The Shotgun Blog
« How do I respond to being so throughly wrong on last night's vote? | Main | Oh Vancouver! »
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Hug a bear
h/t to Kate for bringing this video to my attention.
Ya gotta love the idiot editor who spliced in stock footage of PENGUINS to illustrate a story about the Arctic. Check it out at the 29-sec mark.
And ya just gotta love our heroine, who, after her training session with a rifle (to learn how to protect herself from polar bears), said she'd rather hug the creatures instead. Right. One Brit popsicle treat for mamma polar bear coming up!
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 7, 2008 in Humour | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e552154c568833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hug a bear:
Comments
These global warming enthusiasts are such hypocrites. They talk at length how their science proves everything, but they make the basic mistake of thinking penguins live in the Arctic. This is what happens when you use mad scientists.
Remember: science was also used to justify eugenics, forced sterilization of the disabled, and slavery.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 12:09:29 PM
The six rules of dealing with bears:
1. Shot placement;
2. Shot placement;
3. Shot placement;
4. Use enough bullet;
5. Use enough gun;
6. Use your brain.
Funny thing is, if you just follow rule number six, odds are you'll never need the other five. But it pays to know them...just in case.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-07 1:19:57 PM
So an MSNBC editor grabs some bum footage and the girl is to blame? Hm. Zeb, did you really think that's how news stories wee produced? By the interviewees and not by the reporters? That's a bit naive.
Anyway, you're 100% sure this has nothing to do with feeling a bit insecure having seen a 15 year old girl trek to the north pole on foot to make her point about climate change while you're parked in a chair blogging your point about policy, and all that the contrast might imply?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-05-07 1:23:12 PM
Uh, PR...I don't see anywhere where Zeb blamed the girl. My guess is he was talking about NBC who were reponsible for the "news" piece.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-05-07 1:30:53 PM
Thanks Mark. That is what I said.
That same story appeared on the Hot Air website. Apparently MSNBC deleted the penguin footage once this error was publicized.
I'm just tired of these global warming people using science either as an icon or as a battering ram. It just ain't working. Their proposed solutions are ridiculous and impractical. IF climate change is a problem it won't be solved through raising taxes, but rather through changing personal habits. It is, contrary to popular belief, the fastest way of doing it because the alternative will be so unpopular that it could never succeed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 1:36:58 PM
Here's that Hot Air story.
http://tinyurl.com/3watt9
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 1:39:42 PM
IF climate change is a problem it won't be solved through raising taxes, but rather through changing personal habits. It is, contrary to popular belief, the fastest way of doing it because the alternative will be so unpopular that it could never succeed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 7-May-08 1:36:58 PM
The only thing helping it would be a societal change, and that means EVERYONE has to make the change to even remotely have an impact.
As a funny reading material:
"As the World Burns - 50 simple things you can do to stay in denial" (and no, not quite what you may think it says):
http://tinyurl.com/5q4snq
But tell me ZP, how do we make sure everybody makes the changes that are (or maybe not) needed without doing things like raising taxes on gas etc.?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-07 1:47:00 PM
snowy:
By putting a gun to their heads?
But, only after they scoff at the ridiculous premise which led to the unnecessary taxation.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 2:12:28 PM
Ah, I knew ZP had more than one account on here.
But I guess you will be very busy in the upcoming years. Now go forth and do your job.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-07 2:22:50 PM
snowy:
You knew what?
Hope the knowledge is more reliable than Algore's, who attributed the 100,000 cylone deaths to global warming.
And, it happened because the oceans are warming due to more CO2 in the air. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Guess he must have missed the scientific studies which showed no difference in ocean temperatures for the last five years.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 2:33:37 PM
Which is more reliable: phrenology or climate change science?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 2:40:21 PM
zeb:
Is there a term for study of the dodo bird?
All are dead subjects.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 2:42:30 PM
zeb:
Other pointless sciences:
Alchemy.
Succesful socialist models.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 2:45:53 PM
I thought I would take a jog down memory lane. Back in 1969 we were assured that the threat of a new ice age was going to cause wholesale death and misery for mankind. The "scientists" stated that cooling had begun in 1940 and that it would not be reversed. Around the same period prediction was there would be a major food shortage and that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989. A report written for the Club of Rome in 1972 warned that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. A biologist from Harvard claimed in 1970 that civilisation would end within 15 to 30 years unless immediate action was not taken against problems facing mankind. Look magazine carried an article warning that by 1995 somewhere between 75 to 85 percent of all the species of living animals would be extinct.
The list is endless of course and yet never have I noted the slightest sense of embarrassment by these "environmentalists". Yet here we are again with more of the same doom-sayers. The difference however is that this time we have governments jumping on the bandwagon and feeding the latest scam with our tax dollars.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-05-07 3:25:29 PM
What will be the next "looming environmental emergency?" We've had global warming, global cooling, ozone, recycling, endangered species, etc.
I'm proud to say that in each case, common sense not only defeated the extremists, but found a far better solution than they proposed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 4:04:08 PM
SYF: I agree, of course, that socialist models don't work. Are you sying Harper and Canada aren't socialist?
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-07 5:06:29 PM
Guess he must have missed the scientific studies which showed no difference in ocean temperatures for the last five years.
Posted by: set you free | 7-May-08 2:33:37 PM
I am sure as usual you will not provide any proof for this statement.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-07 5:26:25 PM
Other pointless sciences:
Alchemy.
Posted by: set you free | 7-May-08 2:45:53 PM
Oh, Alchemy seems to be doing just fine, considering how the banks make money out of nothing these days, all thanks to the Governments who rather bail out the banks then cutting them lose.
Seriously, you should be a bit more up to world events, come on, in this day and age your fallout shelter should have the ability to receive some kind of information outside of the Emergency Broadcast Signal.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-07 5:28:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell#Death
This is what happens when people forget that there's a difference between nature and man.
Like the death of the "World Peace Hitchhiker", this is another shouldn't-be-funny-but-kind-of-it example of Darwin Award-worthy liberal cluelessness.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-05-07 5:42:45 PM
As Alain pointed out, every generation seems to have their "end of the world" regurgetation.Keeps the treehuggers motivated. The biggest difference this time around is that government has learned it can tax us on nothing,(carbon)...for nothing.There are people out there that actually want that. Who would have thunk eh??.
Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-07 6:08:18 PM
I watched an interesting story on the cbc this morning about icebergs off the coast of Newfoundland. It's been a hectic year for 'bergs, with the numbers this year being higher than the last three years combined. The numbers haven't been this high for over twenty years.
It's a result of much colder sea temperatures not melting them before they hit Newfoundland. Even the cbc couldn't spin the story to blame global warming. By all accounts it's been much colder this last winter. The US coast guard has issued iceberg warnings and a couple of harbours seem to be in a bit of danger.
I doubt this story will get as much coverage as that twit on skis. I used to be a bit of an expert on getting into hard to reach places. I have experience in northern climates. There is no argument here, everything they're claiming to have done is a lie. She didn't ski 80 miles. She didn't sleep in a little tent. 40 below temperatures are hard to deal with, even for experienced outdoor folks. They made up absolutely the whole story. The only thing realistic was the fact that they showed up some place above the treeline with a camera.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-07 7:20:19 PM
Oh Oh
Why can't those Brits learn that it's cold over here?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3864000/3864953.stm
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-07 8:34:21 PM
dp: don't you know anything? Bush created the icebergs using the Mossad's Martian ice machine, at the orders of the big oil corporations and Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 8:38:55 PM
dp:
Oceans colder?
Stop it. You're going to confuse snowy.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 8:56:43 PM
So Zeb, what do you plan to do when the wilkins shelf breaks off and drifts into New Orleans?
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-07 8:58:48 PM
SYF: I can't find any mention of the colder sea temps anywhere. Either it's not true, or it's not a good story.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-07 9:02:32 PM
So Zeb, what do you plan to do when the wilkins shelf breaks off and drifts into New Orleans?
Posted by: dp | 7-May-08 8:58:48 PM
When it gets there, ask me? (Casablanca line)
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-07 9:53:34 PM
Hey dp:
Just responding to this:
It's a result of much colder sea temperatures not melting them before they hit Newfoundland.
Posted by: dp | 7-May-08 7:20:19 PM
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-07 11:03:38 PM
And then there is this gem when the fantasy world of the far left conflicts with the realities of the real world,
Global Warming Expedition to North Pole Cancelled Due to Cold and Frostbite
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. However, I sincerely beg all readers to properly stow potables, combustibles, and sharp objects before proceeding further.
An expedition to the North Pole to bring attention to global warming was cancelled due to the extraordinarily cold weather. I kid you not. As reported by the Associated Press Monday
The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
I’m verklempt, and having difficulty typing through the tears of laughter. But, unlike our intrepid explorers, I must go on for the benefit of mankind:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.
Ouch. That’s cold! Marvelously, it was much colder then Bancroft’s trip 21 years ago:
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Yep. It was soooooo cold up there because of global warming.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-08 12:15:38 AM
Now I know why Suzuki wants to jail anyone who doesn't agree with his view of climate change. It's the only way to stop them from discrediting him.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 7:59:20 AM
This just in.
OK, so I'm a bit slow.
Today is day six of a volcanic eruption in Chile.
I'm sure it's either the fault of Dubya or Big Oil.
Nonetheless, in reading up on the implications on global warming, er, climate change, scientists say this volcano, like all those major eruptions before it, will COOL the surrounding area.
They do provide a word of caution, though, that it's effect will be felt mainly in the southern hemisphere.
So, now we have a naturally-occuring phenomenon that will cool the southern hemisphere.
And, the incidence of icebergs floating by Newfoundland (that's in the northern hemisphere for those directionally-challenged among us) has been attributed to cooler ocean temperatures, resulting in slower a slower melt rate for the icebergs already in the water.
I love science. Every day pure science disproves the political science of the Goracle and Snooze-iccky.
The evidence is mounting. Science is never settled.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 8:14:03 AM
The Leftist mentality is to find a scape goat to blame for everything. Preferably, one that makes them look good or even 'helpful'.
For example, no matter what happens politically that is bad, it's the fault of GW Bush.
No matter what happens with our climate it's all the fault of the horrid capitalist system that has caused global warming. (not the po Chinese though or the East Indians IT'S THEIR TURN TO POLLUTE NOW WE MUST STOP SO THEY CAN GO ...)
Just like the childish control-freaks that they are, these leftist idiots will spend their lives trying to force others to do what they want them to do. That won't ever happen. People like freedom to live as they want to.
This does however, prove that the average lefty DOES NOT HAVE A LIFE, just a series of causes and issues that allow them to maintain a state of anger and frustration that some of us are preventing them from living in a perfect world.
I have note the trend to give lip service as to how green everyone is becoming, but it's mostly bullshit and good old hypocrisy.
Life is messy business and nothing is ever what it appears to be.
There nothing unusual about our climate. It is doing what is has always done. The result of meddling in this area will cause crime to take over when governments get too stupid. Raising taxes at this time with sky-rocketing fuel and food prices it stupid and that is just what Dion and Layton purpose doing. Both Lefties, both delusional, both very stupid. They will drive people into crime to survive.
If what the Left gets their way, they would be their first to howl that there is no more money for their social programs, and meaningless government funded jobs. Businesses always leave over regulated places for places where there is more freedom to do what they want to be profitable.
It's seem that even communist China is freer than Canada when it comes to capitalism. Splain that will ya?
Posted by: John V | 2008-05-08 9:59:59 AM
Boy am I glad I studied history instead of science in college. It's so much more useful in analyzing Kyoto and climate change.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 11:52:02 AM
Zeb:
Are we doing enough to stop the march toward the Brave New World?
Do we need to point out even more the foibles of the childish control freaks who will order our lives ... if only we let them? Or, if we speak up, do we risk being thrown in jail?
I'm curious about your take on the historical perspective. If history attempting to repeat itself in the Kyoto cult? And, if so, what are its motives?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 12:03:07 PM
SYF: I think indeed that history is repeating itself with Kyoto and Climate Change. Remember the ozone 'problem' a few years back? It was another doomsday scenario with prophecies of greenhouse effect (sound familiar?). It didn't come true, but the world did adapt to eliminating CFCs from aerosol cans and those styrofoam containers from McDonald's.
Remember those old compact disc cases - lots of plastic? Gone for much the same reasons.
Recycling too. The 3 R's - recycling, reuse, renew - became the new motto. Did it work? Who can say - but the environmentalists worked through fear and things changed.
Kyoto COULD be the same if it didn't involve the use of billions of precious tax dollars. The best way to undercut Kyoto is to make it unnecessary. Changes in behavior, like using energy more efficiently, ought to do it.
Something tells me that this was their plan all along. However, because our money is at stake, it is a duty to resist Kyoto to the bitter end. I have no problem using energy efficient light bulbs and the like, but DO NOT waste my hard-earned money by sending it overseas to buy "carbon credits". It is a scam, pure and simple, and resisting Kyoto is not a matter of partisan politics but common sense.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 2:00:54 PM
Zeb:
Let me put this is my own words.
Kyoto implementation is sold by an identical tactic as big government proponents have used for some time now.
Invent a problem out of thin air, then sell themselves as the only ones who can save the rest of us great unwashed from this problem.
Tactically, nobody would believe these blowhards, so they fabricate some mystical understanding only they are endowed with.
And, if anybody dare criticize, they are ‘uneducated.'
Sounds like a repeat of history to me, all right.
Sounds like we're on the same level of understanding of these tactics that enslave us to pay for these things.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 2:21:51 PM
Invent a problem out of thin air, then sell themselves as the only ones who can save the rest of us great unwashed from this problem.
Posted by: set you free | 8-May-08 2:21:51 PM
Like the oil companies not paying enough in royalties?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-05-08 3:07:40 PM
SYF: well put!
It is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, communism, Fascism, and Jihadism. Nice company there, eco-nuts!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 4:23:51 PM
Like the oil companies not paying enough in royalties?
Posted by: The Stig | 8-May-08 3:07:40 PM
Who should set the price? The seller or the buyer? I am all for the oil companies setting their own price if I can do the same at the gas pump. It would only be fair.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-08 5:17:54 PM
Now I know why Suzuki wants to jail anyone who doesn't agree with his view of climate change. It's the only way to stop them from discrediting him.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 8-May-08 7:59:20 AM
Oh, got a link to him saying this? If so this clearly needs to get out there.
Pleaes provide link to statement, preferably a video just so he can't deny it.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-08 5:21:17 PM
By any means necessary
David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=291604
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-05-08 5:46:48 PM
How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 8-May-08 5:46:48 PM
Since when are ideologists not totalitarian?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-08 6:13:58 PM
Snowy
"Who should set the price? The seller or the buyer? I am all for the oil companies setting their own price if I can do the same at the gas pump. It would only be fair."
You can. If you and your neighbours refuese to buy a product from a seller, that seller will lower prices if forced by reduces retail.
If you are unsuccessful...I guess you need more neighbours who agree with you.
You don't like it? What are you... a communist?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:14:25 PM
Snowy
"Since when are ideologists not totalitarian?"
Good point.
NDP, Democrats, CBC, Sierra Club, etc.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:16:13 PM
So I read Terry's article and have a few notes here:
First: It seems Terry wasn't there, he just merely "hearsayed" certain things, fine it's an opinion piece, but for you to point to someone who said he heard somebody else say something is not really a valid proof. There is a reason why only direct testimony is allowed in court proceedings.
Secondly, Terry writes:
"His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments' alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science."
Again, let's ignore for a moment that this isn't a direct quote and just assume Suzuki really said what Terry put here in quotes. The key word in the whole thing is: "legal way", reading: If the politicians break a law they should be thrown in jail.
Considering the ruckus over the Death Penalty that Adam kicked off let me ask: What's wrong with throwing law breakers into jail?
So, as much as Suzuki is an idealogue and seems to be frustrated (like most people on the Western Standard) that he can't get his way, at least he had the "good sense" to call for a "legal way" to jail people he doesn't agree with, pretty much what people like Adam are constantly saying.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-08 6:34:52 PM
You don't like it? What are you... a communist?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 8-May-08 6:14:25 PM
Apparently you are one, as you advocate that people band together to fight the big evil corporations. What's your next step?
-------------------
NDP, Democrats, CBC, Sierra Club, etc.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 8-May-08 6:16:13 PM
Conservatives, Neo-Cons, The Knights of Columbus, the KKK..... we can spent the next decade on here listing all the groups that are "special interest" and want to have the world in a certain way that 99% of the rest of the world probably doesn't agree with.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-08 6:37:35 PM
Very subtle snowjob. H2O strung together four well respected groups, and you counter by attaching conservatives to the KKK.
Posted by: dp | 2008-05-08 6:41:58 PM
Snowy
"Apparently you are one, as you advocate that people band together to fight the big evil corporations. What's your next step?"
As I don't think and have not stated that corporations are evil because they are big, I think you are making things up...projecting even.
Next, even if people got together to oppose a corporation policy...good for them.
However, Government taking steps to intervene in legal and safe commerce on behalf of left-wing interest groups...now that's communist... and evil.
You can quote me.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:42:16 PM
Snowy
"Conservatives, Neo-Cons, The Knights of Columbus, the KKK."
Which one does not belong? Let's use Snowy's criteria?
"Since when are ideologists not totalitarian?"
I vote KKK. They are more like the others:
NDP, Democrats, CBC, Sierra Club, etc.
You should try reading "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg for a history lesson.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-08 6:46:07 PM
water dog:
First, snowy would have to pass a reading comprehension test.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-08 6:54:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.