Hacker News Reader

Comment by realo | Hacker News Reader

The polar bears are drowning up north.

I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.

The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s [1]. Basically double what it was. The more falsifiable information you use the less you are helping the cause.

[1] - https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/02/Crockford-State-...

This report was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which according to Wikipedia "is a climate change denial lobby group registered as a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, practise and promote climate change denial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

So it sounds like they (and I assume you) definitely have an agenda you're trying to promote.

Post the correct facts rather than arguing about the source. Here’s the most recent report from a “correct” source.

https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

Read that and explain why the population is decreasing — the only point he made was that it was not.

Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.

To be honest, I just looked up the report and did not not notice it came from there. My only agenda was that it was the only report that clearly showed the average and CI of the different studies throughout the years. WWF links to the actual report [1] which is found at [2]. They try their very hardest to not show that the population is either stable or increasing. If you look at decreases, for example in Davis Strait, it is a loss of 1% with 0% in the 95% interval.

Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.

[1] - https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-pop... [2] - https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

Both can be true.

Speaking of falsifiable info:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fac...

> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.

Did you even read that article? It says the measurements from 1960-1980 are unreliable so the claim is false but the trend still works from 1980. Go look at the data yourself: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/population-status/

You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.

The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.

> You will find that the population has been stable globally…

That is a very different claim than your original.

You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.

And, yes, I read the whole article.

"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"

"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:

Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)

Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)

I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.

I am reading and quoting your very words.

> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.

Then:

> You will find that the population has been stable globally.

Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

Read the words before the second part:

"""

Go look at the data yourself: [link]

You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]

"""

I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

That’s a dodge.

I looked at the data you linked.

Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.

It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.

Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.

I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

> So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them.

> If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%.

The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue.

> If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain.

Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com