Module 3D: Apply

What are the most common misconceptions about polar bears and climate change?

• Could floating platforms be used to save polar bear from ice loss?

• I’ve seen some news reports about a global warming hiatus. Does that mean global warming has ended? Is that good news for polar bears?

• Polar bears have been around for much longer than previously thought. Does this mean they'll be able to survive climate change?

• Are the recent sightings of polar bear-grizzly hybrids in Canada due to climate change? Will this help save polar bears?

• Why is polar bear hunting allowed?

• Can't polar bears simply move north where the ice isn't melting? If not, why?

• How did polar bears survive earlier warming trends?

• Can polar bears survive by eating goose eggs?

• Can we save polar bears by moving them to Antarctica?

• Could polar bears learn to hunt on land like grizzlies?

• Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations booming?

• Are Canadian scientists opposed to listing the polar bear as threatened, as some news organizations have reported?

These can be tripping points that cause some individuals to not act (you will learn more about tripping points in the months to come!). They hang onto an incomplete piece of information from the media, which creates a question of whether or not the communicator is credible. PBI has compiled answers to each of these questions from our Scientists.

We'd also like to share with you a study  that examines the common misconception that terrestrial foods could sustain polar bears. While it may be tempting for the public to think that polar bears could survive by switching to land based foods, this paper establishes, in no uncertain terms, that terrestrial food sources do NOT offer any hope for polar bears in the absence of sea ice. The research team compared the nutritional needs of polar bears, which have evolved to prey on fat-rich seals, with the nutrients of land-based foods.

They also addressed the rate of occurrence of terrestrial feeding in some populations and the inability of the food-poor tundra environment to support whole populations of the world's largest bears. The scientists found that while some individual bears may temporarily benefit from eating energy-rich foods like bird eggs, these aren't abundant enough to have an impact at the population level. And other possible foods, like small mammals and vegetation, don't meet the polar bear's nutritional requirements.

Another study calculated that a polar bear would need to consume approximately 1.5 caribou, 37 Arctic char, 74 snow geese, 216 snow goose eggs (i.e., 54 nests with four eggs per clutch) or 3 million crowberries to equal the energy available in the blubber of one adult ringed seal.

A recent study used cameras mounted to satellite collars on polar bears during the ice-free season in Western Hudson Bay to examine their terrestrial foraging behaviour. The scientists found that even when bears foraged on terrestrial foods, they lost the same amount of body mass as bears that didn’t forage at all, highlighting that land-based foraging provides little benefit and is insufficient to support a polar bear’s energy needs.

In the video above, Dr. John Whiteman, PBI's Chief Research Scientist participates in a discussion on polar bears. For context, he was an invited speaker for the Economic Roundtable of San Francisco. A little after the 50min mark in the recording, he takes some questions and did a great job of navigating pushback from a climate denier. We offer this example to illustrate that folks at all points in their careers and in all settings may experience pushback, and how valuable it can be to listen, but not be distracted by tangential topics.

Why do climate denier blogs focusing on polar bears assert that (a) the bears are fine, or (b) sea ice isn’t melting? It’s all part of a web of deceit designed to cast doubt on the scientific consensus behind climate change.

A paper written by a diverse team of scientists, including PBI’s chief scientist, Dr. Steven Amstrup, examines the misinformation about polar bears published in internet blogs that deny climate change. The paper examines why deniers choose to focus on polar bears, how they succeed in confusing the public, and what we can do to combat that confusion. 

REFLECT: Have you ever noticed these misconceptions from guests or social media viewers? What is your general approach for confronting misconceptions? Do you correct them, link to literature, bridge and pivot, or delete comments?
Please share in the Discord community so we can learn from one another, and add some more tools to our toolbox.

Give it a shot:
Some communicators use a “myths vs. facts” strategy that unfortunately often subtly reinforces myths simply through repetition, which can then further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. What's one way you might create content to address some of these misconceptions listed above without using a "myths vs. facts" strategy?
Share your ideas in the Discord community!