[ant6n]

> I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time.

Good thing most people already know we don't live in the world where climate change is not happening, so this doesn't need to act as proof of it happening, but rather as an individual example of what is happening all over.

[eemax]

Yes, this is probably effective propaganda, and moreover, propaganda for a just cause.

Nonetheless it is not evidence for climate change, and moreover it is not even necessarily an example of the effects of climate change - even we 100% fix climate change, there will still be plenty of starving wild animals available for sad videos.

The actual way to ensure there are no starving wild animals is to exterminate them in the wild. But that's probably not a good idea.

[jackhack]

"propaganda for a just cause"

That's a troubling turn of phrase.

[b4lancesh33t]

Has anyone in the linked article or in these comments tried to position this video as evidence of climate change? I don't see it if so.

[oconnor663]

Sure, it's in the original article.

> By telling the story of one polar bear, Nicklen hopes to convey a larger message about how a warming climate has deadly consequences.

[b4lancesh33t]

I don't think the photographer would say that the polar bear should convince anyone that climate change is occurring. Instead, they assume that reasonable people are already convinced, and are trying to demonstrate a reason one should care.

[lwall]

No. "Here's an example of the effects of climate change" is not the same thing as "this is proof of climate change"

[taneq]

Being an animal is generally a terrible experience, so using an individual, terrible experience of an animal to make a political point seems disingenuous.