Well, maybe it’s sad. Sad is just an emotion. It is something she doesn’t care about, passed being sad. The Polar Bear mother and cub on her T-shirt looked sort of like the Coca-Cola Polar Bears portrayed here in 2005. Ahhh, weren’t they cute? And playing with Emperor penguins from, ummm, Antarctica?
It’s true, despite some organizations trying to assert that Polar Bear populations are actually growing. The actual status of Alaskan Polar Bears (Chukchi and Bering Sea populations) was “not known” and they somehow evaded being counted for 5 years.
Even the most climate change-denying organizations now have to contend with quoting the scientific papers of their adversaries, like lead-author Dr. Eric V. Regehr who states in a three (3) years old Royal Society Biology Lettres, 12, 21OCT2016
“Conservation status of polar bears
(Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines”
Eric V. Regehr, Kristin L. Laidre, H. Resit Akcakaya, Steven C. Amstrup, Todd C. Atwood, Nicholas J. Lunn6, Martyn Obbard, Harry Stern, Gregory W. Thiemann and Øystein Wiig
“Loss of Arctic sea ice owing to climate change is the primary threat to polar bears throughout their range. We evaluated the potential response of polar bears to sea-ice declines by (i) calculating generation length (GL) for the species, which determines the timeframe for conservation assessments; (ii) developing a standardized sea-ice metric representing important habitat; and (iii) using statistical models and computer simulation to project changes in the global population under three approaches relating polar bear abundance to sea ice. Mean GL was 11.5 years. Ice-covered days declined in all subpopu- lation areas during 1979–2014 (median 21.26 days year21). The estimated probabilities that reductions in the mean global population size of polar bears will be greater than 30%, 50% and 80% over three generations (35–41 years) were 0.71 (range 0.20–0.95), 0.07 (range 0–0.35) and less than 0.01 (range 0 – 0.02), respectively. According to IUCN Red List reduction thresholds, which provide a common measure of extinction risk across taxa, these results are consistent with listing the species as vulnerable. Our findings support the potential for large declines in polar bear numbers owing to sea-ice loss, and highlight near-term uncertainty in statistical projections as well as the sensitivity of projections to different plausible assumptions.”