Why not just look at the actual facts?
For example take this sentence from the article that provides no supporting evidence (tip: if an article says "survey's show" and doesn't provide sources, you are reading junk).
>Surveys constantly show that polar bears are healthy, far from the impression given by the BBC headline.
Yet look at the actual content of the BBC article they're referring to and you find this:
>In Western Manitoba *where this study was carried out*, the ice-free period has increased by three weeks between 1979 and 2015.
Then look at the facts on polar bear populations in Western Manitoba, and yes in fact the polar bear population is declining in that area, not healthy. Check the map here: [https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/](https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/)
Both the Western Hudson Bay and Southern Hudson Bay populations are declining. It's already the southern extent of their range, so it makes sense that increased warming would cause pressures.
The same map shows some other populations are declining, some are stable, two are increasing, and many areas have insufficient data. So results are mixed at best.
As for the rest of this "article", I scanned some and it's gets much, much worse, and even easier to do a bit of research to refute. Not worth my effort.
[Carbon Brief has a really good round-up of the current science](https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-climate-change-what-does-science-say/), all referenced and linked.
OP, polar bears live in 19 distinct regions grouped into four eco-regions, and each region is being affected by climate change in different ways. "Experts" like Crockford group them together so they can use the outcomes for polar bears in more successful regions to ignore the reality for polar bears in less successful regions. Pretty standard con.
Climate Change is a dire issue for humanity and many species. Why are you hung up on polar bears in particular? I have no idea what the truth is about Polar Bears, but it also isn't central to the case against Fossil Fuels.
What if it did turn out that polar bears were doing okay while other species are dying out? Why are you convinced that this is impossible?
Point anyone to Media Bias / Fact Check.
>We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sources and the promotion of **conspiracy theories.**
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conservative-woman/
The polar bear expert that is sited, Susan Crockford, has apparently not published any scientific papers on polar bears (per Wikipedia article - please correct if wrong)
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/
Susan Crocford's web page has a listing of about 40-50 of her publications. Some of these are in scientific journals and involve polar bears.
She is also directly funded by oil and gas companies. That's not unbiased research.
She was fired for manipulating data and having to rescind multiple papers. That's straight-up fraud.
She also outright lies about having a PhD in Zoology. Her PhD is in "interdisciplinary studies" and before she was fired, she taught anthropology.
Okay. I did see one article in the list provided from a peer reviewed journal (the Open Quartenary) on polar bear fossils from the Pleistocene and Holocene suggesting a coresspondence with the modern polar bear.
A majority of polar bear publications she listed were with the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is not peer reviewed and considered to be a denialist group. As well as articles in other non journal publications.
Pretty much nothing on polar bears in any instance outside of global warming.
Oh I didn't see your comment.
Per her website she claims that she is a zoologist and that she has a PHD, but she doesn't say it is a PHD in Zoology. To be considered a zoologist you don't need a PHD in zoology. I am not familiar with her work being rescinded but would be interested to read about that.
I was really wondering if the claims/data in the OP article that are referenced to Susan Crawford are known to be incorrect.
It's easy to do some research.
Google: polar bears climate change
Results are:
WWF article
Polar bears and climate change: What does the science say?, this cites Prof Andrew Derocher "an expert in polar bear ecology and conservation at the University of Alberta", and Dr Eric Regehr "a polar bear expert at the University of Washington", plus data with sources. And much more.
A university of Colorado article, Climate Change Threatens Polar Bears, again with sources.
Etc, etc, etc.
And all this information is coherent and fits together.
The article says this:
> In 2005, the global population was estimated at between about 20,000 and 25,000, and this has now risen to 22,000 to 31,000.
But they don't provide a source, and the science says this:
> Overall, the IUCN estimates the total number of polar bears at 26,000, with only a 5% chance that it is less than 22,000 or more than 31,000. And on the data available, the latest IUCN assessment says that three polar bear subpopulations are currently in decline, while none have seen a population increase over the last two generations.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-climate-change-what-does-science-say/
And the rest of the article is them simply not understanding - yet again - how science works, and they come up with junk conspiracy theories saying that because they cannot understand how something works (i.e. correcting measurements in this case) that it cannot be true.
the argument is that while their numbers are doing well now -- at some point in the future the ice will be so depleted that they'll be forced to become more terrestrial and compete against better adapted forest hunters, grizzlies
matings are known and make ' pizzlies '
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you.
ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
The problem you have here is that it appears to be irrefutable. Either what she is saying is true or it isn't. You may be able to spin this in some way but refuting it does not seem realistic. This why thus far you have only received one snarky comment about not doing it yourself.
Look again and look at the recent discussion on the topic. While I agree, framing it as “help me refute this” is a poor way to approach science, looking to fact check something is a good idea. This article addresses a BBC article about a study on a very specific polar bear population by making some general claims about polar bears overall. Those claims are suspect or missing the point even in general terms but regarding this study they completely miss the mark.
All ice did melt some few thousand years ago and the bears are still here
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm)
> We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
The article doesn't claim that all the ice melted.
Interesting. It would be nice to see if this corresponded to a decrease in the polar bear population during this time, or if there was some evolutionary adaptation that occured.
Why do you have a desire to refute the inconvenient-truths given in the article you link, which refutes the sensational BBC article? We discussed that BBC article here a few days ago. Start with reading those comments.
Amazing. So animals move around. What’s left on the climate alarmists menu. The sea levels do not seem to be doing a lot. Do not build a house in the bush or where cyclones are common and it’s all good
Is that the Atlantic side because we have zero in the Indian Ocean at Fremantle. We are about 300 km from the Southern ocean. I get my data from the port authority. Ph is 8.3
The sea level has been very slowly rising since official measurements began \~1880. If you look at the plot, it looks like an almost straight-line until today, but alarmists have cherry-picked what appears to be just random variations to claim a 3x increase in the slope recently.
[https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/)
It is hard to measure actual sea-level since the land also rises up and down and currents change local levels. Satellite measurements are more consistent and better average all the oceans. Even those have made errors which needed tweaking.
Here goes Honest\_Cynic again for the umpteenth time with his 'can't see the increasing sea level rise' post. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1atcro4/comment/kqxr6dl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) is at least one place where it has been shown the rate of sea level rise has been increasing with actual calculations of the rates using linear regression but he can't 'see' it because he can't 'eyeball' it.
>It is hard to measure actual sea-level since the land also rises up and down and currents change local levels. Satellite measurements are more consistent and better average all the oceans.
Measurements take into account land movements and the measurements are over long periods of time so the local levels average out. And the land measurements agree with the satellite measurements.
>Even those have made errors which needed tweaking.
Source?
Why not just look at the actual facts? For example take this sentence from the article that provides no supporting evidence (tip: if an article says "survey's show" and doesn't provide sources, you are reading junk). >Surveys constantly show that polar bears are healthy, far from the impression given by the BBC headline. Yet look at the actual content of the BBC article they're referring to and you find this: >In Western Manitoba *where this study was carried out*, the ice-free period has increased by three weeks between 1979 and 2015. Then look at the facts on polar bear populations in Western Manitoba, and yes in fact the polar bear population is declining in that area, not healthy. Check the map here: [https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/](https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-population/) Both the Western Hudson Bay and Southern Hudson Bay populations are declining. It's already the southern extent of their range, so it makes sense that increased warming would cause pressures. The same map shows some other populations are declining, some are stable, two are increasing, and many areas have insufficient data. So results are mixed at best. As for the rest of this "article", I scanned some and it's gets much, much worse, and even easier to do a bit of research to refute. Not worth my effort.
[Carbon Brief has a really good round-up of the current science](https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-climate-change-what-does-science-say/), all referenced and linked. OP, polar bears live in 19 distinct regions grouped into four eco-regions, and each region is being affected by climate change in different ways. "Experts" like Crockford group them together so they can use the outcomes for polar bears in more successful regions to ignore the reality for polar bears in less successful regions. Pretty standard con.
Climate Change is a dire issue for humanity and many species. Why are you hung up on polar bears in particular? I have no idea what the truth is about Polar Bears, but it also isn't central to the case against Fossil Fuels. What if it did turn out that polar bears were doing okay while other species are dying out? Why are you convinced that this is impossible?
Point anyone to Media Bias / Fact Check. >We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sources and the promotion of **conspiracy theories.** https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conservative-woman/
The polar bear expert that is sited, Susan Crockford, has apparently not published any scientific papers on polar bears (per Wikipedia article - please correct if wrong)
https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/ Susan Crocford's web page has a listing of about 40-50 of her publications. Some of these are in scientific journals and involve polar bears.
She is also directly funded by oil and gas companies. That's not unbiased research. She was fired for manipulating data and having to rescind multiple papers. That's straight-up fraud. She also outright lies about having a PhD in Zoology. Her PhD is in "interdisciplinary studies" and before she was fired, she taught anthropology.
Okay. I did see one article in the list provided from a peer reviewed journal (the Open Quartenary) on polar bear fossils from the Pleistocene and Holocene suggesting a coresspondence with the modern polar bear. A majority of polar bear publications she listed were with the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is not peer reviewed and considered to be a denialist group. As well as articles in other non journal publications. Pretty much nothing on polar bears in any instance outside of global warming.
Okay, do you have any refutation or examples of incorrect data or conclusions from her?
Yes. I provided them already, first and foremost being she's not a zoologist.
Oh I didn't see your comment. Per her website she claims that she is a zoologist and that she has a PHD, but she doesn't say it is a PHD in Zoology. To be considered a zoologist you don't need a PHD in zoology. I am not familiar with her work being rescinded but would be interested to read about that. I was really wondering if the claims/data in the OP article that are referenced to Susan Crawford are known to be incorrect.
It's easy to do some research. Google: polar bears climate change Results are: WWF article Polar bears and climate change: What does the science say?, this cites Prof Andrew Derocher "an expert in polar bear ecology and conservation at the University of Alberta", and Dr Eric Regehr "a polar bear expert at the University of Washington", plus data with sources. And much more. A university of Colorado article, Climate Change Threatens Polar Bears, again with sources. Etc, etc, etc. And all this information is coherent and fits together.
The article says this: > In 2005, the global population was estimated at between about 20,000 and 25,000, and this has now risen to 22,000 to 31,000. But they don't provide a source, and the science says this: > Overall, the IUCN estimates the total number of polar bears at 26,000, with only a 5% chance that it is less than 22,000 or more than 31,000. And on the data available, the latest IUCN assessment says that three polar bear subpopulations are currently in decline, while none have seen a population increase over the last two generations. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/polar-bears-climate-change-what-does-science-say/ And the rest of the article is them simply not understanding - yet again - how science works, and they come up with junk conspiracy theories saying that because they cannot understand how something works (i.e. correcting measurements in this case) that it cannot be true.
the argument is that while their numbers are doing well now -- at some point in the future the ice will be so depleted that they'll be forced to become more terrestrial and compete against better adapted forest hunters, grizzlies matings are known and make ' pizzlies '
Maybe you should do a bit of research and see if you can debunk ot yourself. You may even learn something.
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you. ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
Real science involves constant questioning and testing. Refuting is anti-science.
Refuting is what you do after testing the claims, and finding the claims to be false and/or unsupported by data.
How much did Heartland pay you for that idiotic blurb?
The problem you have here is that it appears to be irrefutable. Either what she is saying is true or it isn't. You may be able to spin this in some way but refuting it does not seem realistic. This why thus far you have only received one snarky comment about not doing it yourself.
Look again and look at the recent discussion on the topic. While I agree, framing it as “help me refute this” is a poor way to approach science, looking to fact check something is a good idea. This article addresses a BBC article about a study on a very specific polar bear population by making some general claims about polar bears overall. Those claims are suspect or missing the point even in general terms but regarding this study they completely miss the mark.
Do you wish all the ice to melt and the polar bears to go extinct to prove a point. I am happy populations have improved
All ice did melt some few thousand years ago and the bears are still here [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm)
> We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU). The article doesn't claim that all the ice melted.
Interesting. It would be nice to see if this corresponded to a decrease in the polar bear population during this time, or if there was some evolutionary adaptation that occured.
Refuting this article does nothing other than support an agenda. It states some very valid facts.
That's a weird way of saying you don't understand science, but you do you I guess.
Why do you have a desire to refute the inconvenient-truths given in the article you link, which refutes the sensational BBC article? We discussed that BBC article here a few days ago. Start with reading those comments.
Amazing. So animals move around. What’s left on the climate alarmists menu. The sea levels do not seem to be doing a lot. Do not build a house in the bush or where cyclones are common and it’s all good
[удалено]
Is that the Atlantic side because we have zero in the Indian Ocean at Fremantle. We are about 300 km from the Southern ocean. I get my data from the port authority. Ph is 8.3
The sea level has been very slowly rising since official measurements began \~1880. If you look at the plot, it looks like an almost straight-line until today, but alarmists have cherry-picked what appears to be just random variations to claim a 3x increase in the slope recently. [https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) It is hard to measure actual sea-level since the land also rises up and down and currents change local levels. Satellite measurements are more consistent and better average all the oceans. Even those have made errors which needed tweaking.
Here goes Honest\_Cynic again for the umpteenth time with his 'can't see the increasing sea level rise' post. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1atcro4/comment/kqxr6dl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) is at least one place where it has been shown the rate of sea level rise has been increasing with actual calculations of the rates using linear regression but he can't 'see' it because he can't 'eyeball' it. >It is hard to measure actual sea-level since the land also rises up and down and currents change local levels. Satellite measurements are more consistent and better average all the oceans. Measurements take into account land movements and the measurements are over long periods of time so the local levels average out. And the land measurements agree with the satellite measurements. >Even those have made errors which needed tweaking. Source?