I typed famous fake images into Google this evening for a bit of fun, and the image above popped up high on the list. For decades the polar bear has been the poster child for the AGW church. This image was used extensively to garner public support, but is clearly a fake. It’s set me thinking as to what else the polar bear worriers were up to, so I decided to do a little bit of digging. A few nuggets have been unearthed which are worthy of future study but the following is so astonishing that I couldn’t wait.
My research lead me the the website of Dr Susan Crockford, a zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals, and currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. There I discovered this little gem.
In 2014 Dr. Dag Vongraven, of the Norwegian Polar Institute, was the chairman of the IUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature] Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). In May of that year he sent an email to Dr Susan Crockford. It read as follows;
“Below you’ll find a footnote that will accompany a total polar bear population size range in the circumpolar polar bear action plan that we are currently drafting together with the Parties to the 1973 Agreement. This might keep you blogging for a day or two.”
It appears the PBSG came to the realization that some damage control was required. Here is the statement that the PBSG used as a footnote in the Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan;
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.” [my bold]
In other words a senior scientist responsible for collating polar bear numbers, and, presumably his team and piers, have been guessing the numbers. I would say it doesn’t bear thinking about, but the pun trivialises the fraud.