<< AUSTRALIAN ON THE MOVE ~ MAIN ~ NOT EVEN IN ABU GHRAIB >>
ALL THE PROOF TARA NEEDS
Australia’s 60 Minutes delivers absolute and final proof of human-caused global warming:
If you still have any lingering doubts about global warming, stick around. We’re off to the Arctic, where Tara Brown found all the proof she needed that there’s something drastically wrong with the world’s weather. It came in the shape of a very large, very hungry polar bear - an angry predator, with us as its prey.
Stranded in the middle of nowhere with a three-metre, 300kg bear on the attack is a frightening experience. It’s also a graphic lesson in what happens when we mess with nature. As global temperatures rise, the ice cap melts and the polar bears’ hunting grounds disappear. Now they’re starving, desperate for food - so desperate even humans look appetising.
Science-minded readers may be asking: where was the control bear? You know, a bear all chubbed-up with baby seals and such, so we can test its non-starving reaction to an invading Tara Brown. Short of returning her to the bear-infested ice flats, Science demands that Tara be lowered into a polar bear enclosure at the nearest zoo.
(Via Andrew Bolt.)
I hope she remembers to spray herself in the face with Bear Repellent first.
The existence of a carnivorous bear proves human culpability in global warming?
That kind of logic doesn’t even pass the preschool admissions test.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 02 19 at 10:21 AM • permalinkso desperate even humans look appetising
Oh please. Even Belgian zoo animals like tasty humans.
Posted by Major John on 2007 02 19 at 10:27 AM • permalinkDan Lewis, this may be amended:
Black bear excrement is smaller, and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur.
Grizzly bear excrement has lots of little bells in it, and smells like pepper.
Polar Bear excrement contains carbon credits receipts.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2007 02 19 at 10:31 AM • permalinkSince grizzlies and polar bears can interbreed,, it is really not that surprising that polar bears find humans to be appetising treats.
By the way, I can’t decide if the last line of the linked story above is real or not. It is funny that they are issuing licenses to hunt polar bears however, given that they are on the edge of extinction and all. Nobody must have told the wildlife biologists responsible for the bears, I would guess.
I’ve known a number of Really Serious Hunters over the years, and while most of them are pretty sanguine about hunting regular bears, up to and including Grizzlies, one of them summed it up pretty well:
“Polar Bears aren’t bears. They’re giant, white weasels. And people are chew toys.”
From Wikipedia: “The polar bear is the most carnivorous member of the bear family, and the one that is most likely to prey on humans as food.”
They also eat other polar bears, if hungry enough.
They’re considered one of the meanest of the large predators, and are far and away the most dangerous of the bears.
“Oh God, he thinks I’m prey.”
Having spent time in wilderness myself, I must point out that when human beings place themselves in a wild environment, the term “middle of the food chain blues” becomes a very personal experience.
Because, you see, Tara Brown was prey. That polar bear saw her as food. Or, alternatively, knew that people sometimes carry food in their cars, and wanted some. There was a reason why that ranger was armed.
And having spent time in bear country, I can safely say that this is not unusual, since bears tend to be at the top of the food chain in any environment. Not only because they are big, fast, and aggressive, but because they also smart. Something that Tara Brown is too ignorant (or maybe ego-centris) to understand.
I understand that this is especially the case for polar bears, given the menu selection that they don’t have. But the same is true anywhere there are bears, although they prefer raiding garbage cans, that being easier than chasing down a human. I did mention that bears are smart, didn’t I? Certainly they are smarter than Tara.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 19 at 10:56 AM • permalinkThis story, published in the New York Times in 1987, describes what happened when a human child climbed into the polar bear enclosure at Prospect Park Zoo:
Memo to “60 Minutes”: The bears in the enclosure were not hungry. Nor were they victims of global warming. They’re big, white killing machines, and they were just doin’ what comes natural. Here’s a quarter: buy yourself a clue.
Next page-breaking link gets deleted. The Management.
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 02 19 at 11:03 AM • permalinkAnd she didn’t do her duty to Gaia and let herself be eaten?! HYPOCRITE!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 19 at 11:12 AM • permalinkI wonder if this story represents a ‘negative feedback’ of global warming. Global warming causes intense snow storm. Snow causes barn roofs to collapse, killing methane producing cows, thus cooling the environment. Gaia at work.
This brings to mind the story about Timothy Treadwell, who thought of grizzlies as pet dogs… until they ate him and his girlfriend. He, at least, had the excuse that he’d previously fried his brain with drugs. What’s Tara’s excuse?
I’m waiting for some reporter to head off to the Antarctic to tell us about the plight of the polar bears, or to the Arctic to talk about penguins.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 02 19 at 12:28 PM • permalinkAside from the dimwitted “omg, polar bears aren’t cuddly plush toys after all but man-eating predators” shtick, I think the point is that by now the bears should have passed through the area and caught a floe north where they would be happily munching on baby seals. So my question is, will no one speak for the seals?
But seriously, folks, Tina tells us the “sobering truth” that “over the last 20 years, Robert has watched the ice retreat and seen the bear population plummet”. Didn’t we recently learn that the polar bear population has increased by some 25,000? Is it possible that changing conditions have enhanced polar bear viability in some areas while reducing it in others (apparently resulting in a net gain) and, while these particular bears might not survive, others will prosper and multiply? What might Darwin have to say to these bears? Adapt or die, baby, adapt or die, perhaps?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 19 at 12:36 PM • permalinkThis is what happens when you spend your life in an urban environment. Too bad these clueless yet sophisticated urbanites didn’t think to ask a Noble Savage about poultry bears.
They could at least ave told her the first law of survival: You can’t outrun the bear, but make sure you can outrun your partner.
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 02 19 at 01:18 PM • permalinkIf you still have any lingering doubts about global warming, [consider] a very large, very hungry polar bear - an angry predator, with us as its prey.
I like this. I like it very much. I can make whatever wild eye far fetch claim I want and can use an obvious fact as proof as its existence. Hmmm.There are fairies that live in the woods behind my house. I cite the gray squirrels who store nuts in their tree burrow because they can’t trust the fairies.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 02 19 at 01:28 PM • permalinkMany years ago I took a Navy course in arctic operations (despite the specificity of the name, it also covered the antarctic). We learned that polar bears are by far the most dangerous predator one could face in the arctic (aside from other humans, of course - you know, like those with weapons on the other side). The recommended best weapon for delaing with the bears was a 12 gauge shotgun firing solid slugs, and we were warned against trying for a head shot because their skulls are so think they could deflect rounds (much like today’s leftists, I imagine). We were advised to shoot for the shoulder, to disable the bear. Afterwards you shoot it in the back of the neck and make it all dead and nonthreatening. The you could link arms and sing Kumbaya if you wanted.
I’ve eaten bear… not polar though. And so far, none of them have eaten me.
Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 02 19 at 02:48 PM • permalink#33 No Patrick, it “Played. On. Her. Fears!”
/algore
Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2007 02 19 at 03:31 PM • permalinkHow is it that these friends-of-the-Earth types are so profoundly ignorant of nature and so human-centric that they think we are somehow divorced from it?
Dave, in all seriousness, I think that this is an example of how little a majority of the “Friends-of-the-Earth” actually care about the environment. If they did care, they would understand their precise position in it.
Tara ignores the fact that any bear is a dangerous animal, ignore the fact that polar bears are the nastiest examples of the bear family. And she glosses over the fact that the Arctic environment has a very straight and short food chain…..which just happens to includes humans as a handy and bountiful source of protein.
No, instead of a thoughtful look at how polar bears and humans live together in the Arctic, we get the statement “Oh God, he thinks I’m prey.”
And then we see the breath taking arrogance that human beings are somehow divorced from the environment, which leads to the deadly misperception that all of nature is a petting zoo, and I think we see their true beliefs, as evidenced by Tara: all of this is all about them, and what they do, and the attention that they get.
What really happens in the end is immaterial, so long as we see the message “It’s all about me me me me me me me me me me!!!!!!”
The minority segment of the “Friends-of-the-Earth” simply milk the marks for every penny they are worth. Whether it’s because they are running a scam (*cough* Algore *cough*) or because they are genuine in their beliefs is a different matter.
So, I guess alligators and sharks are starving, too?
If so, I know of a reliable and large source of protein for those poor creatures. The real problem would be the picking and choosing. Transportation might be another issue, unless we can convince them to emulate the mythical behavior of lemmings.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 19 at 03:39 PM • permalinkAnd to think, all this time I was wondering whether Mann et al (1998, 1999) had used a valid statistical form of Principal Components Analysis when contructing their temperature time series of the last 1000 years, as discussed in the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005).
I guess the polar bear settles it.
I wonder how the polar bears survived the Roman Warm Period, well documented in the neighborhood in ice cores from Greenland. Even if the event was local, as the AGWs claim all evidence to the contrary but their discredited hockey stick graph, it should have driven the polar bears to extinction.
Must be Gaia gave them special dispensation that time, and during the previous interglacials since Polar bears evolved.
There are some things that bears can’t stomach. How much of a feed would Brown be anyway?
Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 02 19 at 04:59 PM • permalinkThe answer is obvious. Declare all Northern Canada a Conservation Zone and evacuate all the food - er humans. Then let Nature take its course with the bear population, all unseen by pretty fairy-floss reporters for 60 Minutes.
No, maybe leave all the Inuit there, but take away their planes, skidoos and guns so they can live “in perfect harmony with nature” once again, like before the awful invasion of the Whites.
Sorry Inuit, but it’s better for all of us - and for Gaia too….Brainless stories like this leave me speechless. It sounds more like a parody of an anti-global warming story. You would think the extremist global warming scare would collpase under the weight of its own dishonesty and stupidity but it seems remarkably resilient.
I suppose take away these stories and what are global warming adherents left with. A small temperature rise to date wich has levelled off in recent years, which may or may not be largely caused by CO2 emissions. That and computer models, lots of em.
““Oh God, he thinks I’m prey.”
She almost got it right. The thought is properly written, ““Oh God, he knows I’m prey.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 02 19 at 05:28 PM • permalinkPoliticians in Oz and California come up with the same bright idea.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 19 at 05:45 PM • permalinkHmmmm.
1. That polar bear needs some more training on how to catch liberals.
2. I **like** that polar bear!
Posted by memomachine on 2007 02 19 at 05:45 PM • permalink1. That polar bear needs some more training on how to catch liberals.
Maybe if we used Tabasco sauce?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 02 19 at 05:52 PM • permalinkYou peole are all mean. The bear was in white. All the good guys in movies wear white, ergo, all polar bears are good. Id be encouraging the affixing of little black cowboy hats to all polar bears. This would clear up any confusion, and they would look quite natty in little fedoras.
Besides who could think this little fellow would go bad??
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 02 19 at 06:35 PM • permalinkMessage to Tara Brown: .Bears eat people.
It’s an established fact that Polar Bears prefer humans to ice cubes. In fact, most bears do.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 19 at 08:01 PM • permalink#22 Dave S.
You have unwittingly hit upon the answer.
Yes, they are removed from nature. They are suburbanite romanticists; they are totally removed from nature.
That’s why they can be so stupid.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 19 at 08:09 PM • permalink#24 OMIGOD.
There are no Polar bears in the Antartic. Gloabl Warming has wiped them all out!
Like they were wiped out from the Sahara too.
We must return the planet to Frigidaire!
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 19 at 08:11 PM • permalink#50 The ultimate enviromentalists’ fear ...
...global warming meets genetic engineering.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 02 19 at 08:24 PM • permalinkCheck out what a professor has to say about Al Gore’s work and the argument in general.
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 02 19 at 08:38 PM • permalinkShe has to ask herself why the polar bears hate her…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 02 19 at 09:12 PM • permalinkThis 1975 article from Newsweek is a gem!
note the scary global temperature graph…
Posted by pommygranate on 2007 02 19 at 09:27 PM • permalinkNext week Tara covers herself in chum and swims with sharks! Madcap hilarity ensues!
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 19 at 09:35 PM • permalinkConsidering the “quality” journalism of 60 Minutes, I really shouldn’t have been so surprised that Polar bears hate it too.
And he was so passionate and expressive. Much better than sending in a letter of complaint in the hope that it might get read in next weeks episode.
So bears have taste! Wonder how he’d react to Leunig?
Don’t know if it’s anything to do with the weather, but if I was stranded in the wilderness, I’d eat Tara Brown. Probably have to buy her dinner and drinks first, which could be a problem.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 19 at 09:52 PM • permalinkpommygranate - great link, I especially like
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic icecap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.
And where might they get this black soot? From feeelthy coal fired power stations, I suppose. So Tiny Tim and Bend-over Bob, let’s not get rid of them just yet, we might desperately need them during the inevitable coldening phase
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 02 19 at 09:59 PM • permalinkBear: Taaaaaaaara! Taaaaaaaaaaaaaara! [bangs on window] Tarrrrrrrraaaaaaaaa!
Tara: What does he want? Oh my! Oh my goodness? What’s his problem? Is he afraid of the future?
Bear: Taaaaaaaara! Taaaaaaaaaaaaaara! <bangs on window> Tarrrrrrrraaaaaaaaa!
Tara: Oh, no! [tear in eye] He knows! He knows! [chokes up] He knows his environment is doomed…
Bear: Taaaaaaaara! Taaaaaaaaaaaaaara! For fucksake! [bangs on window] It’s cold out here! Be a sport! Let me in!Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 02 19 at 10:08 PM • permalinkThere once was a clown,
Of televisual reknown,
With a perpetual frown,
Known as Tara Brown.To the frozen north she’d fly,
Tutting “Oh My My My!”
As polar bears she’d spy,
“They’re all going to die!”‘Twas just that morning,
She’d learnt of global warming,
And had to issue a warning,
Of a disaster dawning.But the bears were well fed,
Which buggered her ‘cred,
And as none were a bit dead,
Proved she was a fuckhead.#67 - Al Gore. Al Gore. Al Gore! Bwahahahahahahahaha! Al Gore!
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 02 19 at 10:12 PM • permalinkI don’t question the wisdom of that choice, kae; I just like keeping “choice” in the equation.
Two interesting GW pieces today:
Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent by Congressman John Linder (one of the sane people in DC, global warming skeptic, flat tax advocate):
“Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world’s thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the “science” of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.
And Population control is critical in warming fight by John Seager, national president of Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth):
Globally, at least 350 million couples lack family planning services. Here in the United States, one-third of all births are unplanned. And the Bush Administration’s family planning failures, from its Global Gag Rule to ideologically driven abstinence-only programs, contribute directly to millions of unwanted and unplanned births.
If we could cut in half the number of unwanted births in the United States alone, we’d have about 5 million fewer births over 20 years. Family planning makes sense for people – and for our fragile planet.
Note “births”, not “pregnancies”. This is all about abortion, plain and simple. You know, if every American woman who didn’t plan her pregnancy was required to abort, we could prevent over 27 million unplanned births! Think of the happy dance in John’s pants then! Although he stopped short of making that argument, you know he wanted to.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 02 19 at 10:35 PM • permalinkHmmm.
@ The Real Jeff S
Maybe if we used Tabasco sauce?
No actually I was thinking more along the lines of the Liberal Call “Socialized Medicine!” a la Bloom County. :)
Posted by memomachine on 2007 02 19 at 11:06 PM • permalinkPoor Tara probably thought polar bears were cool and friendly, like in the Bundaberg Rum advert. Someone should have told her before she set foot on the ice that the Bundy bear wasn’t real and polar bears can’t actually talk.
Found this quote at a polar bear site:
Churchill, Manitoba, the “Polar Bear Capital of the World,” was established in 1717. Since that time, only two townspeople have ever been killed by polar bears, despite numerous encounters. The first death occurred in 1968. Native teenagers followed polar bear tracks through a fresh snowfall, found the animal, and proceeded to molest him.”
60 Minutes should have googled “polar bears”
Well, there’s not much too her, but I’m happy to share. Leg or breast man?
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 02 20 at 02:35 AM • permalink“found the animal, and proceeded to molest him.”
Ok, Ive been horny enough to dig up a badger and bum it before but a polar bear?? What was its head in a little ice hole with just its cute little “uncovered meat” exposed driving the lads into unbridled lust?
Enquiring minds want to know exactly how drunk you have to be for “molesting” a polar bear to seem like a good idea.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 02 20 at 03:35 AM • permalinkrichard mcenroe:
She has to ask herself why the polar bears hate her…
Actually, I think they like her. Or think she’s tasty, at least.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2007 02 20 at 02:29 PM • permalink“Stranded in the middle of nowhere with a three-metre, 300kg bear on the attack is a frightening experience.”
Pack some heavy weapons next time you go cruising aound in bear territory, dopey. Remember: The only thing keeping you at the top of the food chain is superior firepower.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 02 20 at 10:11 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I have been saying this too much but still, the enlightenment was nice while it lasted.