How do you declare a species endangered when its numbers are increasing?

Once again, my profession – journalism – failed its fundamental duty to report the facts Wednesday as the Interior Department bowed to political pressure from green groups to declare polar bears an threatened species due to global warming. This, despite the fact that bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today (during the very period their habitat was allegedly shrinking). This is in part due to concentrated efforts to impose harvesting controls that have allowed this once-overhunted species to recover.

Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: “There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

This data is readily available in the public record, and yet a review of reports from America’s two leading print sources found nary a mention. The Associated Press completely ignored the bear population data and any critics of the decision. As for The New York Times, reporter Felicity Barringer also ignored the data, but at least alluded to it by quoting M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation (which is suing the Department of the Interior over the decision) at the very end of her article as saying: “Never before has a thriving species been listed nor should it be.”

Otherwise, press accounts seemed more than willing (as did Interior obviously) to accept the definition of a shrinking bear habitat put forward by the plaintiff in the suit against Interior, the radical left group Greenpeace.

“Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses,” wrote AP. But as leading climatologist Patrick Michaels wrote in 2005 (when Greenpeace brought its suit): “Although the history of average Arctic temperatures shows no long-term warming whatsoever, trends can be found in the data if different starting points are used in the analysis – which is precisely what Greenpeace did. According to its release, ‘sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has declined 5.5 percent since 1978.’ Of course, 1978 is near the coldest point on record. Starting there has better yield a warming trend!”

In other words, Greenpeace – surprise! – deliberately cherry-picked data to bolster its case. Federal agencies should be skeptical of such a tactic – but for America’s top journalists to swallow it whole is simply unprofessional.

– Henry Payne is a writer and editorial cartoonist for the Detroit News.