Every day I wake up I tell myself not to be surprised when what I expect to happen happens, but I keep hoping anyway.
I have less respect for ecologists than I do for climate scientists. At least climate scientists make an attempt to prove their theories using scientific methods.
That's a completely unfair characterization of the science of "ecology", which covers a lot of ground. Much of this comes under the heading of population biology, ornithology, botany, zoology -- do you have problems with those sciences, too?
There is no proof that warming is causing all the changes he talks about.
Wondrous, this emphasis on "proof". Science is about supporting hypothesis/theory with observations and data. In this case, the theory is that warming climate would cause a variety of shifts in a certain direction of many different phenological indicators. Examining the indicators, more than 90% show a shift in the predicted direction. That's solid support.
Months ago there were people saying that polar bear populations were at risk from global warming.
Interesting that I'm pursuing this on another thread. They are at risk. Care to know why? Their main food source is seals. Seals swim in the ocean, and they occasionally get out on the ice to rest. Polar bears hunt seals from sea ice, floating on the ocean. With less sea ice, there are less seals on the ice, and the polar bears have less area to hunt from (polar bears are real good at waiting at seal breathing holes and grabbing them when they come up for air). The data show that when sea ice diminishes significantly, polar bear weights go down and polar bear populations decline.
Drowning polar bears is an anecdote. The above statement is polar bear ecology.
Living things have a lot more to worry about than a slight increase in temperature.
Like what they eat, maybe?
Yeah, but does the theory come before or after the data is collected? I suspect that, in many cases, the theory is proposed after the fact.