Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Narrative Fail: Polar bears vanish . . . from media as their population explodes

Narrative Fail: Polar bears vanish . . . from media as their population explodes

A BBC crew was surprised to find themselves surrounded by a swarm of bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-33aj12xw

Once upon a time, stories of polar bears starving to death were regular features of environmental and science “reporting.” The fuzzy fur-balls of ferocity were the beloved icons for the crusade against global warming.

However, they have been seemingly absent from recent “climate change” discussions.  Could this be due to rapidly increasing number of polar bears, a fact which counters all the doom-and-gloom assertions made by supposed experts?

In a post last summer, I noted that there were indications that the population of Ursus maritimus was rapidly expanding.

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.

A new book The Polar Bear Catastrophe that Never Happened by Dr. Susan Crockford uses the latest data and reviews the questionable values used in official estimates.  Crockford concludes that polar bears are actually thriving.

Anthony Watts of Watts Up with That highlighted the book, which projects that polar bear numbers have quadrupled, writing:

The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened explains why the catastrophic decline in polar bear numbers we were promised in 2007 failed to materialize. It’s the story of how and why the polar bear came to be considered ‘Threatened’ with extinction, and tracks its rise and fall as an icon of the global warming movement.

The book also tells the story of Crockford’s role in bringing that failure to public attention and the backlash against her that ensued – and why, among all others who have attempted to do so previously, she was uniquely positioned to do so. In general, this is a cautionary tale of scientific hubris and of scientific failure, of researchers staking their careers on untested computer simulations and later obfuscating inconvenient facts.

Atascadero News contributor Al Fonzi recently offered details on another piece of Crockford’s research, which touched upon the fact there has been no significant loss of habitat for these animals.

She notes in “Polar Bear & Sea Ice Basics:” “The area of polar bear habitat equals the approximate extent of Arctic sea ice in March (the yearly maximum), with three…exceptions; the Okhotsk Sea, Baltic Sea and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (no bears since 1900); if all were filled with ice, they would represent 2.4 mkm2 of the total Arctic extent. Remove those areas of sea ice from the Arctic extent totals for the satellite record (1979-2016), total polar bear habitat at the end of March has been virtually constant at about 14.0 mkm2 per year….

There is no evidence that polar bears ever lived in the Okhotsk Sea or the Baltic Sea. Polar bears are currently well distributed throughout their available habitat, despite recent changes in sea ice coverage: there have been no range contractions due to reduced habitat.

Crockford makes the case that the polar bear population in 1975 was around 5,000. It is presently estimated to be around 32,000. Clearly, the decision to continue to list the bears as a threatened species is about politics, not science.

Crockford was recently interviewed by Glenn Beck:

This information might have been useful to the BBC crew that found themselves surrounded by 13 polar bear mothers and cubs while filming late last year. The men seemed shocked when one of the animals began sizing them up for a snack.

The crew seemed surprised, but delighted, that all the bears seemed robust and healthy. Happily, the men made it out safely and will not be part of the more frequent “bear attack” stories that are seen nowadays.

However, it is an object lesson on the dangers of believing politicized science instead of the real kind.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

DouglasJBender | March 23, 2019 at 8:36 pm

Roly poly polar bear,
Lend me your ear.

The seals are many,
And the air is warm.

Why don’t you evolve?

Nothing like a polar bear.

Roly poly polar bear
Where do you git all that white hair

Surely you know
Being white as snow

You’ll catch crap
From the Democrat.

ciao!

Awww. You changed the picture with the article. I liked the one with the dead polar bears lying on the car and in the street. Gotta love irony.

If catastrophic global warming due to CO2 were really an imminent threat, the government would be consumed in a full-throttle development and commercialization plan for Gen IV nuclear.

healthguyfsu | March 23, 2019 at 9:28 pm

The bear attacks and starving bear sightings are actually hallmarks of sudden population expansion whereby the food supply, being preyed at increasing rates, dwindles and cannot service predator demands.

    Joe-dallas in reply to healthguyfsu. | March 24, 2019 at 8:35 am

    Good point – virtually all animal species expand and contract in cycles. Animal species begin to contract when they have outgrown their natural food supplies.

    I would expect the polar bear population to level off or begin declining 10 or so years out, due to overpopulation, not global warming.

      alaskabob in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 24, 2019 at 12:39 pm

      In the territorial days of Alaska, game management was very good with all species being healthy and plentiful both predator and prey. With statehood the animal rights groups got into the act and the outcome was the natural boom-bust cycling of too much or too little. To the PETA people suffering only occurred when man was involved and that starvation was painless.

healthguyfsu | March 23, 2019 at 9:29 pm

“The crew seemed surprised, but delighted, that all the bears seemed robust and healthy.”

And the snow in this region is no longer white.

“The men seemed shocked when one of the animals began sizing them up for a snack.”…well..duh… Nanook is the alpha predator in the Arctic. I don’t know how “stupid” tastes but the BBC staff are at least edible.

I’d walk from the airport at Kotzebue to the Maniilaq Health Center. Always an teenie weenie chance of Nanook being around. Maniilaq was an Eskimo mystic that predicted the coming of the white man and his canoe that sailed in the air.

fuzzy fur-balls of ferocity

Looks like Saturday is Alliteration Night.

But the BBC crew had to add that the population was elevated in the area because their forced together by melting ice

Not sure that’s true, but they will air that, got to
Keep The climate change BS rolling. Makes a lot of money

    alaskabob in reply to gonzotx. | March 23, 2019 at 10:47 pm

    BBC should realize that the bears still need to eat and a higher density of bears means less food for each… but all heathy. Climate Change is a belief system not settled science.

    DJ9 in reply to gonzotx. | March 23, 2019 at 11:58 pm

    That’s one of the reasons I can’t force myself to watch those otherwise fine shows; they can’t go more than 5-10 minutes without sniveling about Climate Change, no matter the base subject. Even if they were discussing butterfly bowel movements, they’d find a way to squeeze it in.

There are so many polar bears that the local intuit population want to be able to take polar bears that wonder into local settlements without it counting toward their annual allotted takings.

“A BBC crew was surprised to find themselves surrounded by a swarm of bears.”

I am saddened that the bears did not take the opportunity to feed on the BBC crew. But I supposed that even polar bears recognize bad meat when they see it.

“The men seemed shocked when one of the animals began sizing them up for a snack.”

The bears probably recognized poison…

With those increasing numbers Nancy Pelosi will want to make them eligible to vote.

In 1950, the polar bear population was about 5,200, with gaps in Russia and such. In 2010 the population was 25,800 thousand with gaps in Russia and such.
This entire matter was a fraud from start to finish. As soon as Scandinavia, Canada, Denmark and the USA outlawed hunting in the mid-1950s, the population rebounded to and beyond its historical levels.

    TX-rifraph in reply to puhiawa. | March 24, 2019 at 5:32 am

    “This entire matter was a fraud from start to finish.”

    I agree. This is why I disagree with applying the label “politicized science” as this implies that what leftists do is science used for politics. I think the left simply calls their dishonest politics “science” to shut down questions. True science invites questions. Leftist “science” never does.

    Richard Feynman — “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

Thank goodness they started drinking Coca Cola. Obviously this has saved their species.

On a serious note.. I was glad to see this.. I kinda believed the whole starving/disappearing polar bear thing.

I was annoyed by their statement suggesting that the arctic ice was continuing to disappear. Which is not true. In fact, the Danish Meteorological Institute has keep records of the daily mean temperature in the arctic area from the 89th northern parallel since 1958. You can easily find it online.

Now, the arctic ice only melts when the temperature goes above freezing. According to the climate warming alarmists the arctic ice is going to disappear. So I would simply ask these alarmists why, according to the Danish chart, the the temperatures during the arctic melting summer period have been lower in the past decade than the 1960’s. How can the arctic ice disappear in the summer if the temperature is lower now than in the past? Can it be that the alarmists are all full of crap?

It is the 80th northern parallel not the 89th.

I follow this blog to get the real deal.

https://polarbearscience.com/

I like bears. I have recipes for them.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | March 24, 2019 at 10:48 am

    I also like beers. I have recipes for them, too. Beers go with bears.

    I was hunting on Uganik island. It’s just off the coast of Kodiak. We were only hunting for Blacktail deer. But we weren’t the only ones hunting for Blacktail. There was a skinning shed near the forest service cabin we were staying in and in it the hunters had inscribed a list of the size of the bears they had killed. They were huge.

    There was also an outhouse. No door. I never visited that outhouse without my rifle. While I was squatting there I at least wanted to be on somewhat equal fighting terms with the king of that island.

    Traveling in Alaska is kind of a hoot. I departed from San Fransico and changed flithts in Seattle. You have to tell people at the desk per federal regulations that you are travelling with a firearm. What you don’t want to do is walk up to the check-in desk and say, “I have a gun.” That will get you cuffed and stuffed in a heartbeat. You have to work up to it. “In accordance with federal law I am informing you that blah, blah blah.” And in SF or Seattle they’ll still deal with you as if they are talking down a terrorist or hostage taker. But you get to Alaska and the only questions you get is, “Whatcha got?” And then you get opinions on thee adequacy of your rifle.

    Refreshing. Reminds me of Texas.

      alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | March 24, 2019 at 12:22 pm

      In the early “90’s I took some CME’s with a touring group of docs from the Lower 48. At a meet and greet in Fairbanks outside doc questions to local docs:

      1) Do you see many arrow and harpoon injuries? AH…no…but personally I did have a patient with history of harpoon injury from whaling.

      2) How about gunshot wounds? The local doc reminded them that in Alaska, the usual gun was a bear rifle… either dead or a clean miss… not much in between.

      Most Alaskans reading the article on the bears 1) size up the animal as a good trophy or not, 2) figure best placement for the shot and 3) which favorite caliber to use. 1 and 2 would be easy for all but 3… and opinions go all over the place… 300 mag, 338’s, 375’s or 416’s… recoil, bullet weight.. on and on.

      (You know you are a health care professional when you compliment a stranger on how good their veins look.)

        Arminius in reply to alaskabob. | March 24, 2019 at 3:36 pm

        Question: what do you do in Wyoming in the summer?

        Answer: If it falls on a Saturday you have BBQ.

        I recall coming across a rise near Cheyenne. The sign for the truck stop said “guns, gas, beer.”

        I am old fashioned californio. The kind you don’t need to fear, Texas and Colorado.

        I saw that sign and nearly weeping I stopped for the night. I was between duty stations and had only a limited amount of time. But these were my people.

          alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | March 24, 2019 at 4:57 pm

          Alaska has two seasons… winter and the 4th of July.

          Norwegian definition of summer… three months of poor skiing

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | March 24, 2019 at 11:10 am

    This is an allusion to the Cajuns. Sasquatch can’t exist because if it did, the Cajuns would have recipe for it.

    I like the Cajuns.

Is the BBC now the Baghdad Bob in the war on global warming?

“Happily, the men made it out safely and will not be part of the more frequent “bear attack” stories that are seen nowadays.”

Honestly, I was rooting for the bears to eat them.

It seems nobody in the media have heard about the polar bear haven of Churchill, Manitoba.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend