In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Bjorn Lomborg writes about polar bears:
The official assessments from the leading scientists who study these animals—the Polar Bear Specialist Group within the International Union for Conservation of Nature—peg the global population today at 22,000 to 31,000. That’s higher than the 5,000 to 19,000 polar bears scientists estimated were around in the 1960s.
The main reason has nothing to do with climate. An international agreement enacted in 1976 limits polar-bear hunting, always the key threat to polar bears’ numbers. Polar bears survived through the last interglacial period, 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, when it was significantly warmer than it is now.
He makes haste to clarify:
None of that means climate change isn’t real or doesn’t affect people or the planet. But to deal effectively with these problems, we need to use good data rather than defaulting to ideologically inspired narratives. It does more good for polar bears, and the rest of us, if those trying to help them use accurate facts.
As I see it there are several different views on climate change. First, there are those who think it’s primarily caused by human action, is a dire emergency, and any data that detracts from that is to be denied and fought. Then there are those who think that climate change is a hoax and anyone who thinks anything differently is either a fool, a crook, or being deceived. Then there are those who may think it’s either true or not but that human action is not the primary agent of climate change and there isn’t much we can do about. If I’m interpreting Dr. Lomborg’s position correctly he believes in anthropogenic climate change, does not think it’s a dire emergency, and thinks that good policy requires looking at the actual data with clear eyes. I think that view approximates my own. The nuance I would add is that IMO anthropogenic climate change is more pronounced in some places than others, local climate change may be a serious problem in some places, but that those places are frequently politically inmconvenient.
Dr. Lomborg concludes:
Relying on the data I referenced used to be uncontroversial. When a CNN science journalist did an investigation similar to AFP’s in 2008, he spoke to numerous scientists and they agreed “that polar bear populations have, in all likelihood, increased in the past several decades.†When polar bears in 2008 were listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, the decision noted that the population “has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960’s to a current worldwide estimate of 20,000-25,000.†The data here haven’t changed, only the media’s willingness to disregard annoying facts.
The result is that the public is denied access to accurate data and open debate about these very important topics. Ridiculous points on one side are left standing while so-called fact-checking censors inconvenient truths. If we’re to make good climate policy, voters need a full picture of the facts.
Besides, even today some 700 polar bears are killed by hunters each year. If we want to help polar bears, why not stop shooting them?
Odd, you miss the POV of what I think represents most scientists and climate writer. Its a real problem mostly caused by human activity. It is not a dire emergency right now and good data is preferred. We need to have a measured response that is economically viable. I think your first iteration is that preferred by celebrities including celebrity politicians.
Steve
I’m not sure what you see as the difference between
and
One of emphasis? I think that human activity is one of the causes and it doesn’t matter much whether it’s the primary cause or there is a greater cause. The implications and remediation would be the same.
The result is that the public is denied access to accurate data and open debate about these very important topics. Ridiculous points on one side are left standing while so-called fact-checking censors inconvenient truths. If we’re to make good climate policy, voters need a full picture of the facts.
It’s fascinating how topics controlled by the left and their media side-kicks seem to follow the same path of having a tightly controlled narrative:
1) Espousing their own (flawed) data supporting the narrative being pushed.
2) Disallowing open debate by either censoring or not publishing opposing opinion or data.
3) Touting biased fact-checkers to validate their positions.
Consequently it appears Climate change and COVID vaccine advocates are both aligned on propagating propaganda rather than facts, to sway rather than accurately inform people regarding controversies that create impactful public policies.
BTW, I don’t see climate change as necessarily a “hoax,†but rather an issue based on contrived data seeking ideological solutions. Like many climatologists have concluded, climate occurs cyclically, historically having alternating periods of warming and freezing, despite the complexity, industrialization, or numbers of people on the planet. The climate agendas and policies, nonetheless, that best serve the world and it’s inhabitants are ones based on accurate reports, data, and sync with bettering economies, rather than destroying them, because of applying a common purpose and common sense to their reforms and policies.
I probably overstated it a bit but what I wrote is what I think most people on the left actually believe. Not listing it early as a primary belief makes it look like the crazies make up the majority.
Steve
The temperature data is well known to have been “adjusted,” applying curve fitting statistical distributions intended to create an upward slope. Given the poor data collection methods and data modeling biases its impossible to determine if there is a real current uptick. Recall, as recently as the 70’s (a relative nanosecond) the concerns were declining temperatures and a new ice age. Further, in the context of real long term data, the current data is noise.
But. YMMV. I will read or watch anything put out by Lomborg. He is a sane voice. And he realizes the shennanigans being employed by advocates in the global warming debate, and how harmful the hystericals are to the cause.
Unfortunately, its all mute. China and India will overwhelm any efforts by the EU and US, and in the process have us commit industrial suicide and relegate Africa to perpetual poverty.