Reposted from Polar Bear Science
Posted on July 25, 2020 |
An excellent summary of recent points I’ve made in my latest book and on this blog about the recent push to keep polar bear extinction panic alive with a new model of impending doom was published two days ago in the Spectator UK by columnist Ross Clark (23 July 2020, in Coffee House).
Excerpt below:
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we could debate climate change for five minutes without hearing about polar bears or being subjected to footage of them perched precariously on a melting ice floe? But that is a little too much to expect. Polar bears have become the pin-ups of climate change, the poor creatures who are supposed to jolt us out of thinking about abstract concepts and make us weep that our own selfishness is condemning these magnificent animals to a painful and hungry end.”
Read the whole thing here.
PS. I noticed Clark refers to me as an anthropologist. I have requested a correction because I am a zoologist.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s a fine alliteration you’ve gotten us into, Polar-bear Panic Porn, part of the Plandemic protocol.
I seem to remember reading that polar bear numbers recovered significantly when the Inuit stopped shooting them….
and the Russians… they shot a lot of bears up to the 70s
The number of polar bears killed annually has been pretty steady over the last 50 years, around 800 a year. Given the huge increase in the number of polar bears over that period, a case can easily be made to increase the hunting quotas.
https://wildphoto.com/polar-bears/polar-bear-hunting/overall-hunting/
You are out by decades Griff and completely wrong.
Shooting polar bears has been illegal by Russia and the former soviet union since 1957. Want to have a guess what the original penalty was?
Try reading the poaching section .. the problem doesn’t occur until 1992 when poaching moves to not being considered a national threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia
The poaching and illegal traffic has actually increased to 100-150 per year (https://wwf.panda.org/?165861/WWF-Russia-announces-anti-polar-bear-poaching-award). Given the estimate of a few thousand bears in the territory it is very significant.
So no in the 70’s the soviets were not shooting bears it starts in the 90’s and you can readily check all that on the WWF sites.
As a point of order, I do think it is inadvisable to insult posters who support the climate change narrative on this site. In the spirit of free inquiry, we should welcome argument, and argue back. Leave the ad hominem insults to the other side.
Incidentally, I myself am a dork. I am the proud son and grandson of dorks, and dorkish is my mother tongue.
You must be from Dorking. 😉
After you’ve been here awhile, you will start to recognize our resident trolls.
I don’t consider it trolling to put an alternative point of view, and, apart from simple issues of goodd manners, snide personal comments have a negative effect on any open-minded individuals who may lurk here looking for information and intelligent debate (of which, of course, there is plenty).
RobH: completely agree. Mosh and griff are willing targets and I give them credit for that. While I’m not usually in their camp, I find their challenges enlightening. One thing I really like about WUWT is the comments section, and that I know I can usually learn as much, at least if not more, from the usual cast of characters in the Comments sections than from the posted article! Debate is good.
Laisser les bons temps rouler!
The great anxiety about the declining Polar Bear numbers reminds me of the other terrible toll industrialisation has had on the world. By a strange coincidence, the decline in the world’s population which in 1950 was 2.5 billion is today down to a mere 7.5 billion. The tripling is similar in scale to the Polar Bears’ situation, going from sub 10,000 to today’s conservative 30,000 plus population.
It must all be due to global warming, the sheer horror of it all….
Couldn’t you have added at least an excerpt of the article here? This article and the last article were completely bereft of any information relating to the title of the article. Feels a bit like bait and switch.
What if we threw a polar bear extinction and too many came.
Well, does anyone remember the old model, those differential equation graphs? It’s primitive, sure, but at least close to observable reality. And actually makes sense. In that some species has a high population spike, it’s going to drop very low once feedback catches up, whether via depletion of food or via things that feed on it thriving and multiplying.
Seeing how those bears were so numerous they spread all around their “traditional” habitats and many were seen in human settlements which they usually avoid… took them long enough?