Two of the best papers that go directly to the heart of the issues on the polar bear listing as endangered by the US government are:
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears, by Dr Mitchell Taylor and Dr Martha Dowsley, March 2008,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/demographic_and_ecological_polar_bear_perspectives.html
Taylor and Dowsley are world class.
Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (Working Paper Version 75), by
J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, and Willie Soon, April 2008,
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/polarbear.html
Armstrong literally wrote the book on forecasting principles.
Robert Ferguson
President, Science and Public Policy Institute
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Nine comments. Deleted. Can we start again with more thoughtful responses.
10 comments deleted. Perhaps try reading at least one of the papers mentioned in the above post, before posting a thoughtful comment.
One of more worrying aspects is the allegation of data manipulation by government agencies, or, at best, technical incompetence.
Now the latter scenario isn’t that implausible as most government employees are there because they can’t find work in the private sector, or, if they could, are beyond the HR useability meter (ie old).
But if polar bear populations have been increasing, as documented, during the same period when atmosphere CO2 content is rising, then the basic premise, that AGW will make polar bears extinct, has been falsified.
This logic is acceptable if one observes the rules of the scientific method; it isn’t, apparently, when one doesn’t.
That is hypocrisy, isn’t it?
“Now the latter scenario isn’t that implausible as most government employees are there because they can’t find work in the private sector, or, if they could, are beyond the HR useability meter (ie old).”
Another insightful comment.
Dr Taylor clearly agrees that AGW affects the polar bear population, since it affects sea ice.
His only problem is the extent of change to sea ice, which he seems to think won’t be significant.
“Dr Taylor clearly agrees that AGW affects the polar bear population, since it affects sea ice.
His only problem is the extent of change to sea ice, which he seems to think won’t be significant.
Posted by: SJT at May 12, 2008 12:18 PM”
He did not write the phrase AGW in the paper.He writes this: “climate warming”
In the abstract he writes:
“Current and historical polar bear subpopulation performance demonstrates that viable polar bear subpopulations have persisted and generally increased throughout the current period of climate warming.”
Another quote in the abstract:
“Ecological perspectives that suggest the reductions to survival and recruitment rates for two populations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) have occurred because of a long-term decline in sea ice due to climate warming.”
Another quote from the abstract:
“Extrapolation of IPCC GCM sea ice predictions over a hundred year interval does not support the contention that polar bears are threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future.”
Did you even read the abstract?
Now from the Introduction section I quote:
“The concern that polar bears will decline if the climate continues to warm is valid. However, the assertion that polar bears will become extinct unless immediate measures are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions is irrational because it is inconsistent with the long-term persistence of polar bears through previous periods of warming and cooling; and because the IPCC climate model predictions 50 and 100 years into the future do not suggest a future with insufficient sea ice to support polar bears as a viable species. Currently, polar bears are abundant and in no danger of extinction thanks to coordinated research and management programs developed and implemented under the International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat (Brower et al. 2002; Fikkan et al. 1993, Prestrud and Stirling 1994). During the last 30 years, it is generally agreed that polar bear numbers have increased as a response to improved conservation measures (harvest controls). Climate warming has occurred continuously during that period and consequent reductions in sea ice have been to the detriment of polar bear populations in at least two areas (Regehr et al. 2006, 2007a,b). However, the assertion that polar bears as a species are in imminent danger of extinction or even threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future is both unproven and unlikely. We provide a current status assessment of polar bears from both a demographic and ecological perspective, and examine some of the popular and scientific arguments put forward in support of the notion that climate change threatens polar bears with extinction in the foreseeable future.”
Again and again the scientists presenting this report states that they do not see any danger to the survivability of the polar bears.
Try reading.