Actual warming in the past 20 years has been at a trivial speed, bordering on undetectable unless you use very well sited stations and very accurately calibrate

Actual warming in the past 20 years has been at a trivial speed, bordering on undetectable unless you use very well sited stations and very accurately calibrated instruments: barely a fraction of a degree per decade. You can't even see a trend with the naked eye, you have to work it out by computer: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/1/0 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-tempera... (select one month/all months for hi-res data). Note that data before 2005 (and after it outside the USA) comes from heavily corrupted sites that were never meant for climatologists and which have experienced a lot of urban development and building-related warming. The post-2005 US CRN data comes from weather stations meant specifically for monitoring the climate. And after that new weather station comes online US warming turns out to be way slower than predicted, and not alarming. > I also think focusing solely on polar bears is bit of misguided when we're talking about the effects of climate change. They are one species and deciding whether or not things are bad given the outcome of that one species is misguided. There are very few species that have been seriously claimed to be endangered by climate change, polar bears are by far the most often presented to the public. It's right and proper that false predictions about one species informs people's expectations about predictions for others, especially as it's not the only failure. Corals have stopped being referred to as being killed off by climate change after the Great Barrier Reef made a sudden and unexpectedly huge recovery after its last bleaching, reaching record levels and completely confounding the "experts" who had data stretching back only a few decades.