Tag Archives: status

Communicating polar bear science requires a rational approach

My most requested public lecture, Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change, has been hugely popular with audiences in my Canadian home town of Victoria, British Columbia, and my newly-released book with the same title (based on that lecture) promises to be similarly successful. Here are some thoughts on both.


Recently (5 January 5, 2017), I gave another free lecture about polar bears to a local non-profit organization through my university’s Speakers Bureau. I’ve been doing this since 2009, although the shear volume of requests has been much higher this past year than previously. As before, my lecture was warmly received and audience members asked questions indicating they had been listening with an open mind. A colleague I spoke to expressed surprise at that outcome, given where I live.

Keep in mind that Victoria is home to litigation-prone IPCC climate scientist turned BC provincial Green Party politician Andrew Weaver (in whose riding I happen to reside) as well as one of the many targets of fake Nobel Laureate Michael Mann and his over-sensitive ego, veteran climate scientist Tim Ball (who defends the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Mann at trial in Vancouver, B.C. 20 February 2017,  an event which defender of free speech and fellow defendant against Mann’s litigious wrath, Mark Steyn,  has said he’ll be attending). And yes, in a sort of home-town science brawl, Weaver also sued Tim Ball, but that case has not yet gone to court. Victoria is also the constituency of our lone federal Green Party Member of Parliament, Elizabeth May. Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise once described Victoria as “one of the most left-leaning corners of the country.

So it is into this virtual lion’s den of anthropogenic global warming champions that I venture, several times a month, to enlighten adults, teachers, and students who have been left with the impression that there are only a few hundred starving polar bears left in the world.1

The secret to the kind of reception I receive – even in my town – is to present the relevant facts without emotional overtones and let audiences make up their own minds about what they think of the situation.

This latest lecture was not only well received but several audience members bought copies of my kid-friendly Polar Bear Facts and Myths that I had for sale (reviewed here by Kip Hansen).  One member came up afterwards to say he’d been dreading what he’d anticipated would be another polar-bears-are-doomed diatribe but was very pleased at my even-handed, scientific approach.

That’s why I decided to fashion my first fully referenced polar bear science book – and take it’s title – from my most successful public lecture. Audience responses over the years indicated to me that a simple summary would be an appealing approach. Questions from audience members over the years suggested which topics might need a more detailed explanation in the book. The lesson I learned from my lecturing experience was that my book needed a focused style, plenty of color images, and an affordable price.

Consider the table of contents for the new book, where each chapter covers only a few pages:

1. Polar bear & sea ice basics
2. Feasting/fasting life of polar bears
3. Evolution & climate change
4. Conservation & protection
5. Failure of the polar bear predictions
6. Biggest threat to polar bears
7. Summary
8. Conclusions

I expect I’ll get some negative fake reviews posted on Amazon for Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change from the self-appointed moral-high-ground troll network (as they did for Polar Bear Facts and Myths). That’s to be expected for a topic like this. Honest criticism from readers might also be generated, of course, and that’s something all writers can expect, and should welcome.

That said, the best way to counter biased or unconstructive reviews is with honest, heartfelt reviews from readers who have actually read the book. If any of you that have ordered a copy of this book but would like to see a pdf review document in order to post an immediate review, use the contact me form at “Comments/Tips.”

Both Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change and Polar Bear Facts and Myths are now available in paperback and various ebook formats, including epub and pdf. The little spin-off for preschoolers (Polar Bears Have Big Feet) – because why shouldn’t the little kids have a fear-mongering-free polar bear book with great pictures too? – is available in paperback only.


  1. Without exception, every teacher of every school class I have spoken to in Victoria in the past year has been absolutely astonished to learn that the official global population estimate for polar bears is now 22,000-31,000, the highest estimate in 50 years. Virtually all expressed their appreciation for pointing out that simple fact. Hence, Polar Bear Facts and Myths is aimed at those misinformed children, while Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change is aimed at their teachers, parents, and other influential relatives.

PBSG failure to acknowledge 2015 IUCN polar bear update drives the public here

It is now past the 15 June 2016 mark and the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has still not acknowledged the 2015 IUCN Red List update on the status of polar bears. See the screencap below, taken this morning.

PBSG at 16 June 2016

This notice has been up since 14 January 2016 and no reference or link to the November 2015 IUCN Red List update has been posted, even though PBSG members authored the report (pdf here)!

What they may not realize is that their silence just drives people who search the internet looking for up-to-date population and conservation status info on polar bears to this site. My posts on population size and conservation status have been the most popular posts since November.

It’s that kind of attention that has made this site so popular: PolarBearScience will reach 750,000 views within the next couple of weeks (see “Blog Stats” lower right) – that’s right, 3/4 million views in less than four years. More than 400,000 readers have come here since the end of July 2012 to find out what’s really going on in the world of polar bears. Continue reading

Silence of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group on the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment

It’s been six months and still the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group has not updated its website with a link to the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment for polar bears, which was made public with some fanfare in November 2015. They are not the only group still ignoring the Red List decision but their silence is the most damning – the IUCN is the parent body of their organization.

On May 7th, I wrote to the IUCN Red List folks (redlist@iucn.org) about this situation (excerpt below) but as yet have received no reply.

PBSG website banner May 10 2016

Continue reading

Challenging Alaska polar bear research sound bites and bewildering ESA status

Beaufort Sea male polar bear USGS_2005 Amstrup photo

It’s easy to take polar bear research papers at face value but it’s not very scientific. The snappy sound bites provided for the benefit of the media – whether they’re embedded in press releases or in published abstracts – don’t cut it with trained scientists. Trained scientists read the whole report, critically examine the evidence it contains and assess that evidence within the context of previous knowledge. That’s what they are trained to do.

I challenge the superficial summary on the status of Alaskan polar bear populations provided by FactCheck.org journalist Vanessa Schipani.  Schipani disputed a comment made by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski that, according to the latest research Alaskan polar bear population numbers are strong and healthy. I’m not especially interested in the political context of the statement, only Schipani’s bald claim that Murkowski’s declaration is false.

I’ve read all the relevant papers in full and I contend that the evidence supports Murkowski’s statement. Schipani is confusing the issue by regurgitating ‘facts’ that don’t tell the truth of the matter. By the sum of accounts, Alaskan polar bear populations are indeed healthy and strong – whether or not this status will continue is an entirely different question. Continue reading

Ten dire polar bear predictions that have failed as global population hits 22-31k

Grim predictions of the imminent demise of polar bears – their “harsh prophetic reality” as it’s been called – have been touted since at least 2001. But such depressing prophesies have so widely missed the mark they can now be said to have failed.

Rode and Regehr 2010_Chukchi_report2010_triplets redone PNG


While polar bears may be negatively affected by declines in sea ice sometime in the future, so far there is no convincing evidence that any unnatural harm has come to them. Indeed, global population size (described by officials as a “tentative guess“) appears to have grown slightly over this time, as the maximum estimated number was 28,370 in 1993 (Wiig and colleagues 1995; range 21,470-28,370) but rose to 31,000 in 2015 (Wiig and colleagues 2015, [pdf here] aka 2015 IUCN Red List assessment; range 22,000-31,000).

These ominous prophesies have been promoted primarily by Ian Stirling, Steven Amstrup, Andrew Derocher and a few other IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) members but ironically, it’s data collected by their colleagues that’s refuted their message of doom.

Here are the predictions (in no particular order, references at the end):
Continue reading

Many otherwise intelligent people believe only a few hundred polar bears remain

The other day, I got a call from an international journalist who admitted he’d done no research into the polar bear issue but believed, based on media reports he’d heard, that there must only be about 100-200 bears remaining in the Arctic. I know he’s not alone.


This journalist was utterly astonished to learn that the IUCN Red List assessment in 2015 put the polar bear population total at 22,000-31,000 bears and demanded proof that this was true.

Here is a summary of the Red List report, with references and links to the report:

The 2015 IUCN Red List assessment update for polar bears (published 18 November 2015) states that the global polar bear population is 22,000 – 31,000 (26,000), that the current trend is ‘unknown’ and that there is only a 70% chance that polar bear numbers will decline by 30% in 35 years (with virtually zero chance that the numbers will decline by 80% or more by 2050) – in other words, zero chance of extinction. [Detailed in a document called 22823 Ursus maritimus]. It classifies the polar bear as ‘vulnerable’ to extinction based on predictions of future sea ice decline due to global warming [similar to ‘threatened’ by other organizations] Pdf here.

Below is a list of what truly worrying species declines look like: that is, animals whose numbers have actually declined, no prophesies involved (Adler 2008).
Continue reading

The old ‘website revision’ excuse for not updating polar bear status changes

Apparently, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) thinks that it’s OK to mislead the public on the conservation status of polar bears for half a year because its website is being revamped. This conservation organization is of the opinion that people landing on their website while searching for official polar bear status information don’t need to know right away that a new IUCN Red List document was published in November 2015. We know this because the message below appeared on the PBSG homepage 14 January 2016 (text in bold was there previously: the new message is in CAPS), screencap of entire page at 16 Jan 2016 pdf here:

PBSG website notice_2016 Jan 14 update

It appears that the PBSG feels that the public can wait to be told about 2015 Red List decision until the PBSG are ready for them to be told, which could be anywhere from March to the end of June 2016, depending on what definition of “spring” they use. Anyone (like moi) suggesting this tactic is paramount to withholding unpleasant information is just being “impatient.”

Decide for yourself but to me, this PBSG message speaks volumes: it says the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment is bad news for polar bear predictions of gloom and doom. Polar bear specialists don’t want to talk about it because it is a slap-down of all previous attempts at predicting a grim future for the bears (see the summary at the end of this post).
Continue reading