a conservative heretic commenting on hypocrisy and stupidity in a world with too much of both
If you found this post of interest, please share it with your friends.
We no longer accept advertising on this blog. Your donations help us to defray the costs of its operation and are much appreciated.
Stay informed

Follow the Bear - Subscribe today


Monthly Archives: January 2012

More Inconvenient Truth For The Global Warming Crowd

photo: Science & Public Policy.org

Maybe Al Gore got it right when he named his alarmist video about impending climate catastrophe “An Inconvenient Truth”. It appears there are an increasing number of inconvenient truths coming out about global warming but it appears they are more inconvenient for the movement than the planet.
A few days ago, I posted an article by Rogue Operator which took the issue of global warming head on. I won’t repeat his findings here (a link to it is below) but hard on the heels of that article comes new data from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. In fact, it appears we are headed for a serious period of global cooling.
Environmentalists have been talking about global warming since the turn of the new century. They have fretted and jetted all over the world in a desperate attempt to make the blind see and the deaf hear. They have protested, conferenced, accused, warned, worried and demanded great change and expenditure to head off global catastrophe as the direct result of man-made global warming and it now appears, they were three years too late. The earth isn’t warming at all, it’s cooling down and the causes have nothing to do with humanity.
Solar flares: photo: Suntrek.org
It is primarily solar dependent and that really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.
The earth has been around for a very long time and has gone through significant periods of climate fluctuation. 
Humanity has been around for a mere 100,000 years or so and has been industrialized for only the past two centuries. It would seem to suggest, just on that simple basis, that perhaps climate change is naturally occurring and is going to happen regardless of what we do.
Think about it. There was a mini-ice-age in the 1600’s followed by a period of global warming. In fact, the middle ages of the last eon saw both global cooling and global warming. Not only was it not man-made, humanity survived it quite well.
The hysteria around this issue has become absurd in recent years especially considering that the science continues to contradict itself as it unfolds. Climatologists are not in universal agreement on whether there is global warming, global cooling or what the causes of climate change are. When you know that little about something, you lose the right to lecture anyone else about it or to set or influence public policy.
Of course, funding and research grants are at stake so the rhetoric will continue because in the end, climate change was never about….well….climate change, it became an industry. It’s big business now that supports scientists, researchers, activists, NGO’s, lobby groups and politicians and political parties. A lot of jobs and grant money hinges on keeping the world focused on the fear of impending climactic disaster. (Not to mention those really neat conferences held in places like Denmark and South Africa).
In reality, this issue like so many others is more about money and control than anything else. Consider the latest nonsense coming out of the movement.
Cliff Mass, Weather Blog: TV Weathercasters
Climate change activists are concerned that there aren’t enough media meteorologists who support their cause and are now trying to petition the media to hire more meteorologists who believe in climate change. 
It appears that the majority of media meteorologists do not believe in climate change and that has the environmental movement in a tizzy. It, of course, has not occurred to the  climate change crowd that perhaps because they work with it every day, the majority of meteorologists don’t believe in climate change because they don’t see any significant long-term change in weather trends. Nor has it occurred to the movement that perhaps the failure lies within their own ranks because they have been unsuccessful at getting their message out in a consistent and responsible way. There aren’t too many people outside of the movement who take the Fossil Awards nonsense very seriously.
Perhaps, though the simple truth is that  those who actually think for themselves instead of merely reacting to the latest “bumper sticker” cause are increasingly dismissing the entire climate change debate as predicated on conflicted science at best or junk science at worst and those who are screaming for sacrifice as misinformed activism, fanatics and the lunatic fringe.
And with good reason.
Since 1990, scientists predicted an ice age, then global warming, then climate change and now once again global cooling. Methinks the global warming crowd have cried wolf a little too often. When they finally get it right, if they ever do, perhaps then we can talk and reconsider ridiculous programs like the Kyoto Accord. Until then, I suggest we focus on more serious issues like unemployment, poverty, ending violence and war, crumbling economies and affordable healthcare.  
Unlike climate change, those are real issues and we’ve wasted enough time on, and been distracted from, them by the global warming nonsense long enough.

George Carlin And The Bear On Saving The Planet

Environmental Opportunism

New data shows no global warming in 15 years

Environmental activists go after climate change deniers in the television weather business

Science and Public Policy Orgnaization – 35 Inconvenient Truths, How Al Gore Got It Wrong
Rogue Operator on the myths of Global Warming
© 2012 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

When Governments Ignore The Law – There Is No Law

After being away for a few days with only limited Internet access, I logged into Twitter this afternoon and quickly found myself unintentionally caught up in a discussion about Omar Khadr.  For those unfamiliar with the Khadr case, Mr. Khadr was the Canadian teenager who killed an American medic with a grenade in Afghanistan following a firefight in 2002.
Omar Khadr
I am not going to defend Mr. Khadr’s actions or try to make sense out of the senselessness that is war. People die in wars and in most cases, for no good purpose. The fact that we still use violence as a means to resolve disputes is a testament to how little we have progressed as a civilized species.
My three opponents in the discussion clearly think Mr. Khadr deserves whatever he gets and I understand their anger with his actions and have no real issue with his sentence. He pled guilty and accepted a sentence that tacked an additional eight years on to the seven he had already served.  My issue is with government and the rule of law.
Mr. Khadr was arrested in 2002 at the age of fifteen and was held in Guantanamo for 7 years without due process. In other words, he was held illegally. He wasn’t even formally charged with a crime until 2006 after the United States Government passed The Military Commissions Act of 2006, a law which was retroactive or in other words, a law that made previous behavior suddenly illegal by a new set of definitions.
Think about that for a moment. Think about the power that accrues to a government that can change the law to make something done a year earlier not only illegal for the future but also illegal for the past. Think about a the power of a government that can ignore it’s own constitution and legal system to force it’s will.

It means that you could have been a law-abiding citizen and suddenly find yourself under arrest because your government passed a law that was retroactive. Consider how close to Orwell’s 1984 that really is and what it means for the rule of law and respect for both democracy and the constitutions and charters of rights upon which most democracies are built.

A number of organizations from the United Nations to various legal associations all pointed out the danger to democracy that this situation held but to no avail and Mr. Khadr remained in prison. In 2009, he pled guilty in a plea bargain that was as much about putting an end to his Kafka-like circumstance as it was to an admission of guilt. 
He is under both American and Canadian law, entitled to serve his sentence in Canada after the first full year is served in the United States. The United States, for its part, had already announced it would not stand in the way of Mr. Khadr being repatriated to Canada. It is the Canadian government that has ignored its own laws and Charter of Rights.
Despite appeals from UNICEF, The Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International, among others, The Canadian Government has steadfastly refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr to Canada as is his right as a Canadian citizen. He remains the only foreign national not repatriated by their government in the history of Guantanamo which isn’t much of an endorsement for this current government’s sense of justice which I find particularly hypocritical considering this current government’s emphasis on law and order.
It gets worse.
In 2009, the Federal Court ordered the government to repatriate Mr. Khadr after determining that his rights as guaranteed under the Charter had been violated. The government filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal only to lose again. They then took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada which also ruled that Mr. Khadr’s rights were being violated by the government but the government has continued to ignore all court rulings and this country’s constitution and charter.
This is not about Mr. Khadr nor is it about having him released from prison. It is about a government that has taken it upon itself to ignore the law and the courts because it doesn’t agree with their rulings but the law isn’t here for their convenience. It is here to protect citizens from exactly this kind of unilateral and capricious action by a government. Governments come and go. It is the law that is the constant and that protects us from the actions of others, including governments.

When a government can decide which laws it wishes to uphold and for whom, there is no law and we are no longer a democratic country protected by our laws. We are no better than the very societies too many Canadians have died fighting to protect us from.

It is becoming all too prevalent as more and more often, democratic governments ignore or refuse to enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold. In Ontario, the Premier and the Chief of the Provincial Police refused to enforce a court order to remove native protesters. In cities across North America, mayors refused to take action against Occupy protesters who vandalized their cities  resulting in millions of dollars in damage.

Governments play footloose and fancy free with access to information laws and manipulate election spending laws to help themselves get re-elected.

If our governments aren’t prepared to uphold our laws and the rule of law for the worst of us, it won’t be long before the law will not protect the best of us from those same governments.
Mr. Khadr has pled guilty and is serving his sentence. He is not the issue. It is the actions of government who have treated our laws with so little respect that threaten each and every one of us. While it is Mr. Khadr today, it could just as easily be you or I tomorrow. It could be your home or mine that the Premier of Ontario allows to be overrun by native protesters as he did to home owners in Caledonia. It could be your store or business that is vandalized, your car or mine that is burned by rioters that city governments were too timid to confront.
When government refuses to obey or to enforce its own laws, there is nothing left but tyranny and it is only a matter of time before that tyranny touches someone who is innocent….and that could be any one of us or any member of our family.

If that happens, there will be no one to ensure that the law protects you and I……or them.

© 2012 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

Guest Contributor: Rogue Operator Rips Apart The Global Warming Myth

Why the Greens are Bluffing on Manmade Global Warming
by Rogue Operator

Time to call the enviro-commies’ bluff.  I’m going all in on a monster.
The manmade climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does.
But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions.
How much does man contribute to the greenhouse effect?
If the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset any rising temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions?
Fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
Let’s lay out the facts first.  Then we’ll carve the watermelon.
1. According to figures taken from the Department of Energy, the following shows man’s contribution to global greenhouse gases.
Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring.
  • Carbon dioxide contributes 3.618% to the greenhouse effect.
  • Man contributes about 3.207% to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  • Man thus contributes .28% to the greenhouse effect. Put in terms of a ratio, man contributes 1/357.14 to the greenhouse effect.

This scientifically verifiable answer should be interpreted to mean that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, which is not even the only factor in global warming. Solar fluctuations also play a role.
2. But, if man should shrug off these facts and decide to stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, what effect would it have?
In raw terms, man contributes yearly about 2 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
There is currently about 380ppm total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
According to scientific projections, man could stop producing carbon dioxide altogether, including by going into extinction, and this would drop global temperatures by .1  degree Celsius.
In fifty years.
3. Finally, if man should decide to go ahead anyway and do everything short of complete extinction to prevent climate cataclysm, what effect would it have? This answer is a bit more prosaic.
Civilization rose along with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world would not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century? Wouldn’t our actions taken in the name of climate justice have been self-defeating?
A closing question.  Should the sheer fact that man contributes in some miniscule fashion to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of human life? Is such control justified by some vague appeal to a “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat would this be the case, and neither tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
So you green grifters thought you were going to be ushered into power on the BIG LIE that man is responsible for catastrophic climate change? Think again.  Hundreds of millions of people are catching on to the environmentalist myths, and the truth-sayers are gaining ground on the professional liars every day.

For more from Rogue Operator

© 2012 rogueoperator
all rights reserved

Funny Tweets For January’s Blahs

It’s that time again, time to take a break from taking ourselves too seriously and remember that we were given the gift of laughter to help us remember the better part of who we are. It isn’t always easy to remember that with all the ‘stuff’ going on in the big world but fortunately there are always a few folks on Twitter only too happy to remind us. Here are some who reminded me this week.
@SgtBlueEyes Adam 
Spider-man: with great power comes great responsibility. Women: with great cleavage I have no responsibilities ever again!!
Finolly gradiating the sixed grade afer ten trys
The children of Israel wandered around the desert for 40 years. Even in biblical times, men wouldn’t ask for directions.
Surprise sex is the best way to be woken up… Unless you are in prison!
Underwear isn’t the greatest thing but it’s right next to it.
Me and my mate went down the pub last night and we shared our best chat up lines. Some of his were so good I nearly went back to his place!
I’d like to see things from your point of view, but I can’t get my head that far up my ass. 
@ChorePush Chore Push 
I always loan people money because it’s an opportunity to never see them again if they don’t pay me back.
There must be a way we can trivialize our elections more. I know it doesn’t seem like it now, but we can do it if we try.
Thanks to these great Tweeps. (I don’t like the label Tweeps but I guess it’s better than Twit). It’s good to chuckle and if we can still find a laugh in the midst of everything else going on out there, just maybe we’re going to be ok.
© 2012 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others

The PETA Hypocrisy

I want to talk about PETA today or as the acronym spells out; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I’m going to put aside, for a moment, my own personal bias about people who put things and animals ahead of the welfare of other people and just look at PETA and some of its attitudes and practices.

In the video below, a PETA spokesperson debates the NRA. I have no particular fondness for the NRA and personally believe there are too many guns around although I have no issue with legal ownership and use of a firearm. But this debate was interesting, not because of either of the participants but because of a simple question asked by a member of the audience. Take a look and then we’ll talk. Continue reading

Our Choice Of Language Betrays What We Are

US & Canada signing softwood lumber
agreement in 2006 (photo trade.gov)

I read a somewhat innocuous news story this morning (see link below) about a joint announcement by Canada and the United States to extend the current softwood lumber agreement originally signed in 2006.

This agreement, while not perfect, resolved most outstanding issues and ended years of bickering and wrangling between the two countries. It also resulted in the elimination of countervailing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber by the Americans which opened up opportunities in American markets, created jobs on both sides of the border and saw the return of $4.5 billion in previously charged duties to Canadian companies.
Now, you would think that this if not a great thing for the Canadian software lumber industry is at the very least not a bad thing but for some it is nothing less than treason.
Don’t take my word for it, read some of the comments in response to the article in the link below. It is unbelievable how some people respond to things based on their particular bias rather than on the facts. Some comments were based on information so ill-informed as to think that the agreement meant Canada was shipping logs, not milned lumber to the States. I’m not interested in defending the softwood lumber agreement or even the industry. They can take care of that themselves. It was the commentary that grabbed my attention.
How does negotiating an agreement with your largest trading partner that benefits one of your largest industries suddenly become treason in anyone eyes? This was, after all, an agreement that previous governments from both countries had been negotiating and trying to resolve for decades.
If nothing else, Occupy has elevated
hyperbole to an art form
But then, that’s the way of today isn’t it? Too many people form an opinion based on their personal prejudices and then look for causes to support their opinions.
Take a look at the Occupy Movement.
It started as a protest against corrupt practices on Wall Street and has now become little more than an ongoing rant that makes my articles look positively poetic.  Got a beef with someone or something? Join Occupy and they’ll add it to the list. Solutions? They have none but they have a long list of complaints, criticisms, accusations and allegations.
If you’re not for them, you’re not only against them….you’re a criminal, a traitor, an idiot or at best you’re simply not from around here. Facts are irrelevant, contradictions don’t trouble them in the least. They chant ‘down with corporate America’ even as they flock to buy and use the very products it provides. They demand respect for the very rights they trample for others and they criticize others for spending their money (read that as “their” money) on things rather than helping the poor while causing millions of dollars in vandalism damage to cities across North America; millions that could have been used to help the poor.
Protesting to protect tree using paper signs and sticks
that came from….trees. No irony or hypocrisy there.
The environmental movement is the same. Hug a tree and make the world a better place reads the sign….on cardboard……that came from a tree.  Many of the leaders of this movement are quick to condemn the use of fossil fuels and actively jet around the world to make that point, no doubt believing that their jets run on solar power. Even Greenpeace, that protector of the environment is out there in its little boats, spewing greenhouse gases into the air from its outboard motors in defense of clean air, dolphins and baby seals. (meanwhile, children around the world go to bed hungry at night but Greenpeace is too busy saving the world to save people, especially children)
Personally, I don’t much care what people believe or what causes they embrace no matter how poorly informed or thought out those causes might be. What I do care about is the extreme language being used and it mostly comes from the left (although the right has its share of extreme vocabulary too), those warm, tree-hugging, save the planet, save animals, save the environment, save life folks who want to save everything except those dirty, treasonous bastards who don’t agree with them.
Here is just a small sample of the language now being used by those who profess to have humanity’s best interest at heart.  They are in no particular order:
This is just a small sample of what
a true police state looks like
Traitor. Fascist. Eco-terrorist. Criminal. Arch-criminal. Asshole (I actually use this one myself but only when someone actually is an asshole.  Hitler. Communist. Racist. Terrorist. Murderer. Nazi.  I’ve seen all of these words, and too many more, on social media sites to characterize someone that someone else didn’t like or with whom they disagreed.
People use these words to label others who do not hold the same opinions, support the same cause or politics as they do. I confess that I don’t get it. I fail to understand why exercising your right to form your own opinion has suddenly become a criminal act or why voting for what you believe in makes you a fascist, a Nazi or a socialist commie sympathizer.
What in the Hell has happened to us?
Are we so weak in our opinions that the only way we feel they hold any value is to try and demean anyone who doesn’t agree with us?  Are our causes and beliefs so weak that they can only be shored up by tearing down those of others?
Yelling and screaming have become
how too many express themselves
That isn’t democracy in action folks. It isn’t even good manners. It’s rabble babble by people who don’t respect the rights, the values, the opinions or the ideas of others. Too often, these are the same people who will rush to defend something like baby seals while almost tripping over the homeless person lying on the street in their path.
The road to perdition is long but easily followed and our societies are racing down it like it’s an expressway. We can’t talk to each other anymore which is why we don’t build consensus on issues. We merely posture, attack, accuse, complain, criticize and denigrate. We have no respect for the opinions of others which means very few have respect for ours.
The distance between a liberal and conservative isn’t very great. You only have to look at government policies in any democracy over the past fifty years to see that but to hear the language being used you would think the gap was miles wide.
It isn’t and our language isn’t doing anything to bring us together. If anything, our choice of language in presenting our opinions and in debating those held by others betrays not only the strength or weakness of our own but who and what we are as individuals.
There was a time when this kind of rhetoric was the province of extremists and the chronically under-informed. It has spread and is replacing informed, civilized debate. It will get worse before it gets better.
Link to article on extension of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between Canada and the US
© 2012 Maggie’s Bear
all rights reserved
The content of this article is the sole property of Maggie’s Bear but a link to it may be shared by those who think it may be of interest to others