Good news about polar bears, thriving as the arctic warms!

Summary: An oddity of the press coverage of our changing climate is that the news is always bad. Here is an example of unreported good news, about polar bears not just avoiding extinction — but thriving (less hunting by their #1 enemy has helped). There has been much bad news this year; let’s enjoy the rare good news.

Polar Bear Science

If experts had been right about sea ice,
there would be no polar bears in Churchill

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science. Reposted with her generous permission.

The simple fact is that if polar bear experts had been right about the threat to polar bears from the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, there would be no polar bears in Churchill this fall. No bears for tourists to photograph, none for biologists to study, and certainly none for the BBC to film for an upcoming three-part TV special called “Arctic Live”.

The low-ice future that biologists said would doom polar bears to extinction by 2050 has already happened in 8 out of the last 10 years. The sea ice future has arrived. Polar bears have experienced those supposedly deadly low-ice summers for almost a decade but the global population did not drop by 2/3 as predicted and not a single one of the ten subpopulations predicted to be extirpated under those conditions has been wiped out.

How much more wrong can you be than that? Will the BBC mention this conundrum in their show? Will the polar bear experts they consult share this fact with viewers? We’ll all have to watch and see (show times and summaries of each program, 1-3 November.) Here are background facts that might enhance your viewing experience.

Read more


Twenty stories of good news about polar bears!

Summary:  Another in our series of good news about the climate, this time about polar bears (others are listed at the end). Good news generates few clicks, so you’ll not see this info in the news. This period of good news probably will not last forever, perhaps not even long. Let’s stop the playground politics and make good use of this time.

Say goodby to the poor photoshopped bear floating out to sea; but his real cousins are doing OK (so far).

Photoshopped polar bear in Science
Pitiful but photoshopped. In Science, 7 May 2010.

Twenty good reasons not to worry about polar bears.

By Susan Crockford, from her website: Polar Bear Science.
Reposted with her generous permission.


Here’s a new resource for cooling the polar bear spin, all in one place. I’ve updated and expanded my previous summary of reasons not to worry about polar bears, now two years old. In it, you’ll find links to supporting information (including previous posts of mine providing background, maps and extensive references). Some important graphs and maps have been copied into the summary. I hope you find it a useful resource for refuting the spin and tuning out the cries of doom and gloom about the future of polar bears. Please feel free to share.  Here is a PDF of the this post.

This is the 1st anniversary of Canada providing population estimates and trends independent of the pessimistic prognostications of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) — so let’s celebrate the recent triumphs and resilience of polar bears to their ever-changing Arctic environment.

Read more

“Climate Change: The Need to Act Now”

Summary: Congressional hearings often bring America’s best to testify, long-form analysis about our greatest problems. Such as what scientists know about the effects of climate change on Earth’s plants and animals. It’s one expert’s perspective, and so more interesting than the blander consensus view of the IPCC. Written for us non-scientists, with lots of detail, for those who like their science straight up. See his bio at the end.



Excerpt from the testimony of Daniel B. Botkin

Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Climate Change: The Need to Act Now
18 June 2014


(1)  {W}e have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are neither apocalyptic nor irreversible.

(2)  My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.


Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal; life on Earth is inherently risky. It always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.


No, it has always undergone changes.


Yes, CO2 rapidly.


Yes, a great deal of it.

Read more

Mother Jones sounds the alarm about global warming! This time about the north pole.

Summary:  Americans’ gullibility, our receptiveness to pleasing propaganda, dominates the politics of both Left and Right (although to different degrees). Of course, since both factions draw from the same population. The election showcased the Right’s (often quite irrational) propaganda. Today we look at similar tactics on the Left, using exaggerated fears to stampede us in the desired direction.



  1. Introduction
  2. Starting with theory as certainty: polar bears
  3. Greenland surface melting
  4. Polar sea ice shrinking
  5. The Greenland Ice Sheet Grows Darker
  6. See these articles for more about polar ice
  7. Other posts about today’s climate science
  8. Other Posts about Climate Change Propaganda

(1)  Introduction

Today we look at “Yikes! Government Details 6 Most Terrifying Arctic Trends“, Julia Whitty, Mother Jones, 7 December 2012.  It’s based on the NOAA’s 2012 Arctic Report Card (see the graphics here).  Let’s compare the two.

Mother Jones uses  or paraphrases the text from the NOAA report, except when they edit it for greater impact as propaganda (red emphasis added).

  • NOAA:  “Wind patterns, clouds, ocean currents, and ecosystems are being transformed.”
  • Mother Jones:  “Consequently wind patterns, clouds, ocean currents, and ecosystems are undergoing rapid transformations.”

The net effect is to conflate natural and anthropogenic warming, and exaggerate the warming’s effects so far.

More broadly, both Mother Jones and the NOAA report omit two important facts.  First, that after two centuries of warming, the rise in temperature has paused during the past 15 years or so. Second, that anthropogenic CO2 was the dominate cause of warming only during the past (roughly) 60 years.  This relatively short-term history (as climate trends go) accounts for the difficulty scientists have attributing current weather to changes  in CO2.  For details see:

Both these facts are uncontroversial among climate scientists, yet many (most?) Liberals deny them as heresy. This shows their contempt for science — except when it’s useful for them, as does their disdain for scientists whose research challenges their views (ie, they regard scientists are authorities, unless they disagree with Leftist views — then they’re charlatans and fools).

Now let’s take a more detailed look at the Mother Jones article.

By Ansgar Walk from Wikimedia Commons
By Ansgar Walk from Wikimedia Commons

(2)  Starting with theory as certainty: polar bears, the icon of global warming

Are polar bears endangered by global warming, as shown by the article’s opening graphic? Perhaps, although flames exaggerate the +2ºC rise since 1920.

Read more