But how are the manbearpigs doing? Does anyone care about them? This is a catastrophe. I'm super cereal, guys. The manbearpigs are probably all gonna die now and no one will ever get to see them.
And you mean the northwest passage, not the north pole (which is always ice covered). Not even for the few weeks of ice free times in-between the islands is it predictably navigable
If polar bears are indeed thriving in certain regions despite reductions in sea ice it challenges one of the most frequently repeated narratives used in climate change advocacy. The situation illustrates the complexity of ecosystems and the danger of oversimplifying cause and effect. The relationship between ice cover and bear health is not linear. Less ice in some cases results in more sunlight reaching the ocean which increases plankton growth which boosts fish populations which in turn benefits seals and ultimately bears.
Of course this does not mean that every polar bear population is safe or that climate change has no effect. Some regions like Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea are seeing declines and these should not be brushed aside. But what it does suggest is that the environmental picture is more nuanced than the prevailing story of uniform decline. Predictions made decades ago have not always matched reality and science should be able to adjust its models when new evidence emerges.
Inspired me to write this: #1432455
But how are the manbearpigs doing? Does anyone care about them? This is a catastrophe. I'm super cereal, guys. The manbearpigs are probably all gonna die now and no one will ever get to see them.
Not cool to make fun of the man who invented the internet. Just sayin'.
Epstein invented the internet too?
Cereal? Get your vegetarian crap away from us
My god....
That would be the second South Park thing I've ever seen (the first and only being Margaritaville)
The north pole route is navigable by ship now and it wasn't a few years ago
Whether polar bears are procreating on mainland in Alaska or Greenland frankly does not matter. It's a strawman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No it wasn't, and no it isn't.
And you mean the northwest passage, not the north pole (which is always ice covered).
Not even for the few weeks of ice free times in-between the islands is it predictably navigable
Are you trying to tell me that polar bears get fatter when they have more access to the food they eat?
From what I understand, polar bear populations rebounded in the 70’s after the arctic nations banned hunting them.
who said I was paying taxes?
who said the bear is talking to you?
LOL so easy to fool stackers nowadays...
If polar bears are indeed thriving in certain regions despite reductions in sea ice it challenges one of the most frequently repeated narratives used in climate change advocacy. The situation illustrates the complexity of ecosystems and the danger of oversimplifying cause and effect. The relationship between ice cover and bear health is not linear. Less ice in some cases results in more sunlight reaching the ocean which increases plankton growth which boosts fish populations which in turn benefits seals and ultimately bears.
Of course this does not mean that every polar bear population is safe or that climate change has no effect. Some regions like Hudson Bay and the Beaufort Sea are seeing declines and these should not be brushed aside. But what it does suggest is that the environmental picture is more nuanced than the prevailing story of uniform decline. Predictions made decades ago have not always matched reality and science should be able to adjust its models when new evidence emerges.