Bear Scientists got it all wrong...Facts don't add up.

[Canuck E Stan]

Polar bear numbers up, but rescue continues

Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.

As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either.

"The drama is clear: This is truly the tip of an iceberg, the bears are desperately stranded as the water swells around them," according to a recent article in The Observer magazine carrying the photo.

Something's always bothered me about that photo, which has been vilified on the Internet as a fake.

Even if it's the real thing, the photographer was clearly standing on something solid not far from his forlorn looking subjects.

For a species that can swim dozens of kilometres to find a decent seal dinner, a few hundred metres to shore is a leisurely doggie paddle to safety. So much for the optic of a doomed global warming victim on ice.

Besides, polar bears do live on ice and satellite photos show the sea ice is down 7.7% in the last decade. So something is happening up there.

But while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has embraced the religion of climate change and vows to combat it with billions of new dollars, the bear facts suggest the challenge facing our great white symbol may be more about too many bears than too little ice.

Another scientific deception by the "experts" in their field.

They should have listened to the Inuit, it would have been cheaper.

But then someone else would have gotten the research grant.

Ah,Research at it's best.

[Remiel]

Yes, because 2100 is just an amazingly high number of animals... That's 900 fewer than the estimated number of giant pandas left, and no one is trying to argue that *they* aren't endangered...

[Wilber]

Yes, because 2100 is just an amazingly high number of animals... That's 900 fewer than the estimated number of giant pandas left, and no one is trying to argue that *they* aren't endangered...

Thats 2100 in just those three areas, not 2100 total world wide. The question is, if this is the global warning canary, why are the numbers going up? Maybe the increase is due to warming, in which case they got it backwards. Makes you wonder what else they might have backwards. Just another "irregularity" I guess.

[geoffrey]

Yes, because 2100 is just an amazingly high number of animals... That's 900 fewer than the estimated number of giant pandas left, and no one is trying to argue that *they* aren't endangered...

Giant panda's need to die off, they are the most evolutionarily failed animals ever. Even without humans, those things are just a terrible terrible creature. They definitely don't get the JD Power award for industry leading design.

Anyways, back to the Polar Bears. Such a high level predator in such a sparse environment would be expected to have very small numbers.

[Who's Doing What?]

The numbers increase wouldn't have anything to do with conservation efforts and hunting limitations would it?

What a rediculous topic.

[White Doors]

Yes, because 2100 is just an amazingly high number of animals... That's 900 fewer than the estimated number of giant pandas left, and no one is trying to argue that *they* aren't endangered...

You need to read the article again. There are 11 'populaitons' of polar bears. This is just one.

There are many thousands more.

Does that matter to you? Not sure.

[Wilber]

The numbers increase wouldn't have anything to do with conservation efforts and hunting limitations would it?

What a rediculous topic.

How is it a ridiculous topic? Sure conservation may have something to do with it but if the demise of the polar bear is really the 800 pound canary in the coal mine, the theory isn't quite working out. The numbers aren't backing that up so now they need another reason to explain why. Must be conservation. Another one of those inconsistencies. More of that undeniable science. It isn't what we expected and we can't explain it so it must be conservation. The fact that conservation wouldn't make much difference if the earths climate was determined to do the bears in is neither here not there. Maybe it is global warming but it is having the opposite effect of what they have been feeding us. Something to think about, no.

[stevoh]

As someone else pointed out, this is just one of the areas of polar bear populations. The Hudson's Bay area is another, and there the population has seen a 17% drop in the last 10 years.

If you read the national post, they will only point out the information that conflicts with current global warming science.

If you read the globe and mail, they will only point out the information that agrees with current global warming science.

The answer is usually somewhere in between.

[White Doors]

As someone else pointed out, this is just one of the areas of polar bear populations. The Hudson's Bay area is another, and there the population has seen a 17% drop in the last 10 years.

If you read the national post, they will only point out the information that conflicts with current global warming science.

If you read the globe and mail, they will only point out the information that agrees with current global warming science.

The answer is usually somewhere in between.

Yes but the fact is, 9 of the 11 populations of Polar Bears are incresing.

Ergo - panic of their demise is grossly exaggerated.

One would be remiss not to wonder of the motivations of those in the wrong on this subject.

[stevoh]

Yes but the fact is, 9 of the 11 populations of Polar Bears are incresing.

Ergo - panic of their demise is grossly exaggerated.

Those are the facts? Where are you getting this information? I have spent a while searching and this is the closest I could get to a comprehensive overall summary:

http://www.turismosustentavel.org.br/about...m?uNewsID=91602

Of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations, the current trends for the 11 populations not known to be severely reduced from historic levels are:

five populations declining,

five populations stable and

one population is data deficient.

In the next 10 years, five polar bear populations have an estimated high/very high risk of decline, six have a low/very low risk and there is currently no estimate for two populations.

back to you:

One would be remiss not to wonder of the motivations of those in the wrong on this subject.

Really? The motivations are pretty clear to me. First, they want to prevent further decline of polar bear populations. Second, they want to bring further awareness to the effects of global warming. That doesn't really take much wondering.

[White Doors]

Really? The motivations are pretty clear to me. First, they want to prevent further decline of polar bear populations. Second, they want to bring further awareness to the effects of global warming. That doesn't really take much wondering.

your premise is incorrect.

There is no decline to be worried about.

In 2002, the WWF published a huge report on polar bears and global warming, called "Polar Bears at Risk." The organization found 22,000 polar bears scattered in 20 somewhat distinct populations around the Arctic. According to the WWF, 46 percent of the populations were stable, 17 percent were in decline, 14 percent were increasing, and the status of 23 percent was unknown.

Red flags waving on bad math! Any number divided by 20 yields a multiple of 5 -- 5, 10, 15, etc... An accompanying map only showed 19 populations, but no whole number divided by 19 yields 46, 17, 14, or 23.

The WWF did not map out the regions where the polar bear populations were changing. They left that to enviro-curmudgeons like me. And what I found was this: Where the polar bear populations are in decline -- around Baffin Bay (the region between Canada and Greenland), temperatures are also going down, big time. And the area where temperatures are rising the most -- in the Pacific region bordering on Alaska and Siberia, polar bear populations are increasing.

That fact did not make it into the ACIA report, but the doomsday WWF claim did. Again, the simplest check of an hypothesis was not made.

How many stories are out there like this on global warming? Plenty. These two are just the most recent and two of the more egregious. Why does this happen? Washington has handed out nearly $20 billion in global warming research money in recent years. That is ample money to do good research. There is absolutely no incentive to tell the truth, if the truth will make one poor.

[stevoh]

your premise is incorrect.

There is no decline to be worried about.

Show me a link to factual scientific data showing growing polar bear populations and I will agree with you. Show me a quote from Patrick J. Michaels, a known "global warming sceptic" and we get no further. Micheals also happens to agree that global warming science is correct, just that the warming will be "on the low end of the IPCC range". Are you sure you want to quote someone who agrees with global warming science? And, on the subject of funding, it doesn't take much to find out where Micheals funding comes from.

Lets look at whats actually happening, not what various people not even involved in the research hypothesize.

A good report is here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1337/pdf/ofr20061337.pdf

This report covers the Beaufort sea, and is actual science. It shows that the population in the area is not currently declining, but a significant decrease in overall bear health and cub size would indicate that a decrease in population will occur soon.

Another interesting thing about the report is where the money is coming from to finance the research. The Us geological Survey provided the majority, but also BP and Exxon were helping fund the research effort.

This is real science, not proselytization. Focus here and find the facts, don't allow someone who's bias happens to match yours dictate your beliefs.

[White Doors]

You don't agree with the WWF's numbers?

[Wilber]

If you read the national post, they will only point out the information that conflicts with current global warming science.

If you read the globe and mail, they will only point out the information that agrees with current global warming science.

More than anything it points out that no one really knows the answer. Maybe warming has had different effect on bear population that wasn't predicted. Doesn't mean there isn't warming just that "the science" regarding its consequences is just an educated guess.

Really there are three different debates here. One is the effect of warming, the second is the degree to which humans are influencing it and the third is what and whether we can do enough to arrest it. Three different debates and quite probably no one size fits all answer.

Another take

[Who's Doing What?]

The numbers increase wouldn't have anything to do with conservation efforts and hunting limitations would it?

What a rediculous topic.

How is it a ridiculous topic? Sure conservation may have something to do with it but if the demise of the polar bear is really the 800 pound canary in the coal mine, the theory isn't quite working out. The numbers aren't backing that up so now they need another reason to explain why. Must be conservation. Another one of those inconsistencies. More of that undeniable science. It isn't what we expected and we can't explain it so it must be conservation. The fact that conservation wouldn't make much difference if the earths climate was determined to do the bears in is neither here not there. Maybe it is global warming but it is having the opposite effect of what they have been feeding us. Something to think about, no.

Keep grasping at staws. Maybe if you had some actual knowledge and had bothered to learn about the Polar bear and other creatures outside of these types of topics you would understand.

To try and use the increase in population of a species that has been consciously been helped by man for a few decades now, as an argument against climate change is laughable.

[Wilber]

To try and use the increase in population of a species that has been consciously been helped by man for a few decades now, as an argument against climate change is laughable.

I'm not using it as an argument against climate change, you are using it as an argument for climate change. I am just pointing out that it may not be affecting the bears the way some are saying. Maybe they are not the canary after all and will adapt. I don't know and don't think you do either. If mother nature was determined to bump off the bears, all the conservation in the world wouldn't save the wild population.

[jbg]

Yes, because 2100 is just an amazingly high number of animals... That's 900 fewer than the estimated number of giant pandas left, and no one is trying to argue that *they* aren't endangered...

One, it's one of many populations. Two, the giant pandas are concentrated in a small area where the habitat is under far more direct human pressure than it is in relatively uninhabited Nunavut.

[jdobbin]

One, it's one of many populations. Two, the giant pandas are concentrated in a small area where the habitat is under far more direct human pressure than it is in relatively uninhabited Nunavut.

Probably one of the reasons why the Liberals prior and now the Conservatives agreed to fund more research this year into the Arctic.

No one knows as much as they should on the habitat of the region.

Polar Bear habitat is one of the areas they will be looking at.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/02/...-Polar-Year.php

I sometimes think people are even against further research to find out what is actually happening. It is extremely puzzling.