Photographer of starving polar bear admits losing control of “climate change narrative”
Meanwhile, 2 polar bear attacks highlight the real danger to humans.
It used to be that in traditional science you would start out with a hypothesis, gather data through testing, then form a theory.
When it comes to social-justice-based science, however, you formulate a narrative and proceed to distort the data to fit that narrative.
Now the narrative behind the infamous photo of a polar bear supposedly starving because of climate change has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took the image in the first place.
…In an article for the August issue of National Geographic titled “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong,” Cristina Mittermeier talks about the intended message of the image versus the message that was received.
“We had lost control of the narrative,” she said.
“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy,” she wrote in the article. “With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally.”
The National Geographic video featuring the animal provides a sense of the fear-mongering for which the image has been used.
On the other hand, there are some real hazards to humans related to polar bears.
The number of polar bears has increased substantially, likely due to restrictions on hunting. Furthermore, scientists are now realizing that polar bears are more resilient to changing levels of sea ice than environmentalists previously believed, and numerous healthy populations are thriving.
The new population estimates from the 2016 Scientific Working Group are somewhere between 22,633 to 32,257 bears, which is a net increase from the 2015 number of 22,000 to 31,000. The current population numbers are a sharp increase from 2005’s, which stated only 20,000 to 25,000 bears remained — those numbers were a major increase from estimates that only 8,000 to 10,000 bears remained in the late 1960s.
It appears that they may be becoming habituated to humans, which could have been a contributing factor leading to two recent attacks. One incident involved a cruise ship tour, and the bear was killed in self-defense.
The attack occurred when tourists from the MS Bremen cruise ship landed on the most-northern island of Svalbard archipelago, according to Joint Rescue Coordination for Northern Norway. The remote region is known for glaciers, reindeer and polar bears.
…”The incident occurred when the four-person polar bear guard team, who are always on board for these expedition cruises as required by law, prepared for a shore leave,” the company said in a post on Facebook.
But the guards failed to spot one bear. After it attacked, other guards shot it, the company said.
“There had to be intervention for reasons of self-defense and to protect the life of the attacked person,” the company said. “We are extremely sorry that this incident has happened.”
Earlier this month, a father died protecting his children from a polar bear attack in Canada’s northernmost territory of Nunavut.
Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July.
A relative said he “died a hero”, telling his daughters to run while he put himself between them and the bear.
The children were unharmed, but Mr Gibbons died in the attack. Another adult later shot and killed the bear.
“He was enjoying his day with his children,” Mr Gibbons’s uncle Gordy Kidlapik told Canadian media. “They were surprised by a bear that had started to stalk or charge towards one of his children.”
It is too bad that environmental activists don’t want to solve real problems, such as the increasing number of wild animal attacks from species now unafraid of humans. But that would not correspond to the anti-humanity narrative they have created.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You know for an animal on the verge of extinction they sure do end up getting shot an awful lot!
with respect to the cruise ship incident – the fact that this outfit, by law, was required to have bear guards at the ready suggests that maybe, just maybe, this kind of thing has happened before.
But that would mean that polar bears are dangerous, not just big cuddly plush toys!!! Who knew??? Well the bear guards, at least.
Nanook will actively hunt humans… any food source. This looks to be an old and dying bear…. nothing to do with climate.
Similar story up here in Soldotna years back… brownie attacked a guy walking his dog in town…. still a big bear but old and starving from bad teeth. The guy pulled his handgun (large caliber up here) and stopped the bear.
https://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/survival/animal-attacks/2009/08/charging-grizzly-killed-alaska#page-2
Constitutional carry up here. It isn’t what you hunt that matters, it is what is hunting you that does.
” It isn’t what you hunt that matters, it is what is hunting you that does.”
Hear, hear!
Apparently, when the Bald Eagle was removed from the “Endangered Species List” there were no real photogenic animals left, as over half of the list is moles and voles.
“When it comes to social-justice-based science, however, you formulate a narrative and proceed to distort the data to fit that narrative.”
Science(knowledge)in this case is not the objective, it is only a tool to be used selectively. It is to be distorted and falsified as needed. SJW “Science” is similar to real science as lightning bug is similar to lightning (with apologies to Mark Twain). Climate Charge is an example. It has no parameters that one can objectively analyze. A simple flashlight battery has many parameters but climate change is a soft fog of vague concepts with false numbers applied as needed by the narrative.
It has no parameters that one can objectively analyze.
Science isn’t completely helpless in the confrontation with fantasy and zaniness.
If it can be scientifically shown that something isn’t happening, then concerns about that something—magnitudes, causes, solutions, etc.—are automatically rendered moot. There’s no need for science to actually disprove the ancillary fear-mongering stuff if the basic problem can be shown to be imaginary.
It is not necessarily the job of science to prove a negative…in fact, that is very difficult to do.
It is the job of science to suggest something is happening and collect more data….a whole lot of the world not involved in science needs to be gifted a jump to conclusions mat along with a slap of reality to the face.
It’s the “Downing Street Effect”.
Originally, use to describe the UK government’s effort to ‘cherry-picked’ intelligence to fit the hidden agenda of justifying war with Iraq
No such thing happened.
Polar bears are terrifying. When we’d go up to the ice cap in Thule, we’d keep our heads on a swivel and stay close to the truck.
“It is too bad that environmental activists don’t want to solve real problems, such as the increasing number of wild animal attacks from species now unafraid of humans. But that would not correspond to the anti-humanity narrative they have created.”
Unfortunately, many of the attacks happen in what is deemed to be flyover country and their victims are deplorables. The leftists’ answer is that the people shouldn’t be there; it’s the animals’ territory (and never mind that people actually live there.)
or the decimation of the elk and deer thanks to the reintroduction of non-native wolves. I guess Bambi’s not popular anymore.
There are three stages to science, hypothesis, theory, and law. A hypothesis is the basest level, an idea to be tested, which often arises from an anecdotal observation. A good scientist at this point will come up with at least 5 possible alternative explanations for the phenomenon, and will test them all! A bad scientist (SJW) sees something and immediately spouts off that the first idea that pops into their noggin is THE ONLY possible explanation. An hypothesis which survives testing can then get elevated to theory, such as The Theory of Relativity, which is still being tested. At some point, when all means of testing have been exhausted, or a bunch of muckity mucks get together, it can become a law, such as The Law of Thermodynamics.
So when most people state that they have a theory, it is often not even a well formulated hypothesis.
The other day I got into an argument with a stoner who stated that legalized marijuana was a good thing because it had reduced heroin overdoses in Colorado. Now, as a scientist, I would also need to ask if the increased use of narcan as an antidote, or a switch by opiate users to pills over IV could be as, or even more, likely an explanation. Similarly, the metric being examined was deaths, and one needs to entertain the possibility that opiate and heroin use has actually increased since MJ was legalized.
Statistics lie, and liars use statistics. Most people use statistics like a drunk uses a street light, more for support than illumination. As a scientist, I am a trained critical thinker, who asks both what is being measured and how is it being measured. I am the natural enemy of the politician. I suspect that during the 2016 election there were a bunch of people designing surveys to give Hillarity the results that she wanted, because people who deliver bad news don’t get paid. Sadly, reporters these days are on the opposite end of the scientific spectrum, and their task is to slightly edit a press release at best.
you ever notice that the rich + well fed + with lots of time on their hands + little to no belief in a ‘higher power’ e.g. G-D are the proponents of all this ‘science’ ?
they want no children, just what ????
‘“We had lost control of the narrative,” she said.’
What the hell does this gobbledygook mean? Why can’t she just say that our picture misrepresented the true state of nature?
Oh. That question answers itself.
IOW: “SHE LIED!”
Shoot them all so there can be guided tours showing where they used to live. We wouldn’t want them to go extinct without having a little fun and making a few bucks.
This bear was a victim of Catastrophic Resource Change which is real and recurring in a state of Nature.
“Catastrophic Resource Change” Did you forget to put ‘pun’ at the end of your comment.
humans do not have to be in the habitat of polar bears
their lives are hard enough
But some of us want to be. It’s our planet, and if we can’t go look at polar bears if we take a fancy to then what good are they? Why should they be preserved, if we can get no benefit from them?
The same argument could be made for those peoples who were left behind by evolution, usually taking the form of low intellectual capacity. Personally, I think it is in humanities best interest to preserve polar bears, and probably most flavors of humanity.
I am toying just a bit with Milhouse, who is known for being a bit too belligerent.
Once again “JusticeDelivered” shows himself to be the typical leftist moby, openly racist, utterly amoral, doesn’t even believe in the concept of natural rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life.
That means all humans, from the highest IQ to the lowest. Simply being a member of homo sapiens makes them morally equal to every other person. Polar bears are not men, and have no rights.
God gave this world and everything in it, including polar bears, to humanity, so everything in the world must justify its existence by being useful to humanity in some way. Humans need not justify their existence, because they are inherently valuable.
That is what conservative believe, and what socialists reject.