CNSNews is a news analogue of Conservapedia. They have a story arguing that An Inconvenient Truth should be disqualified from the Oscar for best documentary because it's inaccurate. CNSNews tells us:
A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances - up to sixty miles - to find the ice," Gore says in the movie.
John Berlau, author of a new book on the environmental movement entitled "Eco-Freaks," claims the polar bear scene alone should disqualify Gore's film from consideration for best documentary, because it departs from reality.
Berlau noted that while the movie's companion book says the bears were drowning in "significant numbers," the study Gore is most likely referring to only found four polar bear carcasses in the sea off Alaska.
That episode took place after a severe storm, he noted, but Gore makes no reference to a storm during the film's animated polar bear sequence.
Berlau accuses Gore of leaving an important fact out, but actually it's Berlau who left something important out. Look at this news story on the study that Gore was referring to (my emphasis).
However, last summer the ice cap receded about 200 miles further north than the average of two decades ago, forcing the bears to undertake far longer voyages between floes.
"We know short swims up to 15 miles are no problem, and we know that one or two may have swum up to 100 miles. But that is the extent of their ability, and if they are trying to make such a long swim and they encounter rough seas they could get into trouble," said Steven Amstrup, a research wildlife biologist with the USGS.
The new study, carried out in part of the Beaufort Sea, shows that between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area.
However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore.
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," said the report.
There were storms before 2006, but they didn't drown bears. The bears drowned in the 2006 storm because they had to swim further because of global warming.
Berlau is also the drivel writer who started the "environmentalists caused New Orleans to flood by litigating against levees" meme. Within a week after Hurricane Katrina hit, Berlau had posted "Greens vs. Levees" at National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/berlau200509080824.asp
Once the claim had been made, it then got picked up by the right-wing noise machine, including Fox News. (who would have ever guessed?)and the WSJ editorial page (nuff said).
Well, the federal government examined the claim and guess what they found? There was nothing to it. (who would have ever guessed?)
From the Government Accountability Office: "These changes are not believed to have had any role in the levee
breaches recently experienced as the high-level design selected was expected to provide the same level of protection as the original barrier design. In fact, Corps staff believe that flooding would have been worse if the original proposed design had been built because the
storm surge would likely have gone over the top of the barrier and floodgates..."
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d051050t.html
But, of course, minor details have not stood in the way of Berlau who continues to ride on the backs of the citizens of New Orleans to flack his book.
-------
In other news, Roger Pielke Jr. has been caught once again being quoted as a "climate scientist." Gee, I wonder why journalists keep messing that up?
Yet again, the right are hoping people forget that documentary is a film genre and nothing more as I don't see them going out of their way to challenge Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? or Crop Circles: Quest for Truth either.
Hey, at least they are implicitly admitting that everything else in the movie is correct.
You know when they start attacking Gore on the polar bear issue that the denialists are skating on thin ice -- if not drowning themselves.
The arguments that these people are putting forward to cast doubt on global warming theory have become absolutely pathetic -- and the average person can see that.
Most people who hear of a polar bear swimming in the open ocean 60 miles from the nearest resting spot are not going to think "Oh, that polar bear was just out for a morning swim." And when they hear that dead polar bears were found the next day in the same area, they are not going to think "Aw, that happens all the time, just like with kids at the pool I go to."
These denialists are not only dumb as sea urchins themselves, they actually think everyone else is as well.
These denialists are not only dumb as sea urchins themselves, they actually think everyone else is as well.
Remember JB: it's the best they can do. Just keep pointing that out. Making any ol' sh*tty thing up to continue denialism is merely natural atavistic behavior for some personality types.
Best,
D
"These denialists are not only dumb as sea urchins themselves, they actually think everyone else is as well"
Comparing denialists to sea urchins is offensive to sea urchins.
The right/denialist/evangelicals problem with environmentalists is that environmentalists have been politically successful. They can't beat environmentalists on the facts, so they lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.
Why would the bears have to swim farther? Polar bears stay near the available ice. Unless the ice melted instantly, which I doubt, they are not going to be put into immediate danger.
This polar bear drowning myth was discredited when it came out. Four dead polar bears were seen, that's it. There was no "study" involved in the deaths of these bears, only a scientist projecting his AGW beliefs onto this natural incident.
And for the record, polar bears drowning have been observed many, many times in the past.
Paul G.: "Polar bears stay near the available ice. Unless the ice melted instantly, which I doubt, they are not going to be put into immediate danger."
The quoted study: "However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore."
From which we can conclude that it was the bears' own fault for not consulting Paul G. in advance.
Nice try Steve. This whole article is bogus. After a fierce storm, 4 dead polar bears were observed. Gee, I wonder if this fierce storm might have contributed to their deaths?
And when the 51 bears were spotted, was the fierce storm already underway? The article neglects to mention this salient point. I wonder why.
Why bears would have to swim further because of global warming is never addressed. Did the ice retreat 160 miles overnight?
"Why bears would have to swim further because of global warming is never addressed."
The pack ice, from which I presume the bears do a lot of their hunting, retreats earlier and further from the north coast of Alaska than it used to. More swimming is required to get between the coast and the pack ice than there used to be.
Paul G "And for the record, polar bears drowning have been observed many, many times in the past."
Well then Paul I'm sure you'll have no difficulty at all in documenting, say, three previous examples.
Obviously if you can't, you're talking out your arse and we can safely disregard anything you have to say on the topic.
Drowned polar bears have been observed many times in the past Ian. It's a fact. Get over it. In Canada we have many of the best polar bear biologists in the world, and speaking on the radio, they basically laughed at the conclusions in the story above.
You know, if you can't back up your claims you should at least have the balls to admit it.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=polar+bears+drowning&hl=en&c2coff=1&s…
So far I've only scanned the first two pages of Google search results for "polar bears drowning" not a single report of the "many" past instances of polar bears drowning.
In fact the CNC story Tim linked top shows up and contaisn this quote:
Role of Climate in Polar Bears' Fate Under Dispute
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 22, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - Polar bears have become an "icon" of the global warming movement, but the fate of the creatures and the role played by climate change remains the subject of dispute among scientists.
According to animal experts linked to the World Conservation Union, polar bears are in trouble as sea ice recedes and global warming accelerates, and habitat loss will impact at least the next three generations of polar bears.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in Canada has warned global warming could ultimately lead to the eradication of the species.
"If current trends continue, polar bears may vanish from large portions of their current Canadian range before the end of this century," WWF says in an online position paper.
But Willie Soon, a climate scientist based in Massachusetts, is among those raising questions about some of the most recent research on polar bears. He contends that polar bear populations have actually been increasing since hunting restrictions were initiated in the early 1970s.
Soon also said there has been too narrow a focus on the bears' Western Hudson Bay population - one of a total of 19. (Polar bears are reportedly found in 15 locations in Canada, as well as one each in Alaska, Denmark, Norway and Russia.)
A suggested link between global warming and polar bear survival is on loose footing, he argues.
In his own report on the subject, Soon said some of the temperature data is misleading, because it is drawn from warm months like September.
Studies that claim polar bears are unlikely to survive are problematic, he said, because the climate models that foresee a disappearance of sea ice focus on late summer - a period when the Hudson Bay is largely ice-free anyway, regardless of any human influence on greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
Soon said broad claims about the disappearance of sea ice before the end of the 21st century could be "misleading and confusing."
A fixation with global warming could divert attention from other "mechanisms" affecting polar bear population and health of the species, he told Cybercast News Service.
These other factors include bear interactions with humans in the Western Hudson Bay area, food availability and reproduction rates, he said.
Mitch Taylor, a polar bear expert with the Department of the Environment in Canada's far-northern Nunavut territory, has reported that the Canadian population has actually increased by 25 percent over the past 10 years.
'Deceit'
Contrary to what is implied in former Vice President Al Gore's movie (see related story) and the views of some animal specialists, James Taylor, a senior fellow of environmental policy at the conservative-leaning Heartland Institute, also does not believe the polar bear population is declining.
Taylor told Cybercast News Service in a series of email messages that the Antarctic ice mass is actually growing, the Greenland ice mass is in "rough balance," and polar bears are not drowning.
"The polar bear drowning myth is typical of the deceit practiced by many global warming alarmists," he said. "Polar bears are very strong swimmers and have been documented swimming more than 60 miles without interruption."
In 2004, researchers with the U.S. Minerals Management Service found four dead polar bears floating in the sea after a severe storm off the Alaskan coastline and attributed their deaths to the storm. These same researchers had observed the bears swimming longer distances in the past few years.
Proponents of global warming, such as Gore, believe polar bears could be jeopardized as ice glaciers break up.
'Unstable ice'
One of the first signs of trouble scientists look for when examining polar bear populations is a drop in body weight that suggests nutritional stress, explained Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta. Other key indicators are the cub survival rate and cub production among females, he added.
Some of the most disturbing trends have been observed in Western Hudson Bay where the population has dropped by about 22 percent in the past 10 years, Derocher said in an interview.
A "large portion" of the population decline is attributable to climate change and sea ice dynamics although "excessive harvesting" by humans is another factor, he said.
Derocher has chaired the World Conservation Union's specialist group on polar bears since 2005, when the organization last reported on the species' status.
He told Cybercast News Service the anticipated rate of habitat loss over the next four to five decades is enough to deplete the population by at least a further 30 percent.
Historical patterns show polar bears living off the coast of Alaska would produce two-thirds of their young on sea ice and one-third on land, Derocher said. In recent years, however, two-thirds of the young are born and raised on land.
"It looks like the sea ice is not as stable as it used to be," Derocher said.
"Yet even Derocher is cautious when it comes to the issue of bears drowning. While instances of drowned bears would be symptomatic of global warming, they could not be called definitive proof, he said.
"I'm sure other polar bears have drowned in the past, and it was just never documented," he said."
But hey some guy on the radio supposedly said different.
Oh look ANOTHER skeptic categorically ruling the idea that polar bears drown regularly:
" "I'm going to write a letter to the World Wildlife Fund to ask who did an autopsy that found polar bears drowned," said Fred Goldberg, an authority on polar history and exploration at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.
Aerial surveys of the area between 1987 and 2003 found no evidence of polar bears drowning. Goldberg also stated that since the bears were protected from hunting in 1973, "there have never been so many polar bears."
http://scienceline.org/2007/02/05/health_driscoll_polarbears/
Hi Tim,
Nice post. I would argue that while Gore's film was mostly accurate, there were some incautious things in there that he really should have avoided, particularly trying to link global warming to the 2004 tornado season in the US
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/02/global_warming_and_tornado…
I can top all of those polar bear refutations. While defending climate science on a skeptics site, some actually had the nerve to claim that because polar bears are doing just fine at zoos in the 48 states, that proves they can do just fine without sea ice!
If anyone wants to shoot deniers in a barrel come to skepticforum.com and help me out.
Yet somehow the polar bears survived much warmer and more open water conditions in the mid-holocene. Go figure.
No Ian, not "some guy on the radio", but one of Canada's top polar bear scientists. He mentioned that the Inuit have observed drowned polar bears in the past also. He stated it was far too speculative to attribute the four dead polar bears to global warming; especially considering these bears had been caught up in a violent storm.
And I don't mean to ridicule Google, but seriously, you don't actually believe you will find all pertinent information using that tool, do you? I truly hope not.
From Real Climate.
This is a somewhat outdated term used to refer to a sub-interval of the Holocene period from 5000-7000 years ago during which it was once thought that the earth was warmer than today. We now know that conditions at this time were probably warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the extratropics of the Northern Hemisphere. This summer warming appears to have been due to astronomical factors that favoured warmer Northern summers, but colder Northern winters and colder tropics, than today (see Hewitt and Mitchell, 1998; Ganopolski et al, 1998). The best available evidence from recent peer-reviewed studies suggests that annual, global mean warmth was probably similar to pre-20th century warmth, but less than late 20th century warmth, at this time (see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002).
Doesn't look like there is much to justify any claim that it was "much warmer" or had greater "open water conditions" in there.
"No Ian, not "some guy on the radio", but one of Canada's top polar bear scientists."
Ah yes Doctor Anonymous of the cough-cough Institute.
"And I don't mean to ridicule Google, but seriously, you don't actually believe you will find all pertinent information using that tool, do you? I truly hope not."
Really, according ot you "drowning polar bears" is an incredibly common and well-known phenomena - which oddly not even climate skeptics seem to have heard of previously.
Further to Tyler's comments, back in the early holocene polar bears weren't subject to human predation on anything like the current level; weren't competing with trawlers for fish and weren't eating fish with dangerously high levels of mercury and organophosphates.
As noted above, those who have to nitpick an Gore's statements about polar bears to death are pretty much drowning in their own bodily fluids.
Whether or not polar bears can swim 60 miles makes no difference whatsoever in the grand scheme of things because the other evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
So I'd suggest that the polar bear contrarians just get over it.
Somehow Ian, I don't think you'd be able to recognize the difference between a polar bear and a large poodle. But because you spent 30 seconds googling, we are going to take you as an authority on polar bears drowning. Sure. ;)
Paul G, if you knew anything about research and researching information you would know that there are many other (and better) ways to access information than Google. Try Dialog, Pub Med, WSI and Google Scholar for starters.
And yet Paul G my feeble efforts produced TWO scientists with relevant qualifications - both of them skeptical about the impact of climate change on polar bear populations - prepared to state on the record that they knew of NO prior incidents of polar bears drowning.
You on the other hand have produced nothing but bluster, insults and vague claims of some unnamed "expert" you heard on the radio.
Surely, if polar bear drownings are as frequent and well-documented as you claim you should have no trouble proving it.
==Ian Gould:
It was Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist, with the
Dept. of the Environment working for the Govt. of Nunavut, Canada who stated on Canada's national public radio station, the CBC, that drowned polar bears was not an unheard of phenomena, and had been observed in the past by other scientists and Inuit elders (who didn't document their findings either)
==Ian Forrester:
Did you read any of the previous posts before posting? I would never be so presumptuous, or foolish, to believe that Google would be an adequate tool for the sourcing of all of one's information. It was not I, but Ian Gould, who claimed his 30 seconds of googling made him an authority on drowned polar bears.
RealClimate the definitive authority? Polar bears competing with trawlers for... fish? Too funny! Have a good night, yall.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to the discussion about habitat loss. When the die-off comes, the fact that populations have been increasing since the early 1970s due to changes in management of polar bear populations just means more will die.
Too stupid for words. A bit like sitting in the stern of the Titanic saying "well, you're too concerned about the people in the bow of the ship drowning, the stern's well above water!"
Well, Paul G, that wasn't so hard was it?
Now that I have a name I can check what Taylor actually has to say on the topic:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFkNjliNTIxYjJjNmQxNjdhYjdjNTA0…
"So what about those drownings?
He suspects the drowning polar bear story originated in the Beaufort Sea, when a plane spotted what appeared to be a few dead bears floating in the water after a violent storm. In the 30 years he has spent monitoring Canada's polar bears, he himself has seen only one bear that drowned. 'They're very good swimmers.' "
So your supposed source for the claim that polar bear drownings are common has seen exactly one such case in 30 years.
"Polar bears competing with trawlers for... fish?"
No, polar bears living primarily off seals which compete with trawlers for fish.
Nanny, a few hints. Bears eat seals. Seals eat fish. Humans eat fish. Lots of fish. Humans even hunt seals. So humans and polar bears do compete for resources. So no, comment about trawling is not ridiculous.
In the holocene, the fish and seal situation was probably more favourable to the bears, for one thing. Other things that may have been different is bioaccumulating toxins (which is an issue for bears living on fat on the top of a tall food pyramid), living range and hunting (we've shot quite a lot of polar bears in the last century). So this devastating critique doesn't quite convince me.
You're so misinformed that I sometimes wonder if it's your job.
When did Willie Soon become a climate scientist, let alone a polar bear expert? Last I heard he was an astrophysicist and general hack.
Harald,
Excellent post. Well said! You also hit an important nail on the head - its no use trying to extropolate future trends in the population dynamics of species under the current regime of global change because (a) the current rates of change are unprecendented in hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years, and (b) humans are altering the biosphere in a myriad of ways (of which climate change isn one) that are driving the current extinction spasm. Humans co-opt more than 40% of global net primary production and 50% of freshwater flows; humans have disrupted biogeochemical cycles that are largely deterministic and operate over truly stupendous scales; humans have altered the planet's surface and have greatly reduced the physical extent of many biomes resulting in their fragmentation and simplification. Previous episodes of climate change did not occur against a background on other changes inflicted on nature by one of its evolved inhabitants. I can only say that the few sceptics who contribute here lack even a basic understanding of environmental biology and ecology and instead rely on fatuous, linear arguments. There's nothing wrong with commenting, but don't expect people who studied this field and whose career is based on it to be so accommodating.
Most importantly, there is little doubt that the rapid loss of pack ice in the coming decades will have a hugely negative impact on polar bear populations. Not only that, but as the Thomas et al. (2004) paper in Nature predicts, it will help to drive mass extinction, by unravelling food webs through differential phenological effects on component species in ecological communities. There is already empirical evidence for this with migratory songbird populations in western Europe; these studies may be the tip of a very large empirical iceberg.
As for 'cimate scientist' Willie Soon, John Q has dealt with that myth. Soon has no formal qualifications in biology, and anything he says on biological systems is to be dismissed, because he is way out of his depth.
"RealClimate the definitive authority?"
No, realclimate just points out the definitive authority, i.e. scientific papers that have been thoroughly peer-reviewed, a concept that denialists have a great deal of difficulty with.
One addendum: I meant to say that climate change (and other anthropogenic stresses to the biosphere) will drive mass extinction, and not the melting of Arctic pack ice! Having said that, the loss of Arctic ice will have huge environmental consequences...
"Soon has no formal qualifications in biology, and anything he says on biological systems is to be dismissed, because he is way out of his depth."
But Soon once looked at the Horsehead Nebula and Crab Nebula in a telescope. Doesn't that make him a PhD biologist and an expert on horses and crabs? (if not polar bears)
I wonder if the Harvard Smithsonian Observatory is aware that he is training their giant telescope on polar bears. Then again, it's only during daylight hours, so they probably don't care.
Ah, now I understand what makes Willie Soon an expert on polar bears.
He once looked at the crab nebula in a telescope...
Narwhals eat crab, shrimp, fish and other small sea life
...and the polar bear is the natural enemy of the narwhal.
www.articleclick.com/mammals-of-the-arctic.html
Another factor in the physical decline noticed in polar bears is probably a lack of vitamins. When they catch seals they eat the whole carcass (including the liver, which is a major source of vitamins). This is why the Inuit do not suffer from scurvy and other vitamin deficiency diseases, they get all those vitamins from animal sources unlike their southern cousins who get most of them from plant sources.
Since the polar bears are catching fewer seals they are resorting to scavenging old Inuit kills for their food supply. The Inuit, of course, have removed all the organ meat and other more desirable parts thus not leaving much except some blubber and other less nutritionally valuable parts.
I think Soon stepped in something left behind by the Hunting Dogs [pg 1**], fouling his judgement.
Best,
D
** ooh! Whirlpool galaxy...
For Paul G. and nanny, I'd like to point out a few other things.
1.) The greater the distance the bears are required to swim, the greater the likelihood of being caught in a storm.
2.) The longer the swim, the more likely it becomes that a storm of the same magnitude will be threat to the bear.
3.) Wave height in open water is a function of three variables: wind speed, wind duration, and fetch, which is the length of water over which the wind is blowing. Increased open water means that the same wind will create larger waves.
The three above facts all point to a greatly increased hazard to polar bears that are forced to swim to new hunting grounds. In other words, drowned bears.