For Polar Bears Contending With Climate Change, "It's Survival Of The Fattest"

That would explain why I see all those coke ads with Polar Bears chugging carbonated High Fructose Corn Syrup....

They are just trying to survive.

Here Popsci.... an exciting science story to cover instead of your incessant political columns.

www.space.com/20313-voyager-1-leaves-solar-system.html

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.

Our god like overloads in the creation of modern man, created such greedy bastard humans with total disregard for the natural environment and dedication to our own greed will spell doom for the environment of Earth and eventually ourselves, unless our god like overloads come back and save us from our pre-programmed selves.

Modern man is not program to live with the environment. Modern man is program to exploit the environment and this programming cannot be stopped as a whole of the “social group of man”.

Neanderthal natural man, was the better loving Earth man! He lived in harmony with the Earth.

Why did modern man brain size become smaller? Why did modern man loose its fur? Both of these are a non-adaptation to the environment?

Why did modern man lose the use of some of its internal organs? Now modern man cannot digest as many natural foods and can't fight parasites or infection as well.

Why did modern man become such a spontanous risk taker from our natural Neanderthal selves?

Why did greed become part of his nature; wanting and owning more than we need? To serve the god like overloads who made him, to seek and constantly gather.

Why did modern man eyes become smaller? Is seeing poorer an enhancement to the natural enviroment?

Modern man is a leap in the natural evolution of primates and has not been explain yet evolution science.

The Sumerian culture explains why humans were made clearly in their history; to serve the ‘beings from above. Perhaps with time and myths this was later changed to GODS. In modern religion, it is often said we humans were created by the GODS.

It seems ancient primate man, was downgraded from living with the natural environment and upgraded to communicate better and server our GOD\beings from above overlords.

It does not feel good and maybe seem unscientifically illogical to believe modern man is a down grade from the natural environment, but lots of evidence points we modern humans are no longer part of the natural scheme of things. This idea I propose, just makes people feel uncomfortable, so it's quickly ignored. It does not make wrong, though

With our pre-programming from our god like overloads, we will continue to seek and gather with greed and exploit the whole of the Earth, until our doom! Some of us as individuals are not so greedy, but for the whole of humans, our programming is unstoppable as we over run Earth.

........................

For the human induced changing environment, the bears will adapt or die. The sad end.

The unrelenting and continuing gullibility and/or bribeability of Nosowitz is proof of the old adage among the rangers at Yellowstone: "Once a bear is hooked on garbage, there's no cure."

I trust PopSci is paying you as little as possible for this continuing drip into the drool cup.

Get a life Doomers:
Upon settlement of North America, Polar bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota but called the yellow bear (summer coat), but still the same bear.

I’m a former believer for good reasons:
-Science agrees it is real and happening but do not agree it WILL be a crisis.
-Not one single IPCC warming is without “maybes” and “could bes”.
-Science agrees comet hits are inevitable and eventual and have never said the same for climate change.
-27 years of research was almost all into effects, not causes.
-Science gave us pesticides and denied for decades that they were toxic and literally made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
-Bush didn’t fear monger my kids with CO2 death threats but WE did?
Mostly, I don’t want my grandkids explaining why I believed in this Reefer Madness of Climate Blame and why I condemned them to the greenhouse gas ovens of a climate crisis that everyone knew was a sick exaggeration.
Fact: They agree it’s real but really not a crisis. If you are still determined to believe in this misery for billions of children then prove me wrong doomer.

Nonsense. The ONLY polar bear population in (modest) decline is the one that was in this study, located in western Hudson Bay. The other 18 populations are not declining; a couple of which border the WHB population. If the study's conclusion were correct, we would see declines in ALL polar bear populations.

A little perspective:

Polar bear numbers have increased dramatically, as have many arctic marine mammals, since hunting regulations were instituted in 1973.

Hunting has had a much larger impact on polar bear populations than climate change.

In 1974, 1984, and 1992, the polar bear population in the Beaufort Sea declined significantly because of TOO MUCH ice. It was so thick that they were cut off from the seals that sustain them. The populations soon rebounded. These declines were much greater than the recent, modest decline in the western Hudson Bay population.

Polar bears have been around for 100,000 years or more and have survived periods of much less ice in the Arctic and much more. Like many Arctic mammals, they are well adapted to their changing environment. Their current numbers and widespread territory indicate a healthy population nowhere close to being threatened.

Dan, I'm confused. I would think your headline should have read...
Baby Seals Thrive Thanks To Current Warming Trends!"
Then you could have inserted an adorable baby seal that has benefited from this natural warming cycle.

Upon settlement of North America these poor little Polar Bears were indigenous to as far south as Minnesota but called the yellow bear (summer coat), but still the same bear.
They thrive in northern dumps such as Churchill Manitoba and the Natives help American sportsmen SHOOT them for fun!

Follow me! I am leading a boycott of all fear mongering climate blame media. Bye!

mememine69,
Forget global warming if you like, but pay attention to the unstoppable machine of world population growth!

I think I'll name my eighth child Anylcon.

Anylcon, you might have a look at world population growth studies and statistics. Birthrates are in decline in almost every modern developed country. Populations are shrinking in many of those countries, for example, Japan and Italy. It is creating a whole new set of problems: slowing economic growth and underfunded government-funded retirement systems because there aren't enough younger taxpayers to support them.

It is only in impoverished, developing nations that birthrates are high. For some reason, humans naturally have fewer babies as they become more prosperous and their standard of living increases. World population is expected to peak around 10 billion sometime mid-century then it will decline. The planet has more than enough resources to sustain 10 billion (or less) humans living in a healthy ecosystem along with the rest of the flora and fauna on earth.

Sorry, Auroria, I'm not sure what you're asking. I pointed out what you discovered for yourself, that world population is expected to peak between 9 and 11 billion. "Peak" means it will decline after that. The earth probably has a finite limit for human population but no one knows what it is, and at the current population of about 7 billion, it's clear there's plenty of room to grow. The obvious limiting factor would be natural resources like food, water, housing, but we're nowhere close to the limit. The main reason for malnutrition and poverty around the world today is oppressive governance, not lack of resources. Countries with free governments and relatively free markets don't have widespread malnutrition and poverty. Humans are remarkably ingenious at adapting and thriving if they aren't handicapped by backward governments.

By the way, Auroria, in case you aren't aware, PopSci uses the same resources as ScienceDaily. It's no surprise that the same articles show up on both sites, but that doesn't legitimize the dubious "science" in the articles. As I pointed out above, polar bears are thriving throughout the Arctic, estimated to number around 25,000. The study cited was limited to the only polar bear population in (modest) decline of the 19 large groups scattered throughout the Arctic. The western Hudson Bay group is estimated to number only 900 animals; 109 of which were monitored for the study.

See here for information from a polar bear biologist on polar bears:

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/

See here for information about the fluctuating numbers of western Hudson Bay bears (part 1):

http://polarbearscience.com/2012/09/26/western-hudson-bay-polar-bears-are-not-like-the-others-part-1/

And part 2 about western Hudson Bay bears:

http://polarbearscience.com/2012/10/05/western-hudson-bay-polar-bears-are-not-like-the-others-part-2/

@laurenra7

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for squaring it away for the gullible.

Anyone who still doubt these facts, go to this website and hear it straight from the scientists and the experts who really know.

www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1626