[bayarearefugee]

Shouldn't we be past being "stunned"? The past 11 years are the hottest 11 years on record.

Climate catastrophe is coming, soon. Everybody knows this, even the vocal deniers (the ones with power, not the sheep they feed propaganda to). They've simply decided to profit off it instead of trying to slow it down.

The "drill, baby, drill", "clean beautiful coal" lunacy and wanting to invade Greenland and Canada are all directly related.

[czinck]

Yes, winters are getting worse and worse, but this year was really bad, way worse than any predictions. I was in Park City in February and there was so little snow it looked like summer, and that was before the streak of warm and dry weather this article is talking about. I literally hiked up to the 2002/2034 Olympic facilities in 55 degree weather with no snow on the ground, while the Olympics were still going on in Milan. And I was in Park City because they had more snow than Colorado...

[blipvert]

Can’t remember the exact quote, but there is something in The Omen II about future wars being fought over food (Thorn corporation being involved in agriculture/fertiliser or something).

Last time that I saw it I wondered if the Ukraine conflict might be about control of the “Breadbasket of Europe” as much as anything.

[everdrive]

But of course Thomas Malthus was wrong about everything and we just keep need to growing populations.

[wak90]

It's pretty indicative of the situation that you're unironically trying to say Malthus was right about some things, actually.

[nradov]

Control over European food supplies might have been a minor factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine but that was secondary to establishing a greater Russian empire with defensible strategic depth. A lot of Ukraine's wheat exports went to Egypt and they have suffered significant food cost inflation due to the war.

[realo]

The polar bears are drowning up north.

I would say climate catastrophe is already here... at least for them.

[hervature]

The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s [1]. Basically double what it was. The more falsifiable information you use the less you are helping the cause.

[1] - https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/02/Crockford-State-...

[tinyplanets]

This report was published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which according to Wikipedia "is a climate change denial lobby group registered as a charitable organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated aims are to challenge what it calls "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, practise and promote climate change denial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foun...

So it sounds like they (and I assume you) definitely have an agenda you're trying to promote.

[billfor]

Post the correct facts rather than arguing about the source. Here’s the most recent report from a “correct” source.

https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

Read that and explain why the population is decreasing — the only point he made was that it was not.

[hervature]

Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.

[hervature]

To be honest, I just looked up the report and did not not notice it came from there. My only agenda was that it was the only report that clearly showed the average and CI of the different studies throughout the years. WWF links to the actual report [1] which is found at [2]. They try their very hardest to not show that the population is either stable or increasing. If you look at decreases, for example in Davis Strait, it is a loss of 1% with 0% in the 95% interval.

Anyway, I do admit that linking from that website is not a good look but all I did was link the report and I am not advocating for anything else on their website. My larger point, the climate change community does not need the polar bears to drive their point. It is a bad example and we should use one of the many other verifiable sources (ice sheet loss, sea level rise, droughts, etc.) instead.

[1] - https://www.arcticwwf.org/wildlife/polar-bear/polar-bear-pop... [2] - https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBSG-St...

[ceejayoz]

Speaking of falsifiable info:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/27/fac...

> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.

[hervature]

Did you even read that article? It says the measurements from 1960-1980 are unreliable so the claim is false but the trend still works from 1980. Go look at the data yourself: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/population-status/

You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.

The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.

[ceejayoz]

> You will find that the population has been stable globally…

That is a very different claim than your original.

You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.

And, yes, I read the whole article.

"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"

"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."

[hervature]

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:

Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)

Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)

I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.

[echelon_musk]

Both can be true.

[SirFatty]

Ah, but "stuns" gets the clicks!