Guess the number of bears in the freezer

About a year ago I had to endure a fairly unpleasant interview on the subject of polar bears with the BBC's Shelagh Fogerty (transcript here, my contemporaneous post here). Ms Fogerty was fine, but I was constantly interrupted by Greenpeace bigwig John Sauven who objected to my pointing out that estimates of polar bear numbers were in essence hypotheses, being based on computer simulations. This position was flatly denied by Sauven, who accused me of being a flat-earther for my temerity in doubting what he was telling me.

I was therefore amused when a reader pointed me to a recent post by Susan Crockford which reveals that I was being far too polite in dignifying estimates of polar bear numbers as "hypotheses". She has learned that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has been playing a game of "guess the number of bears in the freezer". According to the a forthcoming statement from the group:

It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.

The prize in this particular game appears to have been handed out not for the most accurate guess but for the smallest one.

Comments

[Windy]

#IPCC models fail to account for the curvature of the planet. Literally flat-earthers.

[ssat]

A possible solution for the paws - they were hiding in the ocean?

I'll get me coat:(

[clipe]

14. Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions.

For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is an illusion.

In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation.1

The U. S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys.”2

According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for which some kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009), one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘data deficient’. . . . That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.3“

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/31/in-house-testimony-botkin-dismantles-the-ipcc-2014-report/

[TinyCO2]

I'm running out of things to say about stuff like this because it's not even a surprise any more.

[hunter]

Once again, the skeptics were right and the AGW promoters were fibbing.

[Cheshirered]

Ms Fogerty is very good at her job and funny, but she's a paid-up believer too. Her bias comes across all-too clearly on anything global warming or Labour related. Part of the BBC gig I guess.

Mark it up as another win for sceptics, though, Bish'.

[Curious George]

John Sauven was right - the numbers were not based on computer simulations. Bish, you are an eternal optimist.

[Don B]

Isn't it amazing how those who consider themselves morally superior believe it is OK to lie.

Of course, he might have just been ignorant.

[Don B]

In another Susan Crockford post, she reported a two-for-one: Activists not reporting data which would undermine their polar bear story, and Mann using inappropriate data so he could claim James Hansen's 1988 temperature prediction was correct.

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/03/06/stirling-and-derochers-sea-ice-trick-omitting-facts-to-make-polar-bears-appear-endangered/

[ATheoK]

One wonders just what these honest scientists actually did while they were out counting bears?

One could also suspect that travel expenses versus justifications should be looked into by some Inspector Generals. Malfeasance in their bear counts might be the least of their funny science.

[Political Junkie]

We can safely assume that John Sauven has the cojones to make an appearance here to apologize. Right?

[Brute]

The actual scientists are being thrown under the bus, again and again and again, by these people. Consequently, they are gradually revolting.

[Streetcred]

Comment should be sought from Coca Cola ... remember the white Coke cans for the polar bears campaign on behalf of Greenpus?

[hunter]

Brute,
Regarding this revolt by the good scientists you are detecting. Does detection of it require a sensor that can resolve down to the micrometer or the nanometer scale?

[Ecclesiastical Uncle]

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

The IUCN website says the Union is funded by governments. Ms Crockford;s post is contrary to many of these governments' policy, which is that the globe is warming and polar bear numbers are falling as a result.

The absence of any official rebuttal is a telling reminder that governments are largely incapable of running anything (pXss-Xps in breweries?, education, the NHS, the armed forces etc) let alone their own wrong-headed campaign designed to bind us all in shackles of obligation to the political classes, and shows absence of proper control of public funds in a way that more immediately threatens public well-being by allowing tax funded expenditures to be miss-spent.

Or maybe that a policy U-turn looms.

We'll see.

[SandyS]

Windy
Good one, I'll use that if I may.

[jamspid]

Another scare story to go with this one more usual Met Office Global Warming Bullsh#t

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10868510/Flash-flooding-to-become-norm-in-southern-England-says-Met-Office.html

Yeah yeah yawn.Shouldn't build on floodplains.Guess why, because when it rains they flood hence the name.They,re called Flood Plains not Climate Change Plains .

Nigel if you ever do become prime minister after pulling us out the EU and stopping all the immigrants go and privatize the Met Office.

[Eugene WR Gallun]

KING CHARLIE

Rue Britannia! Here comes your king!
The leaden will replace the gold
He's something of a feckless thing
And something of a nasty scold

The scepter of too great a weight
His head to small to fit the crown
And swaddled in the robes of state!
The monarchy is sizing down

Eugene WR Gallun

Alright, not on topic but i wrote it and wanted to share
with those who will someday be this man's subjects.

[CharmingQuark]

What do you expect from the Green Mafia - if you do not get your way use strong arm tactics.

The problem for them is that no catastrophe means no grants/donations so no billion dollar Green Environmentalist industry. You would be taking their 4-wheeled drives and flights (to save the planet) away from them. No more champagne parties with celebrities! How would these lovely people survive!

[Martin A]

The basic method of climate science...

Make it up as you go along.

[Tuppence]

As it happens, there is a talk on polar bears by Dr Susan Crockford next Wenesday in London, hosted by GWPF.

Not too detailed. Just the bear necessities.

I too will get me coat.

[Brute]

@hunter

Just look at the evolution of IPCC reports. Are they more or less hysterical?

[Drapetomania]

Computer generated "global warming" kills computer generated polar bears...how fitting..not even the usual trolls are bothering on this one :)

[Roy]

It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.

Who are the members of the "public" making these demands? Most of us want animals of all kinds to be preserved, with the possible exception of mosquitoes (although I'm sure that ecologists could point to some useful functions performed by them) but I doubt if that is what the authors had in mind. I am sure that by "public demand" they meant demand from Greens.

If it is safe for the estimators to ignore many polar bears it is certainly safe for them to ignore the sort of people who might vote for UKIP.

[DaveS]

Greenpeace lost all credibility a long time ago, so no surprises here.

[splitpin]

Roy -

I think if I could push the 'extinction' button, venomous snakes (10k+ deaths per year), ticks, and various other parasites would cop it.

[Anthony]

Well, to all you naysayers, flat-earthers and deniers I have just run my updated computer model and there is now just one Polar Bear left.

ONE !!!!!!1!!1!

I now need a grant to set up a social media campaign to have you all jailed for crimes against bears.

#givememoney

[hunter]

Brute,
You make a good point. Some of the scientists are backing down. But not nearly loudly or plainly enough, at least yet. By the way, i was not commenting on against your point, but rather against the lack of clear and strong movement by the scientists.
The non-scientist climate obsessed simply ignore those pesky science parts. This is something fanatics and extremsits are really good at. Look at Mr. Obama. Today he is fulfilling his promise to wage energy war on Americans by using faulty, disproven science given to him by a thoroughly disreputable science adviser. He has no interest in the state of the science in his policy. He is interested in posing as a world savior. Moderation is not a position that fits well into a self-declared saviors repetoire.He dismisses skeptics with cheap idiocratic insults.

[Don Keiller]

Standard Green tactics. Lie, lie and lie again – with a generous helping of insults thrown in.

Andrew- are you going to ask the BBC for an apology/correction/update?

[EternalOptimist]

I dont know what you lot are so happy about

Mr cute Harp Seal

[Ian W]

The point of this admission is in the last few lines. They do not want a trend line built using their extremely low guesses as a baseline. They suspect that some real measurements will be made that could be considerably larger than their guesses. Therefore a trend would dhow a burgeoning populaton of polar bears and that would ruin their 'continuing threat of extinction' meme.