Obama’s Alaska trip: where were the polar bears?

With a population of 25,000 today, polar bears are everywhere -- except in Obama's photo-op album

obamainalaskaAm I the only one who finds it incongruous that President Obama, when on a carefully choreographed trip to Alaska, even manning his own Instagram account to engage young people, to spotlight the effects of global warming—which he says is happening “right now”—announced the accelerated acquisition of ice breakers? During his trip, he told Alaskans that by the end of this century, Alaska will see “warming of between 6 and 12 degrees,” which he explained: “means more melting.” Six to 12 degrees is a lot of warming, therefore, a lot of melting—which would seem to require fewer ice breakers not more.

I applaud the attempt to catch up, as I’ve written previously, I think America is woefully behind in the Arctic—where Russia is increasingly aggressive. But you have to wonder what his speech writers were thinking to have him asking Congress to spend more on ice breakers on the same trip where he’s predicting more warming.

Perhaps he really knows, what many scientists are claiming: Arctic ice is growing—with updated NASA data showing polar sea ice is arcticiceapproximately 5% above the post-1979 (the year satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps) average. This, despite former Vice President Al Gore’s claim that the Arctic ice cap could be completely gone by now. In fact, according to the April 1896 edition of National Geographic, Alaska, glaciers have been retreating there since George Washington was President.

In a September 4 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, said: “It is a historical fact that the glacier in Glacier Bay began its retreat around 1750. By the time Capt. George Vancouver arrived there in 1794, the glacier still filled most of the bay but had already retreated some miles. When John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, visited in 1879, he found that the glacier had retreated more than 30 miles from the mouth of the bay, according to the National Park Service, and by 1900 Glacier Bay was mostly ice-free.”

Another thing surprised me about his trip. An AP report of Obama’s Alaska visit states: “Every stop was elaborately staged to showcase the President in front of picture-perfect natural wonders. …the White House arranged for photographers and reporters to pull up alongside him in a separate boat, capturing stirring images of the President gazing wistfully from the deck at serene waters and lush mountain vistas.” Yet, with all this planning for dramatic effect, there were no polar bears—not even mentioned.

frostpawWell, one polar bear might have been spotted: Frostpaw. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has a polar bear costume (“made entirely out of synthetic materials,” according to the Vineyard Gazzette—which means made from petroleum products) that it drags out and a staffer dons to follow Obama, and remind him, as the press release says:

  • Rescind proposals to drill for oil in the Arctic and along the Atlantic coast;
  • Halt all new fossil fuel development on public land;
  • Cut greenhouse pollution from airplanes and other unregulated sources;
  • Reject, once and for all, the Keystone XL pipeline; and
  • Be an international climate leader.

The CBD claims Frostpaw was dispatched to Alaska, but there are no reports that Obama got to see it.

Now, I understand that his three-day journey didn’t take him to locales where the real white bears frolic, but since they’ve become the symbol of Al Gore’s global warming scare, you’d think he’d at least mention them while he was in there—after all when people think of Alaska, they think of polar bears. What better imagery to evoke?

Once again, perhaps his speech writers were aware of claims of falsified records and the besmirched Charles Monnett (whose observations of drowned polar bears helped galvanize the global warming movement), and reports of rebounding polar bear populations. While they don’t get much mainstream press coverage, several scientists are reporting an unprecedented increase in the world’s polar bear population.

One of the foremost authorities on polar bears, Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He said: “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

Then there is Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia, who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career. She claims polar bears are threatened by too much ice. She’s released a new, in-depth report on the relationship between sea ice and polar bears, entitled Arctic Fallacy—but you don’t see her conclusions touted in the New York Times.

In his book, Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, biologist and ecologist Jim bearspolarSteele argues: “Glaciers have retreated and expanded numerous times since the end of the last ice age. Polar bear numbers are at record highs with approximately 25,000 bears. And Arctic sea ice, which had precipitously declined from the mid-2000s to 2013, has had a reversal since then, now equaling historic levels considered normal.”

But, if they don’t fit the accepted propaganda, we don’t hear about these reports.

Filmmaker J.D. King is trying to change that through a new film: Icebear. Following the success of his two previous films—Blue and Crying Wolf, King is in the midst of a Kickstarter campaign (ending September 24) to fund the film. He explains: “It is very important to raise the money for the movie through crowdfunding. This needs to be a film by the people’s demand and support—so that it cannot be accused of being a product of a special interest group or organization.”

On the crowd-funding site, King offers a variety of facts about polar bears—with links to the source data. He explains: “The power of the media is great, as evident by how they’ve chosen to present only one side of polar bear story. They’ve used polar bears, misused science, and preyed upon people’s emotions all the while ignoring any facts that contradict the narrative they want to make reality. But if we’re not getting the whole truth about polar bears, why should we accept the larger narrative about man-made, catastrophic climate change?” This is why he wants to produce Icebear—but he needs our help. Will you kick in?

The polar bears are there—which is maybe why President Obama didn’t even mention them on his Alaska trip. He wanted to “spotlight the effects of global warming,” and a rebounding polar bear population doesn’t fit the narrative.

Categories

About the Author: Marita Noon

Marita Noon

CFACT policy analyst Marita Noon is the author of Energy Freedom.,

  • Ian5

    You are intentionally misleading and misinforming readers. Let’s take arctic sea ice. You promote the erroneous claim that Arctic sea ice is growing and pretend to substantiate it with a graph that actually contradicts your claim.

    Meanwhile, the facts according to the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center:

    The 2015 arctic sea ice maximum annual extent (achieved on Feb 25) was the lowest in the satellite record and also one of the earliest.
    https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record

    This year’s minimum sea ice extent, which typically occurs in mid to late September, is likely to be the third or fourth lowest in the satellite record. All four of the lowest extents have occurred since 2007. Sea ice extent remains below average in nearly every sector except for Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay, where some ice persists in sheltered coastal areas.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    • ErikKC

      Leave it to a confirmed warmist to be the first to jump in there with their bogus “facts.” Pffft.

      • Ian5

        Marita Noon suggests that arctic sea ice is growing and mentions
        NASA to back up her claim. Yet if you did some basic homework , you’d find that NASA states the complete opposite, confirming that arctic sea ice is declining. Who is presenting bogus arguments? NASA or Ms. Noon? They can’t both be right.

      • cshorey

        They were actual facts from reputable sources. Sorry you missed that.

    • Scott Scarborough

      Gee, no mention of Antartic sea ice. I wonder why? Could it be because it is above the mean? Nooooo! It’s funny how that CO2 only effects one pole and not the other, isn’t it! You say Arctic sea ice is below the mean. Maybe that is why there are so many Polar Bears. The scientist in the article says that too much sea ice is what endangers the Polor Bears.

      • cshorey

        I’ll mention the Antarctic ice. Though Guy Calendar in 1939 predicted that Antarctica would increase glacial ice mass (because warmer air holds more water that can still fall as snow there), we have already hit the tipping point where the edges of Antarctica are already melting away faster. This adds more fresh water to the surface waters around Antarctica which stays at the surface because it is less dense than the salt water. Of course you know that fresh water freezes more easily than salt water = MORE SEA ICE. But wait! There’s more! The fresh water cap that has been caused by Antarctic glacial melting due to warming also blocks upwelling salt water that would be a tad warmer and thus traditionally prevents sea ice growth, but now that it’s being blocked from the surface = MORE SEA ICE. But wait! There’s more! A recent paper showed that this sea ice was being spread out by altered wind patterns that have been linked to warming of the Atlantic ocean = MORE SEA ICE. And so that’s how thinking about this issue works instead of just throwing out sound bites. Climate change is real, and we are the cause. People writing articles on this site seem to have very little knowledge of earth systems.

        • Scott Scarborough

          Yep. More Ice is due to Global warming. Less ice is due to Global Warming. Same with more snow and less snow, more rain and less rain, more heat and less heat. And its all very scientific I’m sure! Hey did you ever think about buying some swamp land in Florida?

          • cshorey

            So, did you have something specifically in issue with what I said, or did you just not understand it?

    • Well Done

      LOL NASA are “intentionally misleading and misinforming” people. They put forth data the KNOW is erroneous. The fact is, there is a much polar ice as there has ever been. Alaska is affected by the “Pineapple Express” from Hawaii and is not representative of the entire Arctic. Polar bears are thriving. You’re full of it, Ian5

      • cshorey

        This is just wrong. NASA is not intentionally misleading anyone, or you would have to say that the BEST study funded by the Kochs that found the same thing as everyone else, including the human signal dominating since the 1980’s, is also wrong. And so are all the other records including the satellite records from Spencer and Christy (note how often those two have had to be corrected). And thus NASA has been confirmed by a group skeptical of their results. Guess you missed that.

        • Well Done

          LOL your sniveling about Koch bros. just screams “don’t bother”. So I won’t. Guess you won’t miss that.

          • cshorey

            Noting a funding source that has petroleum ties for a re-analysis of that data that just was attacked without basis here, and noting the results of that study are sniveling to you. That’s interesting. Did you have anything of substance to say in response or just this knee jerk reaction?

      • Ian5

        “…there is a [sic] much polar ice as there has ever been”. Your opinion isn’t good enough. Show us the evidence. While you’re at it explain your ridiculous conspiracy theory that NASA’s data and position on climate change are erroneous.

        • Well Done

          Your disagreement isn’t relevant, and NASA are full of it.

          • Ian5

            i think what you mean is that opinion without factual evidence isn’t relevant. No evidence = no argument.

          • Dano2

            No evidence for the assertion, so deflection.

            Best,

            D

      • Dano2

        Facts are facts. You don’t get your own facts. Nothing is more wrong than this: there is a much polar ice as there has ever been. and quite wrong is this: Polar bears are thriving.

        HTH

        Best,

        D

  • cshorey

    Way to cherry pick a single species and use a four year run to talk about climate trends that need at least 17 years.

    • John Sposato

      Isn’t that what the other side does? And, by the way, the article talks about the particularly referenced glacier as retreating since the 1750s, a time span of over two hundred and fifty years. The sole reference to polar bears is purely in reaction to climate science’s focus on them as an endangered species. So, it isn’t so much that this article focuses on them, except as a reaction to the narrow vision of the other viewpoint. How’s this for a 17 year trend: within the statistical limits of error of the data collected, there’s been no global warming on the planet for about that period of time.

      • cshorey

        I don’t know what “side” you are talking about, but I’m sure there have been people who have tried to argue AGW from a single data point, and they shouldn’t. The conclusions of the science comes from a convergence of multiple lines of evidence. As for your final statement, no that’s wrong. 2014 was the warmest year on record, and 2015 is on it’s way to put 2014 in second place. And you’ve ignored the heating of oceans, especially below 2000 m. To claim no warming over the past 17 years is buying a known falsehood.

  • cshorey
  • Kambiz Fatehi

    A new scientific answer to president of the United States of America about climate change and global warming
    Note: This new solution and this new formula invention in Iraq and Turkey to formally accepted:
    A NEW SCIENTIFIC FORMULA DISCOVERY TO END OF GLOBAL WARMING AND CHANGE THE WORLD!
    (Ee>Ep+ E1at) = (E>P+1at)
    What is the most difficult scientific question of global hydroelectric that nobody could the answer to it?
    Now the hard global question!!!!!
    How can we produce clean energy in a best way by the potential of water Static head in dams & seas that this water pressure can push to the center of planet?
    Answer:
    This is by getting benefit of joint scientific formula (E>P+1at) with immersion turbine method inside the water of dams & seas.
    Ee= High pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero resultant forces).
    Ep= Released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure in water depth (More than ten meters of water).
    E1at= Amount of energy that is consumed at a small pump of one atmosphere power is the ability (In the same place of the water power plant in water depth).
    This new method is as like as old method of energy production in dams.
    The difference is that the volumetric capacity of atmosphere can be made with equipment (Boxes cycle of pipes).
    With help of this new formula in any depth of water you can get the powerful clean energy!
    This new method can help us to transfer of volumetric capacity of the atmosphere to the deep water!
    Natural pressure of water in any depth of water can help to exit water in the boxes cycle of pipes that they installed at the same depth (New power plant of developed hydroelectric).
    This new formula and new method will produce cheap energy in the world and they can change the world soon!
    Now this scientific new formula and this new method that has been registered officially by the Ministry of Justice of Kurdistan Regional Government under the No. 952/6 from 12th of June,2013 and it has been accepted officially & scientifically by all relevant ministries of KRG. This important and worldwide subject will obtain clean energy that we can say it is parallel to the attempts of Mr. Obama, The president of Unites States of America for Cutting Carbon Emissions by 30% by 2030 The importance of this invention is to decrease the rate of carbon and decrease the duration from 2030 to downwards.
    I am an environmental researcher and inventor. I could answer of the most difficult question of global hydroelectric. It is normal that you do not believe, but it is true really. For more information: (Only alternative for the future of the human energy that has just been discovered)
    The latest research achievements of water science:
    Discover a new scientific formula of water (Answer of the most difficult question of global hydroelectric):
    Do not worry because new formula discover can solve the world environment problems (Ee>Ep+ E1at). The use of oil and gas has ended really! This new formula works with its new method (Immersion Turbines in depth of sea in zero resultant forces). Thus in power generation, water does not exit from the dams! This is a new industrial revolution in the world. All the scientists in the world are in the shock now. With this great discovery will solve the problem of global warming too. It is a scientific fact. I found the answer a question of science that hundreds of years, scientists are looking for answers. Now the time has come to say that we could find a new theory to produce clean energy more powerful than atomic energy:
    The scientific use of the formula (Ee> Ep+E1at) and the most advanced new method of producing electricity from immersion turbines in depth of seas and oceans water. With amazing discover of a new clean energy formula in depth of water (E>P+1at). The immersion turbine method in depth of sea is the base of this new model. This invention can change the world and it can start a new industrial revolution in the world. Many scientists believe that the discovery of the formula is unparalleled. Although many still in shock! How this formula has not be discovered by scientists in the world. This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdestan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013. You can read the articles of (Change the world with Kurdistan ’s industrial revolution) and (A Kurdish inventor has found a new method for electricity production under water).
    Now the earth moves toward destruction. Concerns all the scientists and the people is absolutely true. Fortunately, the new formula has been discovered. This formula is the only hope to stop the cycle of human destruction of the planet. This formula is now in the hands of people that hope to survive. The answer of world hard question on hydroelectric have been answered! Then from this time, everything is simple. The cost of building the power plant is very low. The new power plant works with water and air play in depth of water and seas. The amount of energy in proportion to the quality of the installation and the amount of water input and output of the system is different. When the new method began to work! All methods and systems for energy production in the world will change. This is unbelievable and this is perfectly normal. All clean energy industries are driven by new hydroelectric. This means that millions of megawatt hours of electricity produced free. One of the new methods used in industrial preservation and protection of the marine creatures. All systems are protective filter. Air is injected to increase the dissolved oxygen in the sea and the sea is refined. My new formula and new method can change the world and start a new industrial revolution soon.
    I do not have to navigate on the surface and at depth. This new formula works with its new method (Immersion Turbines in depth of sea in zero resultant forces). Thus in power generation, water does not exit from the dams! This is a simple form of advanced technology. Constant power plants in water can helps to transfer the energy to the cities. Power transmission cabling system must be secure and safe of industrial. My work is not too important! I just answer a scientific question. Answer to a hard question that scientists are searching for hundreds of years. My new formula and new method can change the world and start a new industrial revolution soon. This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdestan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013. All the scientists have accepted this theory. Investigate the truth is simple. I have to say that this method is very new. It is different from with all the old ways of hydroelectric that we knew them (Hydroelectric of dams and waves and lagoon power plant).
    http://rudaw.net/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=110844

    • Brin Jenkins

      Hydraulic energy storage is my hobby horse. I’m not at all sure how you can exploit this with your device? If its covered by patent can you explain what it looks like and how it works?

      I believe there is a need for Armstrong’s Hydraulic Accumulators again as an energy storage device instead of batteries.

      • Kambiz Fatehi

        Yes, thank you. For start, we need to be a small start. An atmosphere that is as much energy (ten meters of water weight of system). The ongoing energy and always available. I did win to prove it. It is different from with all the old ways of hydroelectric that we knew them (Hydroelectric of dams and waves and lagoon power plant). This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdestan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013. All the scientists have accepted this theory.

  • Brin Jenkins

    The warming supporters have not explained the exact physics mechanism on why CO2 causes heating. I don’t think it does, but I was to agree with them I would be joining a consensus unable to explain how it works!.

    • Dano2

      Of course CO2 causes heating. Are you telling us physics works everywhere in the universe but on earth???

      Best,

      D

      • cshorey

        Don’t bother with Brin, I’ve explained the physics to him before and found he couldn’t get the difference between reflection and refraction, so we have been stuck there. I still haven’t heard him show he knows that basic difference. Once he does, may try to teach him more, but right now it’s teaching a brick. Not even substantive enough to make a wall.

        • Brin Jenkins

          No, I asked for the precise mechanism of why it does what you say, I think perhaps wishing to teach what you believe is not the correct way to go. Just explain it! Dan is incapble of much more than insulting those you grind to a halt with, a troll.

          • cshorey

            Can’t explain absorption and emission to a person who can’t tell that from refraction and reflection. Look into absorptivity of gasses in the atmosphere and you’ll find your own answer.

            • Brin Jenkins

              I have, and rejected it as another unproven theory.

              • Dano2

                Un”proven” “theory”!

                Hoot!

                Best,

                D

              • cshorey

                Ok, Brin thinks absorption and emission by gasses in the atmosphere should be rejected as an unproven theory. See Dano, nothing to work with here. Too dense.

          • Ian5

            Kids Britannica has a good video describing the basic mechanism. The science is taught beginning in about Grade 5 here in Canada (9-11 year-olds).

            • Brin Jenkins

              I bet it is, catch em young. Like the O level physics text book I picked up and it fell open on the page that declared “Windmills are Good”. This is a point to remember in exams of course. An opinion unsupported by observation or fact.

  • Dano2

    Actual, real facts on polar bears:

    here are fewer than 25,000 polar bears left in the wild, according to the nonprofit organization Polar Bears International. Near the southern Beaufort Sea (map), for instance, the population has dropped about 40 percent between 2001 to 2010, from 1,500 to 900 bears.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa3778286a8106a31e54efdfee930dce5bc009bb339a48759827fe5177df8625.jpg

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/polar_bears.html

    Best,

    D

    • jackell

      No one cares, but troubled liberal elitists
      .

      • Dano2

        So you don’t care that a main argument in this piece is blatantly wrong? How sad.

        Best.

        D

      • cshorey

        I care as a fiscal conservative. 1m sea level rise over the next century with no shoreline development regulations and an underfunded Federal Flood Insurance program = serious loss of economic infrastructure. Not fiscally conservative to ignore that. I’m for being conservative regarding current sea level.

  • Dano2

    Another false assertion: former Vice President Al Gore’s claim that the Arctic ice cap could be completely gone by now

    This has been debunked soooooooooooooo many times it is comical. Yet here it is again.

    And why not the most updated Arctic ice plot, instead of one two months old? Because it looks much worse?

    Best,

    D

  • moran

    Eye catching heading. It’s suggested that polar bear populations are stable and growing. Why not check it out by viewing the movie “Icebear”?

    • Brin Jenkins

      You rely on movies?

      • moran

        Your point’s acknowledged. When the EPA is inaccurate in its “global warming” concerns over CO2, doesn’t recognize the insignificant U.S. worldwide climate effect, and exaggerates environmental benefits, can we enjoy some lighter-hearted diversions over “threatened” species?

        • Dano2

          EPA “inaccurate” everybody!

          best,

          D

  • Steve

    “Polar Bears for Obama” is the next progressive schlock for socialist t-shirts. I’m sure we will see more liberal expounding on weather reports in the new year. I’d like to suggest o’dumber also consider “Save the Oil Wells”, “Recycling No-Go Zones”, “Climactic Shakedown”, ” Good is Bad And Bad is Good”, “Homeland Security – Protected by the Cloud”.