Remember All Those Reports About Dying Polar Bears?

You know, the reports that have been such a fad of late.. The ones claiming all the Polar Bears where going to die because of “Global Warming.” Here’s one from our friends at the New York Times:

Warming Is Seen as Wiping Out Most Polar Bears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported on Friday.

The only problem is, nobody told the Polar Bears:

Study shows polar bear increase in Davis Strait

IQALUIT – Climate change is not hurting polar bear populations in the Davis Strait area of Nunavut, according to Dr. Mitch Taylor, manager of wildlife research and a polar bear biologist with the GN’s

In fact, polar bear populations along the Davis Strait are healthy and their numbers increasing, an ongoing study is indicating.

Reports in national and international press have projected that two-thirds of the world’s polar bear populations will be lost within 50 years due to the loss of sea ice.

Canada has two thirds of the world’s polar bears. Nunavut is home to 12 of Canada’s 13 polar bear populations, totalling an estimated 14,780.

This study does not cover the entire population, but this area does cover the bulk of the whole Polar Bear population.

Last year 841 polar bears were counted in the survey area and halfway through this year’s survey, approximately 600 have been counted. Taylor estimates that this year’s number could be as high as 1,000. …

When he started working for the Department of Environment 12 years ago, Sowdlooapik said that only one or two polar bears would wander through Pangnirtung in a year. Now, he receives almost daily reports of polar bears in popular camping sites, in outpost camps, and in the vicinity of the community.

“We could be looking at the possibility of increasing (hunting) quotas,” Taylor said. “We are seeing high densities of bears in great shape.”

Currently Kimmirut has a hunting quota of four, Iqaluit 23, and Pangnirtung 19, for a total of 46 in the Davis Strait. Taylor claims that the numbers of polar bears are high, as they always have been, due to sound management practices.

“There are maybe even too many bears now,” he said.

Asked what should be done if the American government bans sports hunters from bringing polar bear hides and heads into the country, he said, “We’d probably respond by increasing harvesting rates so polar bears don’t become over abundant and become a safety issue.”

Look for this to get about as much media coverage as the record ice cap in Antarctica is getting.

Outsourcing Picket Lines
This Week's Business News
  • Paul

    oh mantis???? you still with me?

  • mantis

    What’s a scientist?

    What’s a schill?

    What’s a zealot?

    Why bother betting? Just say what you want to say. I’m not much for games.

  • spurwing plover

    We should take all those eco-wackos out and strand them in the wilderness with the polar bears killer whales and man eating skuas

  • Arthur

    You missed a good quote from the original article.
    > Taylor and co-worker Dr. Lily Peacock have been working for the past three years on a polar bear inventory in the Davis Strait, the first in the area in 20 years. …

    Yeah. We’ve been told that the polar bear population is crashing. Here we see that in this area, at least, they haven’t even COUNTED the polar bears in 20 years!

    (not blaming Taylor and Peacock. Blaming those who pontificate on vanishing bears without checking the evidence)

  • cirby

    Here’s a little thing that’s started popping up in the AGW studies:

    Every time the pro-AGW scientists are publicly forced to make an adjustment to their data, it’s DOWNWARD.

    Every. Stinking. Time.

    If they were doing “real” science, some adjustments would be up, and some would be down. Even with some small bias, many would be down, but a good amount would be in the “up” direction.

    This is what happens when you design a model based mostly on positive feedback, and make a big effort to ignore all of the know NEGATIVE feedback sources in weather and climate.

    As of right now, the current long-term predictions are down by about half of their levels from twenty years back… and at the current rate, they’ll be back in “global cooling” mode by about 2020.

  • Paul

    > Taylor and co-worker Dr. Lily Peacock have been working for the past three years on a polar bear inventory in the Davis Strait, the first in the area in 20 years. …

    Yeah. We’ve been told that the polar bear population is crashing. Here we see that in this area, at least, they haven’t even COUNTED the polar bears in 20 years!

    Maybe you missed the fact that it is a running study and this is year 4.

    [If it was a single 4 year study, you’d not have said a word.]

    You might have also missed the guy has been working there for 12 years.

    But don’t let the facts get in your way. You’ve got a religion to tend to.

  • Paul

    That’s what I thought mantis… You crawfish because you know the truth….

    Pitiful mantis… The guy is a crock and everyone outside the religion knows it.

  • Paul

    Just have the balls to say you don’t want the bet cuz the guy is full of shit and at least I could respect you for that.

  • kim

    mantis, why do I have to keep explaining this? Global temperature is determined by clouds, which are determined by cosmic rays, determined by the earth’s magnetic field, determined by the sun’s magnetic field, determined by the distance of the sun from the center of gravity of the solar system. Sometime in the last decade we entered a cooling phase. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas with trace effect, largely as fertilizer. The IPCC concept of greenhouse warming is unphysical, violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as shown by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. Basically, the model expects a warmer upper stratosphere to heat the troposphere through an intervening cooler lower stratosphere. Ain’t gonna happen. You owe it to yourself to look at this skeptically and objectively, anew. I’ve promised Paul you are capable of thoroughgoing honesty.
    =============================

  • OLDPUPPYMAX

    One day the MSM will accidently report something that doesn’t fit the template. I wonder if CBS stocks smelling salts, just in case.

  • kim

    mantis reminds me of a friend I kept nagging about global warming last year, finally he told me I was just pulling his chain. I said yes, that was exactly right, trying to pull it just gently enough to get the light to go on with out pulling the whole fixture down.
    ===========================================

  • Look again — seems the Nunavut government has just changed their minds/story or learned to count. See “Nunavut slashes Western Hudson Bay polar bear hunt(Last Updated: Friday, September 21, 2007 | 9:56 AM CT CBC News) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/09/21/bear-quota.html

    “The Nunavut government has cut its polar bear hunt in western Hudson Bay by nearly one-third out of renewed concerns that the bear population in that area is in trouble.”

    “Environment Minister Patterk Netser said that the decision was based on both Inuit knowledge and western science.”

  • Paul

    >Look again — seems the Nunavut government has just changed their minds/story or learned to count.

    Nope… Reread it again Frankie… You’re talking about a different area. I covered that above.

    The area I’m talking about has (as per the story) the bulk of the polar bear population. The area you are talking about is a smaller area.

    They didn’t change their mind, different decisions about different areas…. see also the post I linked about shrinking ice in the ARCTIC region but record ice in the ANTARCTIC region.

    In your mind losing ice in the Arctic and losing bears in the Hudson Bay area is proof of global warming but record ice in Antarctica and a population explosion of bears in the Davis Straights does not disprove it.

    It’s east to find “proof” when that’s your thought process.

  • Paul

    oh good grief, you run a sight called polarbearnews and you claim you didn’t know the difference?

    Either you’re clueless or a liar. Either way the amount of respect given you is the same. Zero.

  • Paul

    Frankie.

    OK I realize we have very different backgrounds, you’re a California artists, whom, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to call liberal.

    I’m scientist, geek who ain’t.

    But let me ask you a serious question… If you love polar bears so much, shouldn’t you 1) be very interested in accurate information about them and 2) be delighted that you found good news?

    Nobody, “Learned to Count” the bears. It was a different area….

    Sound wildlife policy WILL NOT (never Frankie, never, never) WILL NOT be achieved without sound science. Period.

    Again, maybe it is a difference in our backgrounds, but if I was that worried about Polar Bears, I’d be very interested in the science.

  • kim

    The light won’t go on, Frankie, me boy, if you put your fingers in the socket.
    ======================

  • “Who will rid me of these troublesome bears?”

  • kim

    Put seal scent in the electric outlets.
    =============================

  • Hey Paul, when you’re right, you’re right. I did get the 2 areas confused. However, I got confused partly due to your post that mentioned, and I quote: “Climate change is not hurting polar bear populations in the Davis Strait area of NUNAVUT, according to Dr. Mitch Taylor, manager of wildlife research …”. Now that is the EXACT area that they now say polar bears are in trouble (not my words but the Naunavut Government’s). Sorry for the confusion.

    Back to the science. I am NOT a scientist and as it seems even they are in disagreement with each other over the findings, I think you and I can agree to disagree as well. I read absolutely everything I can find about the subject and like you I have to decide for myself which date/version/person to believe.

    What makes it even tougher is that the difference in the scientist’s opinion seems to be based on who they work for! Alaskan Government vs. environmental group, for example.

  • Also, Paul, I was also just excited that some bears were being saved from trophy hunters. IMHO, people who pay thousands of dollars to kill a polar bear (or other animal) just for bragging rights then decorates his/her home with the remains should find out how to use a camera instead.

    Also, believe me, no one who knows me would call me a liberal. They would call me an environmentalist and animal lover, but not a liberal. BTW, ALL Californians aren’t liberals. How do you think we got “The Terminator” as our Governor? LOL