Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
@BjornLomborg
Nov 27, 2022 • 16 tweets • 10 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Polar bear population increasing

But doesn't fit climate narrative, so info cancelled

Reality:

Polar bears were intensely hunted

1976 world banned much hunting

Polar bear population recovered and now at its highest in 6 decades

🧵 + refs below Image
Polar bear numbers never higher

at 26,000 (22-31K), high and low estimates have never been higher

This is with the 'official data' from 2021, from IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and PBSG (Polar Bear Specialist Group), p5

iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/upl… Image
Polar bear population increasing, 1981-2021

The IUCN+PBSG have made more estimates in the past. Surely they should also be included

For the 1981 meeting, the "status of polar bear populations by country" were estimated between 18,505 and 27,106, p39-41

portals.iucn.org/library/sites/… Image
Polar bear population increasing over past 60 years

"The First International Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bear" in 1965 highlights three population estimates (p11):

17-19K
5-8K
10K+

Highest estimate in 1960s still smaller than lowest estimate today

books.google.com/?id=oCEXAQAAIA… Image
Polar bear population is at its highest in six decades

1993-today: iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/upl…
1981: portals.iucn.org/library/sites/…
1960s: books.google.com/?id=oCEXAQAAIA… Image
Polar bear population now at highest

Doesn't fit climate narrative, so must be canceled

Purported "fact-checks" cite scientists saying "there were no population estimates anywhere in 1960s, 1970s"

1965: three academic estimates



logically.ai/factchecks/lib… Image
Polar bear population now at highest

Doesn't fit climate narrative, so must be canceled

Purported "fact-checks" cite scientists saying "there were no population estimates anywhere in 1960s, 1970s"

1970: several IUCN estimates



factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.9X… Image
Polar bear population now at its highest

But this doesn't fit the climate narrative, so must be canceled

Purported "fact-checks" allow campaigners to claim "no population estimates anywhere in 1960s, 1970s"

Just silly — there were 𝗹𝗼𝘁𝘀 of estimates

all smaller than today Image
In 1960s, huge concern for indiscriminate killing of polar bears

Since ratification in 1976 of Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, kills have dropped from 1100+ to ~700 per year

That means more polar bears

researchgate.net/publication/28…
frontiersin.org/articles/10.33… Image
Polar bear population has increased over past 6 decades

While campaign scientists refute this for politically biased 'fact-checks' they quietly accept this when speaking to political friends, like CNN science:

'agree polar bear pop increased'

perma.cc/VYK2-E4VD Image
Polar bear population has increased since 1960s

But politically motivated 'fact-checkers' and scientists don't want you to know, because it doesn't fit the climate narrative

Such politicization of facts leaves everyone worse off

iucn-pbsg.org/wp-content/upl…
books.google.com/?id=oCEXAQAAIA… Image
Global warming is a real and manmade problem, and one that we should tackle smartly

But facts are crucial to understand the size of the challenge and the costs and benefits of our actions

You can read more about all three in my peer-reviewed paper sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Recognizing facts also means we can make better policies

If we're truly worried about polar bears

Why do most people argue we should cut CO₂, which at best will help a little in 100 years?

We kill 700+ polar bears every year

— maybe first stop shooting 700+ polar bears? Image
How many shot in self-defense?

In Greenland, 63 kills in self-defense, 2007-16

Total quotas (approx filled) 2007-16 is 1,359

So just under 5%

These are unavoidable, we can only avoid 95% of all kills

nord.news/2021/10/21/79-…

stat.gl/dialog/main.as…
naalakkersuisut.gl/-/media/naalak…
My peer-reviewed article is apparently again behind pay-wall

It shouldn't be

You can access it here: researchgate.net/publication/34…

or here: lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.… Image
And predictably, the 'fact-checkers' are again telling Facebook and others to stamp out the data and enforce the climate narrative

archive.md/5QU2L
wsj.com/articles/parti…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BjornLomborg

Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Aug 3
Fake news doesn't just come from foreign enemies

Friday, WHO claimed that 175,000 Europeans died from extreme heat

I pointed out that was untrue, almost 4x exaggerated

Saturday morning, WHO admitted this in the smallest possible way — they simply changed their website (and address) and had some online publications delete "extreme"

But, of course, by then the story had already made its intended impact across the world

WHO believes "Climate change is the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century" — which is just laughable and one of the reasons it was caught off-guard by Covid

This belief colors the 'findings' of WHO. In their Friday statement, the WHO Europe director explicitly worries about the "climate crisis" and expressed his support for climate action costing $1,000s of trillions (1.5oC target), so he obviously would like a dramatic and large number to make it around the world

Summary: WHO told us extreme heat kills 175K+, a number they've now admitted is almost 4x exaggerated. And they don't tell you that cold deaths at 657K are almost 4x bigger than all heat deaths. This is not informing you well

Journalists have to realize that when e.g. WHO says something, it also needs to be fact-checked

Friday claim:

Saturday update:

My tweet to ask for correction (which the director hasn't replied to):

The actual problem put in context:

WHO climate biggest challenge: web.archive.org/web/2024080206…
who.int/europe/news/it…


web.archive.org/web/2015100811…Image
WHO wrongly claimed that 175,000 Europeans die from extreme heat every year

This scary but wrong story got all the headlines

When called out, WHO acknowledged it by simply changing their website (and some online publications)

— but by then, all the scary stories had already had their impact

Friday claim:
Their update:

My tweet to ask for correction (which the director hasn't replied to):
The actual problem put in context: web.archive.org/web/2024080206…
who.int/europe/news/it…

Image
This is what WHO should tell you (because it is true):

Moderate cold is the biggest killer in Europe, followed by moderate heat, extreme cold, and only lastly by the smallest killer, extreme heat

But that doesn't fit the narrative

Image
Read 5 tweets
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Jul 17
Another environmental scare debunked:

Acid rain killing all forests was the main environmental scare in the 1980s

A new half-century study shows acid rain doesn't kill trees

— actually, trees grow more with acid rain!

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…Image
Acid rain scare in the 1980s delivered full-on panic

No more so than in Germany, where papers claimed "the forest is dying," called it an "ecological Hiroshima" and claimed ‘‘the dying of the forests will have a greater impact on our country than World War II’’

All falseImage
The 1980s Acid Rain scare we know now was mostly false

New study: acid rain actually makes trees grow faster

Yet, a majority of Germans in 1985 believed "all forests will be dead by 2000" because of acid rain

We were misled


bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1986/iiug-…
sauerlaender-verlag.com/CMS/uploads/me…Image
Read 7 tweets
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Jul 6
Today, the Great Barrier Reef is better than ever

But 12 years ago, we were told about the "Great Reef Catastrophe"

and how the reef would be almost gone today

Moral of the story: Don't always believe the scare stories

Refs in🧵
Here is the official data

apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…
Here is the 2012 article telling us about the terrible state of the Great Barrier Reef

and about how it will almost halve again by 2022 to 5-10%

pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pn…

Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Jul 2
Doesn't fit the narrative, but

2024 record coral cover for Great Barrier Reef

Based on official data for all 11 sectors of GBR,

Last three years, 2022-2024, have been unprecedented

Data: apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…Image
Official, reef-wide average widely published as the Great Barrier Reef got worse

But when it got better, official average stopped

Here is the optimal average (least-square) based on their 11 published sectors,

Last official reef-wide average: apps.aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…
aims.gov.au/reef-monitorin…Image
In 2014, the eco-worried Guardian wrote the obituary of the Great Barrier Reef

Last three years, the Great Barrier Reef has been better than ever since records started in 1986

Moral: Don't believe all scare stories theguardian.com/environment/ng…Image
Read 4 tweets
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Jun 26
Misinformation:

New York Times tells you that heat is “the deadliest of all extreme weather events”

But NYTimes simply ignore their own data, which shows

Cold is 9x deadlier

But, of course, this doesn't fit the climate narrative

NYTimes:
WMO:
Data from Lancet: nytimes.com/2024/06/21/cli…
library.wmo.int/viewer/68500/d…
thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…Image
Not just the New York Times misinforming on heat deaths:

The Guardian misinforms and misdirects, trying to avoid telling you that cold deaths vastly outweigh heat deaths


Image
Not just the New York Times misinforming on heat deaths:

Bloomberg tosses and turns to avoid telling you that cold deaths vastly outweigh heat deaths


Image
Read 6 tweets
Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Feb 20
Climate alarmists are annoyed that global climate-related disaster deaths have declined dramatically

Then they discovered how to cherry-pick deaths to look like they’re increasing

— just (indefensibly) remove the top 50 most deadly mega-disasters and rig the scales

🧵+refsImage
After manipulating their stats, they have the temerity to claim “Misinterpreting statistics could be harmful if it supports a discourse minimizing the importance of climate action”

I’m pretty sure misinterpreting statistics is wrong no matter what

, p7cred.be/sites/default/…Image
They show low death numbers from 1900s and 1910s, but these are likely wrong ()

They have left out at least two major catastrophes, likely missing at least 20-25 million deaths from the Chinese flood in 1906, leading to famine in 1906-07, and at least 2-10 million deaths from the Persian drought leading to famine in 1917-19


sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_f…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_f…Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(