First the Snail Darter and then the Spotted Owl and

then the salmon and so on. But now it's the polar bear. And that's because the panda bear didn't capture the faithfull's imagination. After all, John Tierney, columnist for the NY Times says: "The panda may be cuddlier, but it's really more of a poster animal for gluttony and sloth." He goes on to say that the panda eats 12 hours a day and sleeps the other 12. "Today they need to be artificially inseminated because they seem too lazy to exert their energy to mate. "

So the new selection for the Blind Faith Secular Socialist's (BFSS) poster animal is the polar bear. This animal is in the Arctic where BFSS activists say the first measurable global warming affects are developing. With so much global warming consequence, why is this small number of bears now the cause for spending trillions to save mankind? It's more because the redirection from other animals to the polar bear makes it a better media event.

We all want to help animals in their struggle with nature's hurdles and the cruel food chain. The salmon and the spotted owl's numbers seem pretty reasonable so the polar bear must be the cause today. Yet again, as with salmon and spotted owls, the real science says that polar bears have doubled in numbers over the past decade alone. They eat more and better and their range is expanding, from research by Canada's most renowned universities.

The globe is warming because it's moving away from the last mini-iceage and the last major iceage. So we will warm until the climate turns and it becomes cooler. Are we warming faster due to man's footprint? No-one knows. However many pseudo-scientists believe that mankind is accelerating the increase in temperature and therefore shortening the time when we turn to cooling. Is that bad? We don't know. But any change in climate seems to exercise scientists because they appear to try to stop the climate at a single point. They might be called the Amish of climate. They ask that if it was OK yesterday, why isn't it OK today?

Climate must change. But can we manage that change by reversing nature's natural activities? And if man's footprint on nature is less than 1%, or even sometimes less than 1/100th of one percent, are we causing climate change? Reason says not! But real scientists might answer that question for us. So we must find or train these scientists who are not politically or personally invested in the current big global warming managerie.

So what do we know? We know that climate change is a constant among many variables of science. Yet we know that many if not most among top climate scientists must adhere to the company line that we are fast drifting into a climate upheaval or they will soon be disconnected from their federal grants and public support. There is little doubt that thought cleansing has taken its toll on diverse opinions.

Today there are few who will risk getting disconnected from peer respect and funding by questioning the Blind Faith Secular Socialist eco-positions. Now, what do you think we should do?

.