Choose verifiable facts over emotional narratives on polar bear conservation

Reposted from Dr. Susan Crockford’s Polar Bear Science

Posted on March 22, 2021 | 

Polar bears continue to be described as ‘canaries in the coal mine’ for the effects of human-caused climate change, but the evidence shows they are far from being a highly-sensitive indicator species.” Susan Crockford, 24 February 2021

You’ll find the evidence I allude to above – backed up by references to the peer-reviewed literature – in my many publications (Crockford 2015; 2017; 2019, 2020, 2021). My open-access research paper from 2017 has been downloaded more than 6,000 times and despite this being an online forum for legitimate scientific critique, none has been offered. My comprehensive polar bear science book released just two years ago (see below) has a 4.7/5.0 star rating on Amazon, with 132 reviews so far.

For recent blog post examples of the evidence that polar bears are thriving despite profound summer sea ice loss, see this discussion about the many contradictions that exist for claims that sea ice declines have caused harm to polar bear health and survival and this review of the evidence that less summer sea ice has meant more food for polar bears.

For those who haven’t seen it, I’ve copied below the preface from The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. This book is an antidote to the emotional blackmail coming at the public from all sides by journalistspolar bear specialists, and elite influencers like David Attenborough.

The polar bear is a powerful animal that inspires a conflicting mix of awe and fear. Its life on the sea ice, dictated by one of the harshest environments on earth, is unlike that of any other top predator. We are fascinated by the polar bear’s ability to live off its fat, but tend to forget that such an existence is possible only because it is such a proficient and formidable killer. Endearing polar bear cubs, with their virginal white coats and big dark eyes, evoke a different emotion when covered in bright red blood from a recent meal. Adored by those who view the Arctic from afar, those who live amongst these apex predators cannot afford that luxury of emotion: polar bears can kill humans in the blink of an eye, if the right situation presents itself.

In sub-Arctic regions, where it is possible for domestic livestock to be kept, horses, sheep, pigs, and ducks have also fallen victim to polar bears’ predatory skills, but sled dogs, which are still an essential support animal across much of the Arctic, are by far the human companion taken most often. Even well-fed polar bears, always looking for ways to top up their fat stores, will destroy seasonal cabins and cause havoc in small remote communities where people only survive because they can store enough food to last them through the long, dark winters.

This combination of hunting and scavenging behaviour hints at the resourcefulness and adaptability of the polar bear. Researchers have learned a lot over the last two decades about bears’ ability to thrive in the Arctic and to take dramatic changes in that hostile environment in their stride — in particular changes in sea ice levels. Unfortunately, that understanding came too late to prevent the polar bear becoming listed as a species threatened with extinction because of future climate changes.

This is the story of how the polar bear came to be considered `Threatened’ with extinction, and its subsequent rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement. This also happens to be the tale of why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It is also, in part, the story of my role in bringing that failure to public attention, and the backlash against me that ensued.

It is a story of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and the attempts to obfuscate inconvenient facts. Polar bear scientists were responsible for elevating the polar bear to climate-change-icon status in the first place, actively promoting the idea of a catastrophic future due to man-made global warming. The failure of their predictions has resulted in a loss of public trust that they entirely deserve.

REFERENCES

Crockford, S.J. 2015. The Arctic Fallacy: Sea Ice Stability and the Polar Bear. Global Warming Policy Foundation Briefing Paper 16. London. pdf here.

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 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/

Crockford, S.J. 2019The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.

Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. pdf here.

Crockford, S.J. 2021. The State of the Polar Bear Report 2020. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 48, London. pdf here.

5 17 votes
Article Rating
67 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr.
March 24, 2021 2:23 pm

Choose verifiable facts over emotional narratives

Anyone who wants to see the latest example of emotions supplanting scientific rigor need read no further than M. Mann’s latest dreck –

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/24/catastrophic-fires-and-devastating-floods-are-part-of-australias-harsh-new-climate-reality

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 2:33 pm

In that link: “Michael E Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University.”

I keep seeing how he’s distinguished in stories about him? How the hell did get so distinguished? When he does interviews, he probably tells the interviewer that he wants that put in some where. Controversial would be a better description of him.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 24, 2021 2:35 pm

And in that link: “In a scientific study I co-authored a year ago, we demonstrated that climate change is causing the wet season to get wetter and the dry season to get drier in many parts of the world.”

Did Einstein refer to his theory of relativity as a “scientific study”?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 24, 2021 4:22 pm

The faculty of Pennsylvania State University vote to elevate selected faculty members to “Distinguished” status based on their contributions to the individual’s field of expertise. Dr Mann was so honored back when folks actually believed the Hockey Stick. Once named, the title sticks. Like being a Nobel Laureate.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 24, 2021 9:16 pm

Extinguished.

Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
March 25, 2021 8:11 am

Indistinqulshable from a fraud.

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 3:33 pm

Using mickey mann’s name and the words “scientific rigor” in the same sentence..

THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 4:01 pm

If you look at the root of the word distinguished, as from the Latin word to stand out, then it really fits. He is very much an erect one, at that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
March 24, 2021 4:03 pm

Many apologies, the reply was intended as a reply to Joseph Zorzin. I just put it in the wrong place.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 5:20 pm

Why is Dr. Mann suddenly so interested in Australia? Could it be because his fellow Americans know his scam and don’t listen anymore? Maybe he is thinking about escaping catastrophic Pennsylvania climate change and moving down under before sea level rise inundates his home in State College, PA (a mere 1,200 feet (370 m) above mean sea level.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 24, 2021 5:39 pm

His opinion piece is filled with localized, anecdotal experiences. He smelled smoke. He saw fire. He watched video of a floating house. That isn’t science, it’s news stand gossip. And he knows full well that 1.5 C is not some magic threshold to catastrophe. It is a politically-derived number aimed at scaring the herd into doing STUPID things that play into the hands of their Marxist and elitist overlords.

He says he is teaching “climate change communication” now at Penn State. If this “communication” is any indicator, he has given up any pretense of being a scientist and is now showing his true colors. His last clawing, grasping desperate attempts at relevance before being cancelled by his woke handlers.

MarkH
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 24, 2021 7:30 pm

I think he’s currently visiting here. Normally, you could probably sense the added stupid of Michael Mann visiting, but lately there’s been so much stupid going around that it’s pretty much off the charts everywhere.

spock
Reply to  Mr.
March 25, 2021 11:50 pm

first the climate change kooks say there will be more droughts, now they say more floods, warmer winters, colder winters etc, etc, Cant they make their frickn’ minds!

And about the fires, the aborigines have this to say

Australia fires: Aboriginal planners say the bush ‘needs to burn’
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51043828

Aboriginal people have long used techniques to manage fires For thousands of years, the Indigenous people of Australia set fire to the land.

Rud Istvan
March 24, 2021 2:36 pm

I researched and wrote about Polar Bears in essay Polar Bears in 2014 ebook Blowing Smoke before becoming aware of Dr. Crawford. It is a fascinating and complex climate false alarm tale. Genetic analysis (SNPs) indicated they diverged from brown bears at least 600,000 years ago, and perhaps as long ago as the beginning of the present ice ages 2.5mya based on mitochondrial DNA mutation rates. They obviously have evolved a number of specialized Arctic adaptations such as the white fur and the webbed paws for strong swimming. They do not hibernate, they enter a winter ‘walking hibernation’. While it is true that the main food source is spring seals, actual observations in the West Hudson Bay population put that at about 80%. During the Arctic summer they will forage bird eggs and chicks, berries, dead caribou…just like Alaskan brown bears when not chowing down on salmon runs.
There is even a residual question whether Ursus Maritimus is a species (probably) rather than a brown subspecies, because they can still interbreed with browns and have fertile offspring, unlike the donkey/horse mule cross. Just like the many visually different dog breeds can still produce fertile offspring with wolves because the many different dog breeds are all just the domesticated wolf subspecies Canis Lupus Familiaris.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 24, 2021 2:58 pm

Brown and Black bear lives matter.

Mr.
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 24, 2021 3:18 pm

You mean “bears of color”, shirley?
(as distinct from those white supremacist polar bears)

Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 4:32 pm

Bears with migration background 😀

Paul C
Reply to  Mr.
March 25, 2021 6:02 am

But polar bears are black-skinned too, and the “white” fur is translucent. Is black now white? Think I’m going to avoid zebra crossings today! https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/35681-now-it-is-such-a-bizarrely-improbable-coincidence-that-anything

John Shotsky
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 24, 2021 3:06 pm

And current versions of humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. We all seem to do just fine with ice ages and interglacials, so what on earth is the fuss? How did polar bears find water when ice covered New York one mile deep? They did, though. That is what you would call the ‘broad view’ of the bear situation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 24, 2021 5:06 pm

I’m not even sure that many of the people predicting the demise of the polar bear have any actual hunting experience at all, especially in the artic. As habitat changes, e.g. sea ice, both predator and prey tend to concentrate, not spread out. Just look at deer and rabbits in the US. This causes a growth in the predator population initially and it takes some time, sometimes a long time for a new balance to be reached. By then the habitat will likely have changed to something different and it will all start over again.

March 24, 2021 3:06 pm

The failure of absolutely all of the Climate Alarmists’ predictions has resulted in a loss of public trust that they entirely deserve. The present misuse of the fires and floods in Australia are yet another example of failed knowledge of history and science by Climate Alarmists.

Joe Chang
March 24, 2021 3:09 pm

the warmists should go north and hug a polar bear

Mr.
Reply to  Joe Chang
March 24, 2021 3:23 pm

No, just tell warmists to “go hug a polar bear”
.
(and then watch as legions of warmists head south to Antarctica)

Ted
March 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Maybe they are a highly sensitive indicator species, and the increased numbers show that conditions are improving.

Latitude
March 24, 2021 5:20 pm

My favorite polar bear video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7rZTZBOrqQ

Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 5:58 pm
Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 6:07 pm

PS Anything published at the “Global Warming Policy Foundation” is laughable. That organization is NOT a scientific journal.

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 7:15 pm

WAY more science than you will EVER have

You are a ignorant scientific NON-ENTITY.

You are the one with a massive Learning deficit !!

As soon as you see Lewendopey’s name. you know you are in for an ANTI-SCIENCE SCAM PAPER.

And any paper that uses the word DENIAL is baseless propaganda from the start.. NOTHING to do with science at all

Are you SO DUMB that you didn’t realise that ??

But that is all you have, so keep the slop-stick comedy coming. !

Again, ignorant twerp,

What do we “deny” tha you can provide solid scientific evidence for

(models are never evidence)

I could ask those other two question.. but you have your squirming, cowardly, AVOIDANCE strategies on speed dial.

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
Roger Taguchi
Reply to  fred250
March 25, 2021 4:23 am

Sticks and stones Fred.
.

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 11:38 am

Still can’t answer a simple question, hey mindless trollette.

Is it your intention yourself look like a moronic fool..

… because that is what you are doing.

Komeradecube
Reply to  fred250
March 25, 2021 8:55 am

Roger Taguchi is probably just another Griff pseudonym.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 8:06 pm
Last edited 4 months ago by Sunsettommy
Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 8:12 pm

Translation: I have no counterpoint to offer because I am lazy, rather take the easy way in making unsupported attacks against an organization then I feel better again.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 25, 2021 4:22 am

LOL, the big font doesn’t make your post more significant. The paper has not been retracted, and linking to WUWT is a good example of a dog chasing it’s tail in this matter.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 4:33 am

CROCKFORD LOST HER JOB TOO

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 4:43 am

Truth is not welcome in the alarmist surrounding 😀

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 7:41 am

Just another evidence/fact free comment you make here, where is your reasoned counterpoint to the threads post?

How come you are so unimpressive at this?

I do know that the woman you attacks has a PHD in Zoology, post a number of science papers and backs up her statements credibly.

You pale in comparison……………….

wadesworld
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 9:25 am

She lost her job because they didn’t like someone telling a story which contradicted climate change. Same reason Mitchell Taylor, one of the world’s foremost polar bear researchers, was removed from the Polar Bear Study Group.

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 11:40 am

DENIAL of the TRUTH is an AGW cult thing.

You cannot handle the truth even being spoken.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 7:37 am

Well Roger you seem unable to make a counterpoint to anything so far, just unsupported opinions is the best you can do which doesn’t help you at all.

The big font was not my doing it came that way, yet YOU didn’t show that any of them are wrong in anyway since you didn’t read any of them.

I find that many people like you talk the way you do from deliberate ignorance indicate that you lack science literacy and just intellectually lazy.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 4:12 am

Better look at the information not who told it 😀

fred250
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 7:22 pm

You do realise that there is NOT ONE SKERRICK OF ACTUAL SCIENCE in the garbage link you just posted, don’t you !!

aussiecol
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 7:53 pm

Lol, That link is nothing more than an alarmists opinion piece denigrating anyone who questions the science. So if science can’t be questioned, it can’t be science in the first place. Sums up the whole AGW scam from the start.

Mr.
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 8:10 pm

Roger, Roger, Roger –

You cite a publication by Stephan Lewandowski?

What the f^*k would this failed psychologist know about polar bears?

If this was a post about snake oil, Lewandowski would be your go-to guy.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mr.
March 24, 2021 8:49 pm

Oh, bravo … well said. Stephan Lewandowski is one of the slimiest and most despicable mud slingers on the planet. It’s little wonder such a creep would have found his way to the AGW fraud.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 9:15 pm

I notice that disreputable pile of cow patties use, for reference, the notorious Cook et al (2013) 97.1 consensus paper;

Cook J, Nuccitelli D , Green SA , Richardson M , Winkler B , Painting R , Way R, Jacobs P
, Skuce A .2013 .Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature . Environmental Research Letters 8 (art. 024024).

Pity they didn’t reference Legates et al (2013) that thoroughly destroyed it, showing that the actual “consensus” within their own sources was closer to 0.3% … showing that using their criteria, 99.7% of published science disagrees with the AGW premise.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

When will you logic deniers learn that there is no “consensus” nor would it matter if there was? The entire AGW premise has no basis as it lacks any empirical evidence.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 24, 2021 9:30 pm

As a committed member of the general (non-scientific) public, an outsider looking in on the learned debating, I see more open minded learning from the ‘skeptical’ side than from the ‘consensual’ side. WUWT is constantly learning. Those committed to the orthodox AGW dogma, not so much, since they are highly resistant to admitting they might be wrong. I just wish I understood more of the ebb and flow of ideas found here. Open your mind a bit more, Roger. Challenge your own assumptions constantly. The only thing you will lose are the mistaken assumptions.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 12:18 am

You’re completely out of your depth here, aren’t you?

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 4:11 am

It’s enough to know, polarbears had no problem to survive earlier warmer periods, there is no reason they will not the minimal actual warm period.
Less ice, more food 😀

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
March 25, 2021 10:44 am

I’m reminded of the old saying, “When you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself.”

rocdoctom
March 24, 2021 6:34 pm

“The facts, ma’am. Just the facts.” (Joe Friday)

RoHa
March 24, 2021 10:04 pm

That’s a big canary.

griff
March 25, 2021 1:40 am

and all the detailed research on polar bear populations I can find shows they are impacted by a rapidly warming arctic.

but then most populations aren’t studied in detail and there’s quite a time lag before we see research results.

what is not accurate or useful is people with no record of field research or detailed research on polar bears giving political opinions about how they are all thriving.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 3:02 am

griff LIE #1… Arctic is NOT rapidly warming

griff LIE #2.. Polar Bears lived through the Holocene… most of the time it was FAR WARMER than now.

griff LIE #3.. your IGNORANCE in regard to anything to do with science makes you comment about being able to find facts, irrelevant. You present no such evidence. You are EMPTY .

griff LIE #4.. Polar Bear numbers are actually INCREASING and thriving, it is extreme levels of sea ice that cause them problems.

griff LIE #5.. Susan Crockford is a scientist who has far more experience that most the AGW cultists re. polar bears

It is not useful is that EVERY POST YOU MAKE is a litany of DOWNRIGHT LIES.

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 3:40 am

comment image

Graemethecat
Reply to  fred250
March 25, 2021 9:06 am

Thanks for this, Fred. I doubt it will stop Griff lying about Polar Bears, however.

Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 4:16 am

Much and strong ice in spring is deadly for their cubs, forgotten ?

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 5:57 am

Griff, if you came across as intellectually challenged or as woefully uneducated, there would be some compassion and tolerance shown you. But your wilful blindness and closed mind rightly earn you derision and ridicule. Have you noticed? Or do you have a need for that kind, any kind, of attention?

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 9:03 am

Have you apologized to Dr Susan Crockford yet for defaming her, you little liar? You’re lucky you’re merely an anonymous troll on WUWT, or she could have sued your a$$ into oblivion.

wadesworld
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 9:26 am

Link that research griff.

Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 9:38 am

Griff, I admire your resilience. You have been on the losing side of every argument here but you keep coming back for more. Do you actually enjoy being humiliated?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bill Toland
March 25, 2021 10:54 am

For some people, any kind of attention is better than no attention. However, if they are masochists, they get off on the negative attention.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 10:51 am

what is not accurate or useful is people with no record of field research or detailed research on polar bears giving political opinions about how they are all thriving.

And is the opposite true?

You have never apologized for saying that Crockford is not a scientist. That speaks to your integrity.

tygrus
Reply to  griff
March 25, 2021 4:36 pm

What griff missed was the difference between “predictions” vs “observations“. Yes, there are many research papers & media articles that quote the predictions and assumptions without evidence. Unfortunately, the observations disprove the headlines as shown by Susan Crockford, fred250 et. al.

Steve Z
March 25, 2021 3:34 pm

It looks like any sled dog who values its life wouldn’t want to mess with a polar bear.

spock
March 25, 2021 11:37 pm

“We” need to spend $3 trillion on climate change crap…because if it will save just ONE polar bear, it will be worth it!

Giordano Milton
March 26, 2021 1:09 pm

Didn’t you know: verifiable facts are . . . racist.

%d bloggers like this: