I don’t know what you mean about “cherry picking.” Most of the articles that came up when I googled the subject said more or less the same thing. You are correct in stating that the polar bear population is currently at an all time high. However, at the same time there is major cause for concern over their ultimate fate.
As for Mitchell Taylor, the scientist banned from the Copenhagen meeting, I don’t have enough information to really comment on the fairness of his banishment or not. It was obviously a stupid stunt to pull if they wanted good publicity.
Mitchell Taylor is really not the person you should be quoting to build your case, however. Here are a couple of his comments taken at random from a second google search. The first I have edited for brevity, but if you want to read the entire article, just click on the cite.
Quote:
A Vancouver Province newspaper editorial criticizing the U.S. government for proposing polar bears as a possible threatened species has the scientists it quoted crying foul. Calling the US decision “a classic case of blinkered thinking,” the Province claims that Mitchell Taylor, manager of wildlife research for the Nunavut government, has been quoted as saying that, except for Hudson Bay, "polar bears appear to be overabundant."
…Contacted by DeSmog readers, however, Taylor said [he was] misquoted in the Province editorial.
“I don't even know what "overabundant" means,” said Taylor. “There are some populations that appear to be at levels where problem-bear issues are at or approaching unacceptable levels. I have said that in various interviews. I think it is pretty clear what the (Province) author’s perspective is on climate change and polar bears. I guess this is freedom of the press in action.”
|
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1166
There is a very good interview of Dr. Taylor printed by the Canadian Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Here is just one sample question and response:
Quote:
FC: Do you think that the current level of harvest is having a significant effect on polar bears overall and more specifically on certain sub-populations of the animals?
MT: The harvest rates are usually intended to keep the population at current levels so even a sustainable harvest would have a stabilizing effect on a population. If you are asking if I think that some populations are declining because of over harvest, I think that probably Kane Basin numbers are stable even though it is over-hunted. Kane Basin seems to be a sink for polar bears right now. The harvest in western Hudson Bay has recently been reduced and the population is thought to be stable or increasing slowly. I’m not exactly sure what’s happening with harvests in the Southern Beaufort Sea, but this population appears to have been badly stressed by the recent arctic warming. The most recent data for the other populations indicates they are sustaining current harvest levels except for Baffin Bay. In Baffin Bay the research data suggests a significant decline in population numbers, but local hunters report that numbers are stable or even increased.
|
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
One might also keep in mind that Taylor is a zoologist, not a climatologist. I respect what he has to say about current bear populations, but I am skeptical about his stance on climate change.