Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"

TRANSCRIPT

So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before. What does it mean to us to look at vast expanse of open water at the top of our world that used to be covered by ice? We ought to care a lot because it has planetary effects.

RULING

8. Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.

===

mt:

Hmm, what about this report in the London Times?  The judge's understanding of this event does not seem in line with the Times report.  (Nor does the Times' own subsequent AIT article!)  

Steve Bloom:

 

This is an up-to-date article on the polar bear controversy from two leading scientists.  Interestingly the article does not refer to the drowning paper that was the subject of the Times article linked above, but perhaps that's because the deaths occurred due to a transient situation (receding ice edge).  I'm emailing an author to find out.  One of them (Derocher, who's chair of the IUCN polar bear working group) is quoted in this 10/14 Observer (Guardian) article refuting Lomborg's polar bear claims (and note the brief mention of AIT).  The IUCN study referred to in the article is very much on-point and would have been available to the judge, but did he see it?  Did the government submit any additional evidence?