Coltrain, a reporter for the Des Moines Register and USA Today, asking for a statement about the accuracy of the PragerU video, which cites me as a source for two of their three ‘inconvenient facts.’
My comments are below but I reminded Nick that what is going on is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science: it presents no proof that I’m wrong or that the PragerU video is ‘false information’. Climate Feedback is not ‘factchecking’: it is presenting its preferred side of a disputed science issue.
Statement sent to Nick Coltrain:
Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I stand behind the accuracy of the video but wish they had cited my scientific paper, my fully referenced new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, and/or The State of the Polar Bear Report 2019, also fully referenced. [links provided to Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020]
I will post a full response on my blog but would like to point out the following.
Regarding the challenge of the adjective ‘thriving’ used in the video, in the review both Derocher and Stirling referred to Barents and Chukchi Sea polar bears as doing “OK”. I contend this is a gross misrepresentation of the published literature on these bears. There have been a number of papers published on Chukchi Sea bears documenting that body condition and reproduction are better now than in the 1980s and a recent paper on the body condition of female Barents Sea bears stated:
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988]
Biologically speaking, since the premise of the assumption that polar bear populations will decline with reduced summer sea ice is that bears will be in poor condition and reproducing poorly, it is logical to assume that bears with good body condition and reproducing well belong to thriving populations, regardless of the fact that the sea ice in their region is much reduced.
In addition, Stirling further stated that “…a couple [subpopulations] are doing OK, such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight, and one seems to be increasing (M’Clintock Channel).” It is odd that Stirling fails to mention Kane Basin, shown on the status map provided as also ‘likely increasing’ (as documented in 2016 population survey report) and yet mentions M’Clintock Channel bears seem to be increasing even though the results of a long-awaited population survey, now long overdue, have not yet been made public.
The polar bear data are contradictory: contrary to predictions, several polar bear subpopulations (at least four of them) are indeed thriving despite much reduced summer sea ice. I have chosen to emphasis that good news, while Stirling and Derocher choose to emphasize the data that seem to fit their predictions. This is a classic conflict that happens all the time in science but presents no proof that I’m wrong or that the PragerU video is inherently ‘false’.
Regards,
Susan, 18 May 2020
In short, it is indeed true that ‘Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing.’ See also my 2018 opinion piece on the National Geographic ‘starving’ polar bear video in the Financial Post here. Climate Feedback reviewed that piece with statements by Steven Amstrup and Andrew Derocher, which I countered here, here, and here.
Additional comments:
The review states: “There is no scientific evidence that the entire polar bear population has been growing, contrary to what this video claims.” In 2007 the global estimate used by the USGS in their analysis supporting the listing of polar bears as ‘threatened’ under the ESA was 24,500 (Amstrup et al. 2007) and the official IUCN estimate in 2015 (without the addition of several subpopulation estimates completed since then) was 26,000 (22,000-31,000)(Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015).
Do the math: 24,500 bears in 2007 vs. 26,000 bears in 2015 is an increase of 1,500 bears and indicate that overall population numbers have indeed grown by a small amount. More recent survey results add further to that total. I’ve pointed out this may well not be statistically significant increase but it is certainly not the decline that was predicted to occur when sea ice declined to present levels (Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020).
In addition to the thriving condition of Barents Sea bears discussed above (Aars 2018; Aars et al. 2017; Lippold et al. 2019), Chukchi Sea polar bears are also doing much better than they were in the 1980s despite much reduced summer sea ice. These results are documented in a number of peer-reviewed papers on the topic (ACSWG 2018; Regehr et al. 2018; Rode and Regehr 2010; Rode et al. 2013, 2014, 2018). Ringed and bearded seals are similarly thriving despite less summer ice (Crawford et al. 2015).
Despite these results, Stirling and colleagues conclude illogically that both Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea polar bear populations are merely “likely stable” (i.e. “OK”) rather than increasing. It is biologically implausible that both populations are merely holding their own: the Svalbard portion of the Barents Sea population increased by 42% between 2004 and 2015. However, this was dismissed as “statistically insignificant” even though the similarly “statistically insignificant” 17% decline in Southern Hudson Bay bears in 2018 was deemed valid and represented a ‘real’ decline – such games do not instill confidence that these researchers are presenting unbiased scientific results (Crockford 2019, 2020).
Stirling states in the review: “…a couple [subpopulations] are doing OK, such as Foxe Basin and Davis Straight, and one seems to be increasing (M’Clintock Channel).” As I mentioned above, he fails to mention the ‘increasing’ status of Kane Basin but his mention of M’Clintock Channel means we now we know why the report on the latest M’Clintock Channel population survey has not yet been released (see Crockford 2020): it obviously shows the population size has increased. More games.
I have previously addressed in detail the problems involved in the Southern Beaufort population estimate and those for Western and Southern Hudson Bay which are at odds with the picture presented by ClimateFeedback. See Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020.
Errors in the review:
1) “The global polar bear population is currently estimated to be approximately 20,000 – 25,000 bears, distributed among 19 subpopulations.” This is wrong: it’s an out-of-date estimate used in a paper co-authored by reviewer Derocher in 2013. The official global population estimate used by the IUCN (2015) and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (2018) is 22,000-31,000 (or 26,000 on average), see Regehr et al. 2016 and Wiig et al. 2015.
2) Reference 1 in the citation list: “Stirling et al. (2018)” should be Stirling et al. (2012)
3) Paragraph 3 of the review: “But as stated in Hunter et al. (2015)” should be Hunter et al. (2010).
Some related posts, with references:
Now 20 years with no trend in ice breakup dates for Western Hudson Bay polar bears [discusses the Lunn et al. 2016 paper cited in the Climate Feedback review]
Southern Beaufort polar bear ‘decline’ and reduced cub survival touted in 2008 was invalid, PBSG now admits
Great polar bear red herring in the Southern Beaufort
[discussed the repeated starvation events that resulted from thick
spring ice conditions unique to the Southern Beaufort, which are now
falsely blamed on lack of summer ice.]
Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000
[discusses the polar bear subpopulation estimates that were not
included in the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment because they had not yet
been published]
Even with Inuit lives at stake, polar bear specialists make unsupported claims
[discusses Ian Stirling’s oft-repeated claim that the body condition of
polar bears in Western Hudson Bay has dropped and that cub survival
rates have “plummetted” – even though data supporting these claims have not been published – as I pointed out in my 2019 State of the Polar Bear Report (Crockford 2020)]
Chukchi Sea polar bears number almost 3000 according to new survey results update [reports the 2016 population estimate that replaces the old ‘guess’ of 2,000 bears used in the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment]
Polar bear specialists double-down on message of future starving bears [discusses the claim that Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears are starving due to declining summer sea ice]
Global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) [discusses polar bear numbers at 2018 and why I think they are too low, see quote below].
“In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007) as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.”
References
Aars, J. 2018. Population changes in polar bears: protected, but quickly losing habitat. Fram Forum Newsletter 2018. Fram Centre, Tromso. Download pdf here (32 mb).
Aars, J., Marques,T.A, Lone, K., Anderson, M., Wiig, Ø., Fløystad, I.M.B., Hagen, S.B. and Buckland, S.T. 2017. The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea. Polar Research 36:1. 1374125. doi:10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125
AC SWG 2018. Chukchi-Alaska polar bear population demographic parameter estimation. Eric Regehr, Scientific Working Group (SWG. Report of the Proceedings of the 10th meeting of the Russian-American Commission on Polar Bears, 27-28 July 2018), pg. 5. Published 30 July 2018. US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm pdf here.
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G., Douglas, D.C. 2008. A Bayesian network modeling approach to forecasting the 21st century worldwide status of polar bears. Pgs. 213-268 in Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications, E.T. DeWeaver, C.M. Bitz, and L.B. Tremblay (eds.). Geophysical Monograph 180. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/180GM14/summary and http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/pubs.html
Atwood, T.C., Marcot, B.G., Douglas,D.C., Amstrup, S.C., Rode, K.D., Durner, G.M. and Bromaghin, J.F. 2015. Evaluating and ranking threats to the long-term persistence of polar bears. USGS Open-File Report 2014–1254. Pdf here.
Crawford, J.A., Quakenbush, L.T. & Citta, J.J. 2015. A comparison of ringed and bearded seal diet, condition and productivity between historical (1975–1984) and recent (2003–2012) periods in the Alaskan Bering and Chukchi seas. Progress in Oceanography 136:133-150.
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3
Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. PDF here.
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. and Geist, V. 2018. Conservation Fiasco. Range Magazine, Winter 2017/2018, pg. 26-27. Pdf here.
Lippold, A., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Polder, A., Lyche, J.L., Bytingsvik, J., Jenssen, B.M., Derocher, A.E., Welker, J.M. and Routti, H. 2019. Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to changes in feeding habits and body condition. Environmental Science and Technology 53(2):984-995.
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556
Rode, K. and Regehr, E.V. 2010. Polar bear research in the Chukchi and Bering Seas: A synopsis of 2010 field work. Unpublished report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Anchorage. pdf here.
Rode, K.D., Douglas, D., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Budge, S. 2013. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Oral presentation by Karyn Rode, 28th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium, March 26-29. Anchorage, AK.
Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Budge, S. 2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20(1):76-88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12339/abstract
Rode, K. D., R. R. Wilson, D. C. Douglas, V. Muhlenbruch, T.C. Atwood, E. V. Regehr, E.S. Richardson, N.W. Pilfold, A.E. Derocher, G.M Durner, I. Stirling, S.C. Amstrup, M. S. Martin, A.M. Pagano, and K. Simac. 2018. Spring fasting behavior in a marine apex predator provides an index of ecosystem productivity. Global Change Biology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13933/full
Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See the supplement for population figures.
OMG when are these alarmists going to admit that they simply got it wrong re polar bears? Will they go to their graves re-cycling the same garbage? It would be bad enough if the estimates of the global (Arctic) population were stable. I say “bad enough” because the key point here is the population was supposed to have declined significantly by now. The fact that all serious studies are indicating a net increasing global population despite overall reductions in sea ice (compared to, say, 20 years ago when much of this nonsense started) should surely shut these people up but apparently not.
Keep the faith Susan C!
Outright lying has worked for them for well over a generation.
I don’t expect them to abandon the tactic any time soon.
Yep, they are lying. They know it. But they can’t accept the fact that their claim to fame was not correct. Difficult to give up a career based on phlogiston.
They say, “It’s TRUE, because WE say it is! Don’t confuse us with facts, because our minds are MADE UP!” Just like their ‘proof’, no doubt!
From this point on I’ll gravitate towards Facebook “false information” labels — kinda like how I gravitate away from “organic” labels at the grocery store.
Pretty much. My default assumption is that every mainstream source is lying about most things.
If the mainstream news media reported my own mother’s name, I would start to doubt it.
If the Super Bowl ends up being played behind closed doors, you won’t be able to rely on the mainstream media to give you the result.
Listened to Zuckerberg interview on the Hugh Hewitt show this morning.
Zuck sounds like a ‘Madisonian’ wrt to free and transparent speech.
Now there’s the rub – what he is saying and what FB is doing are two different things.
So either he has little influence on the FB board or he’s playing us all.
I’m inclined to the latter
I think Zuck is into saying what he thinks we and the Congress WANT to hear! It certainly doesn’t match what I’ve been seeing, with FB censoring people and cancelling accounts! There isn’t anything Free about FB these days, and I’m not talking about the price!!
When you see something is being censored, assume it is true. Otherwise, they would just produce evidence to contradict.
Organic; fortified with extra salmonella and e coli.
Good and factual work by Dr. Crockford, as usual. The AGW crowd selected the polar bear as the indicator species, wherein sea ice reduction, by CO2 from SUV’s driven by Republicans, would inhibit access to their favorite food, baby seals. I think one of our jobs as managers of ecosystems is to maintain the balance of nature, with one exception: mosquitos! Otherwise let nature sort out various cycles and adaptations. Stay sane and safe.
And wasps and slugs. Some viruses too.
I don’t think you should talk about Democrats like that. Just saying.
Are you saying there are other labels that apply? Like what, pray tell?
What does it mean to thrive as opposed to just doing OK. Maybe there’s no difference. thrive definition How about; the Polar Bears are thriving in spite of the theory that says they should be suffering because of decreased summer sea ice. It’s a fully accurate statement and it’s the way ‘thrive’ is used in literate English.
The postmodernists redefine words so they can weasel out of their logical inconsistencies. Is that what Stirling is doing?
What does Stirling think would be thriving? How about a population explosion followed by the inevitable crash? Is that thriving?
Dr. Stirling’s defense of his theory reminds me of the Dead Parrot Sketch.
Either way ‘OK’ or ‘Thriving’ are opposite ends to going ‘extinct’.
Bob,
It’s rather ironic that the same people who claim (falsely) that the Polar Bears are not thriving and are upset about it, are the same one who complain that humans are thriving.
They complain about polar bears not thriving even though the more polar bears there are, the more seals get eaten. Humans, by and large, raise their own animals to eat. What do the complainers have against seals?
KcTaz,
They have a bad case of egalitarianism. Fiercely aggravated by zero-sum thinking and scarcity panic.
If one person (whoops, bear) is thriving less than another, a moral and legal crime has been committed and it is time to arrest the usual suspects.
Excerpt from above article:
In short, the above statement also specifically infers that ‘Polar bears are thriving much better where sea ice is increasing, ……. which anyone capable of “walking and chewing gum at the same time” knows is a false statement and has no basis in science fact.
Both the Polar Bears and the pregnant female seals knows it is a “fact of science” that the greater the extent of “snow covered” sea ice there is during the seal’s birthing season, ….. the “safer” the newborn seal pups are.
And the “safer” the newborn seal pups are, ……… the greater the starvation rate of the Polar Bear community.
Iffen the PB’s can’t find where mommy seal birthed her pup under the snowpack of the sea ice, the PB’s go hungry.
So, a PB searching 100 sq mi of sea ice for a meal …… is a lot easier than searching 2,000 sq mi of sea ice for a meal.
In short, the above statement also specifically infers that ‘Polar bears are thriving much better where sea ice is increasing….
The above statement infers nothing. Logicians infer. Propositions imply. And this proposition implies nothing about PBs where sea ice is increasing. You assume that the comparison is between ‘decreasing’ and ‘increasing.’ And maybe it is. But the syntax could just as well be comparing totally different variables, all of which are decreasing: temperature, wind velocity, snowfall….
I wonder about the time given for comments.
Anyway, at 6:33 am, when Juan use the phrase “wind velocity”,
the Ellensburg airport [KELN] had gusts of 25 to 30 mph.
Around 11 AM, there was a gust of 55 mph.
Visitors often ask if the wind always blows like this.
The answer is NO. Sometimes it blows harder.
Hope they have let you back to the dentist.
And for Susan, thank you.
Juan Slayton, couldn’t the syntax of the statement just as well be comparing the sexual activity the researchers?
Morning Sam,
It could indeed, though it might be a bit of a stretch to come up with a plausible link. Perhaps a diminishing Inuit population reduces human predation? An interesting aspect of this sentence is how prosodic features affect its construal. For me, at least, sentence stress on diminishing does suggest a contrast with increasing or static. But if you stress sea ice now you are suggesting that diminution of something other than sea ice is being considered. Human language is slippery. Lends itself, unfortunately, to fuzzy logic.
J. Hultquist
Good morning to you, too. : >)
Yes, my dentist called me in and finished the crown replacement. I think it may have been on the QT, given Guv Newsom’s edicts. But I’m not gonna tell….
Thanks for asking.
The assertion that polar bears will go extinct with less or no sea ice is not based on any empirical evidence and sounds more like a human imagining themselves in Polar Bear shoes.
Polar Bears are definitely not fragile or short of survival techniques over and above their supreme ability to swim in freezing water or sleep on ice, without protective clothing or duvets. They can do this even though they are warm blooded land animals. How absurd to think that if a polar bear is faced with no ice, and it would like to have some, it would just look at the open water and give up. Isn’t there the slightest possibility it would move with the ice if that’s what it needed to do? After all, the Arctic was massively different during glacial expansion which lasted millenia and the Arctic was likely completely ice free during the Eemian.
Nature is not fragile.
And polar bears are intelligent and adaptable, much like all bears. They can adjust as needed.
They are far more intelligent and adaptable than environmentalists.
Stephen Skinner – May 20, 2020 at 4:46 am
It sounds like a lot of “factual science” to the majority of the people population simply because they have been nurtured/educated to believe, …. without questioning, …. any and all thing being told to them by the funded intere$t politicians, academia, liberal media, “climate scammers” and avid proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change.
None of the aforementioned “flammers”, ”scammers” and “parasites” give a “hoot” about Polar bears, CO2 or climate change, …… taxpayer money being deposited in their “pockets” is their only interest.
“entire ”
They totalized. With stupendous hypocrisy.
“Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing” became “Every population everywhere in the Arctic down to the last momma bear’s brood” is thriving,” thus allowing them to pounce and trounce because they (weakly) can find a population that is not “thriving” by a pushed definition using old counts.
The hypocrisy is that Alarmists can show one picture of a bear in trouble and extrapolate that to “Republican’s SUVs are forcing the ENTIRE population of Polar Bears to the brink of extinction” and then use that to slap freedom and capitalism across the face.
AlGore did exactly that. And I don’t have to totalize to claim it.
If sea ice is diminishing but bear populations are growing, or remaining stable, why? How do bears hunt with less sea ice. Do they prowl the shore for disabled seals? Do they hide behind rocks and pounce on unsuspecting adults? All this talk of populations is about the what of bear populations. I thought science is supposed to be about the why as well. Perhaps not in polar bear science.
Some need to see their narrative validated (an indication of either insecurity or hubris), while others are curious and secure enough to follow where the facts lead.
Bears hunt seals and their pups on the sea ice.
Why?
Because that’s where the seals go to give birth.
Why?
Because sea ice is safer for them then giving birth on shore.
Will seals stop giving birth if there is no more sea ice?
The answer to that should be obvious, even to an environmentalist.
What will the bears do if the seals start giving birth somewhere other than sea ice?
The answer to that should be obvious as well, the bears will go to wherever the seals are giving birth in order catch them.
Unfortunately, too many environmentalists have bought into the belief that the world as is is perfect, and any change is catastrophic. They actually believe that if the seals are forced to start giving birth on the beaches, that bears won’t be able to find them.
It seems like the North and the South has always been at “odds” with each other.
At the North Pole’s Arctic Ocean, ….. the seals are trying to live a peaceful life, raising their pups on the shelf ice and scavenging their food out of the ocean water ….. but those darn Polar Bears are always trying to “catch n’ kill” those seals when “they are out of the water” and eat them for dinner.
At the South Pole’s Antarctica Ocean, ….. the penguins are trying to live a peaceful life, hatching and raising their chicks on the glacier ice and scavenging their food out of the ocean water ….. but those darn leopard seals and killer whales are always trying to “catch n’ kill” those penguins when “they are in the water” and eat them for dinner.
DHR – May 20, 2020 at 5:21 am
“If sea ice is diminishing but bear populations are growing, or remaining stable, … why?”
Obviously, …. DHR, ….. increasing sea ice is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the Polar Bear community.
“How do bears hunt with less sea ice.”
DHR, …. the PB’s are not hunting for “sea ice”, … they are hunting for the seals that are hiding underneath the snowpack that is on top of shelf ice.
Less sea ice means ….. hunting is good for the PBs. “DUH”, one (1) seal for every 1 sq mi of sea ice is a lot better hunting than one (1) seal for every 50 sq mi of sea ice.
“ Do they prowl the shore for disabled seals? Do they hide behind rocks and pounce on unsuspecting adults? ”
DHR, …. it doesn’t matter to a “hungry” PB where it finds a seal or a human, …. in the water or on shore behind a rock, ……. disabled or not, ……. if not dead the PB will kill it and then eat it.
DHR
“Why” does not disprove an observation.
It may try to distract from it.
It may be an “argumentum ad ignorantium”.
But you can only disprove an observation with more observation.
The 1970’s did not represent a period of “normal” Arctic ice coverage. Those were “Ice Age” scare days. The 1970’s had a shallow peak in Arctic Ice Extent. Extents were substantially lower in the 1920’s – 1940’s according to shipping records and other historical records. Polar bears survived far warmer periods like during the Viking Greenland agricultural period that lasted hundreds of years. The bears have been around for a few glaciation cycles at least.
All the evidence the left uses to support their positions are lies. Just watch CNN for a week for confirmation of this assertion (expect frequent bouts of laughter at the absurd and the insane).
The truth must not be very useful in their efforts at political persuasion. I cannot recall a single intance where a leftist used a truthful statement even while defending defensible positions.
add: last time I saw an update the polar bear evolved around 800,000 years ago. This means at least 8-10 glaciation/interglacial cycles, since they were shorter earlier.
The Warmunists are doing their damnest to erase the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s from the Internet as it completely punctures their narrative. This must not be allowed to happen.
DocSiders,
Please do NOT recommend watching CNN for a week! Many naive or innocent people could suffer catastrophic brain damage from following such a course of action! Widespread TDS would surely ensue when the “thought” vampires who host suck all the independent ideas out of the hapless viewers and leave them as brain-dead zombies.
You are entirely correct in assuming that truth is not useful to their efforts; it may even be destructive to their goals and purposes. Since virtually all of what I like to call Progressive beliefs are of a strongly religious bent, they have no need for facts or truth OR reality. Their deep seated beliefs are good enough and any who disagree are unenlightened or, gasp, heretical!
Please recommend banned YouTube videos and a course of regular visits to WUWT for the heady elixir of facts and data mixed with the best comments section around. We must continue to deprogram these poor lost “alarmists” by filling their skulls with science and data; eventually some may stick!
For some reason the utility of lies has been under-appreciated and so the truth has enjoyed an advantage in drawing acceptable conclusions. Having run into such constraints in mathematical and rigorous science there is a welcome relief from limits in every alternate self-expressive imagining, as well as never having to admit to wrong. Does that explain a few things?
No doubt the usual trolls will spend the next several years proclaiming that the “myth” that polar bears aren’t going extinct has been “refuted”.
Dr. Susan Crockford,
Thank you for continued work to communicate data and truth about polar bear populations. You are a beacon of light in a foggy swamp of disinformation.
I respect your intellect, honesty, skills, and courage and agree that this debated issue should be understood as normal dialog about a science issue. Unfortunately, this debate is part of an international political agenda with all of the powers, forces, dirty tricks and misinformation of such things.
Be safe, be well.
You normally wouldn’t label it “false information” to say that aa animal population is “thriving”, when in the opinion of people you prefer to believe that the animals are merely “doing ok”. And the “doing ok” of course comes from the folks who say they’ve been on the brink of extinction! Why not talk about that?
All very dishonest!
What is this post an example of?
The climate alarmists don’t want to lose their “poster child of the north.”
People who are committed to AGW are willing to lie to protect their belief system.
Yes, they are “cult-like” in that when confronted with scientific evidence which contradicts their belief system, they double-down.. triple-down, rather than suffer cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is real, it causes physical pain (head aches)… and people want to avoid it.
The solution is pretty simple. Stop using Facebook. I stopped a long time ago, it’s pretty easy. Do you really want to read the inane details of the daily lives of your casual acquaintances?
Flatten the curve, mitigate the progress, of the social contagion.
There are more bears than there have been for over 60 years, what’s to challenge?
Andrew Derocher is the Paul Ehrlich of the Arctic and polar bears. He will be remembered like Ehrlich as an alarmist buffoon.
“I was approached yesterday by Nick Coltrain…”
I found nothing to indicate who is actually speaking here until much further down when “Susan” signs off at the bottom of her letter. Even then, her last name is not used. The heading only mentions the name of “Charles Rotter,” leaving you to believe he wrote the entire article. Why didn’t he even mention that Susan Crockford was the main author of this piece? We have to determine that from subtle hints at the end of the article (or read the comments). There have been a number of articles on WUWT that do not directly attribute the source material to the real author. What’s up with that?
“From Polar Bear Science.” Anyone with any familiarity with polar bear issues knows that Polar Bear Science is Susan Crockford’s site. Additionally, the article links her book and the date link at the top links her site. If WUWT is tiring to obfuscate, they’re doing a horrible job.
I could write an article that links to Crockford’s book and her site, but that doesn’t mean I’m Susan Crockford. All I’m asking is that when you quote someone, tell us upfront who it is you are quoting to avoid confusion. Is that too much to ask?
This is becoming a frequent issue when I post to facebook. Any contested issue, if it’s not “politically correct” gets marked as false. I keep telling them people have a right to a difference of opinion – it has happened with a post about COVID as well – where nothing is settled. But they won’t allow it if it differs from CNN’s view.
I was banned from facebook for violation of their policy. I have no idea why. I asked them to tell me the violation and how I could fix it.
They replied:
“Thanks for contacting us. We’ve reviewed your account and confirmed that it still violates our Community Standards. As a result, your account remains disabled.”
Their web site to communicate directly on the problem was broken the last time I looked (2 months ago.) Have I missed anything? My beloved aunt’s daily prayers. That’s the only thing I can think of.
GaCooke