I don’t know about this one… I’m definitely of the belief that not having any ice to stand on is bad for polar bear populations. Even if they can survive, certainly they’re over exposed to predators like orcas and falling victim to exhaustion and drowning. Maybe I’m misinformed, but I think polar bears are likely to become extinct in the next 100 years.
No-ice would be bad, especially for our drinks. But there is still land for polar bears and Eskimos to stand on. And a no-ice situation isn't something that will happen in the near future, anyway. Besides, the polar bears survived when the polar regions didn't have any ice thousands of years ago, but were warm. Of course, just because the bears are thriving doesn't mean that they always will be. However, less ice gives them more ice table edges to stand on as they scoop fish out of the water.
Even if polar bears survive in low ice climates, the argument the activists would use are that sea levels would rise and affect human populations or other wild life.
I don't think it's a tenable argument for obvious reasons, though. There's still debate at how much humans can control the climate and if we can't have a measurable impact on global temperatures, it makes the conversation entirely pointless.
If the elites were so concerned about the climate, I'd encourage them to lead by example and trade in their private jets for bicycles.
![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
I agree. I mean, if the leaders of the global warming cult really wanted, they could simply nuke a couple of giant volcanoes into activity, and darken our skies with so much dust that almost no sunlight would get through to warm the earth.
They won't do this however... because they are a bunch of BSers and don't want the climate to change much if any. All they want is to put fear into our hearts so that we place our lives under their control to be saved. But then they will have us.
![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)