Originally Posted by upgrayedd
Believe it or not, I hunt quite a bit, but I cannot see your logic. there are only a FEW places on the planet which these beasts live and that is now a rapidly changing scene.
Polar bears thrived back when Greenland was actually green. When the Vikings settled there because they could raise crops and livestock. For Greenland to be green, it had to be much warmer. Back when England was part of the Roman Empire, wine was a product of England. Now it's too cold for good wine grapes, but it wasn't around 100 AD.
The point is that the earth's climate has varied widely before there was industry or even lots of people. Polar bears and other animals survived and thrived.
Tell you what - I'll worry about polar bear territory being threatened when someone settles on Greenland again and raises livestock and crops. Even then, though, my money is on the polar bears adapting just fine. Nature is not the fragile thing everyone claims it to be. Ever heard of feedback systems? If nature were so delicate, feedback would be marginal or even positive. Such systems are unstable - any tip causes them to to wildly out of control. If our climate is so delicate, how come the Little Ice Age didn't cause a major ice age? How come the warming preceding the Little Ice Age (when Greenland was green) didn't cause runaway warming?
Unstable systems cannot last. And our climate has varied - always tending toward a stable medium until the next (often natural) upset, at which point it works back to stability. It is, IMHO, the height of human arrogance to think that we can upset something that has to have been
extraordinarily stable to have gotten us to this point in the first place!