I have not much knowledge of wildlife biology but there is something I have never understood yet about the polar bear argumentation. If the polar ice melts they'd have to live on the many island around the north pole like Svalbard. A bit warmer than they'd like to have it but still cold enough for them to survive.

The argument as I have understood it is that they need the ice for feeding and resting in between feeding. What the feed for are predominantly the sea living mammals like seal and sea lions. Both need support for their young before those can swim. Without ice, they too have to look for islands or other coastal areas to breed. That then would be new feeding grounds for polar bears.

So can someone explain that puzzle to me. What I read is an argument of "what would happen to the polar bears if the ice melts and everythign else stays completely the same". But everything else then aslo would not stay the same. So, are the polar bears just good propaganda for an admitteldly good cause or is there something I have overlooked?

Wolfgang