Dr. Susan Crockford
My Science Blog Posts Contributed to the Antarctic Treaty’s Failed Effort to Protect Emperor Penguins
There is actual evidence that two of my well-referenced blog posts led some Antarctic Treaty delegates to reject an offer to grant special protected status to royal penguins. sole. Activist heads have exploded.
In meeting afterward Antarctic Treaty held in Berlin last week – see yesterday’s post–It seems that the Chinese delegates have read my blog and not impressed to find that the predicted ‘march to extinction’ of Emperor penguins based on climate change/sea ice modeling uses a completely irrational and lossy ‘worst-case’ scenario prestige: I guess the penguin scientists didn’t make it clear that their “unadjusted scenario” in the artfully constructed infographic (below) is far from the reality that that can never happen (Burgess et al. 2021; Hausfather and Peters 2020; O’Neil et al. 2020; Spencer 2021).
Apparently, my exhaustive analysis of information caused the Chinese delegates to distrust the penguin scientists.
It seems the Chinese envoys have seen parallels between the penguin stories and claimed that polar bear populations are declining when there are actually more polar bears now compared to the 1960s. If you insist, polar bear experts will admit this to be true but explain it by saying that this is only due to a ‘recovery’ from over-hunting. level. Of course it is: protect populations from overhunting and their numbers increase (Crockford 2017, 2019).
However, this is not how polar bears (or Emperor penguins) are frequently depicted in the press and many scientific publications: it is explicitly stated or implied that overall numbers have decreased. due to loss of sea ice. And, not surprisingly, the same ‘worst-case’ models used to predict the upcoming ‘march to extinction’ of emperor penguins have also been used to predicting the extinction of polar bears.
Once you have opened your eyes to the fact that conservation experts may be presenting false or inadequate information to advance a particular agenda, they cannot be opened: you begin. Take a closer look at the much evidence presented to you and go look for what might be missing.
As far as I can tell, that’s what happened to the Chinese delegates in Berlin last week.
There is no indication that the envoys are simply taking my word for the polar bear and penguin situation and any reason to believe that they have checked all the references I provide as well. as evidence presented by penguin scientists before going public that they used my blog posts to inform their decision.
According to a reporter from a South African news outlet (June 7, 2022) who claimed to have “seen” the papers circulated at the closed Antarctic treaty meeting:
But the Chinese delegation said that the “conservation case of polar bears” was “informed by climate models and a similar case is possible for emperor penguins”.
“The truth is that the polar bear population is the highest in about 60 years to the present day,” their paper states. The paper further argues that emperor penguins have also increased in numbers, arguing that the international scientific community may have misled the public about the population trends of both species. …
Citing Crockford’s blog “Polar Bear Science,” the Chinese paper argues that this “can be used as a reference to facilitate the consideration of species issues.” specially protected in Antarctica and specifically designated emperor penguins”.
These papers are not, in fact, a secret that only she has access to: they are publicly available for download on the meeting website. here [search for ‘Submitted by’ China]. However, you won’t find a link to the meeting website in Ms. Walters’ article so you can see for yourself what they contain. For example, the ‘reference’ documents cited by the Chinese delegation in the document ATCM44_ip123_e.docx [‘The Case of Polar Bears Conservation informed by Climate Models and the Potential Similar Case of Emperor Penguins‘] are my two recent blog posts:
Emperor penguin numbers rise as biologists petition for IUCN Red List upgrade [6 August 2020]
How are polar bears performing 15 years after the IUCN declared them ‘vulnerable’? [10 May 2021]
Copies of those blog posts (and my ‘About Me’ page) have been profiled by the Chinese delegates, but you also won’t find links to any of them in article by Mrs. Walters. And since she couldn’t really refute the information in those blog posts, Miss Walters belittled my science degree, ignoring the important fact that I have a Ph. and a recently peer-reviewed scientific paper on polar bear sea ice ecology (Crockford 2022). Adjusted climate Again!
In the end, the Chinese delegation apparently examined all the information available to them and concluded quite logically:
In summary, emperor penguins are now listed as Near Endangered in the IUCN Red List, populations are increasing at a regional scale (Antarctica), emperor penguin populations in the extreme north on Stable, Known, and Growing Snow Hill Island Terrestrial and marine threats affecting emperor penguins are considered to be relatively small if not insignificant, and uncertain Significant uncertainty about the threat posed by climate change and sea ice reduction is not expected until after 2050. Considering these facts, it may not be appropriate to designate emperor penguins as ASPS [Antarctic Specially Protected Species] at this stage, consistent with Annex II to the Protocol and the Guidelines adopted in 2005.
ATCM44_wp035_e.docx ‘Proposed Development of a Targeted Research and Monitoring Plan for Emperor Penguins’
Since the Chinese delegation considered the proposal ‘inappropriate’, there was no consensus (as requested) and therefore, no special protected status for emperor penguins, which penguin scientists hope will clear the way for the birds upgrade to ‘Vulnerable’ status on the IUCN Red List (Trathan et al. 2020): I guess they’re worried that might not happen.
All because I provided the counter-arguments that penguin scientists rejected the Antarctic Treaty delegates.
In this case, it looks like I really get the credit. I’m not a fan of the Chinese government but see this as a victory for scientific transparency.
Presenter
Burgess, MG, Ritchie, J., Shapland, J. and Pielke Jr., R. 2021. The IPCC baseline scenarios have CO2 emissions and economic growth that exceed expectations. Environmental Research Letter 16:014016. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abcdd2
Crockford, SJ 2017. Test the hypothesis that regular sea ice cover of 3-5 mkm2 leads to a decline of more than 30% in polar bear population size (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprint January 19, 2017. Doi: 10.7287 / peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Crockford, SJ 2019. The polar bear disaster has never happened. Global Warming Policy Fund, London. Available in paperback and eBooks formats.
Crockford, SJ 2022. Polar bear fossils and archaeological records from the Pleistocene and Holocene relate to sea ice levels and open water polynyas. Open Quaternary 8 (7): 1-26. https://doi.org.10.5334/oq.107
Hausfather, Z. and Peters, GP 2020. Emissions – misleading ‘business as usual’ story [“Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy”]. Nature 577: 618-620. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
O’Neil, BC, Carter, TR, Ebi, K., et al. 2020. Achievements and needs for climate change scenario framework. Natural climate change 10:1074-1084. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00952-0
Spencer, RW in 2021. ‘Earth Day Reminder: ‘Global Warming’ is only ~50% of what the models predict. Dr. Roy Spencer Blog, April 22. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-p Predict/
Trathan, PN, and others, including Fretwell, PT 2020. Emperor Penguins – Vulnerable to expected rates of sea ice warming and loss. Biological conservation 241: 108216. [open access] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108216
Related
