Fact Checkers Fail To Refute Polar Bear Number Increases Despite Extensive ‘Expert’ Rhetoric

Reposted from Polar Bear Science

Dr. Susan Crockford

Posted on October 27, 2021 | 

Fact checkers fail to refute polar bear number increases despite extensive ‘expert’ rhetoric

There’s seems to be something about polar bears that really sets off the climate change fact-checkers. Mention that the situation for the bears is not quite as dire as we were told they would be 15 years ago and they can’t wait to sink their teeth in.

In early September this year, an Australian a woman I’ve never heard of gave a lecture to students at her former girl’s school and in the process made some critical remarks about Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Gina Rinehart said, among other things:

“I’d heard that senior school students in a previous headmistress’s time, were having to watch … An Inconvenient Truth. Catchy title, but sadly short on delivery as far as truth is concerned, e.g. the sad loss of polar bears, when actually their numbers have increased…”

The folks who ‘fact-check’ at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) seemed to feel that Ms. Rinehart needed to be taken down a peg for the temerity of that remark, perhaps as it afforded an opportunity to take me down along with her: it seems some things I’ve said or published over the last few years were identified by her office as the source of her remark that polar bear numbers had increased.

In a long-winded essay of more than 2,500 words published yesterday (26 October 2021) the fact checkers provide one of the best examples yet of how convoluted is the official answer to the question: have overall polar bear numbers declined or increased over time? They interviewed a number of experts from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) who had a lot to say but claimed it is impossible to address the global population issue.

Sadly, the question of how many polar bears exist today compared to decades ago is unnecessarily complicated and messy, as I discovered years ago. I dealt with this topic in my latest book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, so for now I’ll just quote a bit from one of the chapters and let you decide for yourselves if the experts quoted by the ABC fact-checkers have a strong enough case to say without question that Rinehart was wrong. For example, you might ask why the PBSG experts used the estimate generated for the Kara Sea subpopulation of about 3,000 bears compiled by Russian researchers (Matishov et al. 2014) for their official IUCN 2015 assessment (Wiig et al. 2015; Regehr et al. 2016) but didn’t include that number in this ‘fact-check document – or why they similarly used an estimate of 2,000 for East Greenland for the 2015 assessment but provide no number for this ‘fact-check’. I’ll probably have more to say later.

Excerpt from Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (pg. 106-109) [with some new emphasis added]

As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20–25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.

[Proposed footnote to the PBSG Circumpolar Action Plan, 30 May 2014, Dag Vongraven in an email to me; emphasis in original]

The fact that the global population size for the 1960s was never agreed upon by polar bear specialists isn’t the only problem: recent population size estimates have also been low-balled. This makes it look like little has changed since international protection was given to polar bears across the Arctic in the early 1970s.

But the notion that there has been no recovery of population sizes since then is simply not plausible. As I mentioned in Chapter 2, it was clear as early as the late 1980s that numbers had rebounded substantially due to conservation efforts. Most studied populations had doubled in size (Amstrup et al. 1986; Andersen and Aars 2016; Larsen 1986; Stirling et al. 1977b).

In his 1988 book about polar bears, Ian Stirling suggested that by the late 1980s (Taylor and Lee 1995:151):

… the total population might be as large as 40,000 animals because of incomplete or inaccurate survey data.

What he meant by this comment is that global estimates presented by polar bear specialists assume the number of bears in several large regions of the Arctic is zero, or that they have otherwise inadequate data. As a consequence, Stirling felt the upper end of the range of an estimate that included those regions would have been close to 40,000 in 1986.

For example, in 2009 the global population size estimate offered by the PBSG was 20,000–25,000, a range which was unchanged since 2005 (Aars et al. 2006; Obbard et al. 2010). That 2009 estimate was the sum of all subpopulations that had any kind of an estimate, rounded up or down{Footnote: The actual totals were 19,608–25,162, with a mid-point of about 22,500}.

However, this estimate of 20,000–25,000 didn’t include all regions of the polar bear’s range: it left out three large regions that were home to substantial numbers of bears: the Chukchi Sea, East Greenland, and the Kara Sea. In addition, the estimate used for the Laptev Sea was long out-of-date and almost certainly far too low.

Altogether, excluding any kind of reasonable estimate for these four subpopulations probably underestimated the average total given by the PBSG in 2009 by at least 10,000, and the total range by more than 20,000. Moreover, using plausible methods to revise all out-of-date subpopulation estimates, as explained in the next section, would put the current global average higher than Stirling’s highest estimate for the late 1980s.

The global estimate for polar bear numbers should simply be the sum of all the subpopulation estimates, however they are defined. Officially, in 2015, the IUCN and PBSG put the global total at about 26,000 (22,000–31,000), figures that included all of the subpopulation estimates. But many of these were decades out of date, with little hope of being revised, while others have been updated since then (Table 3a, b).

I’ve taken the liberty of proposing a new estimate that resolves these issues and brings those figures up to date. I suggest that the sea ice ecoregion concept is useful for revising these estimates, as long as the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation is left out (because of its unique sea ice conditions).

By that I mean it is possible to suggest that the out-of-date Laptev Sea subpopulation estimate of 1000 is unaccountably far below others in the Divergent ecoregion (Table 4). Covering roughly 2.5 million square kilometres in area (both land and sea), the Laptev Sea is considerably larger than both the Chukchi and Kara Seas (which cover only about 1.7 mkm2 each), yet is similarly dominated by the continental shelf habitat that’s considered ideal for polar bears (Hamilton and Derocher 2018).

There is no evidence to suggest that the Laptev Sea, which has both mainland and offshore island habitats suitable for denning (including the eastern half of the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago and all of the New Siberian Islands), should not contain many more bears than have been estimated for the Chukchi or Kara Seas – in other words, more than 3,000. Therefore, a more plausible current estimate for the Laptev Sea is about 4,000 bears, with a range of 2,022–6,444 (using a similar ratio for the range as given for the 2016 estimate for the Chukchi Sea, discussed in detail below).

As I’ve mention previously (Chapter 4), a similar extrapolation to the one I calculated for the Barents Sea (Table 3) based on survey results for the Svalbard half of the region, was used by USGS researcher Eric Regehr and colleagues (AC SWG 2018; Regehr et al. 2018) for the Chukchi Sea: they used data from a small area within US territory to extrapolate to the entire Chukchi Region. In addition, based on their 2016 estimate for the Chukchi Sea, Regehr and colleagues further extrapolated their estimate to include the entire Chukchi/Southern Beaufort region shared by the US and Russia. This method generated an estimate of 4,437 (2,283–9,527): in other words, with `significant uncertainty.’ Subtracting the estimate for the Chukchi alone would put the 2016 estimate for the US/Russian portion of the Southern Beaufort at about 1,500 (761–3,583), also with `significant uncertainty.’{Footnote: For the purposes of this exercise, I conservatively use the estimate of 1500 to apply to the entire S. Beaufort, including the Canadian portion}.

That’s rather more than the estimate of 907 (548–1,270) calculated in 2010 for the entire Southern Beaufort (including the Russian/US portion and the Canadian portion). This is the first hint from specialists that the Southern Beaufort population has recovered from the 2004–2006 decline due to thick spring ice, as it did from a similar 1974–1976 decline (Bromaghin et al. 2015).

Details of my approach to estimating populations in some of the other subpopulations can be found in Appendix B.

The final projected mid-point estimate is 39,226 (range 26,142 to 57,727), shown in Table 5. I contend this overall increase of about 56% over the estimate of about 25,000 (range 21,500-28,500) calculated by the PBSG in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995: 24) is not only scientifically plausible but it’s about the kind of increase we’d expect more than three decades after Ian Stirling suggested that an upper limit of about  40,000 polar bears may have existed in 1986.

Keep in mind that using my benchmark figure of 10,000 for the late 1960s, the 1993 estimate of 25,000 was a 150% increase or more than double. The lower end of my projected range is about the same as the 2015 IUCN PBSG mid-point estimate of 26,000 and the upper end is what Inuit and other Arctic residents are afraid might be true.

The 56% increase projected for 2018 might be just barely statistically significant but most importantly paints a more realistic picture of polar bear abundance at the present time than does the IUCN assessment.

Appendix B Additional notes on  population estimates (pg. 151-152)

The Arctic Basin is a bit of a black hole population-wise, since it’s unclear if any bears actually live there year round or if those spotted in the area simply use it as a spring feeding area and/or summer refuge, so I’m happy to leave that as zero. But recent surveys put the Chukchi number at about 2,937 (1,522–5,944) and the Kara Sea at 3,200 (2,700–3,500) (AC SWG 2018; Matishov et al. 2014; Regehr et al. 2018; Wiig et al. 2015).

In addition, the estimate of 2,000 for East Greenland used for the IUCN Red List assessment in 2015 (Wiig et al. 2015; Regehr et al. 2016) was the low end of an estimate of 2,000–4,000 proposed in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995:22, 24). That estimate was reduced officially to `unknown’ by 1997 even though it was noted that a minimum population size of about 2,000 (and perhaps as large as 2,500) would be required to support the intensity of harvest that occurred in the 1990s (Derocher et al. 1998:25, 29).

I suggest a quite plausible estimate for East Greenland in 2018 is 3,000 bears (range 1,522–5,955, the same as the Chukchi estimate range). For all areas, I used broad error ranges for my projections that are similar to those used for aerial surveys of similar regions.

Similarly, the Northern Beaufort Sea subpopulation is currently likely to be the higher of two estimates calculated by biologists in 2006 (Stirling et al. 2011): while the lower estimate has been used since then (980; 825–1,135), I suggest the higher one (1,300; 750–1,800) is more appropriate now, given recent documented increases in most other subpopulation regions like Svalbard, Baffin Bay and Kane Basin, which grew by 42%, 36% and 118%, respectively, over previous estimates.

References from book

Aars, J., Lunn, N. J. and Derocher, A.E. 2006. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Seattle, Washington, 20-24 June 2005. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission 32. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

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. US Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/bilateral.htm

Amstrup, S. C., Stirling, I. and Lentfer, J. W. 1986. Past and present status of polar bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 241-254.

Andersen, M. and Aars, J. 2016. Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus): population biology and anthropegenic threats. Polar Research 35: 26029.

Bromaghin, J.F., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., Rehehr, E.V., et al. 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Ecological Applications 25: 634–651.

Derocher, A., Garner, G.W., Lunn, N.J., and Wiig, Ø. (eds.) 1998. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 12th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC, 3-7 February, 1997, Oslo, Norway. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN.

Hamilton, S. and Derocher, A.E. 2019. Assessment of global polar bear abundance and vulnerability. Animal Conservation 22(1):83-95. doi:10.1111/acv.12439

Larsen, T. 1986. Population biology of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in the Svalbard area. Skriter NR. 184. Monograph of the Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo.

Matishov, G.G., Chelintsev, N.G., Goryaev, Y. I., Makarevich, P.R. and Ishkulov, D.G. 2014. Assessment of the amount of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on the basis of perennial vessel counts. Doklady Earth Sciences 458: 1312-1316.

Obbard, M.E., Theimann, G.W., Peacock, E. and DeBryn, T.D. (eds.) 2010.Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 15th meeting of the Polar Bear Specialists Group IUCN/SSC, 29 June-3 July, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN.

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., and Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556.

Regehr, E.V., Hostetter, N.J., Wilson, R.R., Rode, K.D., St. Martin, M., Converse, S.J. 2018. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34824-7  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7

Stirling I, Jonkel C, Smith P, Robertson R, Cross D. 1977b. The ecology of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) along the western coast of Hudson Bay. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 33.

Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Polar bear population status in the northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971-2006. Ecological Applications21: 859-876.

Taylor, M., and Lee, J. 1995. Distribution and abundance of Canadian polar bear populations: a management perspective. Arctic 48: 147-154.

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

Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25-27 January 1993. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, No. 43. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

5 26 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 28, 2021 6:14 am

And the reports do Canadian Inuit having bad interactions with what they stated were more abundant polar bears, and requesting greater hunting limits in their area area are consistent with healthy numbers of bears.

October 28, 2021 6:22 am

In the doom-mongers handbook, good news = bad news and bad news = good news so that they can continue in their crusade to save the World. So if there is any good news then bring in the paid “experts” to convince the masses that it is actually bad news and use ad hominem to attack the real experts.

October 28, 2021 6:23 am

A simple emotional narrative is always much easier than the complicated truth…

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 28, 2021 6:38 am

There is nothing complicated about the truth. Telling lies? That is what is complicated.

Steve Case
Reply to  2hotel9
October 28, 2021 7:00 am

Sir Walter Scot said the same thing:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” (Sir Walter Scott, 1808)

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Steve Case
October 29, 2021 12:54 am

You beat me to it!!!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  2hotel9
October 28, 2021 10:52 am

Actually, telling lies is easy; maintaining them is hard because you have to remember which lies you told to whom.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 28, 2021 6:02 pm

Yes! You get it! Lying is difficult and complicated for real human beings, for leftards/progressives/Democrats it is the very air they breath. Glad you figured that out, skippy,.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Paul Penrose
October 29, 2021 12:58 am

In my view, real lying is like a disease that gets progressively worse, as the liar tends to increase the lies to cover the previous lies & so on, but they will get caught out in the end, sadly the damage they have caused & the hurt they have created doesn’t bother them a jot!!! As has been said, the end justifies the means!!!

Reply to  2hotel9
October 28, 2021 11:10 am

They can’t keep their stories straight to anyone paying attention…

Reply to  Gyan1
October 28, 2021 6:03 pm

Plenty of fellow travelers are “paying attention”, that is how they spread their lies.

Lurker pete
October 28, 2021 6:33 am

Fact checkers are misnamed, they should be called ‘Narrative checkers’. The parasite class Narrative must be maintained, by hook or by crook, it’s only fair, they did pay for it.

And if you’ve stretched all credibility with components of your “Great Reset” narrative, you need a better narrative, a “Great Narrative”, so important it needs it’s own countdown clock (lol)


Reply to  Lurker pete
October 28, 2021 7:34 am

“Fact checkers are misnamed, they should be called ‘Narrative checkers’.”

Why not save electrons and just call the “narrative checkers” LIARS? As you know, anyone who believes that fact checking isn’t just lying has got to be monumentally stupid at this point.

griff will be along soon to support my premise.

Lurker Pete
Reply to  philincalifornia
October 28, 2021 11:07 am

“The Great Lie”

You get points for accuracy, and it has a nice ring to it, but I don’t think the WEF would really go for it 😉

Climate believer
Reply to  Lurker pete
October 28, 2021 10:41 am

“Fact checkers are misnamed, they should be called ‘Narrative checkers’.”


Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Climate believer
October 28, 2021 11:55 am

I call them “Political Officers.”

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Climate believer
October 29, 2021 6:02 am

‘Newspeak’ officers.

Reply to  Lurker pete
October 28, 2021 1:41 pm

Looks like they are meeting immediately after CoP26. Convenient, as the truly important people will already have their private jets at Glasgow.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Lurker pete
October 28, 2021 3:16 pm

Some extracts from the WEF book ‘COVID-19: The Great Reset’
Page 33 – …the containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network capable of identifying new outbreaks as soon as they arise,…
Page 95 – The return of “big” government – Taxation will increase, particularly for the most privileged, because governments will need to strengthen their resilience capabilities and wish to invest more heavily in them. As advocated by Joseph Stiglitz:
“The first priority is to provide more funding for the public sector, especially tor those parts of it that are designed to protect against the multitude of risks that a complex society faces, and to fund the advances in science and higher-quality education, on which our future prosperity depends. These are areas in which productive jobs – researchers, teachers, and those who help run the institutions that support them – can be created quickly. Even as we emerge from this crisis, we should be aware that some other crisis surely lurks around the corner.”
Page 114 – Global Governance – Put bluntly, we live in a world in which nobody is in charge.
(there is much here on the importance of global governance as opposed to national governance)
Page 153 – Technological Reset – We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armoury needed to combat COVID-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.
Page 156 – Accelerating the digital transformation – In one form or another, social and physical distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact. Indeed, automation technologies are particularly suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions.
Page 165 – “As the coronavirus crisis recedes and people start returning to the workplace, the corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better of worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does. The trend could take many different forms, from measuring body temperatures with thermal cameras to monitoring via an app how employees comply with social distancing”

Lurker Pete
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 28, 2021 11:32 pm

I had a pretty good idea what Klaus was going to say, he’s certainly the cheerleader for Technocracy. Thanks for the quotes.

Iain Davis has done a lot of work researching this area, here’s his post detailing the GPPP (Global Public Private Partnership)


If you like that I can recomend his book ‘Pseudo Pandemic’. He thinks the information is so important he’s giving the book away free, I’d agree.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Lurker Pete
October 29, 2021 4:13 am

Indeed, it is the biggest threat to what it is to be human. Thank you for this link and the link ‘…Great Narrative’. Perhaps we have always been this way (like Klaus) and the last 500 years are what is new, which is bottom up, and is therefore incomprehensible and not ‘controllable’ in any bureaucratic way. The Great Reset is a way to restore/reset things to a top down structure, much like all the great empires of the past (Persian, Egyptian, Chinese, Mayan…), except it will be the worst of all possible worlds because it has been constructed academically and is taking us back, a long way back.

October 28, 2021 6:37 am

There is nothing wrong with the climate. Period. Full stop. Polar Bears are doing exactly what they have always done, just as the climate is.

Reply to  2hotel9
October 28, 2021 1:45 pm

And globalist do what they have been doing all the time.

Declare a new ultimate ‘ truth’ which is so obvious that any 5 year knows and easily understands(and call everyone who does not buy the new truth a nazi and conspiracy theorist).
After this ‘truth’ gets debunked by the natural enemy of Marxism = reality
and the moderate “conspiracy theorists” were proven right for the 1000s time,
they sent out the spindoctors , who all of a sudden explain in 10000 words how extremely complicated the (formerly super easy) subject is and that only god and a few chosen superexperts can understand.
And all of a sudden even counting becomes extremely complicated,and a bullshit that was started by a dipshit like Al Gore instantly becomes the highest of all sciences.

because the narrative must be protected by the opinion stasi.

Al Miller
October 28, 2021 6:42 am

Again- shame on UVIC (my alma mater) for censoring Susan Crockford. The cold reality of censoring (by firing) anyone who disagrees by pointing out inconvenient facts is to say the least shameful.
But the alarmist camp has no shame – only an agenda.

Reply to  Al Miller
October 28, 2021 12:27 pm

Don’t give them a dime.

Michael in Dublin
October 28, 2021 6:51 am

A carefully reasoned response by Dr. Susan Crockford. In my dictionary “carefully” often means a higher likelihood of also being correct.

Perhaps Dr Crockford could have got a sly dig in by rewording the following:
The 56% increase projected for 2018 might be just bearly statistically significant

H. D. Hoese
October 28, 2021 7:04 am

I worked with USFWS biologists that counted birds in the Gulf of Mexico some of whom flew to Canada with migrations. With experience they had a good idea about populations, admittedly large error bars, but significant changes in populations were obvious. Whooping cranes were easier, but new biologists with computer models along with increases in population have proven more difficult. Breeding populations are especially important because you know the size of the area and a decent count of density. Unfortunately, they move sometimes.

How about a subsample spray paint, satellite counts?

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
October 28, 2021 12:00 pm

Are there infrared imaging detectors with the sensitivity and resolution sufficient to detect polar bears from space or from an aircraft?

October 28, 2021 7:18 am

Perhaps the ABCs fact checklers should to to the arctic and count the polar bears thermselves, wearing bikinis of course. (Polsr bears prefer their food unpackaged.)

Reply to  Oldseadog
October 28, 2021 7:19 am

should go to

Reply to  Oldseadog
October 28, 2021 7:51 am

Professor Chris Turney’s 2013 Antarctic expedition (AKA Ship of Fools) did not encounter a single polar bear there. By homogenizing this observation, Australian scientists concluded that polar bears are extinct already. 🙂

Michael E McHenry
October 28, 2021 7:44 am

Check out this website and it tells you all you need to know about climate and the media https://coveringclimatenow.org/

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 28, 2021 8:34 am

That is one deluded bunch of sobs.

Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 28, 2021 9:10 am

Wow, from that site you can cut and paste a 1000 word CC article in 5 minutes before breakfast, plus use any photos you wish, and submit it to your regional newspaper….if accepted you get 50 cents to a buck a word….No wonder we are inundated daily with such buIIsh!t.

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 28, 2021 9:46 am

Interesting that the news media are attempting to shut down free speech

Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 28, 2021 4:44 pm

That’s a wonderful site (could have been written by Joseph Goebbels),problem is WE have nothing similar.

Love the way they can turn lies into education … ” Extreme weather coverage is a can’t-miss opportunity to educate.”

I see from that site that Scientific American has given us more time to “fix the climate – about 11years” !!!
fix the climate !!! FFS they don’t know what the word climate means.

Richard Page
October 28, 2021 7:52 am

Superb analysis. This shows a perfect example of what should be happening across all climate science but isn’t. Careful study and reasoning; going from known data to a logically extrapolated unknown is exactly how these things should be done. Piling unknown on top of unknown in a big pile of pure speculation (I’m trying hard to be polite here) is completely and utterly wrong and, as a practice, should have been discontinued long before now. Bravo Susan Crockford for showing how things should be done.

October 28, 2021 7:53 am

Well, at least the bears will not see the latest climate change disorder….it has been reported that the fall foliage will be duller due to climate change….those crisp sharp colors may be a thing of the past.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Anti-griff
October 28, 2021 11:10 am

It’s funny I was only talking to my wife earlier this week about how beautiful the autumn colours are/were this year in the East Midlands, it’s been windy the last few days so a lot of leaves are now off the trees, but not all.

Steve Case
October 28, 2021 8:10 am

This web page, WWF Polar Bear Population has a nice annotated map with population estimates that you can add up and average out to be almost 22,000 bears not including the four large areas: The Arctic Basin, Laptev sea, Kara Sea, and East Greenland that are listed as unknown.  One could assume that’s good for a few more thousand bears. So maybe a total population of 25,000 bears isn’t far off the mark.

Here’s a web page AnimalInfo.org that lists the population estimates for various years from 1965 to 2006 as follows:

1965: About 10,000 (IUCN 1966)
1967: About 10,000 (Schuhmacher 1967)
1972: Roughly estimated at 20,000 (DeMaster & Stirling 1981) 
1983: Perhaps 20,000 (Nowak & Paradiso 1983) 
1996: 20,000 – 30,000 (Watson 1996) 
1997: 22,000 – 27,000 (Garner 1997) 
1998: 22,130 – 27,030 (Truett & Johnson 2002) 
2001: At least 22,000 (Schliebe 2001) 
2002: 21,500 – 25,000 (Lunn et al. 2002) 
2005: 20,000 – 25,000 (Polar Bear Spec. Gr. 2005) 
2006: 20,000 – 25,000 (IUCN 2006) 

It doesn’t look like the bears have decreased in population as Al Gore’s famous docudrama claimed would happen, and you don’t need Dr. Susan Crockford who the so-called experts don’t seem to like to tell you that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Case
October 28, 2021 9:12 am

Really? Why do the numbers dip from 2002 – 2006 when, up to that point, they had been steadily increasing. Something hinky with the numbers perhaps? Or perhaps that was when certain paid ‘experts’ ramped up the hysteria to get Polar Bears declared endangered? Perhaps that was when the PBSG was aware that Polar Bears were doing quite well and had to find some way of hanging onto their paychecks? Whatever the reason, the numbers you quoted do not seem accurate or reasonable after 2002, so perhaps we really do need Dr. Crockford to help set the record straight and correct an unethical bias?

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Steve Case
October 28, 2021 9:19 am

Maybe I don’t, but evidently a lot of other people do need her extensive analysis. Thank you Dr. Crockford

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 28, 2021 8:14 am

A good indicator of the health of a population is the number of litters with more than 1 cub. Litters with 2, 3 or more well-fed cubs simply do not happen if the population is under stress. Just trawling the literature for observed numbers of larger litters could be illuminating?

Richard Page
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 28, 2021 9:17 am

I believe exactly the same thing – I think it’s quite a good proxy indicator for the health of the species. A female bear can only carry twins or triplets if she is very well fed and the cubs will only survive if they also have access to plentiful food supplies. I noticed a few years ago that several bears on Svalbard had twins surviving to adulthood and just last year saw a photo of triplets following their mother. Not sure of the frequency but the fact that it is occurring at all is a very good sign.

John Hultquist
October 28, 2021 9:09 am

Australian a woman I’ve never heard  “

Like you (Susan), Gina is one of the interesting ladies on Planet Earth.
I do follow the OZ news some, and have been reading Joanne Nova’s blog [ JoNova ] for years.
Use DuckDuckGo and search with: jonova blog gina_rinehart


Reply to  John Hultquist
October 29, 2021 3:38 am

What is perhaps not known about Mrs Rinehart is that she has quietly organised that every lady who is in hospital in Australia for breast cancer receives a fantastic gift basket. Mrs Rinehart has also sponsored the entire Australian Olympic women’s swim team. And these are only a few of the organisations that she helps.

October 28, 2021 9:14 am

So what qualifies a person as a “fact checker” of anything or for any business these days? Are they researchers, experts in the field, or ideology verifiers?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  markl
October 28, 2021 6:40 pm

I think a lot of them are like the true-believer mother in the great movie “Goodbye Lenin.” They are the true suckers, the honest but naive plodding Boxers of the movement.

October 28, 2021 9:39 am

From the “Fact Checkers”

For a substantial number of these subpopulations, the short and long term trends in population growth or decline are unknown, and for four of them, there is no data to even make an estimate on the size of population.

So why make the claim polar bear populations are declining?

And why say Gina is wrong when their own “experts” say we don’t know?

(Well, the experts say they do know despite not having sufficient data, but hey, what do we need data for?)

October 28, 2021 10:46 am

Bad bears, bad bears…

Even World Wildlife Foundation has moved onto elephants.

That said, donate to World Walrus Foundation, a joint project of walruses and seals. Think of the calves and pups!

Reply to  n.n
October 29, 2021 5:18 am

WWF is still showing polar bear adverts, although perhaps not as frequently as before.

October 28, 2021 11:07 am

“Fact checkers” tend to be disinformation sites that take issues out of context with straw man lies. They then pretend the lie they “debunked” means all other evidence presented is false. This obvious logical fallacy is swallowed blindly by those clinging to their false beliefs. It’s impossible for the conditioned mind to know objective truth. The closed loop of perception false beliefs create rejects any information to the contrary.

To bed B
October 28, 2021 12:26 pm

Four years ago
Picnic Time! 230 Polar Bears Feast on Whale Carcass
That was on Wrangel Is in September, so well after the spring feed so not surprising that there was a high concentration nearby. But 230 within 10 miles of the carcass or one bear per 1 km2 is a very high concentration.

But instead of reporting numbers must be pretty healthy

“Polar bears gorged on whale carcasses to survive past warm periods, but strategy won’t suffice as climate warms”

October 28, 2021 1:12 pm

“Ms. Rinehart needed to be taken down a peg for the temerity of that remark, perhaps as it afforded an opportunity to take me down along with her”

I can assure you that Rinehart was the primary target. She’s the richest person in Australia, man or woman, and even wors her fortune from mining, and she’s proud of it, and to top it all off she donates to conservative politicians.

You should introduce yourself, with a grant proposal.

October 28, 2021 1:49 pm

The ABC and fact checking? They have been pulled up many times for their left wing bias.

Peter Fraser
October 28, 2021 2:18 pm

Gina Rinehart is one of the richest woman in the world and a climate sceptic.

Peter Fraser
Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 28, 2021 2:19 pm

That should be “women”

Reply to  Peter Fraser
October 29, 2021 3:41 am

So what? Do you have any idea of the people and organisations she personally helps with her money? Sheesh…

Stephen Skinner
October 28, 2021 3:07 pm

What becomes clearer by the day (not to all, unfortunately) are the biases of those who are not happy about good news. The correct response to Gina (and Susan) is to be relieved, perhaps cautiously, and then to look at how they arrived at their conclusions. Instead, there is disappointment, annoyance, outrage and personal attacks on those saying something other than bad news. What does that say, because it doesn’t sound anything like science?

October 28, 2021 3:09 pm

“In early September this year, an Australian a woman I’ve never heard of” there is a Classic opening sentence in an argument from ignorance. The fact-checkers should check out Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart. They will discover her brilliant career and intellectual ability.
As for the Polar Bears, they just want to be left in peace and not be caught up in a Climate Change Boondoggle.

Eric Vieira
October 28, 2021 3:45 pm

I suggest one should call fact checkers “truth deniers” from now on.

Geoff Sherrington
October 28, 2021 3:55 pm

Sceptics, your task is clear. Find past claims made by activists the polar bear numbers are decreasing, point out that the experts do not support that claim and ask for the activists claims to be fact checked to the same extent as Gina was.
Can I please suggest that we sceptics who care for truth need to do more than TutTut with a blog comment. You need to demand an action.
More and more, major media groups like the ABC are showing double standards and poor standards. For example, Britain’s BBC has been caught counterfeiting and altering the record, irrefutably, as Steve McIntyre shows in his new thread on Climate Audit. Compelling evidence of what could be criminal misrepresentation by the BBC. Geoff S

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 29, 2021 9:13 am

I would suggest Americans contact their congress person and demand investigation into NOAH who make false claims about one year or one month is warmer than another. Their own data does not support it

Michael E McHenry
Reply to  Michael E McHenry
October 29, 2021 10:40 am

I meant NOAA!

October 29, 2021 5:21 am

wow thats a great and fast response from the tip
well done I hope you sent it to ABC aus?
I was pretty peeved when I read their item

Verified by MonsterInsights