The awesomeness of Kokonut is just. . .awesome, dude. Global warming science is not that awesome. But there are enough people to believe that global warming is real, that scientists said so, and it’s a great cause for concern, so then it must be awesome of some sort, I guess.
Well, you can put it that way, however you wanted it. But, if you’re that gullible to believe that global warming is real, that the words of some scientists who said so, and that it’s a great cause for concern, then you must be… well… awesome in a certain gullible way. Perhaps gullible enough to believe that Santa Claus is real and living in the North Pole right now, you must be uber-awesome!
Mike of Kokonut Pundit has an awesome question: Are deaf people more prone to believe in global warming claims?
In a nutshell, scare tactics, moneyed politics and blundered science of global warming are enough to make some people awesomely stupid to believe that global warming is truly real and a great cause for concern.
So some deaf people must be awesomely stupid, huh? Especially the “bright” ones at Gallaudet who buy the stinking garbage and say it smells right enough to set up a Green Gallaudet Environmental Organization? Yes, Gallaudet goes green to avoid “imminent” apocalyptic doom that could flip the university upside down, collapse into fiery molten lava below, then get completely wash over by 300 feet high tsunami.
Yeah, that sounds like a good sunny day for a student with a helluva hangover, an unexplainable cafeteria fire, and a flooded toilet system in his dorm building.
Take a look at this one: Green Gallaudet. Especially its main headline, specifically the last part of it: …to force solutions for a green future.
To force? They mean to impose solutions arbitrarily to save the planet campus? So to kill off some people students (and skeptics) because they’re breathing the air, heating and using the planet on campus, too? Some creative solutions, folk.
I’m not very fond of these people who considered the blundered science of global warming as factual, come up with crazy-ass solutions and force them upon others through scare tactics and moneyed politics. They think it’s really awesome.
I don’t think so. It’s awesomely stupid and so they are.
UPDATE 2.04.2010: How climate-change fanatics corrupted science.
“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” writes Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations in The American Interest. “The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.”
Some decades hence, I suspect, people will look back and wonder why so many government, corporate and media elites were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence. And taken in to the point that they advocated devoting trillions of dollars to a cause that was based on flagrant dishonesty and dissembling.
Read it all.
02/03/2010 at 7:48 PM
Awesomely awesome, dude.
02/04/2010 at 8:45 AM
Wow, what a post.
First, you are stereotyping. These are INDIVIDUALS you are talking about. They do not represent the whole deaf community.
Secondly, there are *hearing* people who believe climate change is real. Gallaudet isn’t the only university with student-run environmental groups.
Finally, whether or not climate change is real, we need to be more responsible about how we use Earth’s -limited- resources. Even awesome mcconnell would agree.
02/04/2010 at 9:30 AM
You’re right I’m stereotyping. My bad. Yes, they are individuals and they do not represent the whole deaf society. However, unfortunately, they share a collective belief in global warming. All thanks to the perpetuation of activist eco-nuts, scientists with their hands tied to the government cookie jars, dubious climate studies, and scare tactics. If they allowed themselves to be persuaded in these fashions, then they are either gullible or “awesomely stupid”.
My point is that individuals, whether deaf or hearing, shouldn’t be force-fed with misleading ideas and solutions by activist eco-nuts following global warming science (and Gore) as if it’s gospel. It shouldn’t be so one-sided and the same is true for any student-run environmentalist group in any college. Skepticism bring sanity and balance to any debate and anthrogenic global warming isn’t immune from skepticism or denial.
02/04/2010 at 10:16 AM
Rob,
Deaf people are typically liberals, so go figure?
Just like rednecks are typically Republicans.
Yes, I get your point. You don’t believe in climate change and get annoyed by people who believe it is real. I respect that.
Your mention of Gallaudet’s environmental group was interesting. If anything, an “activist eco-nut” should have blasted them for being *LATE* in forming such an organization. That is, green eco-groups existed first and for much longer at other universities.
One thing though, do you really know for sure man-made climate change is false? For all we know, nobody knows! With how slowly climate changes, we won’t find out for sure until… hundreds of years in the future. Just humor yourself, what if the climate change folks are right – and you’re wrong. What does that make you?
Personally, my issue with climate change is not whether it’s real. My question is what is causing it? Yes, I believe climate change is happening. We’re seeing warmest days on record year after year. I think this is the more important question: is the cause natural or man-made? Throughout Earth’s history, climates have changed. e.g. Ice Age Era. I’m not too quick to attribute it to man, because it does occur naturally. If it’s natural, then there’s next to nothing that we can do.
02/04/2010 at 11:05 AM
Tayler, temperature has been static for over 11 years now. The ocean has been cooling. The sun’s energy is already at it’s bottom low cycle.
CO2 makes up .038 percent (that’s .00038 or 380 ppm) of the total atmospheric gases. Compare to water vapor it make up as much as 4 percent (that’s .04) which is 100 times more dense and more influence on climatic changes. Please explain how the Medieval Period was much warmer (several hundred years ago) than today and even with less CO2 concentration.
It’s a natural, cyclical process. There is no single case that proves CO2 caused Earth to warm up nor has it ever been proven it to be the major source of global warming. I dare any Gallaudet University students to counter my arguments on the theory of Global warming claims. Yes, it’s a theory…not a fact.
02/04/2010 at 12:38 PM
correction:
“… to counter my arguments AGAINST the theory of Global warming claims. Yes, it’s a theory…not a fact.”
02/04/2010 at 1:08 PM
My suggestion, Tayler, is for humanity to adapt to climate change and live with it, rather than trying to fight and save humanity with draconian measures and political solutions, which would involved controlling every aspect of human life and mean of production. This would greatly stifle innovation and any capability to survive by adaption and improvement. I see the global warming movement as a social control movement, using blundered science and moneyed politics to scare people to give up their liberties in exchange for security and comfort. History is rife with peoples using outrageous schemes and deceitful manipulation to move and control their peoples through propaganda or projection of fear, or in some cases, distract them from hidden agendas. This is what Gore and his ilk are doing to peoples nowadays, since most of them aren’t as well-informed or knowledgeable about science, like climate science. Have you seen Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”? If so, when you finished seeing it, what are your impressions? Were you convinced of Gore’s presentation? Be honest, Tayler.
Some deaf people are liberals, this I can prove by knowing some who are myself. But how do you know that Republicans are typically redneck? Can you prove that? Didn’t you notice in my blog that I stated, “So some deaf people….”? No word of “all” ever entered in that equation from the beginning.
Climate change is natural, yes. But global warming caused by humans? No.
02/04/2010 at 1:56 PM
Here’s an interesting article to read:
http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/display_story.html?id=275
While I do try to do my part to keep America clean and to recycle only for the purpose of being responsible for contributing to a clean environment. I think going green is cool. I don’t do it because of this claim of global warming. Many universities were into this radical eco movement way before Gallaudet. So, the answer to this question is, no, deaf people are not more gullible. However, we do have a LOT of gullible people.
Heck, many deaf I know don’t give a hoot and they’re the worst contributors to keeping America clean.
Have you guys ever gone to Canada?? Gosh, they’re so clean! I admit I only went to a certain part of Canada and did not see all of Canada, however, I have been told by a few travelers that ventured deep out there, that Canadians care more about how their landscape looks compared to Americans.
For me, going clean or being eco-wise isn’t about global warming, but rather it’s about living in a clean environment and using our resources in a smart way.
This article reveals one reason out of many why global warming is taken way out of proportion.
02/04/2010 at 7:42 PM
When one says “global warming” it is usually in the context as anthropogenic caused (man-caused) rather than say it’s a natural occurrence.
02/06/2010 at 3:38 AM
I am up in Alaska right now. Two days ago, a friend took me to see a glacier. Thirty years ago, he could drive right up close to that glacier and stand in front of it..now it is about 3/4 of a mile away from where it was and there is a great body of water in front of it..
What is your theory to that? People up here see the evidence of global warming.
02/06/2010 at 6:27 PM
Here’s a glacier in Alaska that has been advancing….
http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/11/columns/columns06.prt
Tami, explain to us on what does it mean when you say “global warming.”
02/06/2010 at 8:26 PM
Here’s some hand pickings.
“Please explain how the Medieval Period was much warmer (several hundred years ago) than today and even with less CO2 concentration.” -mcconnell
Explain how temperatures were taken in the Medieval Period, and prove that it’s accurate as today’s temperature-taking methods.
“I dare any Gallaudet University students to counter my arguments on the theory of Global warming claims.” -mcconnell
Why don’t you debate with yourself? I understand you attended Gallaudet.
“My suggestion, Tayler, is for humanity to adapt to climate change and live with it, rather than trying to fight and save humanity with draconian measures and political solutions, which would involved controlling every aspect of human life and mean of production. This would greatly stifle innovation and any capability to survive by adaption and improvement.” -rob
I see both as the same thing. Adapt and fight/save.
“I see the global warming movement as a social control movement, using blundered science and moneyed politics to scare people to give up their liberties in exchange for security and comfort.” -rob
What green measures forces us to give up our liberties?
“History is rife with peoples using outrageous schemes and deceitful manipulation to move and control their peoples through propaganda or projection of fear, or in some cases, distract them from hidden agendas.” -rob
What hidden agendas might there be?
“Didn’t you notice in my blog that I stated, “So some deaf people….”? No word of “all” ever entered in that equation from the beginning.” -rob
I noticed. My point is that it has nothing to do with them being deaf. Therefore, no mention of “deaf” should have been made.
“Climate change is natural, yes. But global warming caused by humans? No.” -rob
You say that as if that’s fact. As if your words are final. Same thing with mcconnell. Like I said, “For all we know, nobody knows!”
02/07/2010 at 12:53 AM
Tayler, I’ll let Mike answer your questions in time. I’m answering yours:
Giving up access to abundance of gas, oil and coal (freedom to travel to other places, heating to stay warm), giving up established business and industrialized structures that provide jobs to millions of people for decades (the freedom to buy and own homes, provide foods and needs for their families on their owns, grow side businesses, participate in civic affairs, etc.), giving up the freedom to choose what we wanted to buy or lease things for enjoyment without being told that it’s not good for the environment or it generates huge carbon footprints (boating, vacationing to other places, flying, etc.). There are a great number of things I could go on but you should get the idea that these “green measures” are, in truth, killjoys. Many people does not believe in total government controls over their lives, the ways they live and the liberties they are endowed with. The government does not guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for you, you are already endowed with them from birth (and remain so until your death). You don’t need government say-so or government law for them, it’s the government’s responsibility to secure these unalienable rights for all Americans, not grant them or take them away.
Think of some people who plan and coordinate things to distract the public with a manufactured crisis or event, shifting their attentions to that long enough to allow some to take away or plunder crucial things behind the public (as long as the public is focused on a crisis or a major event, not noticing something odd behind them). An undisclosed plan made by the few or some with an ulterior motive. It’s useful for proxy wars or covert operations by countries or powerful groups. It’s useful for companies for its restructuring, auditing or marketing purposes in a competitive arena. It’s dangerous and high-risk, it could make or break people or company.
Well, you take that argument to Mike himself, he made the case and I supported his reasons. I just see the problem of gullibility within the Deaf community regarding the global warming issues. Mike pointed out Gallaudet student body and Deaf community leans too favorably toward global warming issues, thanks to the efforts of Green Gallaudet Environmental Organization. The student body and the community do not needed to be propagandized by the global warming movement, which had already influenced other universities with false ideas, bad science, and scare tactics upon impressible student bodies.
Let me say this again, as final: climate change is natural and is not entirely caused by human activities.
02/07/2010 at 4:31 PM
Hello, great site. I look forward to your next article. Thanks, Joanna
02/07/2010 at 5:40 PM
“Please explain how the Medieval Period was much warmer (several hundred years ago) than today and even with less CO2 concentration.” -mcconnell
“Explain how temperatures were taken in the Medieval Period, and prove that it’s accurate as today’s temperature-taking methods.” – Tayler
The Medieval Warm period (from 900 to 1300 AD) is a *KNOWN* fact that it has occurred through the use of various means of measurements plus other events that backs up that warm period. Go here, move your cursor over each graph for an expanded version.
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
Below is a source for numerous references and reasons why the Medieval Warm period existed and that it was warmer then than what it is today.
“The idea of a medieval warm period was formulated for the first time in 1965 by the English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer. The regular voyages of the Vikings between Iceland and Greenland were rarely hindered by ice, and many burial places of the Vikings in Greenland still lie in the permafrost.
Glaciers were smaller than today
Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].
Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].
Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.
Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].
Archeology and history confirm interglacial
Insects can also be used as historical markers for climate. The cold sensitive beetle Heterogaster urticae was detected during the Roman Optimum and during the Norman High Middle Age in York. Despite the warming of the 20th century, this beetle is found today only in sunny locations in the south of England [8].
During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].
The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11].
Climate scientists want to eliminate contradictions
Until about the mid-90s of last century the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. Therefore in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990 on page 202, there was the graphics 7c [12], in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present. However, the existence of this warm period became quickly a thorn in the side for the scientists responsible. When in 12th century without human influence the climate has been even warmer than at the height of industrialization, why should the current warming have non-natural causes?”
Read the rest here with references – http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.science-skeptical.de%2Fblog%2Fbeispiellose-erwarmung-oder-beispiellose-datenmanipulation%2F001195%2F
“I dare any Gallaudet University students to counter my arguments on the theory of Global warming claims.” -mcconnell
“Why don’t you debate with yourself? I understand you attended Gallaudet.” – Tayler
The idea is to debate with other people on the merits of science itself, not on emotions, gloom and doom, fear mongering, false data, misrepresentations, and so on. Do you have any science background at all?
“History is rife with peoples using outrageous schemes and deceitful manipulation to move and control their peoples through propaganda or projection of fear, or in some cases, distract them from hidden agendas.” -rob
“What hidden agendas might there be?” – Tayler
Because there are money to be made in this global warming cap and trade scheme. The IPCC is not about science but about global control, about making money, to enact new laws and an excuse to tax people needlessly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece
“Climate change is natural, yes. But global warming caused by humans? No.” -rob
“You say that as if that’s fact. As if your words are final. Same thing with mcconnell. Like I said, “For all we know, nobody knows!” – Tayler
Tayler, do you know what 380 ppm means? That’s the current CO2 concentration in our atmosphere which means 380 parts per million. In other words the amount of CO2 volume-wise with the rest of the atmospheric gases make up only .038 percent (or .00038) leaving the rest of the gases for a total of 99.962 percent. Heck, water vapor makes up about 4% of the atmospheric gases which is 100 times more denser than CO2 and has more influence on cooling and keeping the surface warm (think of clouds as blankets to help keep in the warm on the ground). In fact, the IPCC predicted years ago that we’d be warming at a rate of from 3 to more than 5 Celsius degrees per century but in fact we have been warming up at a rate of 1.5 C/century. And that over the last 11 years we’ve been on a cooling trend as well when the IPCC said we’d be much more warmer by now according to their computer models.
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Global_Temp_Anomalies.jpg
Besides, it was Al Gore who said that global warming (as caused by humans via CO2) is a fact and that the debate is over. Science is far, far from settled. Nor is it over. The Earth’s climate system is quite complex and how it interacts with our landforms and oceans make it even more complicated. Then you have the sun’s energy output, it’s fluctuating magnetic field, and the incoming cosmic rays that influence cloud formation in our atmosphere adds to the complexity and dimension that affects Earth’s climate. If anything, it is Al Gore who wants you to believe that CO2 which amounts to only .038 percent (note carefully the decimal place) of our total atmospheric gases as the main driver and cause of our global warming. That logic is clearly not there and it’s the stuff of fantasy. There may be *some* small contribution by CO2 but certainly not as a major player that *drives* climate change. Not so.
02/08/2010 at 7:03 AM
So ok, there is no global warming. So what happens to all the pollution from the factories and vehicles? Absorbed by trees and turn into apples?
02/08/2010 at 2:07 PM
NCOGW – global warming is happening and we’ve been warming up ever since the last ice age some 13,000 years ago. The problem is the claim that man is the cause of global warming thinking that extra CO2 is causing all that problem. There is, however, no proof of that and that CO2 cannot be the main driver on climate change. Explain how there was a Medieval Warm Period at a time when it was warmer than today?
As for pollution, exactly what pollution are you speaking of? Are you inferring that pollution is what causing Earth to warm up? Please clarify.
02/11/2010 at 4:53 PM
Guess Tayler and others have nothing else to say. Interesting silence.
02/11/2010 at 5:11 PM
Doesn’t surprise me, Mike. My door’s always open for them.
02/11/2010 at 9:05 PM
And the latest global warming spin? It causes more intense storms like snow storms. These people are getting desperate and pathetic at the same time. We break snow records that were 100 years old. I suppose it was global warming back then that caused all the earlier snow dump?
Deceitful people, folks.
02/22/2010 at 5:36 PM
Interesting post, because last year in our regional Science Olympiad competition, we were tested on our knowledge of human impact on global climate crisis. Although now I realize how much of a farce it is to be competing about something that was mistaken for true (too often science is mistaken for fact, when I think it is a collection of conclusions about observations), I wonder what your views are about improving energy efficiency? Is that, like global warming, a gimmick?
02/22/2010 at 5:48 PM
Energy efficiency is for cost-saving benefits on major appliances (such as refrigerators, stoves, furnaces, computers, etc.), so that consumers, like us, won’t get stuck with higher electric and heating bills monthly. As newer technologies come about gradually, improvement of energy efficiency is a work of progress and help keeping the costs down. Thank you for your post.