Looks like "global warming" isn't hurting the population of polar bears.
I mean, come on. There was less Arctic Ice during the Medieval Warm Period--so much less that the Chinese were able to circumnavigate the Arctic Circle without submarines--and polar bears survived that.
To paraphrase Jerry Pournelle; proof that polar bears survived without polar ice: there are polar bears.
The linked article contains a wonderful non-sequitur:
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."
It would seem to me that there is considerable "question" that polar bears are in danger from global warming. Explaining away the increase in polar bear population as an effect of illegalized harp seal hunting is insufficient. They also add that it is "irrelevant" that bear populations are growing in another area when the bear populations in one area (the west coast of Hudson's Bay) are declining.
So let me understand this: populations on the west coast of Hudson's Bay have declined by 22% in the past decade, but a 200% increase in population elsewhere over the past two decades is "irrelevant" even if there is an aggregate increase in polar bear population?
Only an environmentalist could argue that a rising population of polar bears indicates that polar bears are an endangered species!