Never let a good talking point go to waste
Climate change: Polar bears could be lost by 2100
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.
The carnivores rely on the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean to hunt for seals.
As the ice breaks up, the animals are forced to roam for long distances or on to shore, where they struggle to find food and feed their cubs.
The bear has become the “poster child of climate change”, said Dr Peter Molnar of the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada.
“Predicts”. Using computer models, of course. Because the Cult of Climastrology always has to have some sort of scary prognostication that cannot be proven, and when the scaremongering doesn’t happen, they’ll say it was because of changes that were made or something. The first three stores on Google News for climate change over the last 24 hours were the same thing. And, see, the study is simply activist
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, said “aggressive†cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are now needed to save the animals, which rely on sea ice to reach their prey, from extinction.
Let’s start with putting a carbon tax on the activities of climate scientists. Bet they change their tune quickly.
New Polar Bear ‘Death’ Model Based On Junk Science And Climate Porn
….
This new model, published today as a pay-walled paper in Nature Climate Change, also did something I warned against in my last post: it uses polar bear data collected up to 2009 only from Western Hudson Bay – which is an outlier in many respects – to predict the response of bears worldwide.
The lead author, Peter Molnar, is a former student of vocal polar bear catastrophist Andrew Derocher – who himself learned his trade from the king of polar bear calamity forecasts, Ian Stirling.
Steven Amstrup, another co-author of this paper, provided the ‘expert opinion’ for the failed USGS polar bear extinction model featured in my book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.
Well, these authors and their supporters got the headlines they crave, including coverage by outlets like the BBC and New York Times (see below), but I have to say that the combination of using out-of-date Western Hudson Bay information on when polar bears come ashore in summer and leave for the ice in fall (only to 2009) to make vague projections (‘possible’, ‘likely’, ‘very likely’) about all other subpopulations in addition to depending on the most extreme and now discredited RCP8.5 climate scenario (Hausfather and Peters 2020) for this newest polar bear survival model is all that’s needed to dismiss it as exaggerated-fear-mongering-by-proxy.
In reality, polar bear populations are thriving.
Dr. Crockford misleads on several points:
The Nature article is not behind a paywall.
https://preview.tinyurl.com/y4v9oydu
The authors DID NOT only rely on pre-2009 data from Western Hudson Bay.
Then she proceeded to smear the authors rather than address the data.
Dr. Crockford has yet to publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper on polar bear biology, preferring the blog route. She’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change denying any significant role of CO2 in global warming, “current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources”.
Strange. All through the reporting summary where they explain their data sources they state that the ONLY data they used was from the 1989-1996 population assessment of the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation and during 1991-1997 & 2004-2009 for bear migration dates. ALL data they used was from pre 2009 studies conducted at Hudson Bay.
“Dr. Crawford has yet to publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper on polar bear biology….preferring the blog route..â€. I always love that line, because in reality anyone can review her work by reading her blog. In fact, more people will see it on a blog than in a paper. If something’s wrong with her data, go after her data. But J can’t, so instead tries the guilt by association route—“she’s a signatory of the Manhattan…..!â€. If she’s wrong, it wouldn’t matter if she’s a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration or a signatory of an IPCC report. Same if she’s right.
The Nature article is not behind a paywall.
Yes, it is. You went around the paywall.
Which I’ll bet you do a lot.
And it sounds like Dr Crockford is a real scientist, not a Lefty shill.
…exaggerated-fear-mongering-by-proxy.
BWAHA! Ain’t they all?
Lolgf