Posts
The Washington Pest has taken a close look at the reasons why polar bears are said to be endangered, and pinpoints the problem.
The US Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed classifying the polar bear as a threatened species. What makes this unusual is that the bear is not threatened by humans. The polar bear is threatened by computer models.This action could set a really fat precedent because computer models are much more dangerous than humans. It is estimated that at least one half of all living species are threatened by computer models. Mitigating all these threats could keep the FWS busy, not to mention rich and powerful, for years to come.
The problem is that some computer models say the Arctic ice cap will disappear in about 40 years, give or take a century. Polar bears live and work on the ice so this might be a problem for them, we don't really know.
Just to be sure the FWS wants to invoke the Endangered Species Act, to give them dictatorial, sorry, administrative powers now to help the may someday be out of work bears.
If we allow computer models, rather than real events, to set public policy, we are all in big trouble because that would give statisticians carte blanche to rule the world.
I am only half joking about that. At a Statistics Canada meeting a few years ago, I heard a presentation from a Canadian statistician working for OECD arguing that the assembled experts should give full support to the Kyoto Protocol because enforcement of its terms depends on statistics gathered by national and international statistical agencies. In order to know whether CO2 emissions, etc., are being reduced per Kyoto targets, data must be gathered and analysed from emissions sources. Kyoto therefore depends crucially on the work of statisticians.
This fellow presented Kyoto not just as a make-work project for statisticians, but as means of wielding power. I kid you not. Fortunately, based on the discussion after the presentation, no one in the audience was very enthusiastic about his perspective. Some, myself included, were rather taken aback.
h/t: Greenie Watch and Ken Maize’s POWERblog
Previous related posts:
[...] Polar bears threatened by computer models [...]
Here is a good interview with Dr. Nick Lunn of the Canadian Wildlife Service – one of a handful of scientists focusing their efforts, knowledge, and talent on studying the polar bear.
“The population in the Western Hudson Bay region has declined 22% in 17 years, to less than 1000 bears.”
“Of the thirteen populations of polar bear in the world, only two are considered as thriving, as many as five may currently be stable, and the rest are either threatened, in decline, or there is simply not enough data to make a reliable assessment.”
Some people will argue that polar bear populations are increasing, but this is simply a lack of understanding.
“It isn’t hard to find media reports stating that polar bear populations are at historic highs – up to 25,000 now from a low of 5,000 or so in the 50’s or 60’s. This gets a chuckle from Nick. Look in any of those reports for the source of their conjecture. The fact is nobody was even paying attention to polar bear numbers in the 50’s or 60’s, much less conducting a scientifically sound census survey. So where do they come up with those numbers? Hmm… Good question.
In the 50’s and 60’s polar bear were being shot, killed, hunted down wholesale. It has only been within the past couple of decades that scientists, government leaders, and wildlife managers have realized that it might be prudent to put some limits on the carnage to assess what it is we have in the way of polar bears and to begin serious, ongoing scientific study of them.
What happens when uncontrolled hunting is stopped? Gosh, it seems there may have been some recovery in polar bear populations due to the alleviated stress from hunting. (Incidentally, 500 bears are still harvested every year in Canada.)
When you hear anyone authoritatively pronouncing that polar bear numbers have recovered from 5000 to 25,000 just know that they’re simply guessing. Right off the bat a reason to question the veracity of their argument. (And when the Wall Street journal says anything about environmental policy, assume they likely don’t know a whit about what they’re talking about.) “
Contrast with this from Dr Mitch Taylor, Manager of Wildlife Research, Government of Nunavut:
Some polar bear populations are thriving to the extent that increased hunting quotas are being considered. See more from Dr Taylor here and here.