> You will find that the population has been stable globally…

That is a very different claim than your original.

You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.

And, yes, I read the whole article.

"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"

"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."

▲

hervature 4 days ago | parent [-]

To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:

Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)

Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)

I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.

▲

ceejayoz 4 days ago | parent [-]

I am reading and quoting your very words.

> The polar bear population has steadily been increasing since the 1960s. Basically double what it was.

Then:

> You will find that the population has been stable globally.

Can you resolve the apparent conflict between these two statements?

▲

hervature 3 days ago | parent [-]

Read the words before the second part:

"""

Go look at the data yourself: [link]

You will find that the population has been stable globally [...]

"""

I am summarizing their own analysis. If you go look in the data, you will see that the global population is on the rise.

▲

ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-]

That’s a dodge.

I looked at the data you linked.

Of the ~20 regional populations listed, one says long term increase, two say long term decrease, and the rest all say insufficient data.

It doesn’t seem to match up with your portrayal very well.

Where did you get the “doubled” bit from?

▲

hervature 3 days ago | parent [-]

That is not a dodge. Look at the "one long term increase" and "two long term decrease" and compare the estimated populations. You have 2644 vs 618+900=1518. So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased.

Now, for the doubling, if you look at the original study I linked, it has a graph of the point estimates through the decades. From the 60s to now is about a doubling. If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. These are estimates based on multiple studies in the different time periods whereas the WWF report uses a single report.

I have sufficiently defended my claim and provided actual sources for things other than a news article that says "expert says...". If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free.

	▲	ceejayoz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> So, if the rest of the population is "insufficient data" and you only have the above to go off of, the only logical conclusion is that global polar bear population has likely increased. Not at all. If I find a $20 in one single pair of pants, the logical conclusion is not that all of my pants have $20 in them. > If you throw out the 60s because "it is bad data according to experts" then even the increase is still 50%. The experts cited also indicate the 80s numbers have the same issue. > If you want to address any claims or put forth real data, feel free. Barring time machines, "real data" from the 1960s seems… tough to obtain. Leaving us with people who know what they're talking about, who seem to widely agree on the point.