Why Jon Miltimore's Polar Bear
Argument is Stinky Fish

I

n "The Myth That the Polar Bear Population Is Declining," Jon Miltimore trips over fundamental facts and data, raising serious questions about his journalistic integrity. Effective science journalism demands rigorous research, interviews with experts, and a strong understanding of scientific concepts. Unfortunately, Miltimore’s article, published in his role as Managing Editor of the Foundation for Economic Education (often referred to as FEE) in 2019, follows a familiar pattern of employing polar bear misinformation as anti-science rhetoric. 

These types of articles often begin by targeting a person seen as emblematic of scientific consensus. They then misinterpret data to undermine the credibility of experts, before making a broader claim that some critical aspect of science should be disregarded.

Miltimore's piece follows this formula to the letter. He starts by criticizing two nature photographers, then shifts to discussing global polar bear population estimates, before concluding that key climate change predictions about rising temperatures and melting Arctic ice must be flawed. "Nevertheless," he argues, "the story of a resurgent polar bear population deserves to be told and applauded."

It may seem counterproductive to debunk an article from 5 years ago, however, the Foundation for Economic Education is actively targeting pay-per-click search queries—including those typical of middle-school students—about polar bear population numbers, directing people in the year 2024 to what is by all accounts climate misinformation. Google’s policies on climate change denial advertisements are clearly not being followed. It is up to global citizens to report misinformation from the Foundation for Economic Educationto any platform where they pay to misinform.

A screen capture from November 27, 2023 shows Jon Miltimore's article in Google's paid ads position. According to third-party data, FEE was paying upwards of $2.30 per visit for traffic for the following queries: polar bears, the polar bear, what about polar bears, how much has the polar bear population decreased, polar bear population, increasing polar bears population, polar bear numbers are increasing, polar bears and global warming, why is polar bear endangered, current polar bear population.

Jon Miltimore Employs Fallacies in his Polar Bear Arguments

Jon Miltimore's approach in this article involves a straw man fallacy, a false cause fallacy and a non sequitur fallacy. Miltimore’s straw man fallacy misrepresents or oversimplifies the arguments of those he criticizes (in this case, using the nature photographers to represent the research) to make them easier to attack. By replacing the scientific consensus on polar bear populations with photographers, he can more easily argue against it, even though he isn't engaging with the actual arguments made by scientists.

He also uses False Cause Fallacy by implying that because polar bear populations might be increasing (note: they are not), predictions about climate change and its impact on polar bears must be incorrect. This is a logical leap that incorrectly assumes causation or correlation without proper evidence, overlooking the complexities of the science involved.

Miltimore also employs the Non Sequitur Fallacy by criticizing nature photographers—who are not polar bear scientists—implying that their perspective on polar bear populations can be used to discredit broader scientific conclusions about climate change. The qualifications or statements of nature photographers don't logically impact the validity of scientific data and research conducted by experts in the field.

Paul Nicklen, one of the photographers he criticized, happens to be one of my most favorite photographers in the world. These photographers suggested that their photos of emaciated polar bears were symbols of the threats of climate change on the species. Despite the fact that these polar bears were likely emaciated for other reasons, their creative conjecture is actually accurate. If I, as a photographer, see a dystopian scene in the Salton Sea, there is no harm in me saying it. I am not representing the scientific consensus—I am providing the creative viewpoint of a photographer.

Jon Miltimore Misrepresents Polar Bear Data to Make a False Conclusion

Jon Miltimore claims that there were 5,000 polar bears in the 1950s, 8,000-15,000 polar bears in the 1960s, 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in 1984, 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in 2005 and 22,000-31,000 polar bears in 2015—an increase of up to 620 percent —all in the timespan of about 60 years.

To get these numbers, Miltimore apparently drew from various estimates or conjectures published in different eras about the total global number of polar bears. But this is an obvious misuse of data, as those earlier estimates were not necessarily made by scientists and you can't cherry pick data from any source you want to make a false narrative, and the sources he cited were not necessarily valid—some of them may not even exist.

Miltimore's argument is flawed for several reasons, both in terms of logical reasoning and the reliability of his data assumptions:

Miltimore Misuses Data Sources

Miltimore's claim is based on drawing from various estimates or conjectures published in different eras, many of which were not made by scientists. Using non-scientific estimates as if they are equivalent to rigorous scientific data is a fundamental error. Modern scientific estimates made by mammal researchers today are based on systematic research, often involving field studies, population modeling, and peer review. In contrast, earlier or non-scientific estimates may have been speculative or based on anecdotal evidence. By treating all these sources as equally valid, Miltimore creates a misleading picture.

The original number of 5,000 polar bears in the 1950s was a non-scientific conjecture made, apparently, by a Soviet Arctic Expedition that was quoted in a Soviet children’s book. The Foundation for Economic Education is supposed to be a free-market organization, and yet here they are using a conjecture from the defunct communist empire as their primary data source.

But just because a non-scientific expedition from the Soviet Union made a guesstimate about polar bear numbers for a quote in a children’s book in the 1950s does not mean that number was accurate then, and then became magically different because different estimates were made later. 

Estimating polar bear population numbers is challenging due to several factors, but improvements in methodology and technology have led to more accurate estimates in the past two decades. Here’s why it’s difficult to count polars bears and how things have improved:

Polar Bears Live in Remote and Inaccessible Habitat

Polar bears live in some of the most remote and harsh environments on Earth, primarily in the Arctic, where conditions are extreme, and access is limited. The vast and sparsely populated Arctic makes it difficult for researchers to conduct comprehensive surveys.

Polar Bears Move Incredible Distances Seasonally

Polar bears are highly mobile and move across large areas in search of food, particularly during the sea ice melting and freezing cycles. Their movements are influenced by the availability of sea ice, which is their primary hunting ground. This mobility complicates efforts to track and estimate their populations.

Polar Bears Face Changing Ice Conditions

The Arctic is undergoing significant changes due to climate change, with sea ice melting at unprecedented rates. These changes not only affect polar bear behavior and distribution but also make it difficult to use consistent methodologies over time for population estimation.

Polar Bears are Difficult to Detect

Polar bears are often solitary and spread out over large areas, making it difficult to detect and count them. Aerial surveys, which are commonly used, can miss individuals, particularly if they are on the move or in dense fog or other poor weather conditions.

There is Inconsistent Historical Data on Polar Bears

Earlier population estimates were often based on anecdotal reports, local observations, or incomplete surveys. These estimates lacked the rigorous scientific methods available today, leading to significant uncertainty in historical data. Most polar bears, about sixty percent of the global population, are in Canada. How could a non-scientific Soviet expedition correctly estimate polar bear numbers considering they mostly live in Canada?

If Jon Miltimore were a serious science journalist, he would understand that the peer-reviewed scientists who study polar bears today would have the best complete research on polar bear numbers. Today’s estimates are much better than those in the past.

For example, today’s modern survey methods have become more sophisticated, including the use of aerial surveys, satellite imagery, and radio collaring. Aerial surveys now often involve the use of helicopters and airplanes equipped with high-resolution cameras and sensors that can detect polar bears over large areas.

Researchers now use GPS collars to track individual polar bears over time. This allows scientists to monitor their movements, behavior, and habitat use, providing valuable data that helps refine those population estimates.

Today, scientists use genetic sampling techniques, such as collecting polar bear hair or scat samples, allowing researchers to identify individual bears and estimate population sizes more accurately. Genetic data can also provide insights into population structure and health.

And today, advances in statistical modeling have allowed researchers to better account for the uncertainties and variability in polar bear populations. These models can integrate data from various sources, such as aerial surveys, telemetry, and genetic sampling, to produce more accurate and reliable population estimates.

Unlike in Miltimore's primary Soviet source, today's modern polar bear research has benefited from increased international collaboration, particularly through organizations like the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN's) Polar Bear Specialist Group. Collaborative efforts among polar bear scientists around the world have led to more standardized survey methods and data sharing, improving the overall accuracy of population estimates.

Miltimore cherry-picks data from different sources and time periods to support a predetermined narrative. This approach ignores the broader context, such as the methodologies used to arrive at those numbers or the uncertainty associated with older estimates. By selectively using data that fits his argument while ignoring other easy to find context, Miltimore engages in biased reasoning.

Miltimore assumes that estimates from different decades can be directly compared as if they are consistent and equally reliable. However, scientific understanding and methods for estimating animal populations have evolved significantly since the 1950s—a time when many of the tools used by polar bear scientists—like genetic sampling and GPS, did not yet even exist. Modern estimates are more accurate due to advances in technology, better sampling techniques, and improved statistical models. Comparing these to older, less reliable estimates without accounting for these differences is misleading.

By focusing on a narrative that polar bear populations have increased, Miltimore overlooks the broader scientific consensus on the impact of climate change on polar bear habitats and long-term population viability. The global population of polar bears may vary due to a range of factors, but the key concern for scientists is the loss of sea ice habitat due to global warming, which threatens the long-term survival of polar bears. This nuanced understanding of the near future threats to this species is lost in Miltimore’s simplistic narrative.

In fact, there is no belief among the world’s polar bear scientists that global polar bear numbers are increasing. Rather, there are several distinct polar bear populations around the world, and some of those populations are increasing, and some are decreasing. It is believed that the populations which are increasing may be due to environmental regulations.

Canada’s Polar Bear Conservation Plan, the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Paris Agreement and the Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic and other regional protections are all considered to have a positive effect on polar bear populations. But other polar bear populations are believed to be in decline.

When Miltimore made his claim in 2019, the narrative of a dramatic 620% increase in polar bear populations had already been widely circulated and debunked by the scientific community. By repeating this claim without acknowledging the criticisms and corrections that had already been made, Miltimore contributes to the spread of misinformation. He disregarded the fact that the scientific community had already pointed out the problems with using older, non-scientific estimates to draw conclusions about current trends even though high quality sources debunking such misinformation were common and widespread in 2019, and would have been easily available to Miltimore.

Miltimore’s logic is flawed because it relies on inconsistent, cherry-picked, and outdated data that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. His assumptions about the reliability and comparability of these estimates are faulty, and he fails to engage with the scientific consensus on the issues facing polar bears today. By recycling debunked claims, he perpetuates a narrative that distorts the reality of the challenges polar bears face due to climate change.

Miltimore Chose to Write about a Species that are Uniquely Symbolic for Climate Change Denialists

In the 1980s, polar bears were powerful symbols of climate change, representing the visible impact of melting ice caps and shrinking habitats in an age when the public was still grappling with the subject and sought simple iconography. Images of stranded polar bears on melting ice floes stirred public concern and underscored the urgency of global warming largely because polar bears are mammals whose furry beauty makes them identifiable to us.

Today, our symbols representing climate are more complex. Over time, climate change deniers have co-opted this symbol to push their agenda, and have turned polar bears from icons of environmental crisis into tools for spreading doubt and delaying necessary policy changes.

I looked at every article written by Jon Miltimore and found that he has covered no other wild animal or plant in any of his writings, even though climate change is impacting so many other species today in ways far more concerning than polar bears. These include the polyps of coral reefs, plummetting frog populations, whales and more.

If Miltimore were honestly reporting on science topics, he would have an entire quiver of organisms to write about. If he chose to write about only one organism - the one most often employed by anti-science climate change denialists, is he really acting as an honest science journalist? What about the decline of insects around the northern hemisphere? What about the global decline of corals? What about meltwater midges or Emperor Penguins or sea butterflies or Snow Leopards? What about the decline of coccolithophores and the impact of their decline on the global viability of the free market?

Sure, Miltimore writes for a conservative and libertarian site, which, at some basic level we all understand implies that such an entity would want to look for ways to triumph the free market. But facts are not optional for Miltimore’s Foundation for Economic Education, and the free market, by all accounts of rationality, is much more likely to thrive in a world that is addressing its climate emergency. This apparent contradiction must be realized by Miltimore if he is to begin a voyage towards reason and integrity. If he is to be honest with himself, he must recognize that his sole purpose in life as a writer must not be to try to misinform in order to advance his particular worldview. At some level, he must understand that the free market actually plays, and is currently playing, an outsized role in the fight for climate change solutions, and the world’s greatest entrepreneurs, financiers and free market innovators— the theoretical heroes of Miltimore’s audience— absolutely would not condone such misinformation and in fact are more often agents of a sustainable future than not. Many of the greatest economic opportunities that exist today are tied directly and unequivocally to the climate crisis.

Jon Miltimore’s Infographic Data is Fake and Improperly Cited,  Destroying the Thesis of his Article

Miltimore claims that he drew his infographic data from these sources: The New York Times, Covebear.com, The International Bear Association, International Wildlife, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Polar Bear Study Group. 

I reached out to all of the sources contained in Miltimore’s sources. I also reached out to Miltimore himself, who suggested that he wrote this article so long ago, that he no longer knows the exact sources. But he reiterated to me in a LinkedIn message that I should visit one source in particular - Covebear.com.

Here is what I found out.

The New York Times

Miltimore is referring to a 2006 article by Clifford Krauss in which he referred to the 1950’s number of 5,000. However, Krauss later admitted that he did not remember the source of this number.

Covebear.com

Covebear.com is the website of an exceptional wildlife cinematographer and naturalist photographer, whose documentaries have earned 50 international film awards. She clarified that Miltimore never contacted her, never discussed polar bear estimates with her, and never sought permission to use her website as a source for the numbers he used on his graphic. I obtained a copy of her documentary film entitled 'Season of the Bear, Part 6: North America's Bears' which focuses on American Black Bears, Brown Bears and Polar Bears. It includes several hands-on Polar Bear experts, including an extensive interview with Martyn E. Obbard, Ph.D., Research Scientist Emeritus with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources / Trent University.

International Bear Association

Here, Miltimore is referring to the International Association of Bear Research and Management. This organization offers support to about 500 researchers who study all of the 8 bear species around the world. These are true scientists whose work would all directly contradict Miltimore's claims.

International Wildlife

There is no known organization known as “International Wildlife” and certainly none associated with polar bear research. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

If you’re a science journalist seeking reliable data on polar bear population estimates, the IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group is an excellent starting point. At the time, their estimates aligned with the numbers Miltimore used for his final 2015 figure. The IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group is known for encapsulating the highest quality polar bear research. However, no scientist associated with the IUCN would support Miltimore’s use of their data in combination with other sources in the manner he presented.

Polar Bear Study Group

Miltimore references the Polar Bear Specialist Group as a source for his data, but it seems there’s a misunderstanding. The Polar Bear Specialist Group is a division of the IUCN, not an independent organization. This may indicate a clerical error in the creation of the infographic, raising doubts about whether Miltimore fully understood the data he was citing or why he chose certain institutions for his datasets. It’s also possible that Miltimore was merely echoing other anti-science polar bear articles, with this infographic representing a case of recycling misinformation.

Misusing Data Invalidates Miltimore’s Polar Bear Thesis

Polar bears are just one species among millions of others affected by climate change. Focusing narrowly on polar bear population trends as some sort of attempt to raise questions about climate science ignores the broader evidence of global warming, including rising temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events, and widespread ecological disruptions. It is a misleading and oversimplified argument that fails to address the complexity and breadth of climate change impacts while also failing due to the false data used by Miltimore. 

Miltimore’s Final Sentence is Baffling

Miltimore ends his article by saying that it’s “the story of a resurgent polar bear population,” that “deserves to be told and applauded."

Since we know that there are no actual increased polar bear numbers, we still have to ask, why would Miltimore want us to applaud increased polar bear numbers? If polar numbers really increased 620% in a half century as claimed by Miltimore, wouldn’t the timeline suggest that it was due to global environmental regulations? And doesn’t the Foundation for Economic Education have an editorial point of view that would be against such regulations? Nevertheless, if polar bear numbers were resurgent and worthy of our applause, why not, as the journalist writing the article, make some reference to why polar bear populations increased by such a massive multiplier in such a short amount of time?

And if polar bear numbers were stable in the past, then why are increased polar numbers important? Wouldn’t an increase in a large marine mammal of 620% represent something in itself that could be alarming or at the very least extremely unusual? Should we celebrate larger polar bear numbers because they are cute? Or because that larger number shields the species from future threats? Wouldn’t a reasonable science journalist want to address some aspect of this question before they make it their concluding sentence?

Jon Miltimore Should Read Science. I Have Some Recommendations.

It is clear that Jon Miltimore doesn’t show a passion for science journalism and the inherent integrity of science journalism as an institution. In his journey to become a better journalist and thinker, I’d like to recommend some of my favorite science books to Mr. Miltimore, as reading science by well-regarded journalists and scientists is a great way to learn the level of quality, education and fact-checking it takes to be one.

"The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan is a passionate defense of science and rational thinking in an era increasingly dominated by pseudoscience and superstition. Sagan emphasizes the importance of scientific literacy and critical thinking as tools to combat misinformation and irrational beliefs. 

"The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth" by Edward O. Wilson is a heartfelt plea for the conservation of Earth's biodiversity. Wilson, a renowned biologist, addresses the book as a letter to a Southern Baptist pastor, seeking common ground between science and religion to foster a united effort to preserve the natural world. He eloquently argues that humanity's survival is intertwined with the health of ecosystems and the myriad species that inhabit them.  

"The Tapir's Morning Bath: Mysteries of the Tropical Rain Forest and the Scientists Who Are Trying to Solve Them" by Elizabeth Royte delves into the fascinating and often challenging world of tropical rain forest research. Royte follows a diverse group of scientists working at the Barro Colorado Island research station in Panama, highlighting their efforts to unravel the complex ecological interactions and mysteries of this rich and diverse environment.  

"Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming," edited by Paul Hawken, is an ambitious and meticulously researched guide presenting 100 actionable solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. The book brings together a diverse group of experts who outline practical strategies across various sectors, including energy, agriculture, transportation, and building infrastructure.