The Climate Cult gets almost everything wrong, which explains this breathless New York Times article espousing the “trouble” Polar Bears are having. But the only trouble is that there’s no trouble.
Emphasis, mine.
“At present,” [polar bear scientist Susan ] Crockford notes, “the official IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] Red List global population estimate, completed in 2015, is 22,000–31,000 (average about 26,000) but surveys conducted since then, including those made public in 2020, would raise that average to almost 30,000. There has been no sustained statistically significant decline in any subpopulation.”
By comparison, scientists generally agree that the global polar bear population was only about 5,000 during the mid-twentieth century. The polar bear population has increased by approximately 600% as the Earth has modestly warmed during recent decades. Clearly, polar bears are not going extinct, nor have they passed a “point of no return” in which their extinction is imminent, reasonably likely, or a forgone conclusion.
How could The Times justify this rolling screed about the climate’s negative impact on bear populations? They are The New York Times. The Progs Paper of Record.
The Red Times (if you prefer) simply cherry-picked Churchill, Manitoba, and wrote a story because that one location has seen a slight decline in bear populations since the mid-80s.
This is the way of things with climate cultists suffering from chronic, systemic narrative failure.
For years the American media truncated graphical data on forest fires, but the Biden administration did them a solid earlier this year. They simply disappeared 57-years’ worth of data. Now there’s nothing to see but what they want us to see.
Polar bears are just another chess piece on that board, and the game is economics, not climate. Replacing free markets with planned economies that redistribute wealth, not that they need that. The way the US Government has been printing money, the redistribution has been underway for decades.
When the debt gets high enough, whatever that means, they’ll confiscate any actual wealth – as little as it may be worth by then – “for the good of the country” or the planet or whatever.
The Debt problem solves all the other problems, at least as far as the Marxists are concerned. It’s the ultimate end-around, but if it comes to that, I think the majority of states should just cut the cord, declare the Federal Government bankrupt, and force it into receivership.
Liquidate assets.
Close all the bloated agencies, restructure the debt, maybe sell the coastal parts of California, Oregon, and Washington to Canada so the “indigenous” illegals can follow their ancient ancestor’s path back up the coast into those less hateful and supremacist provinces. Maybe even catch a boat back to Kamchatka (unless the bearing land bridge happens to reappear).
With Climate Crisis, anything’s possible.
And it would be good for the bears because if the climate cult gets what it wants, Polar Bears could genuinely become endangered along with the rest of us.
