Liveblogging Lomborg part 1

Lomborg's scientific claims begin on page 5, on the subject of whether or not the Polar Bears are going extinct. 

   Claim 1.:  the Polar Bear Specialist Group's data states that, of twenty Polar bear populations, over half are stable, one or two are decreasing, and two are increasing. 

Source: IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001. 
Status of Claim:  Acurrate (see table on page 22).  A slight overstatement the 'over half'' that are stable is exactly eleven, so just over half, but his claims are accurate.

  Notes:  The IUCN species survival commission of 2006 lists five as declining rather than two.  (see IUCN 2006).  Given what research is like, he may have just had the 2001 report available at the time.  As of 2010, the IUCN lists seven as declining.

Claim 2.:  The global bear population has increased from ~5,000 to 25,000

Source: Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate, The New York Times
Status of Claim: Unverifiable, since, while Lomborg has accurately cited the article, he should know that the popular press is not an acceptable scientific source. 

  However, one of the sources he cites shortly thereafter - Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay - does seem to support this, at least in Hudson bay where there's been an increase from ~300 to ~ 1500 in 17 years (see p. 302)

Claim 3:  The decreasing populations come from areas it has been getting colder over the pasty 50 years.

Source: Polar Disasters: More Predictable distortions of science, Cato Institute
Status of Claim: Unverifiable.

Secondary source: Temporal and Spatial Variation of Surface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrumental Observations in the Arctic
Status of Claim: Accurate.  See page 596, 598 etc.  The Baffin Bay area is indeed getting colder, and the Davis strait - where the population may be in declien - is an adjunct to it.  From what I can see from the study, the Davis strait is amalgamated into the Baffin Bay area. 

  Overall status of claim: Accurate from what he cites.  I wish he wouldn't cite guff like the NYT or the Cato Institute, but the science he cites is accurate.

  Overall conclusion for the first five pages:  Scientifically, he is on solid ground, but he should wean himself off this habit of citing anything except journals for scientific purposes.