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.