I was right (so is everybody else concerned about the future of polar bears)

The link below follows up on the polar bear issue posted a couple of days ago. In that, I noted that what is going to affect the polar bears cannot be assessed on the basis of how their absolute numbers are doing. The numbers are currently pretty good. The problem is that their habitual habitat is changing, and as the Arctic warms, it is disappearing. As the habitat changes, one would predict that changes in the polar bear population would be perceivable.

And they are:
Global warming leaving its mark on polar bears


So the "numbers of polar bears are fine" smokescreen is just that -- a rhetorical ploy conceived in the devious home office of Climate Skeptics, Inc., widely used and widely broadcast. But the polar bears are not fine, and the inclusion of their endangerment under the ESA is justified.

The problem is, doing what needs to be done to protect polar bears is just about the most difficult thing that mankind has ever attempted. Put it this way -- when the canary dies in the mine, the situation is obviously not good. What needs to be done is to fix the situation before the canary dies -- because that's good for the miners. If the polar bears are our environmental canary (and as magnificent megafauna they carry a high degree of symbolism, even though the
pika might be a better canary), then by the time the polar bear numbers will obviously be in serious decline, the situation will be much more serious for us humans as well.

So go ahead and use the polar bear protection issue to push change in climate and energy use. It's good for the miners.