Published in the Business section (Financial Post “Comments”) of the National Post this morning:
“Faux polar bear figures” [not my choice of title, by the way]In which I conclude:
“We admire polar bear biologists for their professional dedication to this iconic species, and rightly so. However, while it’s understandable that polar bear biologists are conservation-minded, the public and policy makers need them to be scientists first and advocates for polar bear protection second. Polar bears are currently doing well – data shenanigans to keep them classified as “threatened” undermine the whole point of doing science.”
I have written extensively about the Southern Beaufort issue — below are links to some of these, which have links to the rest. References are included in these individual posts. Contact me if there is a reference you cannot find:
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/12/19/challenging-noaas-arctic-report-card-2014-on-polar-bears/
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/12/17/recent-s-beaufort-polar-bear-count-was-a-cherry-picked-result-new-evidence/
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/10/30/polar-bear-cannibalism-and-sea-ice-the-spring-of-1976/
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/21/where-were-the-appeals-to-feed-starving-polar-bears-in-1974/
http://polarbearscience.com/2012/07/26/cooling-the-polar-bear-spin/
You must be logged in to post a comment.