To some, I might be seen as trolling. To others, I might be seen as trying to argue my case. Perhaps subconsciously I am, on both accounts. But consciously, I simply find this fascinating. And it explains why
ABC News no longer talks about it. It's complicated.
I started with
the 1922 article on global warming, a phenomenon, it appears, first noticed by the Norwegian fishermen. They noted global warming before anyone else it seems. The Norwegian farmers of the sea, just as farmers of North Dakota, pretty much understand and can predict weather as well as any weatherman.
Forecasting weather, not climate. Any given farmer or rancher probably has only four generations within with to "work" his knowledge of weather or climate: the stories he/she might have heard as a toddler from his grandparents; and, the weather he/she experienced while growing up and learning from his parents who might have talked about what they remember from their own grandparents, his/her great-grandparents. And then, of course, what he/she was experiencing as an adult. Four generations, maybe 100 years of "personal" weather experience. Until the mid-20th century, I doubt most North Dakota farmers or ranchers had much time to "study" weather. They experienced it and understood it. Their livelihood and the very survival of their families depended on their understanding and ability to forecast. The weather, not the climate.
So, the farmers of the sea, the Norwegian fisherman first noted global warming back in 1922.
The article implied, at least to me, these Norwegian farmers of the sea thought, at best, they might have, at best, ten years of "farming" left.
Ten years.
That rang a bell. Where had I seen that before? Well, lookeee here ... from
NBC News when no one had yet heard the term "fake news."
From NBC News, September 14, 2006 -- an interesting date -- September 14th is the birth date of a very important person in my life, but I digress -- this headline -- again, this was
back in 2006: "Warming Expert: We Have Only One Decade Left To Act In Time."
One decade. Ten years. That was back in 2006. The lede:
A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of
opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert
catastrophe.
NASA scientist James Hansen didn't say (nor did Occasional-Cortex say) that the earth would end in ten years; they both said we only had ten years in which to "take decisive action on global warming to avert catastrophe." [Occasional-Cortex said twelve years, which on late-night television later said that was hyperbole.]
To the best of my knowledge, unless a PowerPoint presentation and a Nobel peace prize represent "decisive action" it appears we have passed the ten-year-point of no return.
So, 1922: only ten years.
1994, Algroe: only ten years.
2006, James Hansen: only ten years.
2019, Occasional-Cortex: only twelve years.
There seems to be a pattern here. Every time we pass a global warming deadline, we're given another ten or twelve years.
So, I was curious. How are the polar bears doing? We haven't heard much about them lately.
Going through a bit of surfing last night, I read quite a bit about polar bears. This is what I learned:
- the population of the Hudson Bay polar bears is the metric "everyone" accepts as sacrosanct when it comes to proving that the science is settled
- perhaps that metric has become "the" metric because the Inuit livelihood and survival in this region depends on their understanding of the tundra (and the weather/climate) to know how to manage their crop
- those who probably best know the status of the polar bear population, the Inuit polar bear farmers, continue to argue for increased hunting of said bears because the population of polar bears is so high the Inuits themselves are endangered
- some years ago, the number of polar bear tags sold were in the range of 40; the Inuits suggested that the number could easily be doubled last year or the year before
- no one really knows the number of Hudson Bay polar bears except one person (I'm not making that up) and he (a "warmist") won't release his figures
- an all-time high of 2,000 to 3,000 Hudson Bay polar bears has been estimated
- at the time the polar bear became the metric, it was estimated that there were 1,200 Hudson Bay polar bears
- now, there are between 800 and 900 Hudson Bay polar bears
- contrary to what millennials will tell you, there are no polar bears in the Antarctic, and polar bears do not eat penguins except when the former vacation at the South Pole
- the consensus is that whatever the number of polar bears there are today:
- the population is stable and has been stable for quite some time
- the polar bear farmers appear not to be concerned; they want to double the number of polar bears taken by Native Americans
- only one person has the "official number" and he is not sharing that number with the rest of us
The number one internet source for this information seems to be
Polar Bear Science (see links below).
These are a few of the sources:
- Derocher admits Western Hudson Bay polar bear population may not be declining, December 30, 2018; link here, note the date; can't get much more recent
- Environment Canada maps of polar bear population and status assessments 2018, June 11, 2018, link here; note the date; again, very current
- Breaking: 2016 West Hudson Bay polar bear survey shows the population is still stable, September 19, 2019, link here;
- "So many bears" draft plan says Nunavut polar bear numbers are unsafe (too many of them); plan leans heavily on Inuit knowledge, contradicts western scientific thinking, CBC, November 12, 2018, link here; note source and note data
