Deaf Rumor Mill and Cyber Gossip

Over the last few days, weeks and even the last 3 years I, as well as many others, have seen the affects of how rumors and gossips can do to a Deaf community or any community for that matter when it comes to blogging and what not. Now, gossiping isn’t my bag, obviously so for those who are already familiar with my blogsite. I go for substance and style over gossiping any day of the week when I do my blogging. Yet, curiously so, gossiping seems to be a mainstay diet for many who relish gossipy news over substance, especially in the Deaf community which happens to pride itself on being a highly sociable group. Nothing to be ashamed there, of course. But I was curious why people do these things publicly over the internet and so I did a quick Google research.

First, we need to define what the definition of “gossip” is which isn’t an easy one to define according to psychologists. Okay. We kind of know what it means anyway. But from a social status standpoint what does it mean then?

Gossip also defines who's in and who's out in a group. If you're considered worthy enough to be buzzed about on the grapevine, you're in.

Ah, interesting. It's about the importance of a person they're gossiping about. Ok. What about bad gossips? Any difference from kids gossiping when compared to adults who do them?

But kids' gossip is decidedly different from adults'; it's more innocent and often more cruel. First, children will gossip in front of the kid they're talking about, using such common bon mots as: "You pick your nose" or "You're a cheater."

Hmm. I don’t see much difference from what I’ve been hearing and reading all these years. Maybe some people just don’t know how to gossip like an adult with the right kind of words? The question is why do adults gossip?

Second, unlike adults, who often gossip to bring someone with power down a notch or two…

So, gossiping is about trying to bring down people with power a notch or two? Perhaps some people are desperate then? And this is about being malicious and mean, too?

….research suggests that many healthy children—and perhaps some adults—dabble in malicious gossip, and that it can be an effective way to be aggressive without facing social sanctions.

"What is so interesting about gossip is that it really walks the line between what is acceptable and what is not," says Underwood. "It is completely unacceptable for me to punch my colleague, but if I tell people he drinks too much, I am less likely to be called on it."

Yeah. No kidding. Continue.

In addition to serving as a proxy for punching, malicious gossip can improve one's social standing at the expense of others' status, according to research by Antonius Cillessen, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Connecticut. Cillessen followed 905 children from the ages of 10 to 14, asking them each year to rank each other in terms of likability, popularity and social aggression. The children who others rated as socially aggressive—those who, for example, spread gossip about peers or intentionally excluded others from games—became more popular, according to a study published in a 2004 issue of Child Development (Vol. 75, No. 1, pages 147–163).

Interesting. Yet psychologists are talking about kids. But then again this probably makes no difference when some adults do it. But there’s more.

Gossip may enhance children's social standing because, by talking about someone who is not present, the gossipers form a social alliance, notes Underwood. If that talk is negative, the subject of the gossip is explicitly excluded from the new alliance, she notes. For example, a group of boys who talk about someone who recently acted like a "crybaby" establishes that theirs is a non-crybaby group.

Children who strategically exclude others in this manner may be able to gossip their way to the top of the social ladder, Cillessen says. Adults may also use such strategies from time-to-time too, though they are likely to do so in more subtle ways, and have multiple aims with a single instance of gossip, he says.

Crybaby and non-crybaby groups?? I guess psychologists haven’t studied what goes on in some of these Deaf circles when it comes to gossiping and rumor-mongering. But there’s an interesting conclusion to all this.

While malicious gossip may be an effective way to enhance one's social standing—with little chance that others will disagree with you publicly—those who do may pay a hidden price, Cillessen has found.

In Cillessen's 2004 study, he found that popular fifth-graders tended to also be well liked by their peers, but by ninth grade, the two factors were negatively correlated. The increasing disparity may come from their need to gossip to stay atop the social heap, his findings suggest.

"What we see is...girls who are using relational aggression to be powerful in their peer group are seen as central and cool, but they are increasingly disliked by others," says Cillessen.

Speaking ill of others to become popular—and then having to do it more to stay popular—leads to an escalation of malicious gossip, suggests Cillessen's study. However, relational aggression as a method to socially climb seems to level at ninth grade, and it begins to decline around 10th, suggests as-yet-unpublished data by Cillessen.

Yeah, I know. They're talking about kids but how can you tell nowadays when it seems to be the case in "certain circles" around here. But I figured that when people gossip so much out in the open over the internet it actually exposes them a bit more. Which is to say that if people insist on gossiping maliciously then they must be worried about something or else it wouldn’t be worth gossiping to begin with! Maybe they are indeed exposing themselves a little too much about themselves for other people to see and not know it?

"Gossip is similar to a Rorschach test," says Levin. "If you look at the nature of someone's gossip, you can find out what concerns them."

Ah, interesting! "What concerns them." Hmm… Ah hummm….

*nods head*

*rubs jaw*

Sigmund Freud would be quite interested in this new age of gossiping over the internet via blogging. But this shouldn't be a surprise since we all gossip to one degree or another whether it's done digitally or in person. However, there is a difference between unhealthy gossip and the run-of-the-mill gossip kind.

And so it comes down to this the one big reason to stay out of this malicious gossip and rumoring nonsense that, at times, seems to plague the Deaf community.

"I think gossip brings about more gossip, and things can grow out of control and really hurt someone," Fort says. "If gossip were alcohol, my whole school would be wasted."

No kidding! Apply that by ten times when we're dealing with a tight, knitted Deaf community. It can simply get vicious and out of control at times. Either you want to be a responsible blogger or you don't and not get too far out ahead of yourselves. I have a good reason why I don't blog that way and I have no desire to do so. I'd rather blog that has substance and class. Not to mention a healthy dose of humor to help wash it all down every so often.

Cheers everyone! Ta -ta!

My Twenty Clarifications

Let me clarify something here for many of my Kokonut Pundit readers out there about myself and where I stand since gossiping seems to be a favorite pastime of Deaf culture as of late. An idiocy I want no part of (ie gossiping). Here’s is my bulleted list though not necessarily in any particular order.

1. I consider myself as a deaf/hh person.

2. I was born with a hearing loss due to my mother contracting Rubella during the Rubella outbreak in Washington and Oregon during the 1960s.

3. Began wearing my hearing aid at around age 2. Had I been outfitted at age 5 or 6 years old I would not have the ability to use the phone, talk or easily discriminate words at an older age into adulthood. I thank my mother for that. My brain development would be much more different had I wore my hearing aid at a much later time in my young life. It's a trained accomplishment that got me where I am today much like those who become an accomplished pianist. It took practice. And I am proud that I am able to use the phone and talk to any hearing person without worry. It’s a matter of confidence and pride on my part. It has nothing to do with me being better than you. Please remove that silly notion of yours if you actually think that this is the case. It is not. It’s about what I was able to accomplish in all those years that provided me the many successes in life up to today.

4. I do not call myself as a Deaf person since I am not one. It’d be incorrect to say that I am. Plus, that terminology is more about politics, labeling, and/or identity than anything else.

5. I am fluent in ASL having learned it at Gallaudet since 1988. Though not a native signer but nonetheless I am fluent.

6. My preference is to blog, and not vlog. There is no reason why I should “prove” my signing ability via vlogging. You see what you get in my blog. My specialty is doing research and writing as you probably can tell. Plus I don’t just ban anyone. I ban only a very few people whenever they violate my rules (see linked rules in my comment page). And that my ban list of IP addresses is removed every 4 to 5 months. Follow my rules and you’ll do fine. And lastly, being able to write comments in other peoples’ blogs is not a right. Let’s get that straight for once, folks. It’s not about freedom of speech. Rather, it’s about privilege and access to that blog comment page. I don't go running around screaming or whining and use the words "freedom of speech" and how my rights to free speech were violated because John Egbert, for example, didn't put my comments up (move cursor over picture and click to enlarge). It is the blogger's right to do so and he/she is free to do whatever he/she wants. It is after all his/her blog and moderates the comment page as he/she sees fit even if it means using conspiracy theories as an excuse to knock comments off or have valid rules on keeping comments clean. I have the right to moderate my comment page as I see fit, too, as long as my rules are followed. If you can do that, you have nothing to fear from me.

7. Yes, I have a video phone and I have talked to deaf and Deaf people such as Kristi Merriweather, Greg Gunderson, Jason Curry, Julie Rem Smario, my wife’s Deaf friends, and numerous others. There are an umpteen number of Deaf people who can validate my signing skills. Understand this, just because I’m fluent in ASL/sign language/PSE doesn’t mean I’m Deaf. Perish the thought.

8. I have numerous hearing friends and co-workers that I talk with over the phone or in person. Or my next door neighbors, at my gym and so on. My days are mostly spent with these people rather than with the deaf/Deaf crowd. I prefer it that way. Oh sure, I don’t mind meeting deaf, Deaf, and hh people and go out and have a few drinks. Just so you don’t get the wrong idea, which will probably happen anyways.

9. I see myself as a member of the deaf and hard of hearing community regardless of the preferred mode of communication. I respect each person’s choice on how one prefers to communicate. I don’t subscribe to militant attitudes or thinking about being “one of us” which is a Deafism mentality. Not good.

10. I am also a member of the larger hearing community as well. Yes, a member.

11. Since I graduated from Gallaudet in 1992 it also means that I am a representative of Gallaudet University as well. And nothing you say or do can take that away from me. Frankly, some people don’t like that very idea but you’re stuck with me anyways.

12. When people whine, “Why did you go to Gallaudet then?” It’s because I wanted to see what it was like. I am not afraid to try new things like picking up a new tool called “ASL” along the way. But going to Gallaudet doesn’t make me a Deaf person, either.

13. I’d like to see Gallaudet University succeed and that the university finally gets some qualified undergrads for a change. Technology is the key to Gallaudet’s success. Many people don’t see that but that is where it’s heading anyway.

14. I received my MS in Geology (2 years Geophysics and then 3 years in Geology) at Univ. of Idaho. It was the most memorable school I went to. I loved going there. I met a lot of great people and professionals there during my 5 years there. It was a place far better than the crowded, dirty, and crime-ridden D.C.

15. I was awarded a PhD study in Civil Engineering at Univ. of Maryland in the snow hydrology and water resource program. I received a competitive 3 year research assistant deal from the Univ. of Md. and was awarded a$5000 NASA grant to help pay any educational costs. But I turned it all down for a career with the federal govt. I never regretted that decision. I outlined that story in my recent blog to show readers the difficult choice I had to make. And to point out that very few deaf and hard of hearing people are in the Earth science field. If you think it’s called bragging, perhaps you need a little introspection on your part to see why that is the case. Perhaps jealousy is in you. I applaud anyone deaf or hard of hearing person who worked hard to get their advanced degrees despite the odds. You don’t see people talk about that nowadays. Inspiration is in such short supply nowadays. Many are afraid to speak about their educational accomplishments and what it took for them succeed because of that little nagging fear that the Deaf community will rise up and lambaste them for “bragging” for their accomplishments. Hence, the oft repeated crab theory gone amok once more.

16. I don’t belittle other people’s English skill whether they’re deaf, Deaf, hh or hearing. People who say that I do belittle Deaf people’s English skills in my blogs or elsewhere are nothing more than sordid liars who just want to stir the pot. They have no idea what they are talking about. I put the faith in readers who read my blog that they have the skill and the means to look up words for themselves if they don’t understand what it means.

17. My interest is on dealing with communication and technology issues that can help close the communication gap between deaf, hh, Deaf and hearing people whether it’s hearing aids, Cochlear implants, neural implants, UbiDuo communication device, relay operator, video phone, ASL interpreter, Cued speech, Cued speech transliterators, international translator technology, ASL translator, speech to text, speech to ASL, automatic real time captioning, and so on. My focus is on the 30 million people with hearing loss rather than to focus only on the 900,000 Deaf people in the United States. Picking sides is where fractionation occurs when one favors one subgroup over another. Not a good idea in my case.

18. Extremism does exist in the Deaf community. Get used to that idea, folks. Extremism also exists in the hearing community, the oral community, and so on. If “Audism” exists then certainly “Deafism” (i.e. Deaf militant) also exists. Just as I believe there are some “closeted” Deaf militants out there who pretend to be one thing when it’s not the case. Pretending to favor the concept of “Deafhood” isn’t going to work. Once an extremist, the person tends to stay as an extremist. Perhaps like once a KKK clan the person would tend to have those KKK tendencies throughout their life. Be careful on how you read into what I just wrote. It’s not what you think. People can change for the better, no doubt. But actions speak louder than words, folks. And as for “Deafhood,” as you may already know, I don’t subscribe to that kind of political correctness. Short, sweet and simple. It’s more about culture than not. Read my “deafhoodism” blogs for more explanations.

19. I believe that bilingualism is not for all deaf/hh people, including children. It can, however, apply to many deaf/hh children but not so for many others. There is never a one size shoe fits all answer. It’s too complex. Parental decisions are involved anyway. Technology is constantly changing that picture when you have upcoming neural implants and even biotechnology that will address even more on helping aid hearing loss. And while I’m at it, I believe that visual sign language (not necessarily always ASL) would be good to both hearing and deaf/hh babies up to 2 to 4 years old. Then it’d be parents of a deaf/hh toddler to decide on what to do next. Even if it means dropping out sign language altogether and focus on speech and hearing. Whatever the case might be, as long as parents make an*informed* decision about their deaf/hh child then I have no problem with that.

20. I believe that deaf and hard of hearing people can do anything, including being able to hear and be successful at it. You have your choices to make seeing how rapid technology is taking place and how it can complement your skills helping you succeed whatever life throws at you. You may strike out or you may hit a home run. The choice is yours for the making.


Note: I reserve the right to add more bulleted items later on. If you have any questions, do not be afraid to ask. And all I ask is that you maintain a sense of decorum when commenting and not attack the blogger or other commenters. That is all I ask of you people. Grossly violate my rules and you’ll get locked out for the next 4 or 5 months. Use your comments wisely here and learn from each other for a change.

Hillary of the Bells

Celebrate the upcoming holiday seasons by singing “Hillary of the Bells” to the tune of “Carol of the Bells” as a reminder of what we may get in our stockings next year, which could be coals. Of course, they might put a carbon tax on that one, too. Listen to this tune below and sing along for the next 13 months (or 5 years) using the revised lyrics. When performed the song begins quietly, and grows louder and louder as each voice is added, and at the end fades to a pianissimo.

Hark! how the bells
Gaudy silver bells
All seem to say,
Throw cares away
Hillary is here
Bringing dread and fear
To young and old
Meek and the not so bold

Ching Chong Ma-glaGong
That is their song
With joyless ring
All caroling
One seems to hear
Words of fear
From everywhere
Filling the air!

Oh how they pound!
Raising the sound!
O'er hill and dale
Telling their tales
Loudly they ring!
While people sing!
Songs of false cheer
Hillary is here!

Merry, merry, merry, merry Fitzmas!
Merry, merry, merry, merry Fitzmas!

On they send
On without end
Their doleful tone
To every home
Ching Chong Ding Ding....Chong!

Any volunteers?

Misguided......

Just to clear the air, John Egbert was incorrect in his blog assessment about Paotie and I by charging us as being"two misguided men." It was unfortunate to see that he choose to go to the route of defamation and the abject mischaracterization of us without even asking for clarifications first. He was incorrect to bring up something that was never true in the first place regarding what we were actually saying versus over something that were allegedly said or thought to have been said. If unsubstantiated charges are going to be leveled against us it would be easier on all of us, including blog readers out there, to show exactly why by linking to comments or blogs to state the case. But since my comments, in my own defense, will not be displayed in his blog comment and so I have no choice but to point out his errors and mis-perceptions in my own blog, unfortunately.

For any bloggers who produce personal charges against other people or bloggers without providing links to show why are immediately suspect as being nothing more than shrillers in the land of gossipers. It is my nature, as well as many others, that facts are preferred over hearsay, rumors, and the sniggering gossips that have no bearing whatsoever in order to help a reader make an informed judgement. Not doing so is nothing short of irresponsible blogging. And there's a lot of that going on lately. People may like soap operas and fake dramas but for many others we just want "nothing but the facts, ma'am."

To begin, I will have to point out that I have said numerous times in my own blog and in other discussion forums that I support the notion that all babies, including deaf/hh babies, should be taught and incorporate sign language early in their life. It makes sense, however.

Like this one here on what I said:

This is not to say that deaf/hoh babies shouldn’t learn sign language, they should. It gives them the edge on communicating with their parents regardless of their hearing status.

Or here in post #86147 in DeafDC:

Post(#86147) | 2007-08-03 21:08:20

Like I said before here and elsewhere, I’ve no problem on using signs with babies, deaf and hearing, until they are of age to use their vocal cords effectively. Even if it means using signs for the first 2 or 3 years then over to aural only. Or sign and oral combined. Or after signing go to Cued speech only. Or just continuing signing without worry about oral or cued speech. Or whatever.

Even in Ben Vess' blog:

October 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am

I’m all for babies, including hearing, to have access to visual signs (and not necessarily ASL but that’s a part of it, too). Now, for hoh babies, the parents can sign while the baby is fitted with a hearing aid. Communication will include both sound and sign until age 2,3 or 4 years old. Or whenever a child has great command vocally just as when a hearing child finally starts talking in complete sentences and such. It may be until age 5 or 6 when parents and therapist decide it’s time to drop the signing in favor of continuing with the aural and oral approach. I am fine with that. Each hoh child is different on the amount of hearing loss and the ability to understand and receive speech, and respond well accordingly by means of the voice.

So much for that. I hope that John (and readers out there) will be clear on where I stand in regards to deaf and hearing babies and communication. If you're not sure, ask me. That's a good rule of thumb to follow by nowadays instead of relying on gossips as if they're the gol'durned truths.

Next, John claimed that I said that he was against oralism. I have never once said that. I have never even discussed topically that were directed against John about him being against oralism or his mission. It would be nice if John could show me, and the readers, exactly where I said that. Even "Anna S", "Margie" and "Karen Mayes" didn't see me or Paotie as attacking your mission or that you were against oralism.

Anna S. : "I do not see mcconnell and paotie attacking your mission. They seem to agree..."

Karen Mayes: "Hmmmm… I never got an impression from both McConnell and Paotie being against you… more, they just tell you their perspections and they also admit to being fluent in ASL. Even McConnell said that he supported the babies learning ASL. I believe that they see that ASL is not the only answer to all the deaf people… they think that cued speech, SEE, etc., could benefit SOME deaf people, depending on their backgrounds and so forth."

Margie: "Paotie and McConnell are far from being misguided men. I have not read any one of their blogs or comments that directly stated to you that you have no right to educate parents of deaf babies the potential of using ASL starting at the age of 6 months, or that you are against oralism. However, people can read your blog, and perhaps form their own decision that YOU are misleading the public about them."

And I even responded and agreed with Kim's response (post #50) in Ben Vess' blog regarding how not all parents make an informed decision:

Kim, absolutely. I think not all parents are getting all the proper information in order to make an informed decision. It’s not simply about “parental choice” but about parents making an informed decision. Once they do that, I’ve no problems with their decision.

And the last comment John made in his blog?

These two guys, Mike McConnell and Paotie should stop misleading the public about me supposedly being against deaf children acquiring oral skills.

That is a really interesting albeit unsubstantiated charge. I, and the rest of the audience out there in blogosphere land, would like to see John point out exactly where Paotie and I were making those supposed remarks about him being against deaf children on acquiring oral skills. It'd be interesting to see how he came to that conclusion that we were doing that.

Now, about my vlogs that John was asking for saying that I'm a coward for not doing them? I have a few. It includes subtitles, too. Several other vlogs are not subtitled but they're self-explantory. Look around. They're on the internet. Go and find them. But my preference is still blogging.

The next question is that, yes, I'm fluent in sign language or ASL. Learned it at Gallaudet. Just because I have a preference to speak and listen doesn't make me not fluent in ASL. My wife is Deaf. We switch off and on between signing and talking. But for me I was born with hearing loss and grew up with using a hearing aid in my right ear. Thank God for that. Bless my mother for making the right decision for me when she did everything in her power to learn about deafness and education as much as possible during the 1960s and 1970s when I was growing up. I have no regrets but praises for my hearing mother. She did the right thing and I thank her every day for not putting me into a deaf residential school since it wasn't even necessary to do so at the time anyways.

A personal note to John.

It is extremely incumbent upon you, John, to provide the evidences (i.e. links, etc) that support your justification to fling unsubstantiated charges against Paotie and I. Not doing so would simply put you into a corner as an irresponsible blogger.

Now, if I were to personally accuse a person or blogger over the internet about something, I'd have to show to the audience by stating the case for my justifications on making those charges. And this would be done by providing links, pictures, witnesses and so forth. If the audience or readers have no foundation to set their foot on as a reference point to begin with then they cannot make a proper judgment. For me I advocate on the side of presenting facts rather that to use emotional appeal. But you, John? You seem to advocate on the side of gossips, innuendos, and unsubstantiated charges without providing any proofs to support your contentions at this moment. Please, prove me wrong. But I hope you can take to heart on where I stand here. And I hope you won't have the temerity to do that sort of rashness the next time around when all you had to do is ask for clarification.

You do what you want when it comes to helping inform parents about communication choices and that's fine. I have always advocated on the side for both hearing and deaf parents make an informed decision. And whatever the decision they make would be just fine and dandy with me.

Phone Call Results - how did they do?

A few months ago I wrote up a blog piece asking readers if they can use a cell phone and for them to give me a call. A week later I did a poll asking those if they have the ability to use the phone to take pizza orders.

Eventually seven people with hearing loss contacted me via email after coming across my blog about wanting a phone conversation. It was a touch and go moment from a few of those individuals in getting them to call me or for me to call them if they left their phone numbers in their emails for me. In the past I have talked to many others with hearing loss over the phone. In most cases those calls went well with a few exceptions. Most of them describe themselves as having hearing loss ranging from mild to better than 80 dB.

When I did finally get the chance to talk to those who volunteered their time (and ear) I was able to get their partial background. Conversations were mostly topical of nature and that no other personal information was sought other than their hearing loss amount and type (e.g. sensorineural), and school background. I talked at a normal level and speed like I always do with my hearing peers.

Out of 7 who contacted me, only 5 returned the call to me via phone. Incidentally, the two that didn't call back described themselves as having profound hearing loss (greater than 90 dB). Only one with a 90 dB hearing loss did call me. All of the subjects that I talked to grew up with sensorineural hearing loss (nerve deafness). All wore hearing aids during the call. This summarization result is purely of curiosity value rather than of academic rigors. So, let's not get too overly hamstrung on whether my observations were "scientific"enough or not like some people who are wanton to do when it comes to polls or statistical correlations.


Subject A: Has a 76 dB hearing loss in better ear. Was able to talk fine and understand for the most part of what I had to say. Subject says that male voices are harder to understand than female voices but were able to understand my voice for the most part. This person went to Gallaudet University.

Subject B: Has a 82 dB hearing loss in better ear. Talk was intermittent. Seems to have trouble understanding me. The subject seems to slur at times but for the most part I could understand the person but not in all cases the other way around with me. Subject wouldn't say which university or school attended (or is attending).

Subject C: Has a 80 dB hearing loss in better ear. Talk went well. No discernable slurring or mumbling. Voice was clear but mutted (or nasally as they say). I only repeated a few times and used different words when the person did not recognize them. Other than that it went well in some respect. The person graduated from Gallaudet University.

Subject D: Has a 60 dB hearing loss in better ear (actually both ears are relatively the same but prefers one ear for phone use). Born with a hearing loss. Wore hearing aid since age 1 year old. I enjoyed talking with this person. We talked a quite a bit without stopping or pausing. Seems to have no problem with me and vice versa. The person is currently attending a regular but well known university (never went to Gallaudet, RIT/NTID, CSUN, oral school, Alexander Graham Bell, etc). While growing up went to regular school as well without the need for any mainstreaming program. Person asked me not to reveal which university currently attending in my blog. This person does not use an interpreter or CART. Does not know sign language.

Subject E: Has a 90 db hearing loss in better ear. The phone call went "well" with some difficulty. If I'm not mistaken the person seems to have an Indian accent. I had to slow down my talk. The person explained that women's voices are easier to understand than male's which may explain why I had to slow down my talking while at the same time clarifying my words a bit more. The person did not say which school or university currently attending (or have attended). The call was rather short compared to others.


I expressed gratitude to all the subjects for taking the time to talk with me. I hope that more will contact me in the future.

"Stupid Deaf People"....?

I started to wonder about it after seeing Paotie’s “Stupid Deaf People” cartoon graphic of Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes cartoon – love it!) p*ssing on the words “Stupid Deaf People.” With curiousity getting the best of me I did a quick Google search using the phrase “Stupid Deaf People” just to see how people use that phrase under various context. Though people will say such a thing for cruelty purpose as well without even thinking considering the vast sea of incompetent people out there we have nowadays.

In Gallypost:
“Stupid Deaf People.”

NZMusic.com:
“I heard on the radio that QOTSA had a concert to promote their album 'Songs For The Deaf' and a crowd of deaf people came to the show thinking it was for deaf people & that they'll be doing sign language to the music. But they were wrong, they left and gave the bouncers the finger. I thought it was quite funny, stupid deaf people haha.”

Civilization Fanatics’:
“I think there is a whole deaf culture that does not view deafness as a disability. To each their own, I guess. Well, that is natural. It would be strange if there were no stupid deaf people.”


Alldeaf.com:
“Once I was with my girlfriend and someone saw us signing, people often assume I am deaf because I dont speak while signing i just mouth the words, I have overheard people say many things such as "f**king deaf people they're like mexicans you just wish you could speak spanish so you know that they are talking about you, at least they cant hear me hahaha stupid deaf people"

Colboard.com:
“Gallaudet University study is completely inaccurate and AesKnight claims he has proven it. I never went to Gallaudet or even high school. Most Deaf do not. But that possibly is just being lazy and stupid deaf people like AegisKnight, Dexter Sinister and Dark_Sage frequently point out.”


Killoggs.com:
“In the deaf tongue of the cretins of Wessex county: mung gyahalfa abeaaag guh guh guh-fah - a simple request for immoral sodomy, appears to the Deaf Arab Cameltrader as the gravest of insults, and has resulted in many pissy exchanges between stupid deaf people.”

Tallahassee.com forum:
“There is a fire station across the street from the Circle K and those folks there get calls in the middle of the night, and their sleep is valuable, they don’t need stupid deaf people blasting their stereos.”


Firehouse.com forum:
“My parents are deaf and I can sign.. If there is one thing that deaf people hate its what someone here already mentioned... just because they are deaf doesnt immediately imply retarded or dumb. Granted there are some stupid deaf people as there are with hearing people its hard for most to read lips if they are raised completely with other deaf children….”

DeafDC.com:
" Now, I didn’t know Tara. I don’t know the area she was walking in when the tragedy occured. But I certainly am not going to be part of the rallying cry that says, ‘You hear about Tara McAvoy? You stupid deaf people! Don’t you know not to walk on the tracks and to use your pager safely!?' "

Of course, we then have the phrase "stupid deafies" which is probably just as pointless as "stupid hearies." Yet the word "stupid" is a favorite word used more than 101,000,000 times over the internet versus "stoopid" (which I like personally) that is mentioned over 1,900,000 times. But the all time favorite "stupid" quote? Why, it would be the famous Forest Gump quote - "Stupid is as stupid does."

Feeling stoopid? Here is a link to a list of really stoopid quotes.

Wildfires and Mudslides - Southern California

I blogged about the southern California wildfires yesterday and today I'll discuss a second whammy that may hit nearby communities and areas consumed by wildfires affecting resources and risk to human life downstream. The second whammy is the massive flooding and even mudslides. Since I am the "resident expert" among deaf and hard of hearing on providing information about Burned Area Emergency Response, fire fighting, and post-fire risk potentials. I will take the opportunity to provide a little information to those who may face a second whammy. Just don't do too many rain dances if you know what's good for ya.

Deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people impacted by the wildfires need understand that once a wildfire dies down does not mean the danger is over. It may only just begin since southern California's rainy season is from November to April with winter bringing heavy rain and wet snow. After the 2003 wildfire in southern California, there were numerous mudslides that have killed and injured people that year, including kids. The 2003 year fire burned over 740000 acres. This year's fire we could possibly see it easily surpassed.

People need to understand, especially deaf people, on just how serious these debris flows can become because of the sheer magnitudes in jump on the amount of loose sediment, ash and debris that can be dislodged in a rainstorm event. Rainfall amount and intensity do not have to be that much in order to see a wall of water and mud coming down a slope of a scarred mountainside. But typically after a wildfire the magnitude of a stormflow has the possibility of going as high as 4 orders of magnitude higher, which means as much as 10,000 times greater on volume flow. Volume of storm flow would be dependent on acreage burned, soil type, topography, slope steepness, extent on the severity of burned areas, rainfall intensity and rainfall duration. Although it takes less rainfall to trigger a debris flow from burned out watersheds than from unburned areas. In southern California, as little as 7 millimeters (0.3 inches) of rainfall in 30 minutes has triggered debris flows. The risk of debris flow usually last about two years while the mountainside regrow its grasses, trees, and shurbs. So don't sigh a big relief if nothing happened the first year. If you live close to one of the burned out mountain side you still have year 2 and sometimes year 3 before you can relax your guard. If that isn't enough, consider the prospect of post-fire landslides as well.

My experience span several years doing BAER work (7 altogether in New Mexico and Colorado), BAER Team Leader for a 67,000 acre fire and forest fire fighting in Washington, Idaho and North Carolina. I'm well qualified and knowledgeable in those subject areas.

Here's a good material on that subject from the US Geologicial Survey called "Southern California—Wildfires and Debris Flows" for those interested on learning these things as well as protecting yourself.


Debris flow video. Post-fire rainfall effect in 2003, California. Subtitled.
Note all the rocks that makes up the extra volume in a storm flow.

Southern California Fires

I've been watching the numerous fires that broke out across southern California ever since last week. A few sites I go and check up on latest wildfire information would be the Modis active fire map and the Incident Management Situation Report whenever fire season is still active. I do this often throughout the fire season out west since I am also a certified forest fire fighter and I like to keep my eyes on what's happening. My recent fire fighting gig I did was last year at the Tripod Complex fire in Washington state where my crew I was with nearly got caught in a serious blowup and I was lucky enough to take some pictures of it while we escaped. I've seen my share of wildfires with the chance seeing up close burned down homes, cabins, cars, trucks and other structures. Not to mention seeing numerous dead cows, calves and horses scattered about seeing how they were caught in the path of a wildfire leaving nothing but charred hide and bone.

What make these fires different is the large number of people affected by the numerous fires in several counties. Over a million people have since evacuated from across southern California. And this includes many deaf and hard of hearing people.

In Deafreedom there are talks about friends and relatives who have already evacuated or are being impacted by the fire. Both Gnarlydorkette and McClintock are reporting on the fire with Garlydorkette reporting it the most. I'm sure there are more out there who are being impacted by the fires.

Currently there are 13 large fires (not to mention several smaller fires less than 300 acres) with the largest fire currently at around 145,000 acres. And if you look at the upclose Modis satellite imagery you can see many fires that are clustered close with the fires happening so soon apart are suspicious enough which may mean those fires may be arson caused. But it is also curious that these fires started so soon after when seasonal fire fighters were let off. In the past there have been arsons caused by fire fighters (see Technical Report Series: Firefighter Arson) because they want to make money working overtime and get hazard pay. But nothing is for sure right now until wild fire investigators look into those fires and how they got started. Despite the wildfires it is no surprise that southern California has a history of having large wildfires with thanks mostly to the Santa Ana winds. And with the winds help, it also created a devastating wildfire in 2003 that raised lots of red flags.

After the 2003 wildfire in southern California there were many gaps where deaf and hard of hearing people were left out of the loop on what was happening not knowing where to go or what to do during a catastrophic wildfire event. As a result of that a study was done producing a 2004 report called "The Impact of Southern California Wildfires On People With Disabilities." It outlined the many shortcomings needed to be addressed for future emergencies. But did the report do any good this time around with the new devastating wildfires we're now experiencing? I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

Are you being impacted by a wildfire? Let us know.

3 Year Anniversary! Kokonut Pundit

I am posting this blog a day earlier just case if I forget to do this by Monday but I would like to use this opportunity and shout a warm "thank you" to all those who have stopped by to read my Kokonut Pundit blogs with their best interest at heart. It has been three years since the day I started on October 22, 2004. After taking my first step as a blogger I was not sure exactly where my blogging would take me. But never did I expect to blog a total of 1206 blogs over 1905 days (or 3 years) which comes to about 1.1 blogs a day on average. Nor did I expect to be one of the more prolific deaf or hard of hearing bloggers around either. Though each year on average I did 402 posts and by combining all three years it would probably be the equivalent of writing a 1500 page "War and Peace" book! Again, thanks to those who were truly interested on what I had to say by stopping by. I know there are plenty of Kokonut Pundit fans out there. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

Very Punny

We can certainly make fun of ourselves even in the most grievous sort of way. And why not? Call it self deprecating humor. If you have a problem with what I've just written then perhaps it's time for you to take a deep breath and move on. No need to complain to me since I’ll turn a deaf ear anyway. Pun absolutely intended. But do take the time and enjoy this little word play compilation of mine.



If a deaf person swears in ASL in front of a hearing police officer, will he get arrested?

If a blind person wears dark glasses, shouldn't a deaf person wear dark ear muffs, too?

A deaf person can do anything except here. Maybe over there, but not here.

If the I's have it, why cannot the ear's have it, too?

Can corns be deaf even though they have ears?

Why call them "hearing" aids when it should be "deaf" aids if it doesn't work for deaf people?

Is a deaf person an oralist if he moves his mouth while signing?

A deaf mime is a terrible thing. He's deaf, mute, and completely boxed in.

A happy deaf couple is when they can't hear each other snore.

If a deaf person signs while on an airplane, do they call it "flying fingers" ?

Name a sleep deprived deaf group. The students of Gallaudet University.

Does a deaf sleep walker sign?

What do you have when we put a deaf person, blind person, and a mute person together in a room? Incommunicado.

What's a deaf hazing? When new deaf members are forced to wear hearing aids.

Does tone deafness qualify as a disability?

What's a silent film? When you have a group of deaf people watching a movie in a theater.

If I say "to mah to" and you say "to may to", how does that work in ASL for tomato?

Can a deaf person whistle and enjoy it, too?

Is it bad manners to sign with a mouthful of food?

...until deaf do you apart.

One thing is certain, deaf, death, and taxes.

What do you get when you put a Deaf person, an oralist, a cochlear implant user,
a hearing aid user, and a deaf person together in a room? Trouble.

If deaf people can do anything, then where are they?

What do you call a pot user who is deaf? Stone deaf.

What's a native signer? A Deaf American Indian.

Are ASL signers allowed to swear in public?

What does the acronym A.S.L. mean to new freshmen at Gallaudet University? Am Signing Lousy.

Name an international sign language that everybody understands. "I'm choking!"

Why does a deaf person puts his finger on his nose to indicate the need to pee when it should be between the legs?

What is the significance about a deaf principal in his school office at a deaf school who is about to serve corporal punishment by paddling a deaf student? It's a place where nobody can hear you scream.

What would happen if deaf people didn't have opposable thumbs??

Whistle while you work means your hearing aid isn't working right.

If we have contact lens how come we don't have contact ears?

If we have palm readers then what the heck are lip readers?

What do you call a deaf elitist? A graduate student of Gallaudet University.

Isn’t there a law against signing and driving at the same time?

What’s the speed limit for signing? And where’s the slow lane?

Can deaf people sign ILYs to other deaf people while in a known gang territory of L.A.?

What do you call an angry deaf person? A dissedABLED person.

What are “cheat sheets” used by deaf students in a mainstreamed school? Sign language.

Why are there two signed versions for “shit” with one going in and the other one going out?

One’s a person, two’s a couple, three’s a deaf crowd who won’t leave a shopping mall food court at closing time.

What do you call a gorilla that knows sign language? Koko

If a deaf person swears in such an ungodly manner in ASL while a sign language interpreter interprets, who will get in trouble first?

Ever met a deaf stutterer?

Ever met a deaf person with Tourette Syndrome that stutters?

Has there ever been a sign language interpreter for deaf people with Tourette Syndrome that stutters?

Ever try and cuss in ASL while behind a television reporter doing a live interview in front of a news camera?

What’s a hearing aid favorite letter? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I sign, therefore I am. I write, therefore I may be. I speak, therefore I might not be.

What is a G.E.D.? An undergraduate college degree from a deaf college.

Words like “hearing impaired” are like crutches, they're supportive but nobody want to use them for long.

Why do they call it “manual alphabet”? Is it labor intensive or what?


Copyright by Kokonut Pundit, 2007.

A City For Thee And Not For Me

While growing up I was very fortunate to have parents who enjoyed doing outdoor activities and were avid about camping, fishing, boating, pic-nicking and hiking in the mountains of Washington and Oregon. But city life was never an appealing one to me like living at Gallaudet University in the middle of Washington D.C. while as a student. Despite that I have always been grounded on wanting to live in less populated areas close to mountains. I actively avoid any semblance of city life. Of course, living in the middle of Washington D.C. while as a student at Gallaudet University wasn't exactly "clean living" for me.

I flew into D.C. earlier this year to attend the first ever blog/vlog conference at Gallaudet University. I was once again facing the same familiar feeling of crowdedness, the pollution, the creeping stress, the traffic jams, the obnoxious people, the idiot and careless drivers, the run down DC neighborhoods I had to drive through and even through the more recently renovated places that looked even better the last time I was there. I didn't mind visiting Gallaudet University again since my trip was completely paid for by the Coalition for Critical Inquiry. I also had a sense of duty to attend this important and technologically historical event that would take place at Gallaudet University. And so that morning around 7:00 AM I drove up to the all too familiar front gate of Gallaudet University. Two security guards were there at the kiosk. I asked where can I park my rental car and explained my reason for the visit. No signing, of course since I used my voice and the guards didn't realize I was an alumnus of Gallaudet University while I was listening to him. No problem. He told me where I can go and I quickly said my thank you with no interest on chit-chattin.

I began my walk around the familiar campus from the new parking lot at the north end of campus next to the Appleby building. It was positively cold that morning, well below freezing with a slight nippy wind just enough that I wanted to shove my cold hands into my warm coat pockets even though I had knitted gloves on. And so I walked around for about 40 minutes checking out most of the familiar buildings on campus. They were mostly closed or empty, so to speak. It was still early that Saturday morning and I was sure students were still sleeping in. The campus was lonely and desolate looking with very few people walking about and not the familiar hustling and bustling of students, staff and faculty that I was so used to while as a student from 1989 through 1991. After a bit of walking around I stood not far from Benson Hall in the cold wind thinking out loud that the early risers must be inside at the Student Academic Center or Student Union Building. And so I decided to check it out before the 9 AM vlog/blog conference.

Much to my pleasure and surprise, I saw how big of a transformation the Student Union Building had undergone from the once familiar but drab place to a robust and engaging one where students and faculty can congregate and socialize quite comfortably. Maybe too comfortably. I entered through the main floor of the SUB building next to Ely Center. As soon as I entered I could smell coffee being brewed that morning and so I followed the pleasant aroma. It was the Coffee Bar Commons in the SAC area. Nice. I nodded my head in agreement. I looked around and noticed that more people were starting to trickle in and I suspected that their first stop was to make a beeline to the coffee bar. Naturally. I walked around some more. Went upstairs. Looked. More new stuff. I was trying to absorb and remember all the new details for the first time. Went back down stairs and looked around more closely through the windows of the computer lab and saw the rows of computers with several students going about their business like fishes in a fishbowl.

Next stop was Ely Center. I walked through the double doors and through the familiar glass-enclosed walkway. I looked over to my right and then left and then looked down at the ground expecting to see something that ought to be familiar to every students who have ever walked through there. Yep. Dead birds. Five dead birds to be exact with three already well decayed to the bones and two more still preserved in the cold. I then wondered while I was counting the carcasses on exactly how many birds were killed since I left Gallaudet 15 years ago back in 1992 after my graduation. Were 300 birds killed? 400? 500? When will Gallaudet University finally add some bricks and replace the glass enclosed walkway for a change? I'm sure it's a joy to walk through that walkway everyday with the sunshine peering through the clear, clean windows on both sides of the walkway while seeing the accumulating dead birds on the ground and roof partition with their broken beaks and bones scattered about near to the glass windows. No matter. Some things will never change. Birds will still try and fly through the clean windows not knowing they're there. And Gallaudet will still not cover up completely the windows that would otherwise prevent more bird deaths. Not that I really care but it's enough to make me wonder after all those years.

I continued my walk through Ely Center. The building hasn't changed one bit. It is still dark. Seemingly claustrophobic, maze-like hallways that have that same musty smell. It was a dull, boring and a lifeless building compared to the new SAC/SUB building. I walked around and saw some posters and notices on tack boards which made the place feel like I was walking through some old dinky high school building.

Enough of that.

I turned around to check out the lower floor of the Student Union Building. I bounded down the stairs half expecting to see the old bowling alley. Nope. Gone. Where did it go? It was replaced with a sports bar called "Rathskellar." Looks like a cool place. Peeked in for a moment. Looks very "university-like" with the "rah rah" like environment to it. A few televisions were there. I turned around and noticed the new food court, the Commons and the exhibit area. The place was open, airy and much brighter this time. A much better place to congregate, obviously so.

After the vlog/blog conference I met and chatted for about an hour with some familiar and new people including my former and well liked chemistry professor, Dr. Michael Moore, while we discussed the events that occurred during the Galluadet protest a few months earlier. Chris Heuer was there with us three chatting away. Afterwards I went over to Kellogg Conference Center with Kristi Merriweather. We chatted along the way until we got inside. I briefly looked around. It was my second visit to the Kellogg building. Nothing has changed. Met up with a few more familiar faces while Kristi and I chatted about the conference. Looked at my watch, it was time to go. I had to go back to my sister's house for a much anticipated dinner engagement since I hadn't seen my sister in several years after her return from her tour of duty in Germany. I said my good byes to Kristi and a few others and said, "See ya the next time."

I walked out to my rental car that was parked on the 2nd level of the parking garage. I got into my car and drove out of the campus of Gallaudet University and then stopped at the nearest gas station off of Florida Avenue right across from the university. I got out in the cold, paid for my gas and stood there while I pumped gas into my rented vehicle. While I was standing there I shifted my head around to observe the familiar surroundings I've come to know so well. I could hear an ambulance wailing off in the distance. I could hear the rush of cars going by. I stepped away momentarily from the pump and took a quick sniff leaning into the prevailing, cold wind. I frowned. It didn't smell "clean" to me. It had that "city smell" with the asphalt, buildings, and the emission exhaust and whatever artificial smell that would linger in the air. And then I heard the "click" of the gas pump. The gas tank was full. I put the gas cap on and quickly drove off to my sister's house some 50 miles away in Virginia. Finally, I was out of the congested Washington D.C.

My sister's place was a bit better but it still had the traffic and congested feel where ever I drove. Thank goodness it was a Saturday and not during the work week, else I'd have an ulcer fit. Realizing how lucky I am to live out in the country, in a small town with a population of 30,000, I already knew the advantages of living out in the more open and less populated area than to live the life in the city or suburbia. The country environment is much more cleaner. There is little or no traffic jams to speak of which means less air pollution and wasteful expenditure of gasoline and energy compared to those who live in the city. City life is more stressful. More grime. More people. More nutballs. More of everything else that's man-made now crumbling. And more nonsense.

Last week while working in the outdoors during a field visit inspecting a water pipeline up along near a mountain ridge line at over 6000 feet my coworkers and I ended the survey by taking a short discussion break before debarking back to our office 50 miles away. The discussion soon revolved around one coworker who used to live near D.C. He once enjoyed living in D.C. and discussed Crystal City, VA. A place I was already familiar with but not to my other co-workers. He then described how one tall building in Crystal City houses both company offices and condos for workers. And explained about the conveniences of how residences can go underground and enter a whole different city below where people can shop for food, buy all kinds of items and get medical checkups without ever touching a car. I said to him that all sounds nice but they are still living in a city and living out in the country beats that hands down. He agreed to a point when he considered the extra resources it would require to manage a city, its infrastructure and the ungodly amount pollution and waste it produces. Cities require greater resources to maintain . They require more energy and generate far more pollution than any small town. From a green environmental standpoint these small, distant towns all across the western United States and elsewhere are virtually "green communities" compared to larger and excessive cities which are nothing more than vast polluting giants with clogged highway arteries filled with pollution exhaust that would produce those sometimes deadly brown smog or air pollution alerts. Yet my one way driving commute to work takes only 5 minutes over 4 miles while in D.C. commuting averages about 34 minutes of commute time according to the latest U.S. Census survey. No thank you.

But here's the funny thing. I get cackles of glee from a few Deaf people about me living out in the "middle of nowhere" in southern New Mexico. And that's fine. Let them be the polluters that they are. It's undeniable that city dwellers are practically polluters in their own right no matter how "green" they are. They are one of the many sources that contribute to these pollution problems in cities and outlying areas. Let them enjoy and drown in their own pollution at the same time. The traffic jams. The exhaust emissions. The stink. The higher crime rate. The soul-less skylines. The crowd of people. The morons, yahoos and idiots that pervade the place. Or the 1 to 3 hours sitting in cars trying to get to work, get food or go places every single day. But I'll take my country or small town living over city living anytime of the day. And to boot, I get paid to hike, bike, and drive my 4 wheel drive work truck up on the mountains and at the same time get to see wildlife almost every time I go out. Not to mention I get to breathe in the clean air. Feel the fresh breezes up on ridge tops. See the snowcapped mountain tops as I drive or hike around. The pile of winter snow. The rushing of creek water. See the changing colors of leaves on Aspen trees turning into a blazing bright yellow that paints the side of the mountains like a work of art with a splash of yellow strewn about. Or experience the feel and sway of a fire lookout tower while standing on a catwalk that surrounds the "cabin" some 110 feet off the ground at the 9000 feet elevation ridge top. And soak up the surrounding mountainous beauty that only a few people are lucky enough to experience as I have done a few months ago while taking a 360 degree photo shoot as part of my watershed photo monitoring effort. One of the many jobs that I do while working outdoors. It is part of my job. And yet there are six more fire lookout towers to go out 9 in all. Six more places to add to my experiences of the great outdoors at work and play. A city life may be for thee but it is certainly not for me.


Wait for "City for Thee and Not for Me - part II"

To The Students and Faculty of Gallaudet University

A few months ago I did a blog piece about how a team of Gallaudet University students, faculty, and staff put together a global climate change and environmental awareness information for their "Earth Day" presentation. Along with banners that had a picture of an hour glass inferring that Earth is running out of time because of "global warming." An obvious scare tactic that begs the question. But what was obviously absent were the missing students, staff and faculty group effort on presenting an alternative view to that of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie. I am sure there are some Gallaudet University students and faculty members out there who are smart enough to realize that alternative and valid scientific viewpoints (not to mention data) do exist that counters much of the prevailing beliefs about global warming as caused by human activities.

And so I say to the students and faculty members of Gallaudet University, I hope the some of you will take responsibility on ensuring that the "other side" will be heard in the next Earth Day at Gallaudet University. Or if the movie "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore is to be shown in a classroom I hope that some of the students in class will have the courage and common sense to approach the professor that an alternative view must be presented as well.

I was fortunate enough to have an email discussion with one of the professors at Gallaudet University who helped with the global warming presentation. After a few emails exchanges I finally wrote down probably my last response to the professor today even though it was agreed that an alternative view should have been presented during Earth Day at Gallaudet.

Here is what I wrote:


The issue isn't whether we are warming up globally. The issue is the claim that the warming trend is the direct results of humans activity on Earth by casting blame on us all as the source of the warming "problem." I made that explicitly clear in my last email to you.

Secondly, you refer to "little dissent among scientists worldwide" when it was quite interesting and readily apparent that the IPCC report did not address the time lag between change in temperature and with change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Also, "consensus" doesn't mean anything in science when we are dealing with theories. Only in politics do we "agree" but not when it comes to scientific theories. However, you are incorrect on the very little "dissent" when there are thousands and thousands of scientists who disagree with the IPCC report (i.e. global warming as caused by people) and such. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists who believe there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses are causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. This was in response to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition resurfaced in 2001 to re-address the global warming nonsense.

It is also interesting if you look at the names in the IPCC report, many of them are not even scientists themselves but lent their names to the IPCC reference in the attempt to give it a bit more legitimacy. IPCC took measure to try and censor any "dissenting" scientists while keeping their names as participants in the IPCC report. Some of these dissenting scientists threatened with legal action to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document. Also, the names listed in the IPCC report are mostly reviewers rather than the participating scientists who helped with the study. And they review only portions of any one study rather than the whole report itself. Yet, were they asked for permission to have the names on the report as if they agreed with the report in its entirety when perhaps it wasn't the case? The report isn't peer-reviewed in the first place.

People need to be careful about this "consensus" thing and that there were "little dissent among scientists worldwide" when you have one analysis of peer-reviewed literature that was done very recently that showed just the opposite of what you're saying.

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Also the IPCC habitually writes that in some cases (e.g., when comparing Antarctic CO2 to temperature data) it is hard to say anything definitive since the data sets come from different cores. That's a red flag right there.

There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:

* Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present.

* Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.

* Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.

* Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.

Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2." We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time,especially over the last several years. But we're not. And this goes to show that it is the temperature that heats up first then follows the increase in CO2 concentrations some many, many years later. And this makes sense owing to the fact that it is the sun's energy that fluctuates increasing or decreasing the amount of solar watt per area on earth's surface every year.

From 1985 - 2001 saw an increase in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface is ~3 Wm-2 (watt per meter squared). People have constantly overlooked the fact that this natural forcing is an order of magnitude greater than the CO2 greenhouse forcing over the same period.

From the Science and Public Policy Institute (August 2007):

"...the documented change in global surface solar radiation is about 3 W/m2, while the parallel contribution by the anthropogenic CO2 forcing is estimated to be only about 0.3 W/m2 over the 1983-2001 interval. Therefore it is premature to conclude firmly that anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse forcing is dominant."

We do not know enough to make any kind of definitive conclusion that global warming is the direct result of human activities. All evidences point to that we play very little role on affecting global warming. Sure, we're responsible for pollution on different scales but not so much for global warming per se. The climate system is an extremely complex system to begin with. Research continues to show that human added CO2 influence is very small compared to the rest of the variables (e.g. cloud cover, water vapor, cosmic rays, other green house gases, etc) knowing that 98% of the green house gases are in the form of water vapor. It isn't enough to upset the CO2 input-output balance.

And then there are problems with the on the ground temperature data stations that questions the validity of the many collected temperature data simply because of the location such as right next to an air conditioning vent or on top of a building's hot roof. Examples of incorrect placing of temperature data loggers are rampant as seen here along with pictures from various states.

And lastly we have this that came out recently.

"The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."

The inaccuracies are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
(My note to you - this has to do with the deforestation around the base of the mountain where trees contribute humidity and moisture).

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
(My note for you - Chad's average and natural depth is like 5 or 6 feet deep. More like a swamp than anything else and people living nearby are sucking it up dry).

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
(More emotive scare for the audience).

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
(My note to you -a deadly 8.0 Richter scale earthquake that forced the whole Solomon Islands upward 10 feet exposing miles and miles of coral reef to the air with no sea water killing them all. The earthquake exposed 200 to 230 feet of new beach shoreline covered mostly with dead and dying coral reef. The island is 20 miles long and 5 miles wide, so that makes about 45 to 50 miles shoreline worth of coral reefs totally destroyed).

8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m (22 feet) causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm (1.3 feet) over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
(My note to you - The only evacuation on any islands or land base was because of an immediate 10 to 50 feet sea rise during the tsunami disaster we had in December 2004 killing hundreds of thousand of people. People should fear more about tsunami than that of a sea rise of only 1 to 2 feet in about a hundred years from now. See links here and here.

Dr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, if you are truly concerned on presenting alternative views I would hope you will speak up the next time when Gallaudet has this "Global Warming" fair or that if a class is to present Al Gore's movie, there should also be an alternative movie available that presents a different scientific view than that of Gore's movie. It's all about students making an informed decision when it comes to these things. Not doing so only shows an agenda which, in my view, is nothing more than a political one. Al Gore and the IPCC are quite translucent on showing that what they are doing is purely a political agenda.

All in all it'd be better to be good stewards of the Earth using common sense approach rather than use unfounded scare tactics just to push a political agenda. These things need to be approached rationally. We all want clean air. We all want clean water. We all want to see healthy and productive lands. Independency is on everybody's mind. No one is denying that. People would rather see environmental conservation efforts at the local and regional scale because people are personally and immediately affected by it. I am in the professional business of environmental modeling, air, fire, water and watersheds for more than 10 years. And in my personal (and professional) opinion about global warming as caused by human activities is simply without credibility.

Sincerely,
Mike McConnell

Are You the "GreekType" or Not?

If you are planning to attend Gallaudet University or currently a student which of the four fraternities (or the three sorotities) at Gallaudet University would you like to join if you had your way? Or maybe you prefer to be a FROГ "member" instead?

Which fraternity would you have likely joined (or will want to join) at Gallaudet?
	Alpha Sigma Psi Fraternity
	Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity
	Kappa Gamma Fraternity
	Kappa Sigma Fraternity
	I have no interest - independence (FROG)
	Not Sure
pollcode.com free polls

Which sorotity would you have likely joined (or will want to join) at Gallaudet?
	Delta Epsilon Sorority
	Delta Zeta Sorority
	Phi Kappa Zeta Sorority
	I have no interest - independence (FROG)
	Not Sure
pollcode.com free polls

Do you believe that some form of hazing still exists in any of the Greek organizations at Gallaudet?
	Yes.
	No.
	Unsure.
pollcode.com free polls

Read Gallaudet University's hazing policy here. More on hazing can be found at the StopHazing.org. In some states such as Florida hazing is a felony crime.