Media Hypes Latest Polar Bear Death Scare
Google News and the establishment media are attempting to frighten people today with claims that polar bears may go extinct by 2100. The claims are absolute rubbish and fail the laugh test.
BBC, CBS, New Scientist, the New York Times, and Science Alert are among the many media outlets hyping the scare today.
The scare is based on a new Nature Climate Change paper titled, “Fasting season length sets temporal limits for global polar bear persistence.”
In the paper, the authors claim,
“Our model captures demographic trends observed during 1979–2016, showing that recruitment and survival impact thresholds may already have been exceeded in some subpopulations. … It also suggests that, with high greenhouse gas emissions, steeply declining reproduction and survival will jeopardize the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.”
BBC’s uncritical coverage of the report is typical of establishment media coverage.
In a story titled “Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100,” the authors write in the first two sentences of the story,
“Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change, a study predicts. Scientists say some populations have already reached their survival limits as the Arctic sea ice shrinks.”
However, as polar bear scientist Susan Crockford points out, the study’s claims are not based on data, but rather on projections based on extreme, unrealistic warming scenarios.
Also, the authors extrapolate population declines from small segments of the polar bear population across the entire polar bear range.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation recently published Crockford’s report, The State of the Polar Bear 2019.
Crockford, a zoologist specializing in polar bear research and population trends, provides comprehensive evidence and data showing polar bears are doing quite fine as temperatures continue their modest warming.
Indeed, polar bear populations have been rising for more than half a century, and are likely quadruple the number that existed in the 1950s.
As real-world evidence shows something unalarming – in this case, substantial growth in polar bear populations – climate alarmists go to their usual bag of tricks and conjure up dubious computer models, projections, and speculation to trick the general populace into believing global warming is causing a polar bear crisis.
Very dishonest, and very sad.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
Ah yes, the modern computer. The source of so much that is good and the source of as much disinformation as complicit programmers can create through the creation of code that will generate the desired information on demand. That has, you realize, nothing to do with truth, only with what is desired, which is often the opposite.
Reply
Matt
| #
Some research on arctic bears is quite polarizing.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If, hypothetically, there was no arctic ice the bears would soon learn to hunt in packs and feed on caribou and muskox and other land mammals including adaptive seals. To avoid overheating they would become strategic.
The bears are smarter than many scientist modelers.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Go to Follow MOSAiC Expedition you will find that polar bears are quite numerous on the Arctic Ocean floes far from any land. And from the beginning they have posted armed guards to protect the scientists and works on the ice floes (sheet).
Since I discovered this Expedition and its site, I have been advertising it but as yet I have seen no evidence that any other PSI readers has gone to it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
DUNCAN MACCRIMMON
| #
Hi Jerry,
I have visited MOSAIc every few days, you are so right it is fascinating ++++ including the flash back to a similar late 19th cent. (I think) expedition.
Yes, science in action and I would bet Susan Crockford would have volumes to say on this topic.
regards, djm
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry
Some information on polar bears from Wiki. See Jerry. You have taught me well. I am referencing the source.
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago.[22] Further, some clades of brown bear, as assessed by their mtDNA, were thought to be more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears,[24] meaning that the brown bear might not be considered a species under some species concepts, but paraphyletic.[25] The mtDNA of extinct Irish brown bears is particularly close to polar bears.[26] A comparison of the nuclear genome of polar bears with that of brown bears revealed a different pattern, the two forming genetically distinct clades that diverged approximately 603,000 years ago,[27] although the latest research is based on analysis of the complete genomes (rather than just the mitochondria or partial nuclear genomes) of polar and brown bears, and establishes the divergence of polar and brown bears at 400,000 years ago.[28]
However, the two species have mated intermittently for all that time, most likely coming into contact with each other during warming periods, when polar bears were driven onto land and brown bears migrated northward. Most brown bears have about 2 percent genetic material from polar bears, but one population, the ABC Islands bears, has between 5 percent and 10 percent polar bear genes, indicating more frequent and recent mating.[29] Polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids;[4][30] rather than indicating that they have only recently diverged, the new evidence suggests more frequent mating has continued over a longer period of time, and thus the two bears remain genetically similar.[29] However, because neither species can survive long in the other’s ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviours, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.[31]
Of possible interest to some readers is the above refers to polar bear and brown bear interbreeding most probably when Earth’s climate was warmer than it is currently.
One day Jerry, explain to lazy readers like myself what manifestations centrifugal force causes around the arctic periphery.
Be happy. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
You wrote: “The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years ago.[22]”
Is this an emprical fact because it is referenced? Who was around at this time to actually observe this transition?
I have to admit, relative to my teaching, I have failed. But I keep trying.
I just told my wife: “I do not know what the ultimate result of the MOSAiC Expedition will be, but I know the scientist involved are doing empirical science. Maybe for the first time in their lives. I believe that are using instruments to observe a natural system that has never been observed, as they are, before. I know they are observing molecules in the sea water which they believe (correctly I beli9eve) are oozing out of the earth at the bottom of the ocean. Hence, they are doing chemistry, maybe for the first time since their freshman introductory course.
I know some of these sceint6ists and workers have personally experienced the severe climate (a real climate and not a hypothetical one) of the Arctic Region for the first time in their lives. No, I do not know what the results of these grand scientific experiment will be. But as a claimed scientist, I know this was and is (still occurring) a GRAND SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi again Matt,
When I wrote the previous comment I had not read beyond your statement which I quoted. I now see that you concluded: “One day Jerry, explain to lazy readers like myself what manifestations centrifugal force causes around the arctic periphery.”
At Follow MOSAiC I see that the Polarstern and its ice follow has drifted 37km (basically directly away from the North Pole). during the past 24 hours. A few days earlier I predicted (to another educator involved in this project) that the Expedition would soon come to an end as the Polarstern and its floe reached the edge of the ‘ice sheet’ of which it had been a part.
The centrifugal effect and a wind blowing away from the North Pole are the principal causes of this most rapid drifter of the entire project. But if you look at a map of the polar region which has the North Pole at its center. You will see the lines of longitude separate significantly as the go away from the Pole. Hence, the ice floes of the ‘ice sheet’ have greater ‘room’ to expand as they drift away from the Pole. And this is probably to reason a ice flue which begins by drifting toward the North Pole will never reach the North Pole.
As I imagine this it gets a bit complicated because a fact is it seems ice floes do drift over the North Pole. However, from the beginning of the drift of the Polarstern and if its ice floe leads (cracks in the floe). were observed being ‘magically’ formed and some of the exposed liquid water of the ocean froze over. So as the ice floe drifted toward the Pole its ‘area’ was being increased and creating ice pressures which created pushed up and down ice ridges just the the drifting plates of the earth’s crust are understood to do.
Simple ideas can simply explain mysterious observations.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
Thank you for your description in reference to centrifugal force. II will study it some more later.
The reference from wikipedia of mitochondrial DNA diversion 150,000 years ago and whether it is observed fact is irrelevant to me. The big picture concept is what is relevant in this particular context.
The article is about polar bears being extinct by the end of this century and what I have referenced illustrates that polar bears and brown bears have common ancestors and still are biologically viable to breed together. Global warming and global cooling therefore is highly unlikely to lead to the extinction of the bears.
I did notice there are photographs on the internet of white grizzly bears. Observable fact. The grizzly bears traverse vast tracts of forest (range) rather than clinging to one tree and staring blindly at the detail of a small section of bark on that tree.
Teaching? Today’s parable could be on the log in our eye.
Be happy. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Have you read about albino animals?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry.
The difference between a run of the mill Polar Bear and an albino Polar Bear is difficult to ascertain as pink eyes are not always an albino trait.
The ratio of white Grizzly Bears with dominant Polar Bear coat color genes compared to albino Grizzly Bears is a little uncertain but when one considers albinos often have a short life expectancy in many animal species one could suspect some white Grizzly Bears are exhibiting Polar Bear ancestry.
Anyway, enough of this wild bear chase, speculative uncertainties, and point scoring.
Be Happy. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The polar bear is white because its fur is hollow. The skin underneath is black.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Herb.
Good info.. Natural selection would suggest that as the environment in which Polar Bears live is white would be a contributing factor to the bears being white.
The brown ones were too easily seen by the seals and starved to death.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Not to mention insulation and buoyancy for swimming.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
We (humans) all make mistakes I am not immune to this human problem; are you?
Galileo refused to accept the either the validity of Tycho Brahe’s naked-eye observations or Johannes Kepler’s mathematical analysis which ultimately led to the first three mathematical scientist laws which have not yet been refuted by any observation (measurement) made sense. The reason that Galileo claimed that the planetary orbits about the Sun were perfect circles was he believe that a circles was the perfect geometrical figure. But to my limited mathematical knowledge an ellipse is just as perfect theoretical mathematical figure as the circle or a square is.
I grew up in South Dakota which is south of North Dakota and these states were among the last to be settled because of their climates whose winters have some of the most extreme blizzards.
But western South Dakota and the surrounding region has prehistoric dinosaur bone laying exposed upon the Earth’s surface. Which physical evidence must be concluded to remain unchanged for how many years is anyone’s guess. Whereas the eastern Dakota have unquestionable evidence that a significant layer of rocks, gravel, and sand which cover the original bedrock of the Earth’s crust. And because the physical evidence of erratic boulders it must be accepted that glaciers once covered the eastern Dakota’s is an observed fact and not anyone’s scientific theory. What is a scientific theory is the cause of these glaciers.
I am not trying to score points but I certainly am trying to set the record straight as to what SCIENCE can and cannot do. Some observations can refute wrong scientific ideas but quantitative measurements, which can never be made with absolute accuracy, cannot prove any mathematical scientific idea to be absolutely certain.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Jerry and Herb.
We all make mistakes. Some of us because we are relatively honest and therefore trust when we should not trust. Other times we err because we believe that which is written. And then there is noble cause corruption and pure unadulterated corruption.
The following is an extract from Susan Crockford’s report. Again Dr. Crockford is attempting to instill accuracy into the public narrative.
“Claims of recent widespread hybridization of polar bears with grizzlies, known for years from the Central Canadian Arctic,259 were disproven in 2016 and 2017.260 No further hybrids have been reported since 2014. This should have put to rest the hybridization-caused-by-global-warming myths, but it has not. For example, the January 2018 issue of National Geographic and the 10 February 2018 issue of New Scientist both repeated claims about grizzly/polar bear hybrids that disregarded new evidence.261 At least one other article along similar lines followed later in the year but, fortunately, such claims all but disappeared in 2019.”
Hybridization is caused by opportunity. Ask any cheating spouse.
Cheers Matt
Reply