CLIMATE change alarmists conveniently ‘deny’ the existence of the 1970’s “global cooling” scare because such panic, a mere 40 years ago, threatens the legitimacy of the current “global warming” scare.
HOWEVER, climate experts and government agencies of the day were indeed warning of impending climate doom and that we must take immediate “action” to avoid catastrophe.
WARMING alarmists rebut the 1970’s global cooling scare with claims that the phenomenon wasn’t “peer-reviewed” or that a “consensus” of “97%” of “scientists” didn’t agree. However, it doesn’t take Einstein to realise that the fashionable eco-scare of the day was indeed very real…
IN 1976 the CIA warned the cooling climate would bring – “drought, starvation, social unrest and political upheaval” :
C.I.A. WARNINGFrom a correspondent in Washington
MAJOR world climate changes were under way that would cause economic and political upheavals “almost beyond comprehension”, an internal report of the Central Intelligence Agency has warned the US Government.
“The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world”, the report warns.
The report, which contends that the Climate changes began in 1960, is based on a study by Mr Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin.
Its basic premise is that the world’s climate is cooling and will revert to conditions prevalent between 1600 and 1850 — when the earth’s population was less than 1,000 million and its rural, pre-industrial era civilisations were largely capable of feeding themselves.
The report, which- was concerned with possible political and economic threats the United States could expect from such drastic events, said the starvation and famine would lead to social unrest and global migration of populations.
“Goudie points to one post he saw recently from National Geographic that showed what appeared to be a starving polar bear, but in reality was an animal that was sick.”
NAT Geo pops up again with another blatant falsehood designed to deceive its audience. 100+ years building a publication of reputation and integrity only to have it destroyed in as little as a decade thanks to a religious zeal to the doctrine of CAGW.
REAFFIRMS the old adage that reputation takes a long time to build but can be destroyed overnight.
RIP Nat Geo. Viva La Polar Bears!
Inconvenient rebound in polar bear numbers.
Polar bears not starving, says Nunatsiavut wildlife manager
Geoff Bartlett · CBC News
One of the people who oversees an Indigenous hunt of polar bears says the population is doing well, despite heart-wrenching photos online suggesting some bears are starving.
Every year, the Nunatsiavut government awards polar bear licences to Inuit hunters living in the northern Labrador settlement area.
The Inuit set a quota of 12 polar bears this winter. Nunatsiavut wildlife manager Jim Goudie said all 12 were taken within the first seven days of the season.
Goudie said it’s just the latest evidence that polar bears are on the rebound in northern Canada — a trend he said officials have been recording for years.
“There are lots of signs of bears,” he told CBC Radio’s Labrador Morning. “Lots of bears and a continuation of what we’ve seen over the last three or four years.”
The Nunatsiavut hunt takes place over an area stretching from Cape…
View original post 151 more words
“Bottom line: Barents Sea polar bears are loyal to this region because the eastern portion has the habitat they require to thrive even when sea ice cover in the western portion essentially disappears for thousands of years at a time.”
RATHER ‘inconvenient’ research that would, no doubt, come as very unwelcome news to the polar bear catastrophists … Harvey et al.!
Svalbard in the western Barents Sea has recently had less sea ice extent than it had in the 1980s, especially in the west and north, but this is not unprecedented.
New evidence from clams and mussels with temperature-sensitive habitat requirements confirm that warmer temperatures and less sea ice than today existed during the early Holocene period about 10.2–9.2 thousand years ago and between 8.2 and 6.0 thousand years ago (based on radio carbon dates) around Svalbard. Barents Sea polar bears almost certainly survived those previous low-ice periods, as they are doing today, by staying close to the Franz Josef Land Archipelago in the eastern half of the region where sea ice is more persistent.
As this sea ice chart for 18 April 2018 shows, ice this month has been virtually absent from the west and north coasts of the Svalbard Archipelago, while Franz Josef Land to the east is surrounded…
View original post 1,130 more words
Superbly written Donna.
ERICA Goode’s unhinged attack on Dr. Crockford in the NY Times is further evidence of the totalitarian and authoritarian underpinnings that have corrupted the field of climate ‘science’. – Question the preferred wisdom of the day at your own peril! – Obey, or be persecuted and have your reputation trashed! This isn’t science, this is religion. “Belief” and “Denial” are the words of zealots, not scientists.
WHAT would it take for activists Goode and Co. to be happy? A Polar Bear population back to 1960’s extinction levels? Sadly, I believe the answer is yes! How dare their scared ‘cow’ and mascot of climate catastrophe have grown in population from some 5,000 in the 1960’s to 25,000-30,000 at present, despite rising CO2 and diminished sea-ice extent?
INCREASING polar bear numbers, directly threaten the power of activists and their lucrative climate change scare. We can’t have that now can we Erica?
SPOTLIGHT: Journalistic professionalism evaporates in front of our eyes.
BIG PICTURE: When historians document the demise of the mainstream media, an article published this week by the New York Times will make an excellent case study. Titled “Climate Change Denialists Say Polar Bears Are Fine. Scientists Are Pushing Back,” it’s written by Erica Goode who isn’t just any journalist. She’s a former Environment Editor of the Times. In 2009, she “founded and led a cluster of reporters dedicated to environmental reporting.” Currently, she’s a visiting professor at Syracuse University.
Out here in the real world, a debate exists about polar bears. Will they be adversely affected by climate change or will they continue to adapt as they have historically?
Since the future hasn’t yet arrived, it’s impossible to know whose opinions will turn out to be correct. But rather than presenting a range of perspectives…
View original post 865 more words
Shock news. Any climate related news that is positive or contradicts the edicts of the global warming religion is met with fearce resistance. Weird but sadly true.
One might ask, who are the real science ‘deniers’?
Polar bear specialists made global population numbers the focus of the world’s attention when they predicted a dramatic decline and possible extinction of the species. But now that the numbers have increased slightly rather than declined, the same scientists say global numbers are meaningless: the public should give those figures no credence and anyone who cites global population numbers should be mocked.
See the screen shot from a 2015 NBC news video above and another from the science journal NATURE in 2008 below (Courtland 2008):
Yet, below is a recent message from one of the world’s most vocal polar bear specialists, four years after a similar incident raised the public’s ire:
However, you can’t make a plausible prediction of future survival without an estimate of present population size: not even today’s worst journalists would buy it, nor should they.
Here is Steven Amstrup on June 8, 2014 to his PBSG…
View original post 954 more words
HAPPY international polar bear day!
My new report reveals that polar bears are doing well despite recent reductions in sea-ice. It shows in details why this is so, with summaries of critical recent research.
Press release and pdf below. And read my op-ed in the National Post here.
“In a new report published by London-based think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, zoologist Susan Crockford says that predictions that climate change is bringing about the demise of these iconic creatures have proven to be far from the mark.
Dr Crockford’s report, published to mark International Polar Bear day, makes clear that although Arctic sea-ice has declined to levels not expected until 2050 and widely predicted to cause catastrophe for polar bears, their numbers have remained stable, or have even increased slightly. As she explains
“Ice levels during the key feeding period in Spring have been good, and prey species have been abundant. It’s not…
View original post 182 more words
In scanning comments generated by the recent flurry of internet interest in polar bears and blogs I noticed that a good many people, fed alarming media stories, are still convinced that polar bear numbers are declining rapidly when nothing could be further from the truth.
In some cases, the media have made a possible future problem sound like a current problem. In others, people are remembering data from 2010 or so, not realizing that the picture has changed — or they assume that a conservation status of ‘threatened’ or ‘vulnerable’ (e.g. Amstrup et al. 2007) must mean numbers are declining (because that’s true for virtually all species classified that way, except polar bears).
The sea ice situation hasn’t really improved or deteriorated since 2007 but the polar bear picture is much better: there is information on more subpopulations and studies show most are holding stable or increasing (Aars et…
View original post 1,241 more words