A recent article at Mother Jones, “Something Unexpected Is Happening With Norway’s Polar Bears,” expresses surprise that polar bear populations in Norway are actually getting healthier amid declining sea ice. This is true, though it is not truly “news,” in the sense of something newly discovered, and should not have been unexpected. Previous research, including annual polar bear counts, show that polar bear populations as a whole have increased amid modest global warming.
Mother Jones says the message that polar bears would soon die out due to climate change “infiltrated the public psyche, perhaps more than any other about the scourge of global warming.” This is certainly true, polar bears became the poster children in many advertisements about climate change, and were featured prominently in former Vice-President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
The polar bear extinction theory, however, is another one of the claims from that film that have long since been debunked, as Mother Jones admits, “the reality for these iconic bears is more complicated.”
Mother Jones references two studies showing that polar bears in multiple locations are doing very well. A 2022 study looking at southeastern Greenland and a recent study in Scientific Reports looking at Norway’s polar bear populations, show bears in those locations have actually become healthier, with their population “stable or growing.”
They do emphasize that Hudson Bay bears are struggling, claiming that “researchers have tied melting ice to lower bear survival and a shortage of food, finding that the population has roughly halved since the 1980s.” But overall, “there are 20 distinct polar bear populations around the world, and they all behave slightly differently. Warming is not uniformly killing them.”
Again, this is not new, despite what Mother Jones implies.
In 2021, polar bear scientist Susan Crockford published a State of the Polar Bear report, summarizing the findings of previous polar bear counts and research. Her survey of the literature found that of 19 polar bear subpopulations, three are “increasing” or “likely increasing,” four are “stable” or “likely stable,” and 11 are “presumed stable or increasing.”
Previous reports going back to 2017 came to similar conclusions that most polar bear regional subpopulations were stable if not increasing, and there is no doubt that the total number of polar bears has increased since the 1960s. The same studies also suggested the polar bears were healthy and producing multiple cubs that survive to adulthood.

Concerning the Hudson Bay bear population, there is significant doubt about whether or not bear counts that claim lower numbers are being accurately portrayed by activist scientists and the media. The change in the number of polar bears there since the early 2000s is not statistically significant, and many of the catastrophic projections about Hudson Bay bears are based not on actual counts but on computer model projections of bear mortality. Recent counts do not consider the fact that bears migrate between regions. It is also notable that the West Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort bear populations are the only places where potentially negative trends associated with ice loss have been found. Despite the same sea ice trends, other bear populations are doing very well. This should suggest that if those populations are in decline, there is more at play than ice trends.
The new Scientific Reports study is especially interesting, as it found that bears where sea ice is thicker actually have worse body condition than those where it is warmer, which should cast even more doubts on any theory where sea ice extent or thickness is directly associated with polar bear health. In her studies, Crockford also noted thick ice could hinder Polar bear flourishing rather than benefitting them.
Mother Jones is one of the premier climate alarmist websites, so it is refreshing, even somewhat surprising, to see it publish any good news at all, even if the good news is framed as surprising with readers directed towards additional alarmist projections with little connection to reality. Any species’ relationship with its environment is going to be complex and dependent on a variety of factors, especially when it comes to intelligent animals like polar bears. They can easily migrate and adapt to changing conditions, substituting other food stocks for seals. The truth is that they are doing much better now than they were decades ago and Mother Jones serves their readers well by reporting this fact.
Even a blind dog can find a bone.
Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.
Well ….MJ is pot …
pot heads are nutty .
😉
“Mother Jones is a nonprofit, reader-supported newsroom founded in 1976 that reaches millions of people each month across our website, social media, videos, newsletter, and print magazine. Mother Jones is produced by the Center for Investigative Reporting, which also produces Reveal, the weekly investigative radio show and podcast, and More To The Story, the weekly podcast.”
I remember MJ the media as an outlet was fashionable around the time of the1% anti- Wall Street movement I know MJ as in Mary Jane is a pot reference… never knew pot was also ‘Mother Jones’, but it makes much sense etymologically and explains some of the magazine’s politics.
Not my kind or reading or recreation but kudos to Jones for apparently not taking direct federal funds, and apparently also for being honest about polar bears.
MJ was one of the chief screamers 20 years ago who demanded that polar bears be listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act — because Global Warming. And in 2008 our idiot sell-out gummit did so, claiming sea ice decline threatened the p-bears very survival. It’s the Law now. $Billions have been wasted on this farce.
So no, I don’t think “kudos” are deserved. Maybe if MJ crawled on their knees in abject apology and begged the USFWS to rescind the stupid listing, then I might forgive them. That’s not what happened, though.
“Mother Jones has reported extensively on the endangered status of polar bears, focusing on their role as a “canary in the coal mine” for climate change. Listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2008 due to sea ice loss, experts previously predicted two-thirds of the population could disappear by 2050. Recent studies, however, show varying population health, with some populations in Svalbard appearing stable or even healthy despite reduced ice.”
You appear to be correct. Again AI plays verbal gymnastics to avoid saying the obvious. Programmers of this AI software should start thinking about how certain historical people groups got to being on the wrong side of famously unpleasant events when they knew better.
Go look around the Mother Jones mag articles, lots of unhinged leftist hyperventilating, the usual hypocrisy one expects from the Left.
I was intrigued and sure enough Mother Jones is another cabal of ultra left lunatics.
They certainly have WMV – woke mind virus…
If the Arctic was ice-free or had very low ice in the past, and we still have Polar Bears today, can’t we assume they would survive another low ice or no ice period? Inquiring minds want to know.
IIRC Polar bears are supposed to be North American brown bears who went blonde to adapt to Arctic life.
Wkipedia claims
“Polar bears (\(Ursus\ maritimus\)) and brown bears (\(Ursus\ arctos\)) share a complex, intertwined history, having diverged from a common ancestor roughly \(1.3\) to \(1.6\) million years ago”
AI claims
“The North Pole has experienced ice-free summers in the distant past, with significant periods occurring roughly 6 to 10 million years ago, during the Eocene period 55 million years ago, and more recently, periodically 5,000 to 10,000 years ago.”
So you seem to be correct.
I had to laugh a little about AI’s contextually useless qualification “more recently, periodically”. Hmmm, why would AI get weird about mentioning ice-free arctic summers 5ky ago?
“When Al Gore was born there were only 6,000 surviving polar bears.
Now, after decades of brutal global warming, only 30,000 remain.”
(Lifted from some OTHER wag on the internet, but still roughly true to this day.)
Is this another historical hurricane count and weather satellite situation, where we count more bears in 2026 because we have more Canadians to look for them?
I believe it is actually a bit difficult to accurately count polar bears. Read Susan Crockford’s work if you really want more info.
In my (non-expert) opinion, it appears that hunting was resulting in more polar bear deaths compared to the harsh environment they inhabit.
A lot of hunting has been phased out or diminished since Gore was born, so I expect that is the main factor contributing to their population rebound over that time period.
7 years ago in 2019 Southampton University concluded that species extinction was over estimated because animals are far more adaptable than alarmists thought:
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2019/04/adaption-climate-change.page
“New research led by the University of Southampton has shown that the threat of range losses for some species as a result of climate change could be overestimated because of the ability of certain animals to adapt to rising temperatures and aridity.”
—
Basically, they took a bunch of bats from damp cool England to nice warm dry Spain and much to the climate worriers annoyance the little critters loved it there.
Mammals like warm weather… shocking.
Mother Jones has offered me subscriptions at a discount several times but it doesn’t take much to tell where they coming from. I would much rather read National Review. At least they get things right more often than not.
O/T. The price of propaganda
Cost of TV licence fee set for 2026/27
The annual cost of a TV licence will rise to £180 from 1 April 2026 gov uk
Aren’t we the lucky ones.
“The truth is that they are doing much better now than they were decades ago….”
Wasn’t much of their previous decline due to hunting and just shooting them because they were an annoyance to some communities?
I think much of the originally reported low counts had to do with insufficient eyes on the ground doing the counting, and then alarmists deliberately low-balling the numbers to create alarm.
Dr. Susan Crockford is an honest scientist who has done more than anyone else to expose the myth that thin ice will be the cause of polar bear extinction.
“the reality for these iconic bears is more complicated.”
Translation: “We lied”.
Why is it surprising that polar bear populations are rising given the fact that seal hunting by man is severely in decline and hunting of the bears is low? The Inuit still hunt seals, but the numbers are significantly lower than even 10 years ago and seal populations are booming.
When saying that the total number of polar bears has increased since the 1960s, the article should have pointed out that hunting restrictions in the 1970s were a major factor. (Apologies if it’s there and I missed it).
In Svalbard a couple of years ago I was told that part of the polar bear population there (I think they said about a third) hunted only on land, eating mainly reindeer. So it’s easy to understand that polar bears as a species can survive ice-free periods.
This admission shows that certain animals, like humans, don’t just accept changing conditions as is; they make whatever adaptations are necessary to continue their existence. This is a reality that the alarmists either can’t comprehend or hate to concede. Instead they demand enormous, often unworkable sacrifices that would leave large populations in worse condition than before, except that condition wasn’t so bad to begin with. Case in point: the benefits that fossil fuels have brought to humanity. The alarmists want this energy source either curtailed or abandoned entirely and replaced by renewable energies that have shown they can’t deliver but somehow are going to save the planet from some unstoppable climate catastrophe, however non-existent.
Here we have NSIDC Arctic ice area showing no trend since 2007.