We are told that Polar Bears are on hugely threatened by climate change. But does the data support this proposition?
Peter Ridd has been researching the Great Barrier Reef since 1984, has invented a range of advanced scientific instrumentation, and written over 100 scientific publications. Since being fired by James Cook University for raising concerns about science quality assurance issues, Peter Ridd receives no payment for any of the work he does. Also see https://www.facebook.com/ProjectforRealScienceReefRebels/
Transcript
Polar bears have seen their numbers collapse in recent decades due to climate change. My focus on problems within science institutions stems from work on the Great Barrier Reef, where groupthink, emotion, and raw self-interest to maintain funding have resulted in a form of noble cause corruption. Polar bears are another great example of this. You’ll have seen lots of news stories about the loss of polar bears due to melting ice around the North Pole, featuring pictures of starving bears stranded on tiny melting pieces of ice, which look absolutely terrible.
Unlike coral, which grows faster in hotter climates, it makes sense to worry about polar bears in a warming climate. The North Pole ice has reduced over the last few decades. There is a debate as to how much of that reduction is part of natural variation, because we know over centuries the ice comes and goes. But that’s a debate for another video. There has been a loss of ice in the last few decades, so it sounds credible that this is bad for polar bears. Polar bears like ice, right? Less ice, fewer bears. And we have fewer bears today, right? Wrong.
There’s a very brave scientist who’s been blowing the whistle on this, and she’s suffered the consequences by being out of step with the scientific consensus. Her name is Susan Crockford, and her data is as simple as it is devastating: polar bear numbers have increased. Since the 1960s, the number of bears has not reduced; it may well have gone up quite significantly, perhaps even tripled. You can just see how that would make her very unpopular with the consensus group. As The Washington Post put it, nobody has done more to sink the claim that climate change is endangering polar bears than zoologist Susan Crockford. And she may have paid the price for it with her job. After 15 years as an adjunct assistant professor, Crockford said the University of Victoria rejected her renewal application without explanation in May, despite her high profile as a speaker and author stemming from her widely cited work on polar bears and dog domestication. Ms. Crockford accused officials at the Canadian university of bowing to outside pressure, the result of her research showing that polar bear populations are stable and even thriving, not plummeting as a result of shrinking Arctic sea ice.
Defying claims of the climate change movement, one reason that bear numbers have almost certainly rebounded is that there’s a lot less hunting than there was half a century ago. Now, some argue that the early estimate of bears in the sixties was not particularly accurate. But even if we accept this, where is the data to show that they’re in decline? This has been a hugely contentious issue and the subject of numerous fact checks, including one by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation after Mrs. Gina Rinehart, a very well-known Australian, quoted Crockford’s work. What was notable about the fact check was that while they took exception to the statement that the numbers were increased, they couldn’t present any evidence for a general decline in polar bear numbers. So, they’re effectively agreeing with Crockford.
For example, one of the experts said we know that some polar bear populations are stable, some have declined, and some have increased. Well, what a surprise. There’s a bit of fluctuation in the population. But all of these populations, all of these groups of bears in the various areas, they should be declining if one believes everything in the news about loss of ice and loss of polar bears. Now, if you read the commentary on Crockford by the climate alarmists, they often say things like she’s not published this work in journals, but who cares? Data is data. And anyway, she does publish in peer-reviewed journals. This is typical of the spurious argument that anybody who questions the catastrophes of climate change is in the pay of the oil industry, which I get all the time, even though I live on my superannuation pension and don’t get paid by anybody. By making these spurious, non-scientific arguments, they avoid debating the data, and the data for bears and for corals on the Great Barrier Reef is very bad for the catastrophists, but it’s really good news for bears and corals.
Just as there are record amounts of coral on the Great Barrier Reef, there are also record numbers of polar bears. No, not record numbers of polar bears on the Great Barrier Reef. Record number of bears near the North Pole, at least in some regions. Anyway, if you want this message to get spread widely, to encourage the story to get out about the polar bears, time to like and subscribe, I suspect. But what about the emaciated bear in these photographs? Well, of course, bears occasionally get old, can’t hunt very well, and starve and fade away. These are just opportunistic pictures which are actually just very sad. But I’m afraid death is just a part of life and bears never supposed to die of anything? Of course they must. And of course, bears will sometimes get onto small pieces of ice. The pictures actually mean nothing, but they can certainly stir emotions when they are used effectively in a corrupt purpose. I see exactly the same thing with corals on the Great Barrier Reef. They take pictures of a whole heap of dead coral and say, “Well, this is bad, it’s caused by humans” when it’s actually just part of life on the reef. Anyway, if you want to know more about Susan Crawford’s work, go to the website in the description box below. You’ll see that she’s a scientist who should not be ignored. She’s very impressive and she’s also been very unfairly treated.
The photos of old dying bears is really dishonest bullshit.
It’s advertising without the restrictions put on products for false advertising.
You mean climatistas might be less than 97% honest? Yikes!
Or, perhaps, 97% of climatistas are less than honest?
I remember reading about a decade ago how a 20-30 year authority on polar bears said they weren’t threaten. He got disinvited to an annual polar bear conference because of that.
Mitchell Taylor
Actually, Arctic sea ice isn’t diminishing . It might be thinner than earlier but thicker than heretofore.
Temperatures fluctuate. So does rainfall, heat waves, and drought from one year, and one decade to the next. Always has; always will. . . unless. . . unless, the Climatistas are authorized to CONTROL EVERYTHING — not just atmospheric gases, but forest cover, pavement cover, private transportation, lawn watering, crop yields, the color of roof shingles, size of refrigerators, the hours and kilowatts of your electricity ration, meat, cheese, bread, organic cotton underwear . . . I mean EVERYTHING.
Then life will be hunky-dory, and in perfect balance for ever and ever. Saint Greta, and the Holy Priesthood of straining neck-tendon zealots — McKibben, Granholm, Gore, and the rest — will make all our decisions for us. Every gerbil, guppy, salmon, and songbird will be happy and unmolested.
For hapless humans, life might get a little too, uh, REGIMENTED, but heck, you didn’t expect Utopia to come easy, did you?
“…. but forest cover…”
True, here in Wokeachusetts, the climate whack-jobs want to control in great detail how forestry is done. They want cutting to be much lighter and much less frequent- and that’s for the small amount that will be allowed at all- because they’re goal is to lock up all forests “to save the planet”. The idea of seeing any part of nature as a resource is abhorrent to them. So, what little is cut- they want the focus to be on aesthetics and maximizing biodiversity- not, God forbid, for the timber resource- and certainly not for energy. Meanwhile, the state is whining about a housing shortage- partly due to unlimited numbers of illegal aliens who love all the free stuff you can get here.
The primary purpose of forest management is create an environment where a small fire fails to become a conflagration.
No, the primary purpose of forest management is to produce merchantable timber in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the populace without demolishing the resource, Reducing fire risk is a feature of the last part.
nailed it! 🙂
Maybe I’m overlooking something here but isn’t one theory explaining the increase of polar bears in the upper parts of North America and Eurasia is that a warming climate after the most recent ice age forced their ancestors, who were essentially grizzlies, to migrate further north where the climate was better suited to their needs. In the process and over time the ones with lighter fur became even lighter to help their predation in a snow and ice-covered landscape. So is it not possible if we accept the current warming theories that the remaining polar bears, in order to survive, start moving southward where the prey is more plentiful, and in the process over time their fur darkens to blend into the prevailing landscape. If so, keep them out of my back yard.
Prey can be found south of Hudson Bay in Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and Montreal.
Perhaps we could send some polar bears to the next COP event. 🙂
This would be an excellent way of terminating the conference early and dissuading the freeloaders from attending any future ones. Just think how much in tax dollars the whole process would save consumers, particularly when governments spend huge amounts sending oversized delegations to these meetings where they accomplish nothing anyway.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/polar-bear-origins-revised-theyre-older-and-more-distinct-than-we-thought
Too bad the climate elitists aren’t worthy prey for Polar Bears.
According to the climate experts way back in the 1990’s, the Polar Bears are already extinct. The only ones left are stuffed and in museums.
The polar ice also has completely disappeared along. Pierre Trudeau has a plan to move the Great Barrier reef from off Australia to off Churchill just as soon as Canada hits net zero in a couple of years.
I’ve never seen a polar bear except in a zoo, and that was 50+ years ago. Maybe they’re already extinct, and the tragic pictures are trick photography. J’ever think of that?
Have you heard of Poe’s Law?
I’ve never met anyone who has ever seen a polar bear outside of a zoo.
Perhaps they never existed in the first place?
At least they can’t poop on the woods. !! 😉
Probably invented for a Disney movie.
A friend who works up there has had to wait for an armed guard to go from his lodgings to the clinic 200m away.
Well I decided to do my own research and I looked alll around my front yard, and even in my back yard, and I didn’t count a single polar bear anywhere. I need grant money please.
A warmer climate is good for the biosphere. With reduced sea ice, polar bears can find it easier to navigate their habitats and search for seal meat. Concerns about harm to the biosphere stem from the belief that Earth’s current warming pace outpaces most species’ ability to adapt.
However, history shows that numerous periods of rapid warming occurred in the past, resulting in the extinction of some species while others thrived—a demonstration of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Nothing will halt that dynamic—it’s just the way of the planet.
it’s just the way of
the planetlife.Minor edit.
Very nice.
First Bill Grey for confronting Al Gore on hurricanes, then Judith Curry on wicked climate problems, then Peter Ridd on GBR, and now Susan Crockford on polar bears. Alarmist universities really don’t like being confronted from within by truth.
Mann sued Steyn in DC for merely pointing out the obvious—Penn State’s investigation of Mann’s poor climate research was as bogus as its investigation of Sandusky (for which the head of Penn State later spent a year in prison). Mann got $1 in actual damages, but $1 million in punitive damages (which will be reduced to ~$9 on Steyn’s appeal based on the SCOTUS punitive damages rule of thumb handed down 2003 in State Farm v. Campbell).
Mann said in a televised Congressional hearing that he had never called Judith a denier, to which she replied, “Yes you did. On page 15 of your submitted written testimony for this hearing.” Is/was available on YouTube. Nasty Mann.
Alarmists are by and large nasty when protecting their climate gravy trains, because they know deep down they are only providing false alarms. Notable ‘expert’ false alarm ‘sciency’ examples include Hansen on SLR acceleration, Wadhams on Arctic summer sea ice disappearance, and Viner on UK snow.
The wheels are finally falling off the alarm wagon. Past false alarms didn’t happen—now 40 years worth. Renewables are ruinables at meaningful grid penetration. Scotland’s coalition government just fell apart when Greens took offense to the otherwise minority SNP truthfully saying their 2030 climate goals could NOT be met.
“Mann said in a televised Congressional hearing that he had never called Judith a denier, to which she replied, “Yes you did. On page 15 of your submitted written testimony for this hearing.” Is/was available on YouTube. Nasty Mann.”
I’ve searched for that via Google and can’t find it.
I’d be left to believe it didn’t happen IF I HADN’T SEEN IT MYSELF.
(The look on Mann’s face! Priceless.)
I archived it, knowing YouTube would eventually snuff it.
Refound it using my archive copy. 0.17 seconds. Youtube search Curry Mann 2017. Is the second clip. Enjoy again.
Thanks.
I found this:
https://youtu.be/DPUMztYMuis
(But I remember seeing a wider shot that included everyone at the table.)
This link shows Mann’s denial, but cuts of Curry’s response
cuts off
In the 1960s it was Global Cooling and the coming Glacial Period. That may happen but it didn’t happen when they said it would happen, it got warmer instead.
Anyone who has ever worked outdoors- like me as a forester for 50 years- knows that cold weather really sucks.
“Past false alarms didn’t happen—now 40 years worth.”
Unfortunately, the MSM has failed to notice.
South Polar Bears are already extinct!
North Polar Penguins are already extinct!
WE NEED TO STOP MAN’S MADNESS!!!!
(If you didn’t recognize that as sarcasm, you are part of the problem. Please wake up for real.)
Yes unfortunately the original Penguin is extinct.
?itok=6Aql3Ckm
As far as I can tell not one alarmist catastrophic prediction has been realized. Not one. Yet the media continues to report on any new ones, and some recycled ones, that come up. Chicken Little would be proud.
Arctic sea ice is apparently cyclical, and Inuit subsistence hunters report considerably increased polar bear numbers.
and they’re probably not thrilled about it
People who NOT hypochondriacs are going extinct. Despite the quintupling of global population in the last century, the percentage of people who AREN’T worried sick is falling faster than population is rising.
It’s getting to the verge of requiring state funerals and flags at half-mast every time someone steps on a cockroach.
That creates a sticky situation for non-worriers, who are regarded — at best — as a menace to all that is right and good.
“You didn’t have your sob session today? What is WRONG with you!?”
Poor polar bears- when Al Gore was born there were 10,000 of them; now there are only 25,000
Be careful of what you attribute to Al Gore’s birth date. Remember that almost precisely 9 months after the UFO crash in Roswell NM, Al was born.
He won’t be happy until there are 10 million.
Just in case Peter Ridd reads comments here, he should know that Susan is one of the regular-occasional posters on WUWT. Maybe for 8 to 10 years.
I remember years ago reading that the photographer who took one of the originally published photographs of a lone polar bear ‘stranded’ on a tiny piece of ice said that she had photographed it because it was a great photograph..but that there was masses of ice around that it could reach easily, The wider photograph showed that!
I recall she was a NZ student-researcher who sent the photo to a friend and (somehow) it was used in the Al Gore movie — without permission or attribution.
Iam raising money to provide them with sunscreen. Donations welcome.
The green fear mongers must have cottoned on to the fact that the Polar Bear scare is wearing thin. I noticed an increase in the mentioning of the Penguin perils in documentaries, especially by the BBC and ITV, even occasionally in the news.
While polar bears can tolerate a cold climate and sea ice, they don’t eat sea ice. Their biggest food source is seals, when they come ashore in spring to give birth. If the sea ice did not partially melt in spring, but remained frozen all summer, the seals would give birth farther south, and the polar bears would starve.
Polar bears actually need the spring melting of sea ice to survive!