I couldn't care less about the decline of polar bears but unfortunately it is a symptom of something which is also a huge problem for humankind. Also, what you have written is highly misleading.
Your first point, the graph.
The graph apparently shows a cool 1900-1920, warm 1920-1960, cool 1960-1980 and warm since then. This is evidence that naturally occuring variations are a large factor in changing temperatures. There are two things wrong with this as a point. Firstly, I don't tihnk anyone would claim that naturally occuring variations didn't have a large impact on temperatures. The man made climate change claim is that the effects of man are contributing to an unnatural warming. Nothing in that graph suggests that the warming trends are not as a result of man. Also, the graph is slightly misleading. Look at what the 0 line of the graph is - it is the average temperature 1961-1990. With that in mind it can be seen that the graph shows a cool start to the 20th century which got warmer 1920-1960 which was then followed by a cool period (probably due to natural processes), however, that cool period 1960-1980 is warmer and shorter than the previous cool period. This is then followed by warm period till the end of the graph. This isn't enough data to draw a sensible conclusion from in terms of man made warming, but it certainly doesn't show what you think it does.
Also, in terms of global temperature, 0.6 celcius rise is highly significant. If you look at the IPCC reports their conclusions about global warming effects are based on warming of between 1 and 3 degrees celsius, which is what the best models available to us are indicating in the next decades. You are also confusing global with local temperature changes when you say it is not significant compared to 3 degree range in the Arctic. If the variability in the Arctic was maintained but all the temperatures were raised by say 0.6 celcius then there would be less sea ice and shorter times with sea ice available.
Your polar bear statistics may also be misleading because they deal with local populations, not global populations. Let us assume that sea ice is less extensive and lasting less time than previously, then what happens to the bears? Well, they get forced closer together because they have less space to roam over the ice. This could lead to an increase in local populations or population densities near certain inuit villages. However this is not a survey of a global population and so could be misleading.
As for the population of bears increasing since the 1970s I would prefer it if that news source gave a scientific source for that claim. Is there also another possible reason for it? Such as a decrease in hunting perhaps? To be honest though, I am getting side tracked, like I said I couldn't give a crap what happens to polar bears. All I care about is the effects of warming on humanity. That news report says nothing to dispute that warming is occuring or that it is caused by man.
As for the satellite data, the error was found and accounted for before the data was published and there is confidence that it did not affect previous years data. And as long as the inaccuracy in the old satellite is consistent then it is sensible to keep comparing the same data so long as what you are looking for is a trend and not an actual figure.
As for cooling in Antarctica, the global warming model is a GLOBAL model. It has measured and further predicts widespread warming. This does not mean that all parts of the globe will be warmed. The Earth's climate is a very complicated system and different parts of the globe are expected to react in different ways. Antarctica may be locally cooling but as you already stated, the Earth has on average warmed by 0.6 celcius.
tweehonderd graden, dat is waarom ze me mr. fahrenheit noemen, ik reis aan de snelheid van het licht, ik ga een supersonische man van u maken
