Fact Checkers Defending active scientists because they agree with them Not because they’re right – Do you agree?

By Polar Bear Science

Dr. Susan Crockford

The so-called fact checker are trying to claim that one side of the scientific argument is wrong and the other right because they happen to agree with one side. That is policy, not science.

Here are some facts (check the links provided for further reference):

1. Scientists in the arctic countries in the late 1960s worried about the survival of polar bears as numbers worldwide have declined due to over-hunting. They were so worried together The international treaty to protect them in 1973 (Crockford 2019).
2. In my book (Crockford 2019:101-106), I cited several polar bear experts who made estimates of polar bear populations during the 1960s, including: Harington ( 1965, Canada), Larsen (1972, Norway), Lentfer (1965, USA), Jonkel (1969, Canada), Brooks (1965, USA), Lønø (1970, Norway), Scott (1959, USA) ) and Uspenski (1961, Russia). I have stated in my professional opinion that a reasonable global population size in the 1960s was around 10,000 people (about 5,000-15,000), based on reports and articles written by these eight men. write about how they made decisions, which shows that they used the best information available at the time. Polar bear expert Markus Dyck, who died studying polar bears earlier this year, also used the 10,000 figure as a reasonable estimate for the 1960s.
3. In other words, This statement of fact checker is a lie:”the book defended Uspenski’s estimated 5,000, arguing that it was based on the best methods available at the time. ”
4. IUCN’s polar bear experts are the only group I know of that asserts no low standard population numbers against the legal protections for the species they protect: sea otter scientists do not do this, nor do humpback whale experts, although benchmarking estimates because of their species is unlikely to be more accurate than the species I recommend for polar bears (Crockford 2019). This gives polar bear experts a biased and unprofessional view.
5. After international protection measures began in 1973 (Russia was previously banned from hunting, in 1956), the IUCN listed polar bears as ‘vulnerable’. Overload has stopped working. By 1996, polar bears were listed as ‘least concern’ because number recovered. Global estimates were provided at the time – years before polar bear experts confirmed nobody Their estimate is correct – is 21,470-28,370 (Wiig et al. 1995). The change in population size from about 10,000 in the 1960s to about 25,000 in 1993 is consistent with the recovery of the species due to concentrated protection. Polar bears remained “of least concern” for 10 years, until 2006.
6. Since it was decided that polar bears should once again be rated ‘vulnerable’ in 2006 due to threats from climate change, IUCN’s polar bear expert has confirmed the estimates. Their global estimates are unreliable and low compared to all estimates for every subpopulation studied. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds: they are ready to use Estimated Kara Sea 2013 out of about 3,000 for the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment (Regher et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015) because IUCN rules state that they must have numbers for all subpopulations if they are to be counted. uses computer forecasting to predict future threats. However, none of the PBSG status reports even acknowledge that this Kara Sea estimate exists: they don’t provide a reason to refute it, they simply don’t cite it (eg: Durner et al. 2018).
7. Experts Steven Amstrup emphasized that “The most well-studied subpopulations show that as sea ice dwindles, polar bears’ body condition is reduced, recruitment (reproduction) is reduced, and population sizes are reduced.. “He didn’t say which population but I can tell you he was referring to West Hudson Bay and the southern Beaufort Sea. I disagree with his assessment of the data for those people but assume he is right. What he left behind was data from Svalbard area afterward Barents Sea and Chukchi Sea, is almost as well-studied and has lost more ice than two of Amstrup’s favorite areas. However, bears in both the Barents Sea and Chukchi . Sea subpopulations is thriving: stable or increasing numbers, bears in excellent physical condition and cubs viability good. The contradictions between these four regions regarding summer sea ice loss and health impacts for polar bears are scientifically significant. The fact that Amstrup and his colleagues chose to ignore it these contradictions is a big red flag in terms of their scientific objectivity.
8. Computer forecasts are not facts: call a computer model to predict future conditions a ‘research’ is clumsy. There are many possibilities that predictions for 2020 mentioned in ‘fact verification’ won’t be exactly what Amstrup led back in 2007 – Failed spectacularly.
9. For this statement: “No matter how many bears are out there, if there are too many ice-free days, the female bear will not have enough fat reserves to nourish her cubs, and the cubs will begin to die at a rapid rate,” Amstrup said. “Years of frequent frost days guarantee a decrease in population. ” See point 8 above regarding Barents and Chukchi sea bears, where numbers have not declined despite continued and extensive summer sea ice loss. Over the past few years (except last year), the ice cover for Amstrup’s beloved Hudson Bay West bears has more like the 1980s compared to the 2000s. However, the forecasting models that Amstrup and colleagues used to assess IUCN assumed a continued decline in every subpopulation, year after year ( Regehr et al 2016; Wiig et al 2015).
10. No other highly stunted species cannot continuously increase in population size when protection against over-hunting is in place: yes solid scientific basis because it is expected that the number of polar bears globally will increase, even if slowly, over time. It’s embarrassing to watch polar bear expert emphasize that There is no estimate of their global population is a valid quantity but confidently states that their predictions about the future are considered as truth is not available.

Presenter

Brooks, JW and Lentfer, JW 1965. Polar bears: a review of management and research practices in Alaska with recommendations for coordinated international studies. Unpublished report from Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau. Presented at the First International Meeting of Polar Bear Scientists, University of Alaska, September 6-11, 1965

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.

Durner, GM, Laidre, KL and York, GS (eds). 2018. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Expert Group, June 7-11, 2016, Anchorage, Alaska. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

Harington, CR 1965. The life and identity of the polar bear. Oryx 8: 169-176.

Jonkel, C. 1969. Research on polar bears in Canada. Notes on Canada’s Wildlife Services Progress 13.

Larsen, T. 1972. Hunting, managing and studying Norwegian polar bears. Bears: Their biology and management 2: 159-164.

The lessor, JW 1970. Research and conservation of polar bears in Alaska, 1968-1969. Tr. 43-66 (Appendix VI), in Anonymous (eds.) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 2nd Working Meeting of the Working Group of Polar Bear Experts, IUCN/SSC, 2-4 February 1970, Morges, Switzerland. IUCN Publications New Series, Supplementary Material No. 29. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN.

Lønø, O. 1970. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps) in the Svalbard area. Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter 149.

Regehr, EV, Laidre, KL, Akçakaya, HR, Amstrup, SC, Atwood, TC, Lunn, NJ, Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, GW, & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Polar bear conservation status (Ursus maritimus) related to the expected sea ice decline. Biology letter Date 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556 additional data here.

Scott, RF, Kenyon, KW, Buckley, JL and Olsen, ST, 1959. Status and management of polar bears and Pacific walruses. Trades of the 24th North American Wildlife Conference 24: 366–373.

Uspenski, SM, 1961. Estimates of animal populations in the Soviet Arctic, Priroda no. 8:33–41. (republished in 1962 as Polar record 71 (11): 195–196).

Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See supplement for population figures.

Wiig, Ø., Born, EW and Garner, GW (eds.) 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Expert Group, 25-27 January 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN.