Continuing on page 6.
Claim 1: That only four bears were observed drowned offshore the day after an abrupt windstorm.
Source of Claim: Potential effects of diminished sea ice on open-water swimming, mortality, and distribution of polar bears during fall in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea.
Status of Claim: Accurate.
Further notes: This is one of those claims that's a little suspicious, since there is too much unknown. First of all, the poster states that there may have been more drowned (well possible), but that's a matter of interpretation. Lomborg should probably have included it. Also, the question is - are there any other studies that have shown more drowned bears? I'm currently trying to find observations of them, but they are a little difficult to come by. E.g. Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, mentions the same four bears (nothing unusual in recycling data between posters and papers, btw) but no others. Some further points of interest is that, over the period of seven years (1987-2003), the survey noted only 658 polar bears. During that time no dead or floating polar bears were seen, and more importantly they say "To our knowledge, we report here the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while making apparent long-distance movements in open water". Of course, I don't envy the poor bastard who has to go out there and look for a polar bear carcass in that wasteland, and it should be noted that there was a peak of swimming bears in 2004 (I don't know if that's a trend or a fluke).
Claim 2: The Hudson bay polar bear population has declined by 17 percent, from 1,200 to 950 in 2004, but has increased from 500 in 1981 to present day levels;
Source of Claim: LONG-TERM TRENDS IN THE POPULATION ECOLOGY OF POLAR BEARS IN WESTERN HUDSON BAY IN RELATION TO CLIMATIC CHANGE
Status of Claim: Accurate, see table 6 on page 302.
Claim 3: 300 to 500 bears are shot each year, with 49 shot on average on the west coast of Hudson bay.
Source of Claim: Polar bears: proceedings of the 13th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC polar bear specialist group, Nuuk, Greenland. See the table on page 22 (granted this depends on what you mean by the polar bear population.
Status of Claim: Inaccurate - Lomborg understates the numbers being shot (though he is right about the numbers shot each year on the west coast of Hudson bay). In total, 741 polar bears are shot each year. Granted, this depends on what population you are looking at. If you are considering only the arctic one, Lomborg may be right (depending on how you define "arctic").
Claim 4: Dissapearing ice will make it harder for polar bears to continue their traditional foraging patterns. They are more likely to take up a brown-bear lifestyle & hybridize from them.
Source of Claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, page 509
Status of Claim: Accurate - Lomborg accurately quotes them, and I agree that it is a little exasperating to have to listen to "threats of hybridization" given some of the threats that are going on in the world today.
Overall conclusion: Lomborg is solidly in the science here. His general picture is supported by the data.
I don't see how this 'destroys' Friel's point. Friel did not dispute these selected facts-- he pointed out that Lomborg's 'no worries' take on them misrepresents the views and conclusions of the biologists whose papers Lomborg is citing.
ReplyDeleteYour method is problematic here: if you're going to give Lomborg full marks just for being right about the cherry-picked facts and ignore what's left out, including the threat to bears that the loss of the ice poses (a central theme in biologists' work in this area, as Friel makes very clear), then you're ignoring what's wrong with Lomborg's 'don't worry, be happy' story.
As for the threat of hybridization, that's a biologist writing about a species s/he works with- and the hybrids are not well-adapted to either land or sea. If it irritates you that people care about them, that's your problem. Have a look at the agricultural implications of global warming, or sea level rise, or the impact of ocean acidification, if you want to focus on risks to humans!
Bryson, you may take a look at the "preamble" to see why I focus on Lomborg's treatment of scientific publications - it is because this allows me to make a definitive statement. You are also flat out wrong that Lomborg doesn't mention the shrinking of the ice - I'm guessing that this is Friel doing your research for you.
ReplyDeleteNow, oddly enough, Lomborg doesn't mention the acidification of the oceans in the section dealing with polar bears. I also happen to know of a book on AIDS that doesn't mention the threat of earthquakes. What is your point?