No, you're playing "dense" again.
1. It is ridiculous to assume a permanent trend based on less than thirty years of detailed observed data, barely a tick of the clock in geological time. I still haven't found an explanation of their supposed analysis of the 1930s and 1940s.
2. The polar bears come into it because the usual gangs of idiots are wailing about their imminent extinction and the total disappearance of the ice cap, when that species has survived a hundred thousand years of climactic changes. I would have thought that the pertinence of this fact would be obvious.
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically...
...The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it...
...To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view...
...Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects...
All this sound familiar? A little blast from the past.