Warmist Scaremongering

Polar Bears

Polar Bears

Attitudes to that poster-species of the Warmists, the Polar Bear, are conflicting — and are also an interesting illustration of the techniques used by Warmists to make their case.

Amongst climate sceptics, it is common knowledge that thirty or forty years ago the total population of polar bears was estimated somewhere between 5000 and 8000, whereas today there are perhaps 20 to 25,000. So polar bears are doing just fine, then?

Well they certainly ought to be.  During the current Interglacial, polar bears have repeatedly prospered (or at least survived) through warmer conditions than those of today: the Holocene Maxima, the Minoan Optimum, the Roman Optimum, the Mediæval Warm Period.  So they should have no trouble with the slight warming of the last few decades.  Moreover their ancestors (almost identical in evolutionary terms) survived previous interglacials believed to have been warmer than the current Interglacial — most recently the Eemian Interglacial some 120,000 years ago.   And before some idiot on Twitter asks me to prove that they survived, let me point out that polar bears prove it themselves by not being extinct.

But this is not the true picture, according to the Warmists.  I’ve been challenged on the issue by some Warmist trolls, so I’ve done a little digging on the subject, and I’d like to refer you to the Canadian Geographic Magazine (no it isn’t a peer-reviewed scientific paper — but it gives an interesting review of such papers, and perfectly illustrates the point I want to make).  There are several techniques that the Warmists use, not only with Polar Bear numbers, but also with temperature, and sea-level rise.

First, alter the past.  Those trying to make the case that polar bears are endangered are saying “Well, the estimates of numbers forty years ago were a bit slapdash and poorly researched — little more than guesses really — in all probability the numbers were much higher”.  There is a parallel here with the scandal of the “adjustments” made to temperature data — always in a way which makes the past cooler and emphasises the Warmist narrative.  I am delighted that the GWPF is bringing together a panel of experts to look at this whole area of data manipulation.  I suspect that their findings may well be on a par with Climategate in terms of impact.

Second, post-rationalise.  In addition to the studies showing current polar bear numbers, there is extensive observational and anecdotal evidence of increased sightings of polar bears.  In locations where you might have expected one or two, you may now find half a dozen.  They are starting to be a problem for some isolated communities in the Arctic.  But the Warmists have their answer.  As the ice recedes (another Warmist meme), polar bears are forced together on the remaining territory, and being hungry may even raid garbage sites in settlements.  So you see more, even though there are fewer.  Some people might call this “post-rationalisation”.  Others call it “Just-So Stories”.

Third: admit the data, but scaremonger anyway.  The article I mention from the Canadian Geographic provides no substantial evidence for a threat to polar bear populations.  But the final paragraph is a gem. Try this for size: “Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what’s frightening is what might happen in the very near future,” says wildlife biologist Lily Peacock.  (My emphasis).

The plan is to admit that the data are not too worrying (pedant alert — “data” is a plural word requiring a plural verb), but to stress that nevertheless disaster will strike very soon.  Polar bear numbers are looking OK now, but you just wait!  Sea level rise is pitifully slow — but it’s just going to accelerate!  There has been an eighteen year hiatus in global warming — but we’re just reaching a tipping point!  The only problem for the Warmists is that environmentalists have been making dire predictions for decades, ever since Paul Ehrlich and his “Population Bomb”. And again and again, they’ve been proved wrong.  Predicting the end of the world is a mug’s game.  You look pretty silly standing on your mountain-top waiting to greet the Apocalypse that never comes.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Warmist Scaremongering

  1. craigm350 says:

    Dr Susan Crockford posts good information beyond the usual warmist drool and panic mongering at:

  2. Alan Wheatley says:

    The third paragraph has a parallel with another alarmist claim. David Attenborough, with with whom I usually find myself in agreement, has raised concern about coral decline with warming seas, in particular the Great Barrier Reef about which he is making a programme. My understanding is that corals have been around for a very long time and their presence proves they have not gone extinct in warmer seas.

    One thing Attenborough has done with which I agree is to highlight the consequences of World human population growth. He comes at it from the point of view of loss of habitat for other species, which is true. But the point also stands for all the other impacts a very much larger number of humans will have, not the least anthropogenic global warming.

    Leaving aside whether or not humans are the cause of climate change, if you believe that to be so then logic says you should stop increasing the cause of the problem. But no. World Leaders’ policy is to ignore the cause of anthropogenic effects, as we have just seen in Paris.

    • David H. Walker says:

      And this is typically where those concerned about human population growth go completely off the rails. Notice Mr. Wheatley was remiss offering details regarding solutions.

      What are the solutions? With regard to human population, when the solution has anything to do with “control” or dictorials, then the solution is wrong.

      • Alan Wheatley says:

        What rail are you on, Mr. Walker?
        I would have thought it was a simple enough logic to say that if something you do not wish to be happening is caused by humans, then the more humans you have the bigger the problem will become. Of course, if the effect per-human reduces sufficiently then more humans could, in theory, have less effect. But it seems far more likely the per-human effect will increase rather than reduce.
        I accept there is no easy and obvious solution. To arrive at a solution, first you have to recognise there is a problem. To predetermine which solutions are “wrong”, in the sense they are unacceptable rather than won’t produce the desired effect, could well result in the problem become ever larger and the eventual solution even less palatable.

  3. Ex-expat Colin says:

    Its the rent seekers looking for the AGW signal. They won’t find it within natural variability arising from natural sources.

    Humanity certainly has a problem when 190 or so heads of countries (+ bag carriers) believe that planet temperature control can be limited within +1.5 to +2 deg C. Never mind that, just get on with adaptation in the known weak regions. The fools have not taken into consideration that it could so easily get too damned cold. What was that old motto…be prepared.

    • David H. Walker says:

      Indeed, massive heads of cabbage typically grow during the sunnier, warmer part of the year; in soil, activist circles and halls government.

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Forgot to add some data ..evidence: (Tide Gauges)
      NOAA/PSML mean sea levels at Newlyn (Cornwall) UK for approx 100 years (monthly)

      Anybody spot the AGW signal? Thats the stuff driving up temperature, melting glaciers and causing precipitation…and on and on and on!

      There is a piece of land data missing from this?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      More data with some +/- stories. What you see is not quite what you might get …later.

      The above is not a denialist site…but uses that prejudice term.

      The black line is observed data, the green spatter stuff is the meandering of models. That needs to be fixed and often. Some say that the data is being fixed at source.

      Go figure

  4. catalanbrian says:

    “There has been an eighteen year hiatus in global warming” Data please, as everywhere I have looked I have seen only a steady increase in global temperatures with 14 of the 15 warmest years on record occurring during the 21st century. see for example https://www.wmo.int/media/?q=content/warming-trend-continues-2014.

    • ian wragg says:

      The NOAA report says evidence of continued trend after data was adjusted. There are plenty of organisations particularly NASA who say there has been a hiatus.
      As Christopher Booker pointed out, many readings were estimated (and of course adjusted upwards) and in some areas no data was available.
      At least NASA has a global reach using satellite measurements which are accepted to be extremely accurate.
      Of course as Roger said, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
      If temperature had followed the increase in CO2 we should be at least 3 degrees warmer but the model is flawed and not giving the right answer.
      Spanish elections went well!!!

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Don’t think Mr Helmer needs to respond. You’ll need to read the corrupt UN related document referred to at the WMO:

      Click to access 1152_en.pdf

      The warming trend observed over the past few decades continued in 2014, which WMO has ranked as nominally the warmest year since modern instrumental measurements began in the mid-1800s. Although 2014 broke the record by only a few hundredths of a degree – less than the margin of uncertainty – this result means that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record occurred during the twenty-first century. The evidence for human-induced global warming is therefore increasingly robust”.

      less than the margin of uncertainty

      The modelling (simulation) of observed data is not adequate and in many cases the observed data is not adequate. The case remains…prove that it is warming (of significance) and in particular prove that a signal exists from CO2 emissions related to human activity.

      • catalanbrian says:

        Again there is no data presented to support Roger Helmer’s statement that “There has been an eighteen year hiatus in global warming”. All I have had thus far is your comment that the UN document is somehow corrupt, entirely without any evidence that it is so, and further you present proudly the fact (included in the report) that the increase in temperatures for 2014 were within the margin of error, ignoring that this figure was part of a trend over many years. Additionally you fail to answer my question by posing another question. Clearly you are more than happy to accept whatever Mr Helmer states, but I am less easily satisfied and I want some evidence. Unless he comes up with some data supporting his statement I shall have to assume that he made the statement for the purpose of dissembling.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Just in case you didn’t get it the first time:

        The modelling (simulation) of observed data is not adequate and in many cases the observed data is not adequate. The case remains…prove that it is warming (of significance) and in particular prove that a signal exists from CO2 emissions related to human activity.

      • catalanbrian says:

        Just in case you did not get it the first time (or the second or third time) are you capable of providing the data that supports the statement “There has been an eighteen year hiatus in global warming”, or are you not. Surely if there has been a hiatus it would be quite simple for you experts to produce the data. Or is your view based, not on data, but on your own prejudices?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      In this recent article you will find the links to the data you so desire.


      Do as the rest of us do once you have the data …calculate it for yourself so that you have nobody to blame for prejudice other than perhaps the data sources themselves. That is 3 of them with one being the UKMO.

      • catalanbrian says:

        WMO is an independent and unbiased source. Whatsupwith that is a blog run by a climate change sceptic. Can you spot the difference?. Independent and unbiased data please

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Lets see now:
        WMO is an independent and unbiased source. – Its a UN Agency and setup along with the IPCC. Not much worth in quoting their outputs, unless your’e in the scare and related money wasting game. Yes, I am dead set against them!

        WUWT is a blog. – oh, you got that right. The sceptic remark illustrates your prejudice I think.

        Now read what I posted….just the first sentence and then go figure!

  5. omanuel says:

    The environmental and global climate movements are desperate attempts to complete the unification of nations under a one-world government – a process that secretly began seventy years ago – before the public realizes what happened.

    Unreported events at Konan, Korea in AUG-SEPT 1945 changed the course of world history and initiated unification of warring nations under the United Nations on 24 OCT 1945:

    Click to access STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

  6. Ex-expat Colin says:

    From The Times of India: (via GWPF)

    NEW DELHI: Days after the Chennai floods caught global attention during the just concluded Paris conference where world leaders linked such extreme weather conditions to climate change, the government on Monday said the unusual rainfall that occurred in Tamil Nadu was a “highly localised” event and its attribution to global warming is “not established”.


    oh dear.. the Indian Gov said its BS from the UN’s favourite bagmen and carriers. Which means the poor of that region are to take the hit(s) while lunchers and brunchers carry on regardless.

  7. davidbuckingham says:

    Also see: “What the authorities won’t tell you about the floods
    DECEMBER 26, 2015
    Philip Walling author of Counting Sheep.
    This article was originally published in the Newcastle Journal earlier this month….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s