The World is Turning to Shyte #16

Polar Bears defy the doomsday predictions

“When Al Gore was born, there were only 5,000 polar bears. Now, due to the ravages of Global Warming, only 30,000 polar bears remain!”

Few animals have been as politicised or misunderstood as the polar bear, now a central symbol of climate change alarmism. Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth" catapulted the species into the spotlight, proclaiming polar bears to be on the brink of extinction due to vanishing Arctic Sea ice. His infamous 2007 declaration that summer ice caps would disappear within seven years—and with them, the polar bears—cemented the narrative. Yet, years later, these dire predictions remain unfulfilled.

So how did we get here? The “experts” relied heavily on predictive models, many of which lacked empirical support. For instance, claims that two-thirds of polar bears would vanish if summer sea ice continued to decline were based on assumptions rather than robust evidence.

Polar bear population studies often employ methods like "mark and recapture," which rely on subjective modelling and assumptions. A population may appear to plummet if fewer bears are observed in a follow-up study, but this could just as easily reflect migration rather than mortality. Polar bears are highly mobile, travelling thousands of miles to follow food supplies, making accurate counts inherently challenging.

A more reliable technique—tracking survival rates with radio collars—offers a clearer picture. One 12-year study revealed a survival rate of 99.6 per cent, far higher than previously estimated. Notably, this data showed increasing populations in some regions, contradicting earlier claims of decline. Yet, despite this robust evidence, other researchers highlighted less reliable methods to fit a narrative of looming extinction.

In 2008, polar bears were officially declared a threatened species, partly because research suggested that hundreds of bears had “disappeared.” Yet, there were no carcasses, and much of the alarm hinged on interpreting ambiguous data. Critics like Canadian zoologist Susan Crockford have pointed out significant flaws in these studies, exposing a tendency among researchers to cherry-pick findings that support a crisis narrative. Her work has faced resistance, including cancelling her adjunct professorship, illustrating the perils of challenging academic orthodoxy.

Despite dire warnings, polar bears have shown remarkable resilience. Many subpopulations are thriving, even in regions with reduced sea ice. In fact, the primary reason polar bear numbers once declined was overhunting, which was addressed in the 1970s through strict conservation measures. Since then, populations have rebounded to their highest levels in decades—a fact often overlooked or downplayed in discussions about climate change.

The Canadian town of Churchill, often dubbed the "Polar Bear Capital," has been the focus of media-driven alarm. Reports claimed warming temperatures and earlier ice breakup were endangering local populations. Yet, long-term data showed stable sea ice conditions in Western Hudson Bay, undermining the alarmist narrative.

Even more striking was the 2017 claim that the area’s polar bear numbers had dropped by 27 per cent in four years—an assertion based on an unpublished survey. The media ran with the story, linking the supposed decline to climate change despite evidence that local ice conditions remained consistent.

The reality of the changes in polar bear numbers is a simple story, no different from the fate of whales worldwide or crocodiles in Australia. Polar bears suffered from intense hunting until 1976, when they plummeted. After a hunting ban was enforced, they recovered and are now at their highest in over six decades. This reality doesn’t fit the climate change narrative, so the proof is often cancelled or ignored.

Polar bears are not the helpless victims of climate change they’ve been portrayed as. Their adaptability and resilience have defied apocalyptic predictions, proving that the real crisis lies in the distortion of scientific evidence to serve an agenda. This is a sobering reminder to question narratives built on selective data and seek the truth behind the headlines.