[ceejayoz]

I am reading and quoting your very words.

> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.

Then:

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

Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

[hervature]

Read the words before the second part:

"""

Go look at the data yourself: [link]

You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]

"""

I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

[ceejayoz]

That’s a dodge.

I looked at the data you linked.

Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.

It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.

Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

[hervature]

That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.

I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

[ceejayoz]

> So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them.

> If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%.

The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue.

> If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain.

Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.