Tierney over at the New York Times has provided us with another example of his 'head in the sand" opinions on the predicted effects of global warming. This time he's suggesting that global warming will be good for Polar Bears.
First he presents us with one piece of information about Polar Bear population trends.
NYT This is not an isolated trend. Although the bears seem to be hurting in some places, like the Hudson Bay region south of here, their numbers have increased worldwide. In Canada, home to most of the world's polar bears, the population has risen by more than 20 percent in the past decade.
The chief reason for the rise is probably restrictions on hunting (for which conservationists deserve credit). In this village of fewer than 200 residents, Mr. Kalluk and the other hunters are limited each year to three dozen bears, which they allocate by drawing names out of a hat.
He then tries to argue that global warming is the reason for the increase in Polar Bear numbers.
But the increase might also be related to the recent warming, which could be helping bears in some places. After all, the bears have thrived in warmer climates than today's. In the 1930's, the Arctic was as warm as it is now, and in the distant past it was even warmer.
The doomsday reports of the melting Arctic have focused on the rise in temperatures compared with the late 1970's, but that was a particularly cold period. So the bears can cope with some global warming, which would increase the diversity of species in the Arctic - and maybe the number of humans, too.
What makes Tierney more of an expert on Polar Bears than the group of 40 bear biologists that meet in June and concluded that global warming would have a negative net impact on Polar Bears?
WP In a closed meeting here late last month, 40 members of the polar bear specialist group of the World Conservation Union concluded that the imposing white carnivores -- the world's largest bear -- should now be classified as a "vulnerable" species based on a likely 30 percent decline in their worldwide population over the next 35 to 50 years. There are now 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears across the Arctic.
"The principal cause of this decline is climatic warming and its consequent negative affects on the sea ice habitat of polar bears," according to a statement released after the meeting. Scientists from five countries, including the United States, attended the meeting."The principal cause of this decline is climatic warming and its consequent negative affects on the sea ice habitat of polar bears," according to a statement released after the meeting. Scientists from five countries, including the United States, attended the meeting.(emphasis mine)
And did he miss this recent report on the effect of global warming on the Artic regions?
AP "There are more climate changes happening up there than anywhere else in the world," Berger said of the Arctic. "Models predict drastic changes up there by the middle of this century."
...snip...
"The fundamental concept is that the Arctic is undergoing some rather exceptional and rapid changes at the moment," Wiseman told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "We see this in the retreat of glaciers and sea ice.
He takes an increase in Polar Bear numbers thought to be related to hunting restrictions and tries to turn it into a criticism of the predicted effects of global warming.
Why does the New York Times let this man put pen to paper?