From Nice News: Polar bears play a uniquely crucial role in the Arctic ecosystem — and thankfully, one population in particular may be in better physical health than 25 years ago. A new study suggests that despite sea ice losses caused by climate change around the Norwegian island of Svalbard, the mammals’ fat reserves have increased.…the recent findings have defied Aars’ expectations, a hopeful sign for the polar bears’ future. “When I started, if you asked me what do you think will happen, I would assume they would be struggling and they would get leaner, skinnier, and maybe you would see effects on reproduction and survival,” he said. “That was wrong.”
It's stronger than Robert’s because it focuses on habitat and long-term ecological limits, not just raw population numbers, and places those numbers in context through expert interpretation rather than relying on solo data reading. The piece at Polar Bears International clearly explains that there are 20 polar bear populations with very different trends, that the global average is not increasing, and that long-term habitat declines from sea-ice loss are the real risk—a view grounded in expert science from active researchers and conservationists.
Robert, you spent all this time writing this article, but you couldn’t speak directly to even ONE polar bear scientist to better understand a complex dataset???
Your link does say the following: "Some populations have experienced steep declines while others have rebounded a little after unregulated hunting was banned in 1973"
That claim is not supported by the data in either of the polar bear population reports.
If that claim were true, there would be a significant decline in the total population, but no such decline has been reported.
This study looked at polar bears in Western Hudson Bay and found that as sea ice breaks up earlier, bears have less time to hunt, lose body condition, and die at higher rates—especially young bears and older adults. As a result, that local population declined, even though global polar bear numbers did not crash at the same time. In other words, the data show exactly what scientists expect: habitat loss causes regional declines first, while global totals can stay flat for years, so the absence of a global decline does not mean the problem isn’t real.
Your link does make claims, most of which match the material I presented in the article. But they don't present any data. The data in my article comes from actual reports that contain data, not just opinions. Both of the sources make up the current data from polar bear scientists. There was no need to speak with them since they already put it in a written report.
You say " and that long-term habitat declines from sea-ice loss are the real risk—a view grounded in expert science from active researchers and conservationists.". That is an opinion based on the assumption that sea ice will continue to become less, which is quite likely if temperatures continue to go up.
I never said this was not a future risk for polar bears.
My report presents the current known situation. It does not try to predict the future.
What good is describing the “current situation” if you ignore what’s happening to the habitat that makes that situation possible? That’s like pointing to a runaway train and insisting everything’s fine because it hasn’t killed anyone yet.
Population numbers without context aren’t neutral. They’re misleading, incomplete, and intellectually unrigorous, because ecology doesn’t work in snapshots.
This whole site isn’t Reality Time. It’s ROBERT’S REALITY TIME, shaped by selective data and gaps in understanding rather than expert interpretation.
Robert, I own every one of your books and trust your judgment on so many things—that’s exactly why I’m pushing back here. I expect more from you, damn it. More doubt, more questions, and less certainty. That’s what your readers need. Hell, that’s what the Internet needs, too. Be the positive influence I know you can be. Don’t be that know it all old guy. The world needs wisdom not confidence.✌️
By the way, the Guardian article headline that Robert showed is a glaring example of the unscientific hogwash that alarmist media (none outdo the Guardian) present to gullible readers. The starving bear, it was later revealed, was likely dying of old age and simply no longer able to hunt. Natural demise has nothing to do with climate.
"That bear is clearly severely malnourished," said Steven Amstrup, the chief scientist for Polar Bears International. "It clearly has the symptoms of starvation."
Old age could have been a factor, but the photographer, who’s photographed 1000s of bears, noted no serious scars, which are common to older polar bears.
I get your point on sensationalism in the media, but to reply as if “everyone knows the bear was just old” puts you on the same ice floe with the “unscientific” Guardian.
You misunderstood me. The bear was dying of starvation because it was likely too old to hunt for food. I wasn't disputing Amstrup. The Guardian's claim was classic climate alarmist nonsense.
I just had a quick look at the National Geographic article (the top was all I got to see) and realized that they're not much better than the Guardian now.
Dr. Susan Crockford, the author of the GWPF report, has studied polar bear research for decades and is as good a source of the relevant scientific data as you can find. As Robert's article noted, counting the bears with reasonable accuracy is very difficult, but methods for useful estimates have been developed and are used. Beyond population size, it is valuable to understand the conditions under which polar bears have lived and evolved. Such study has revealed a very resilient species that has existed for hundreds of millennia, surviving far greater environmental challenges than the relatively trivial ones they have faced in recent centuries. Climate alarmists may believe the bears give their claims support, or at least good visuals, but reality says they're barking up the wrong tree -- or floating on the wrong floe.
Well, at least you’re being consistent, David. If you don’t believe in global warming, you won’t believe polar bears are threatened—because the science you reject is the same science that explains why they are.
Good news on Polar Bears:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-33227-9
From Nice News: Polar bears play a uniquely crucial role in the Arctic ecosystem — and thankfully, one population in particular may be in better physical health than 25 years ago. A new study suggests that despite sea ice losses caused by climate change around the Norwegian island of Svalbard, the mammals’ fat reserves have increased.…the recent findings have defied Aars’ expectations, a hopeful sign for the polar bears’ future. “When I started, if you asked me what do you think will happen, I would assume they would be struggling and they would get leaner, skinnier, and maybe you would see effects on reproduction and survival,” he said. “That was wrong.”
Now read this article:
https://polarbearsinternational.org/news-media/articles/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing
It's stronger than Robert’s because it focuses on habitat and long-term ecological limits, not just raw population numbers, and places those numbers in context through expert interpretation rather than relying on solo data reading. The piece at Polar Bears International clearly explains that there are 20 polar bear populations with very different trends, that the global average is not increasing, and that long-term habitat declines from sea-ice loss are the real risk—a view grounded in expert science from active researchers and conservationists.
Robert, you spent all this time writing this article, but you couldn’t speak directly to even ONE polar bear scientist to better understand a complex dataset???
Your link does say the following: "Some populations have experienced steep declines while others have rebounded a little after unregulated hunting was banned in 1973"
That claim is not supported by the data in either of the polar bear population reports.
If that claim were true, there would be a significant decline in the total population, but no such decline has been reported.
Ok, here’s a link and interpretation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251773263_Effects_of_Earlier_Sea_Ice_Breakup_on_Survival_and_Population_Size_of_Polar_Bears_in_Western_Hudson_Bay
This study looked at polar bears in Western Hudson Bay and found that as sea ice breaks up earlier, bears have less time to hunt, lose body condition, and die at higher rates—especially young bears and older adults. As a result, that local population declined, even though global polar bear numbers did not crash at the same time. In other words, the data show exactly what scientists expect: habitat loss causes regional declines first, while global totals can stay flat for years, so the absence of a global decline does not mean the problem isn’t real.
Your link does make claims, most of which match the material I presented in the article. But they don't present any data. The data in my article comes from actual reports that contain data, not just opinions. Both of the sources make up the current data from polar bear scientists. There was no need to speak with them since they already put it in a written report.
You say " and that long-term habitat declines from sea-ice loss are the real risk—a view grounded in expert science from active researchers and conservationists.". That is an opinion based on the assumption that sea ice will continue to become less, which is quite likely if temperatures continue to go up.
I never said this was not a future risk for polar bears.
My report presents the current known situation. It does not try to predict the future.
What good is describing the “current situation” if you ignore what’s happening to the habitat that makes that situation possible? That’s like pointing to a runaway train and insisting everything’s fine because it hasn’t killed anyone yet.
Population numbers without context aren’t neutral. They’re misleading, incomplete, and intellectually unrigorous, because ecology doesn’t work in snapshots.
This whole site isn’t Reality Time. It’s ROBERT’S REALITY TIME, shaped by selective data and gaps in understanding rather than expert interpretation.
Robert, I own every one of your books and trust your judgment on so many things—that’s exactly why I’m pushing back here. I expect more from you, damn it. More doubt, more questions, and less certainty. That’s what your readers need. Hell, that’s what the Internet needs, too. Be the positive influence I know you can be. Don’t be that know it all old guy. The world needs wisdom not confidence.✌️
By the way, the Guardian article headline that Robert showed is a glaring example of the unscientific hogwash that alarmist media (none outdo the Guardian) present to gullible readers. The starving bear, it was later revealed, was likely dying of old age and simply no longer able to hunt. Natural demise has nothing to do with climate.
"That bear is clearly severely malnourished," said Steven Amstrup, the chief scientist for Polar Bears International. "It clearly has the symptoms of starvation."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/starving-polar-bear-video-climate-change-spd
Old age could have been a factor, but the photographer, who’s photographed 1000s of bears, noted no serious scars, which are common to older polar bears.
I get your point on sensationalism in the media, but to reply as if “everyone knows the bear was just old” puts you on the same ice floe with the “unscientific” Guardian.
You misunderstood me. The bear was dying of starvation because it was likely too old to hunt for food. I wasn't disputing Amstrup. The Guardian's claim was classic climate alarmist nonsense.
I just had a quick look at the National Geographic article (the top was all I got to see) and realized that they're not much better than the Guardian now.
Dr. Susan Crockford, the author of the GWPF report, has studied polar bear research for decades and is as good a source of the relevant scientific data as you can find. As Robert's article noted, counting the bears with reasonable accuracy is very difficult, but methods for useful estimates have been developed and are used. Beyond population size, it is valuable to understand the conditions under which polar bears have lived and evolved. Such study has revealed a very resilient species that has existed for hundreds of millennia, surviving far greater environmental challenges than the relatively trivial ones they have faced in recent centuries. Climate alarmists may believe the bears give their claims support, or at least good visuals, but reality says they're barking up the wrong tree -- or floating on the wrong floe.
Well, at least you’re being consistent, David. If you don’t believe in global warming, you won’t believe polar bears are threatened—because the science you reject is the same science that explains why they are.