This article contains some disturbing appeals to authority: > As the final arbiter, let's go to Ian Stirling, one of the world's foremost experts on polar bear

This article contains some disturbing appeals to authority: > As the final arbiter, let's go to Ian Stirling, one of the world's foremost experts on polar bears. Lomborg, Stirling says, used "inaccurate and utterly inadequate arguments" to "erroneously suggest climate warming will have little negative effect on" the bears. As the truly final arbiter, I asked my cat, who said "Meow, Lomborg is wrong." > Overall, since the mid-1980s polar-bear numbers have fallen, which experts attribute to global warming. The source is thus not exactly the solid endorsement of Lomborg's claim about thriving polar bears that one might assume. The author would do better to show Lombard's claim, his citation, and show exactly why the citation is fraudulent or mistaken, rather than rely on assumption of general endorsement of a specific claim.