The projections of temperatures may be correct, but they are also incomplete because they are worded to send the impression that climate will continue to warm at the same (or faster) rates indefinitely. We have reference points for what the world would be like if every ounce of oil and every ton of coal was burnt. While a small amount of fossil fuels were created as early as 650 million years ago, the vast bulk of our fossil fuels were created 350 million to 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous period (when most coal fields were formed. At the beginning of the period, average global temperatures were 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius), hotter than the current 13.9C (57.0F). But far from being a burnt-out Venus planet, the climate of the time supported the largest rainforests in planetary history. All that plant life living and dying, eventually locked away enough carbon in the atmosphere to cause global climate change. By the middle of the period, the temperature dropped to 12 C (54 F) which killed most of the rain forests during the late Carboniferous period. If we could somehow access and burn every speck of fossil fuels, we would return to the early Carboniferous period in terms of climate, an extremely pleasant, rich, and wet period in geological history. Realistically, we are unlikely to be able to economically recover and burn every bit of fossil fuels, so a 20 C (68 F) is the far upper bound of the kind of global warming we can expect to experience due to human usage of fossil fuels.

It is certainly possible. Whenever climate changes, some animals are better adapted to the change and survive, while less adapted ones do not. The premise of the article is that polar bears mainly hunt seals that often birth their pups on arctic sea ice. Without that sea ice, seals won't give birth there and Polar Bears will lose access to that food source. On the other hand, it is possible that climate change will be favorable for polar bear populations. Seals tend to birth their pups on sea ice because it provides them with relative safety compared to birthing on land. If there is no sea ice, will seals stop having babies? I doubt it. They will have to resort to birthing pups on land where they become easier prey for Polar Bears. Less sea ice also increases the chances of dead whales washing up on the shore, which are huge food bonanzas when discovered by polar bears. Warmer winters also generally increase the amount of life and food sources overall. It appears that the polar bear population has exploded in recent years, which suggests the later is more likely.

If I got a dollar for the number of times I was called a "Russian Troll" on Yahoo comments, I'd be a very rich man. Calling people Russians is the leftist counterpart to conservatives calling liberals "Soros Trolls." I highly doubt that Russians or Soros are actively engaged in Yahoo comments, and if they were I don't see how that is different from any other kind of engagement and exchange of information. The fact that a perspective is coming from a Russian or a Soros troll is quite frankly irrelevant. I don't find partisan disagreement to be a threat, but rather an opportunity at persuasion. For example, I am a conservative, but I rarely hang out on Breitbart because I use comments to engage in debate and hopefully persuade, not to feel good that everyone I talk to agrees with me.

You are absolutely right about that. However, liberals often define disagreement with their viewpoint as "hate and vitriol" so they might actually believe that garbage.

I think it stems from a difference in world view. Conservatives tend to be individualists. They largely want to be left alone and view disagreement as largely expected. Someone who disagrees may merely be ignorant or misinformed. Some conservatives are willing to entertain the possibility that they themselves might be ignorant and misinformed, and see disagreement as a means of discovering the truth of a matter. In a sense, disagreement is a positive thing, leading to enlightenment by one or even both sides of a debate.

By contrast, liberals have more of a collectivist mindset. In a collectivist view, disagreement itself is a dangerous and hateful act threatening group coherency. Someone who expresses a divergent viewpoint must be shouted down, silenced and ostracized lest that viewpoint "infect" the larger group. By contrast, opinions from within the group must be agreed with without question. You can see this effect empirically in interviews of liberal college students. Present an idea as proposed by Barack Obama and they will agree with it without thinking. Reveal that it actually came from Trump and they immediately disavow it. All in an effort to match the ideology of their chosen group.

Yahoo's decision to turn off comments is quite obviously political censorship. It is an unsurprising coincidence that they turned off comments right during the lead-up to the 2020 election. They saw how Trump was able to use social media to bypass the media gatekeepers to the public in 2016 and are eager to prevent a repeat of that. The comments were a valuable informational tool, providing the context and conservative perspective that was often missing from left-leaning Yahoo articles. That context often diminished the effectiveness of the liberal propaganda they were pushing, which is why they had to go.

I see Yahoo justified it in 1984 style as "Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions." One wonders how cutting off all means of feedback or interaction counts as "engaging." They don't want people engaged. They want passive consumers of their propaganda. And the "safety" concern is even more laughable. As if the right word combination is going to cause someone's eyes to bleed profusely before their head explodes. To the contrary, the internet is one of the few "safe" places people can express their opinions.