There's no better place to indoctrinate new and unsuspecting students on anthropogenic global warming claim by inculcating them (i.e. brainwashing) into the consensus agreement games in college courses instead of learning how to dissect critically such (mis)information. Long gone are the days at Gallaudet University during the late 2000s when "global warming" was on almost everybody's lips, er, hands. That sort of fervor has largely evaporated save except nowadays a few professors or
courses that still teach the misinformation game instead of teaching students on how to acquire critical thinking skills to realize whether or not we have an "environmental crises" on a global scale all because we like to belch, "dangerous" CO2 gases! Gag them please!
HIS 323 Geography and the Environment (3)
This course is designed to survey the relationship between human impact on geography and the environment. By looking at different cultures and their values, examining urban and rural environments, learning about less developed and more fully developed nations, and by considering the role of race, religion and gender in human relations, students learn about the complexity of dealing with environmental crises such as global warming. In essence, this course will examine how changes in geography and the environment influence each other. By studying specific areas of the planet, students will be able to consider alternative solutions from those considered in the United States.
Now, if you think that consensus by the "entire global scientific community" has happened then let me tell you, it's already a myth thinking there's actually a consensus. That "entire global scientific" agreement on "global warming" or consensus came from a 2009 survey inquiry by the
American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey that had two online questions submitted to some 10,257 Earth scientists where only 3,146 of them responded.
Here are the two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels,do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Out of all those Earth scientists that responded only 75 climate scientists said "Yes" to the number two question. (Doran, P.T. and M.K. Zimmerman (2009),
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos Trans. AGU, 90(3), 22, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002)
Internet source:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO030002.shtml
Doran's paper:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Doran commented in the paper:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Again, this whole "consensus" thing is a myth saying that scientists mostly agreed that CO2 caused human emissions is the culprit on causing Earth to "warm up." Climate has warmed up many times. It has also cooled many times. In fact, the IPCC acknowledged in their latest 2013 second order draft report confirming that the sun's irradiance plays a huge role on helping Earth warm up rather than CO2. A
shocking admission by the IPCC.
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or
cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system
(e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The
forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to
account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying
mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.
As the leaker explains,
this is a game-changer:
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar
forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to
claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a
period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important,
were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be
released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
Indeed. All those years the students at Gallaudet University were unwittingly inculcated into the whole line and sinker that man was the sole reason for Earth's climate to warm up with the excess CO2 spewed into the atmosphere. A gas that plants and even algae that depend and thrive on. Yet, even former Gallaudet University assistant swim coach, Bill Snape, still believes the global warming theory/meme by
buying recklessly into the Hurricane Sandy hype and scare.
First, any climate change conversation must highlight the
steep price of inaction. Recent polls show that Americans are
increasingly aware of the link between climate change and extreme
weather. But that connection is still underreported and underappreciated
– and absolutely critical to understanding why we must act.
Hurricane Sandy, the hybrid “Frankenstorm” now menacing the East
Coast, offers an example of the kind of catastrophic storms we’re likely
to see more of in a warming world. That’s because climate change has
huge impacts on the hydrological cycle, increasing the risk of flooding
and intense precipitation. That hydrological effect has a flip side:
Climate change also increases the risk of events like this year’s
horrific drought, which drove up food prices and brought down natural
disaster designations on more than half the counties in America. Much
of the globe is already suffering from climate change. One in every 100
humans on earth became a forced migrant last year, according to a new
report from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, and climate change often worsened their plight. Thousands
of Vietnamese, for example, are being driven from their homes by
recurrent flooding in the Mekong Delta – a not-so-natural disaster
created by climate-change-driven sea-level rise.
A little scientific education is in order here, especially for Gallaudet students and teachers who may still follow Bill Snapes' environmental
global warming,
global climate destruction, climate change tirades where Bill gets it wrong on several examples seen
here and
here.
There is nothing to connect the so-called "Frankenstorm" to that of "anthropogenic caused climate change" because the number of hurricanes
has not increased when in fact the number of hurricanes has actually gone down. In fact, we have gone the longest period since the Civil War without a major
landfalling category 3 or larger hurricane to hit the United States. Just as well the number of tornadoes has not increased over the last 60+ years according to
NOAA's data even though the number of U.S. tornadoes makes up
75% of all tornadoes around the world. Bill Snape simply does not make any sense and would rather appeal to emotions aimed at low information students and people gullible enough to take his words at face value without questions. In spite of the fact that Earth has NOT warmed up over the last 15 years when nearly
one-third of all human emissions of CO2 has occurred since 1998.
As for the Mekong Delta that Bill Snape discussed it is known for its annual floods which are always a
natural part of the environment that people expect to happen every year. In fact, for flooding to happen it
requires 3 major factors to occur at the same time. High flow discharge from upstream, continuous heavy rainfall and the high tidal flow from the East Sea that pushes against outgoing river water. The outgoing water in the Mekong Delta gets pushed upstream causing water to back up and spread out beyond the banks and flood the surrounding areas. Ninety percent of the flooding stems from the high flow discharge from upstream and the high tidal flow from the East Sea that pushes the river water upstream causing the area to flood. High tidal flow accounts for 30 percent of the flooding and a major reason why the Mekong Delta gets flooded every year, a natural event. Some years get some serious flooding (
high floods) that have caused damage to property and lives lost. And that is attributed to mostly the tidal events rather than global warming or rising sea levels which has risen over
2 inches since 1993. People have adapted to this annual flooding to reduce fatalities and
they have a motto: "Avoiding the Floods, Living with floods and Controling the Floods." They have for hundred of years learned to adapt to this natural yearly event.
Sorry, Bill Snape. Not much of the globe is suffering from the so-called man made climate change as you have tried so hard to scare people into changing. We will still have floods, tornadoes, wind storms, blizzards, excess rain, droughts, glacial ice changes, snowpack changes, and tidal surges. Climate change is a natural event that is influenced by much larger natural factors than man alone. I wonder, did any of the students at any time over the last several years ever stood up and challenged the prevailing notion about global warming on campus by professors and other people? Or did they just meekly sat in their chairs and nodded without fully understanding how things work?
The moment you call people "deniers" means you have bought into the hype without the full understanding or knowledge of how things work and the fact that you are buying into the theory of anthropogenic global warming rather than on facts alone by using both misinformation and disinformation. The biggest giveaway is the use of hype and fear to cover up much of their lacking information that would've otherwise showed the opposite the understanding about climate change and that there are natural factors at work much larger than CO2 that influences our climate. Global climate is by far an extremely complex system. None of the climate models that have been used has ever accurately modeled past climate changes using CO2 as the forcing agent. That's problematic, folks. The biggest and obvious most influential factor on our climate is our friendly sun located 93 million miles away with Earth located at the right distance, the various long scale periodicity, the right orbital path around the sun, the right amount of magnetic field around Earth, and the right amount of precision over time to make Earth an extremely livable planet. And that's just a few examples of natural factors that influence Earth's climate. No sun. No Earth. No people or animals. That's a fact.
