Grim evidence that global warming eats at scientists’ brains

Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog

Once again, I have to ask: if the evidence of man-made warming is so clear, why all the lies and exaggerations? Take the latest example, from the ABC yesterday:
Grim evidence of the effects of climate change are emerging in Canada, with scientists reporting more cases of cannibalism among polar bears.

Tourists often take excursions to northern Manitoba for a first hand look at polar bears. But one group recently experienced a horrifying sight as a male bear separated a cub from its mother, then killed and ate it.
Scientists say there have been at least eight cases of polar bears eating cubs this year and that the cubs are being killed for food.
Wow. Eight cases of bears eating cubs? Must be global warming, since nothing like this has been seen before.

Oops.

From the Arctic Institute of North America, 1999:
Infanticide and cannibalism of juvenile polar bears (ursus maritimus) in Svalbard.
Arctic
September 01, 1999
Derocher, A.E.; Wiig, O…
(Received 29 January 1999; accepted in revised form 9 June 1999)

ABSTRACT. Two instances of infanticide and cannibalism in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were observed in SE Svalbard, at Hopen Island. In the first, an adult male killed three young cubs at a den site and consumed one of them. In the second, an adult male actively pursued, killed, and consumed a dependent yearling. Infanticide of dependent polar bear offspring by adult males may be more common in Svalbard than in other populations because the population is close to carrying capacity or because geographic features reduce spatial segregation of age and sex ...
Intraspecific predation, infanticide, and cannibalism have been reported in polar bears (Belikov et al., 1977; Hansson and Thomassen, 1983; Larsen, 1985; Lunn and Stenhouse, 1985; Taylor et al., 1985). However, some of the instances have followed human activities such as harvest or immobilization (Taylor et al., 1985). Regardless, intraspecific predation has been suggested as a regulating feature of ursid populations (e.g., McCullough, 1981; Young and Ruff, 1982; Larsen and Kjos-Hanssen, 1983; Stringham, 1983; Taylor et al., 1985).
So cannibalism in polar bears has been observed and noted in studies going back more than 30 years.
And it’s not an isolated and extraodinary phenomenon, as researchers 24 years observed::

Observations of intraspecific aggression and cannibalism in polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
Taylor, M. Larsen, T. Schweinsburg, R.E.
Arctic, v. 38, no. 4, Dec. 1985, p. 303-309
ASTIS record 18266

Cannibalism in polar bears appears to occur as carrion feeding and as attacks by males on small cubs or incapacitated individuals. Direct observations indicate that intraspecific killing and cannibalism occur among polar bears throughout the Arctic. The high incidence of Trichinella infection and circumpolar observations of cannibalism suggest that polar bears will readily eat other polar bears when they can do so without excessive risk of injury. Speculations that intraspecific aggression and cannibalism may be an important social and ecological force are consistent with existing information on polar bear biology.

Why did these warmist scientists in the ABC’s report portray an old and relatively common phenomenon as a startling new one, and hail something perfectly natural as evidence instead of extraordinary man-made warming?
Ignorance? Deception?

And what’s the journalist’s excuse?