Big Question For 2012: Is the Polar Bear Doomed?

One word: Climategate.

All those projections need to be thrown out the window. New data needs to be taken by real scientists, not those knuckle-draggers at East Anglia (who somehow managed to lose years of data, though maybe it wasn't worth preserving anyway) and their US partners-in-crime. I don't know how anyone can have any trust in 'climate science' after the latest series of revelations.

The polar bears managed to survive warmer periods in Earth's past, so even as the Earth continues to warm up from the Little Ice Age from the 1600s to the late 1800s the polar bear will probably continue to survive the current (natural) change in climate.

Whether the polar bear survives the physical encroachment of humans is another question.

It's interesting to note, that the article mentions that the polar bear is an offshoot of the grizzly bear. One can safely assume that at one time, there was no ice, and therefore, no polar bears. They are the result of thousands of years of genetic adaptation in order to make life on the ice survivable.

The process of "genetic adaption" is called evolution and according to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100401_polarbears

looks to have happened in the unusually short time of ~20,000 years. It's an interesting article.

It is interesting. Thanks.

Very nice article! I think we are already seeing the preservation of the polar bear species by the new polar bear and grizzly bear hybrids that have been found recently. I haven't read what habitat these hybrids are living in, yet.

And now this ('fake but accurate' is intended sarcastically, btw):

http://www.jammiewf.com/2011/fake-but-accurate-bbc-admits-using-staged-polar-bear-footage/

" Big STUPID Question For 2012: Is the Polar Bear Doomed?"

Why is this even a question we bother with? All I can say for the issue is "Good thing it isn't even 2012 yet".

Unless you are in East Anglia. Or a climate "scientist" anywhere else in the universe.

I see the anti-climate changers are out in force again.

The vast majority of climate researchers reckon that Human activity is having an effect on the climate. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Their opinion trumps all the shock jocks, FOX new anchors, oil company exec and paranoid ranters..

I personally don't understand why this has become a Left/Right wing arguement, there are looney's on both sides, but ultimately it will come down to the data.

The Earth's climate has/is changing all the time, but it looks like it's happening faster than before, so there may not be sufficient time for animals like polar bears to evolve into new areas. What, if anything should be done is a political question

Someone once said "The experts aren't always right - but they're the way to bet".

Are you referring to some of the replies above? If so, which ones are anti-climate changers? I don't see any replies that indicate the responder is an anti-climate changer. Certainly not me. I am aware that the climate is changing. At the same time, I don't see anything wrong in criticizing the folks who are taking in large amounts of money to do science but then make a huge botch of it and then stonewall, collude, lie, and use their influence to ruin the careers of other scientists whose results disagree.

Amen. And GA. Arguing against the application of science (so called) by shills for political or commercial interests, along with the lying and obfuscation that has gone on in support, does not make one a "climate change denier". THAT is a different subject altogether.

But the Polar Bear Extinction question WAS brought in by the so called scientists who would use it (specifically the polar bear extinction) to silence ALL reasoned dissent with the practices of the liars and thieves.

Whether ANY species may become extinct is still unknown, and rightly of concern. But it isn't JUST the issue of potential extinction that brought THIS question up. It is couched in terms clearly intended to push the MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING agenda.

And THAT is what I disagreed with.