Does the end ever justify the means?
Some activists concerned about global warming, and who want the rest of the world to be as concerned as they are, recognise people care about polar bears and want to exploit them as a 'victim' of climate change. But if I was a polar bear I reckon I'd rather be appreciated for my true nature.
Here's an example of polar bear as victim in an article by Clifford Krauss in the New York Times :
"People care about polar bears — they're iconic," noted Kassie Siegel, a lawyer at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The reality of the threat to polar bears is helping to get the word out," she said, about the effects of climate change.
Her group, along with Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed a petition with the United States government to list the polar bear as threatened as a way to push the American authorities to control greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide from cars.
The message has alarmed American polar bear hunters, who could be barred from bringing their trophies home from Canada, the only country from which they can legally do so. It has also run up against unbending opposition from local communities of Inuit, also known as Eskimos, and the Nunavut territorial government, which has expanded sport hunting in recent years."
So Kassie Siegel is just an activist lawyer; making martyrs of everyone and everything is what activists do? But what about when scientists go along with the deal? What about when dubious claims are made by scientists to justify listing polar bears as a threatened species because of global warming?
The recent listing by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) includes the following paragraph:
"There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO [area of occupancy], EOO [extent of occupancy] and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%."
The reference to "Area of occupancy" and "extent of occurrence" by the scientists is presumably just long hand for saying "the area of sea ice has reduced".
So there is no direct relationship between measures of "area of occupancy" and "extent of occurrence" and polar bear abundance.
This paragraph (and a following paragraph that makes reference to shipping and oil exploration) was then summarized as follows to justify the listing which made headlines all over the world:
"The assessment is based on a suspected population reduction of >30% within three generations (45 years) due to decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and habitat quality.
Does it all seem very logical and scientific?
If we look at sea ice extent and area, well it has declined over recent decades, or at least since 1978, and was apparently at a 20 year minimum in 2002 (Serreze et al. 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 30, No. 3). Yet polar bear numbers might have increased over this same time period?
Why doesn't the IUCN provide any data on actual numbers of polar bears?
I understand that not so many decades ago polar bear populations had been significantly reduced by hunters? In the article by Clifford Krauss in the New York Times it is suggested that the global population, now estimated at 20,000 bears, was just 5,000 only 40 years ago.
Then in the 1970s, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States and the Soviet Union all agreed to restrict hunting and perhaps as a consequence population numbers have increased.
Would numbers be even higher if there was more sea ice? Who knows? Do we want more polar bears?
If over the last 40 years population numbers have increased, while sea ice extent and area has decreased, then it would seem there is a correlation between global warming and polar bear numbers that runs counter to the argument present by the IUCN scientists?
But, someone is about to tell me, the IUCN argument is all about the future and an assumed inability of polar bears to adapt to climate change?
But, as Jane George explains in an article title 'Global warming won't hurt polar bears' in the Nunatiaq News, polar bears are intelligent, quick to adapt to new circumstances and warmer temperatures could even increase food sources.
The bottomline is that while polar bears have more than sea ice to contend with, they are by nature resourceful and to quote from the display at Sea World, a theme park at Queensland's Gold Coast, "polar bears are [probably] capable of flourishing in the wild under climatic conditions which are most un-Arctic".
Indeed there are polar bears successfully living and breeding in zoos in Arizona, Singapore and just an hour's drive from me at Sea World. The polar bears at the subtropical Gold Coast have their swimming pool cooled to just 15 degrees and their favourite food is apparently watermelon.
Suggesting global warming is a significant threat to polar bears is really telling lies about polar bears and misrepresenting their true nature. This continual rewrite of how things are on the basis we should worry more about global warming, is as sad as it is insidious. That's not to say we shouldn't care about global warming, but that we shouldn't tell lies about polar bears! should tell it as it is.
-----------------
Changes were made (words crossed out, words added are underlined) at the request of Peter Corkeron. The blog post is intended to draw attention to the difference between the available data and IUCN statement justifying the listing of polar bears as a species threatened with extinction. It is not a personal criticism of particular IUCN scientists.
Filing link suggesting periods of open ocean over last 10,000 years where now we are concerned about sea ice breakup: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/12/open-arctic-ocean-commentary-by-harvey-nichols-professor-of-biology/
Paul Williams - "While all bear species have shown adaptability in coping with their surroundings and environment, polar bears are highly specialized for life in the Arctic marine environment. Polar bears exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans. These factors make facultative adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios unlikely. Polar bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past. Due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years.
There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%."
This is what it said. They are talking about risk which is the point that is missing here. Loss of habitat gives a greater RISK of loss of species. Just because your house is not broken into does not reduce the risk assessment of your suburb.
It also says that there is great data uncertainty which is true. The population of polar bears may well have decreased in line with sea ice reduction however our lack of data is not showing this. You should have seen in my previous post the difficulties that researchers face in estimating the number of polar bears.
Ender, if you read the document explaining the classification of Polar Bears, you will see they have based their decision on FUTURE habitat decline due to global warming. Yet the very same document says there is no relation between such habitat decline and Polar Bear abundance.
I quoted the relevant bits above.
So it looks as if they are using Polar bears to gather support for the dubious (in my opinion) concept of future climate catastrophe.
Paul Williams - "I'd hate to think that Polar Bears were under threat, but this looks more like exploiting an iconic species for political purposes than scientific evidence."
Yes but how did you decide this? How do you know how many bears there are to decide that it was greenies exploiting an iconic species?
Travis, if it only were just opinion, it would not matter, but when I see peoples lives destroyed by policies based on falty science, I start to see red.
One of these areas is water.
I don't know if the present bad policy is based on bad science, or the scientists are following an instruction to "find the science to back the bad policy", but the science is very bad.
I have watched government scientists do a snow job on some very nice, 70+ year old farmers. These blokes left school at 9 ot 10, but they are not dumb. After 6 years on the a water management plan, where they were trying to do the "right" thing, they have just realised that was not the objective.
They & their families are to be sacrificed to help satisfy the insatiably thirst for urban water.
I saw so much of what I thought was bad science, I now realise, was an attempt to justify a desired result.
I have seen the same thing going on with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
For either personal "green" attitudes, or to help promote government policy, we got the most ridicules rubbish, served up as science.
In these 2 areas, where I have some expertise, & have had contact with government scientists, I have found them to be, either incompetent, or dishonest.
Where their advice to government effects the lives of the public, this is not good enough.
If you want my respect, you will have to do a much better job of earning it.
Ender
I was basing it on the information on the IUCN document, and Jennifers post.
Red List Category & Criteria VU A3c
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
3. A population size reduction of 30%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years
or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and
specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. (From the Assessment Information of the "comprehensive" document.)
I'd hate to think that Polar Bears were under threat, but this looks more like exploiting an iconic species for political purposes than scientific evidence.
Hi Jennifer, all,
I think many questions on toxic health effects etc. can be answered through this website on polar bears:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/polar_bears_at_risk_report.pdf
Thanks Libby,
For example , in Norway the Ministry of Fisheries recommend pregnant women not to consume whale meat due to health concerns.
Regarding dioxins your comment is really a bit odd -haven't we all seen the picture of Ukraine's Prime Minister's face- a face that is completely distorted by dioxin!!!
Back to Faroe Islands, ongoing research for nearly 20 years, shows that tests strongly suggest that a mother's consumption of mercury - tainted seafoof- whale meat in this case - damages her fetu's brain as it grows in the womb, impairing her child's intelligence in subtle ways.
Los Angeles Times - Young sentinels of Peril:
http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/Sentinels
Paul Williams - "The point with polar bears is there is no sign of a population decline, rather the opposite over the last 40 years. The IUCN listing of Vulnerable appears to be based solely on the probability of a severe reduction in Arctic ice over the next 45 years, caused by global warming."
Well how do you know this? The article points to lack of research and extreme difficulty in counting bears so how can you possibly say the polar bear numbers are increasing?
"Brominated flame retardants in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, East Grenland, and Svalbard", in Environmental Science and Technology, vol 40, no 2 (2006).
"Fireproof killer whales (Orcinus orca): flame-retardant chemicals and the conservation imperative in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada", in Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science, vol 63 (2006)
"Variation on sea ice cover on the eact coast of Canada from 1969-2002: climate variablility and implications for harp and hooded seals", in Climate Research, vol 29 (2005).
Look at the State of the Cetacean Environment reports submitted to the IWC (last year's should still be available on the IWC website). There are summaries of some of the recent papers that have come out on issues such as contaminants, habitat degradation and so on, and they don't exclusively cover cetaceans.
For example..."Some harbor porpoises in northern Norway, some resident killer whales and all transient killer whales in Alaska and some log-finned pilot whales in the Faeroes display levels of PCBs that have induced immunosupression and reproductive failure in other mammalian species. Reproduction in fish-eating marine mammals such as minke whales, belugas, narwhals, long-finned pilot whales and harbour porpoises may be affected as the result of consuming PCB-contaminated fish. Killer whales consuming contaminated marine mammals may exhibit PCB-related reproductive abnormalities. Contaminant levels (especially PCBs, DDT and dioxin-like substances) in cetacean prey species (fish and molluscs) should be considered and monitored when managing and issueing guidelines to protect marine mammals." From De Wit et al., (2004) AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Monitoring and Assessment Program, Oslo, Norway.
I guess there will be too many "maybes" in there to satisfy you Jennifer.
There are heaps of journals dealing with marine pollution, and the contaminated belugas issue has been around for years. We are simply adding to it with other species and contaminants.