Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up

polar_bear_clinging1From Daily Caller

This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.

Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”

Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large sub-populations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other sub-population estimates.

PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.

Read the rest at Daily Caller.

 

  • Hamin’ X

    And we are supposed to be surprised because…

  • I wonder what “public demand” they thought they were satisfying when they misrepresented their numbers. Was it the public demand for scientific rigidity, accuracy, integrity, and truth? Was it really “public demand” that they were attempting to satisfy? Or was it a case of fitting the numbers to the narrative of AGW?

    • Fietser

      I think you’re guessing here, if you catch my drift.

      • Am I? It’s not a guess that changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 levels. It is, in fact, a fact. Google it.

        • Fietser

          You’re drifting away from the topic like that polar bear in the picture.

        • Fiddius

          You’re right Neilio! Historically, changes in CO2 levels are preceded by a change in temperature. As the temperature of the planet goes up, CO2 is released through all kinds of interesting natural systems. And seeing as how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as more of it is released into the atmosphere, more warming occurs, which in turn releases more CO2 as well as other gases like methane, creating greater and greater warming effects. This is what you call a positive feedback loop.

          Now in our case today, we’ve given the CO2 the head start it needs to precede the increase in temperature. All you’re really pointing out is that in this instance, CO2 and warming aren’t following their natural pattern. So what’s the difference between our historical data and now? Us! Industry! Pollution! Good old civilization has jump started a positive feedback loop that is leading to climate destabilization. So let’s do something about it!

          • I don’t disagree with the notion that we are affecting the atmosphere. The question is to with what degree? I ask you to take into account a fact that is not discussed much, the mass of the atmosphere of good ol’ Maw Terra.
            It’s true that we are, perhaps unnaturally, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But, how much of the 400 ppm is contributed by Man? Is that even a quantified number? What percent of that 400 ppm is produced by Humans? I’m asking because I don’t think that that question has been answered yet. Until that contribution is quantified, and identified you can not answer the question of how much an effect it has on our climate. The amounts of mass of each of the gasses of the atmosphere, as a whole, have to be looked at too. What is causing a positive feedback? Where is the greatest warming? Can you answer those questions?
            Well, those types of questions have already been answered. Where are we seeing positive feedbacks? Where? Nowhere that’s where. Those questions are important to the substance of your position. Where is it “too warm” right now? The truth is some feedbacks are negative like clouds that reflect light and increase albedo, reflecting away radiation from the Sun.
            I mean, seriously, Where is the warming? The question of the pause has not been answered yet. There are theories, but they are all pretty lacking of any real evidence.
            And I have a question to anyone who buys the “deep ocean” heat theory. The question is simple, but it might take some fortitude to answer. If CO2 is what caused the heat, that is supposedly sequestered in the Briny Deep, why isn’t CO2 continuing to warm the atmosphere? It’s still there. It can’t be trapping heat in the Briny Deep. It has to trap heat in the atmosphere. Why isn’t it doing it? Why haven’t we roasted, and popped like a pop-tart? The truth is that CO2 plays a role, but it is just one part of a chaotic system. The input of humans to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is actually pretty small, compared to the whole carbon cycle. If we are adjusting the CO2 levels, the adjustment is not at a level that the atmosphere has not had to deal with before, so we know that the atmosphere can deal with the increase, and not go crazy and set up some kind of increased positive feedback loop to destroy itself.

          • “As the temperature of the planet goes up, CO2 is released through all kinds of interesting natural systems. And seeing as how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as more of it is released into the atmosphere, more warming occurs, which in turn releases more CO2 as well as other gases like methane, creating greater and greater warming effects. This is what you call a positive feedback loop.” -Fiddius.

            Ok, if that is true, can you point to where that is happening now? Can you point to any time in history where that has happened? It seems to me that if you are going to claim something is going on, or is going to occur, you should really have some facts to support the claim. You should really at least have an example of the runaway feedback loop where it occurred in history. And if we are currently in one of these feedback loops, can you name one thing that gives any evidence, at all, of that being a fact? I don’t think you can, because there is no evidence, other than in GCM’s. And that is not evidence at all. A GCM is speculation. There are no real facts that come out of GCM’s.
            If we are going to speculate, I can too. I speculate that positive, or negative for that matter, feedback loops have never occurred in our atmosphere, and if they had they didn’t last long because our atmosphere is actually pretty complex and has mechanisms to deal with such tings. It is wildly arrogant to think that by adding a small (relative to the mass of the atmosphere) amount of CO2 that we humans are ruining the climate. It is absurd. We couldn’t do it if we were trying to do it.
            CO2 is such a small amount of the atmosphere, and it is a natural part. To think that we can steer the planet to disaster by adding a few parts per million of a substance that has already been a part of it from the beginning of the atmosphere, and it’s just going to throw it all out of whack? I think that is just not happening anywhere that is looked. And people have been looking for the signs. You know, the signs that were sure to happen, because Al Gore said they would in his movie. Rising sea water? Isn’t rising, or the expected rate of increase has not been reached. Sea level rise is a great example of how illogical people can be sometimes. The sea level has been rising for a long time. Long before the industrial era, and at about a constant rate, more or less on a century time scale. So, we have added a few parts per million of a natural compound to the over all mass of the total of CO2 on Maw Terra, and now the Arctic is going to melt, rapidly, and raise the ocean levels? Can you show where there is accelerated increase in water levels? The real trouble with using ocean level is you have to also account for the land level because land moves too. Albeit a lot slower than water does. We are all, you, me and the sea floating on a mantle of molten rock after all.
            And we are going to throw the whole climate system into chaos. By adding a few parts per million of a substance that has already been a part of the atmosphere, from the beginning of the atmosphere, in varying amounts.
            I don’t buy it. Sorry.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Damn those resilient Polar Bears! Stupid nature! Dumb scientific estimates based on something called “math”! Science, bah, what a joke!

    • You know psychological terms. Which one fits your comment? Can you say minimizing?

    • This would not be a big deal if the globalwarmingclimatechangedisruption advocates had not used the polar bear as a poster child for globalwarmingclimatechangedisruption. Us globalwarmingclimatechangedisruption heretics have been pummeled about the head and shoulders with the “disappearing” polar bears for years. And what have us globalwarmingclimatechangedisruption heretics been saying about the polar bears for years? We’ve been saying that the population is growing, not declining! So dismiss and minimize all you want, we have been right all along. And not just about the poor cute and cuddly polar bears, (who would rip you apart and eat your entrails if you got too close to one BTW, just sayin’) we have been right about the consensus, about computer models, about the Sun driving the climate, practically everything! It’s funny that you’re all for the math and science if it proves your beliefs, but when it’s counter to what you believe it’s “Science, bah, what a joke!” Time to dismiss, minimize, and redirect.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Can you say sarcasm?

  • Can y’all say, “decorum?”

  • Fietser

    Guys, just for the sake of being positive once in a while. Has anybody here got an idea on how to improve such guesses? I’m mean, it’s very cheap to stand on the shoreline and to say someone has got it wrong without saying your self how to improve it.

  • Rob N. Hood

    According to these guys there’s nothing to improve. See no evil- get it? They just shake their heads in disbelief that you can be so gullible and simple-minded. “Weather has always changed” etc. etc. They do not want mankind, especially us precious Americans, to take responsibility for anything negative, especially if there’s any chance in a million that their taxes might be increased by even a few cents, or a couple of bucks. And God help you if you try and even hint at getting the wealthy to start actually paying their fair share so these numbskulls don’t have to worry about their own pathetic bottom lines- oh then you’re in a world of hurt. The wealthy are god-like and endangered (ironically enough, since they don’t give a rat’s a** about endangered flora and fauna. The irony abounds. No shortage of that.

    • Fietser

      Not sure what the mix of GOP vs TP is here. But more and more Republicans are prepared to do something about global warming. It’s not too late to change your minds as climate denial is looking sillier by the day.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

      • You know what looks silly? You! That Pelosi/Gingrich farce was from 2008. That’s like 6 years ago! And it caused Newt huge problems for him when he ran for President. In 2010 he said this;

        “I don’t think we’re faced with a crisis of global warming. I think in fact that the scientific data is still very unclear.”

        So I don’t know what you are talking about, and I don’t think you do either.
        Oh, and you said more and more Republicans, so which others were you talking about?

    • I will address this by simply reiterating my question from a previous post;

      What would the climate be doing differently right now if Man was not here?

      You answer that question, and I’ll gladly talk about ways to improve things. I’ll put a CO2 sequestration bag over my head to catch my exhalations if you can answer that question. I’ll break in to coal fired power plants and extinguish the boilers, if you can answer that question.
      If you can’t answer that question with any certainty, then you can’t say with any certainty what we are doing to the climate. You, RNH, love to talk about logic and reason. Is that not a logical, reasonable point?

  • Danny

    Neilio,
    Y
    Your question, what would the climate be doing differently right now if Man was not here, is a bit humorous. If man wasn’t here then you wouldn’t know what the climate was doing. I don’t understand your logic. It seems that no one can answer that question. That being the case you can stop talking about ways to improve things.

    • Oh, yes, humorous. Is that it? Humorous? In what way? Along the lines of if a tree falls in the woods, kind of thing? Well look Danny, here’s the thing, we’ve been told over, and over what we are doing to the planet, and the environment, and to the climate. Causing droughts, hurricanes, floods and snowstorms, tornadoes, etc., etc., ad nausium for 20, 30 years now, longer than that even, so it should be an easy thing for those in the know to answer that question. If we know how we are changing the climate then we should know what it should be doing now without our influence. If we can’t answer that question then we can’t say with any certainty that we have had any effect at all on the climate and the people who keep telling us how we’re affecting the climate need to shut up. That is the logic. Get it? Got it? Good.

    • Let me put it another way. Do you believe we, humans, have an effect on the climate? If so can you quantify that effect? If you can quantify that effect then you should be able to describe how the climate would be without that effect. It should be a no brainer answer. But you said yourself that no one can answer that question. And I contend that the question can’t be answered because we don’t have any idea if we are causing an effect.

  • The Prime Minister of Australia – Tony Abbott – is about to tell Obama how our previous prime Minister Julia Gillard tried to wreck our economy with a carbon tax. Anyone who argued with the “facts” was abused as a denier! Even though the facts were debate able.!What transpired was a farce. The Western world should not enter this plot by “Hussein” to wreck Western economies. We are trying to fix the debt and farce this caused. Enter Hillary Clinton. Now trying to portray our previous PM as some victim of anti female bias. She was a bi%ch, a Harl*t and a user who would screw facts figures or peoples husbands to her own ends. There are more men, used victims in her wake, than oppression of her. Get real America – You are being conned! Why would a President embark on weakening America?

    • A bit of a harsh rant there Peter. I’m not quite sure where you’re going with it as it seems to be a bit rambling there too. You basically lost me at the plot by “Hussein”. Maybe that’s an Aussie term? Anyway I don’t get it, Hussein is dead.
      Then you say Mrs. Clinton is trying to portray Gillard as a victim of anti female bias. And then you proceed to use terms that imply that you might have an anti female bias! Forgive me for being a little confused.Then you talk to America as if we are all walking in lock-step. There were many of us that did not vote for Obama, including me and we know why Obama wants to weaken America. In his ideology America is too powerful and needs to be taken down several notches to be fair to the rest of the world. We’re not all idiots here.

  • Nate

    @Neilio, I agree with your viewpoint on this topic. I think it should be noted to all concerned; that “clement change” is seen by many as a Trojan Horse to establishing a world governmental system. In the past those who raised issues about world government were not taken seriously, but with the advent of the world-wide-web, and free flow of information, people are starting to see the light. The global warming scam is just another tool in the the bag of the international elite used to unite countries under a common threat. That’s why the leadership of most countries are in lock step with this, as well as other ideas handed down by the United Nations. The name of the game is: STRIPPING EVERY COUNTRY OF ANY LAST BIT OF SOVEREIGNTY THEY HAVE!!! What better way to control all, then to have the narrative that you must listen to us or the planet will die!!!! Give me a break. You can throw any kind of science you want to me, but we all know that the grant money flows to the ones who are playing the game!!

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
    –David Rockefeller

  • gordy1960

    is every nation setting daily high record temps for that day? how about 1 record high temp for every third day on average? i like starting simple and easy. and i am asking as i have not taken the time to research it… common sense tells me record highs should be getting broken on a regular basis if i am to believe in man made global warming.. if that is happening. then i can move on to tougher data. if not, its a ridiculous theory. in other words, show something real, not future models, conjecture, and al (we should all be dead by now) gore.

  • Dr.pete

    Environmental scientist here. I love it when I read about people who have obviously never done any research on this subject, act as if they are somehow experts. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you unequivocally: Manmade global warming is very real. Water levels are rising. Ice is melting. Stop being willfully ignorant and get informed.

    • Are you sure you didn’t mean to say environmentalist scientist? What would you consider as research on this subject? I ask because I have done many, many hours of research on this subject, looking things up on the internet, reading many papers and news stories, and verifying facts. And I have never said I am an expert on anything other than HVAC, which is my occupation. The conclusion of my research is that we have been lied to consistently by people like you.
      So is Dr. Chris de Freitas not? Dr. Madhav Khandekar, or Dr. Tim Patterson? (All three are members of the scientific advisory board at Friends of Science.) What about Dr. John Christy? Or, Dr. Roy Spencer? How about Professor Nils-Axel Mörner?
      Are none of those scientists worth their salt? Are you readily able to contradict their findings?
      I am not an expert but the people I listed above are. And they say things that are counter to what you say. So I will ask you this: Are you relying on scientific evidence, or are you relying on your emotional reaction to the theory of climate change? I think you are lying and are misrepresenting who you are because no environmental scientist worth his salt would even consider posting here.

      • “no environmental scientist worth his salt would even consider posting here.”

        Hey! I take exception to that.

        I think it would be great to have some people working in the field to engage in the debate here. The environmentalist “scientists” would have a tough time of it, I suppose. The real hard scientists could be a help in the conversation.

  • jj

    The fact that Polar bears currently exist at all speaks volumes when you realise they have weathered far warmer periods in the past such as the Roman warm period etc.
    I remember being told by alarmists 25 yrs ago that I’d be sorry in 20 yrs time when there were no Polar bears left due to global warming-since then all estimates have their numbers increasing dramatically-of course now it’s because hunting has been regulated and that’s why global warming hasn’t killed them off….apparently?

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.