Good that there is some respect for free speech there. Many American universities don't do as well
Climate scientists have predicted such scenarios for decades - that as global temperatures rose more extreme weather would be a side effect. Yet none of this is discussed in the climate section of the introductory Geography 101 course at University of Auckland. Odd because, while what's behind such climate model forecasts is immensely complex, the underlying science is pretty simple.
Associate professor Chris de Freitas, who teaches the stage one course, wouldn't dispute the basic science. "I do not dispute that the carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere is largely from the use of fossil fuels," he tells the Herald. "No doubt rising carbon dioxide could 'change the climate'. The basic physics is there to support this view. But where is the evidence that the putative change would be large or damaging?"
But according to some students of de Freitas's 101 course on the basics of climate you won't hear about how climate scientists are now seeing such patterns Or about the building evidence that human-induced climate change is changing precipitation and the hydrological cycle, especially the extremes.
The Geography 101 lecture workbook confirms the lack of such information. There seems little, if any, reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its landmark 2007 reports were not listed in the course reading material. Climate scientists shown the workbook were surprised at how out of date much of the material was.
The Herald asked Professor Glenn McGregor, director of the School of Environment at Auckland University where Geography 101 is taught, whether he agreed with De Freitas's view.
"If Chris has not mentioned the IPCC, that is regrettable because the IPCC process is very important," says McGregor. He says de Freitas plays "a kind of critic and conscience role" which he sees as important to the essential nature of universities.
"I think Chris has every right to criticise climate science. Within universities we adhere to the right to academic freedom which the university encourages. So you can freely express opinions when delivering material to students."
Victoria University's Manning disagrees: "I think Auckland University does have a bit of a problem with a course looking like it is taking one side of the story and a minority view of that." Yes, he believes in freedom expression and that it should be deeply ingrained in the structure of the university. "The right to have individual views is something that's preserved because it is important - but there does become a point when you have to ask should you be teaching that?"
Source
16 comments:
Global warming. It's one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on a planet filled mostly with weak, mindless people. While at the same time, the people who created this con-game are getting richer and richer from the peoples ignorance and weakness.
You won't be seeing Al Gore giving up his private jet, or his mega-mansion. When he left the WH, his net worth was $5 million. Now, it's in excess of $100 Million! Is he just lucky? Maybe he's the worlds smartest person? Or, perhaps he's found a way to sell all the bullshit he's created. That would surely account for the $100 Mil.
yeah the fact that al gore is gainin so much makes it absolutely obvious this is a scam. its just like a cult, all the mountains of evidence that are pointing towards global warming evidence are all just liberal hogwash fabricated in the labs of the liberal scientists. this world was created by god and is perfect in every way. there is no way that by burning the fuel he put on here for us would do any harm whatsoever. where in the bible does it say "dont burn oil." idiots.
did you know a volcano puts out much more co2 than all the cars boats and planes ever? look at the one study that says this. all the other studies are just lies created by a massive global conspiracy that all the scientists are a part of. if you dont believe in this conspiracy you are a moran because algore made money. this is proof positive that this is a scam. there is no possible other explination for this, algore made money so global warming is a scam, do you not see?
algore made MILLIONS of dollars worth of money, and all the scientists are laughing it to the bank depositing the millions of dollars they are siphoning from the research that they just create in there fake science labs that they use to create fake evidence for global warming to make algore rich.
stupid algore trying to make money off a lie and a scam. a global scam in fact, one that all the communists are in on too. algore probably works for the communists and this is all a big conspiracy for algore to give money to communists because he wants more money.
in fact he probably has more money hidden away somewhere from china or something because china is not caring as much about fuel efficiency trying to get a hold on the world because they want to take over the globe. algore probably has a mansion in china that hes gonna live in after all the scientsts drain all the money out of america.
Global warming is fake because people are weak minded fools. Look at the handful of studies that have been "disproven" by the entire scientific community and go against what the mountains of evidence that show global warming is indeed real say. The stupid scientists "disprove" them cuz it goes against their irrefutable evidence they made up, this is a fact that I'm basing on nothing besides the fact that Al Gore happened to make money. Don't you not see the link? Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy! ITS A SCAM. IF I YELL LOUDER WILL YOU BELIEVE ME MORE? SCAM!!!! WEAK MINDED LIBERAL AGENDA. I HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK ANYTHING I SAY EXCEPT FOR THE FANTASIES I MADE UP IN MY STUPID HEAD.
Better go post on the internet about it to try and convince other weak minded individuals to believe something that I say without any evidence to prove what I say besides the fact that I hate Al Gore.
Global Warming is fake because I hate Al Gore. It's a scam, its a scam, its liberal agenda hogwash, scam scam scam, global conspiracy, global conspiracy that millions or maybe even billions of people are in on to make money and nobody has ever come forward to say anything about it cuz the liberals wouldn't allow it. this makes perfect sense algore is stupid blah blah blah im a guy posting on a thing i have no idea about and have probably never gotten an a in any science class and i have never been to college too. oh youre just saying stuff? well thats cuz youre a liberal algore algore algore algore conspiracy liberal agenda liberal agenda.
10 years from now even AGW's strongest advocates of today will say that they always opposed it as unscientific. Many of them will even believe that.
Yes because scientists always burn all things that they didn't believe in in the past and are never able to admit when they are wrong. Oh wait no. In fact what does that have to do with anything besides reassuring you about the opinion that you have no clue about. Why don't you spend less time saying stuff like that and pick up a book and read something. And no I'm not talking about the National Review. I'm talking about a science book from the library. Learn the science look at the facts and then form an opinion after considering all the evidence. You cant just look at the facts you want to believe. This is not how science works. If you think that the liberals are all lying why don't you become a climatologist. Do that or stop complaining. The words you wrote there are worth about as much as the thing you think people will say in the future. i.e. Its worthless dribble only designed to make you feel better.
Global warming has been going on more or less ever since the glaciers last retreated 10,000 or 12,000 years ago. It is not entirely likely that puny humans have had much effect on it one way or another.
"It is not entirely likely that puny humans have had much effect on it one way or another."
Ah the good old coin flip argument. Sweet lets listen to this guy he assumes that its wrong.
Please explain why.
Yup we're so puny, never mind the fact that we've figured out how to pretty much destroy the earth and every living thing on it in a single instant.
Watch a video of the Russians detonating Tsar Bomba. "The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero."
Yes we're so puny. Your argument sucks. Try again.
It seems that conservatives want scientific certitude that global warming is real. But they do not apply the same scientific requirements and reasoning that god exists. I find that hilarious.
Hmm, interesting thread of comments here. Since there is some evidence for and some evidence against global warming, that makes it a matter of FAITH and which camp you wish to join. Given the atheists take on other things that are a matter of FAITH, I presume the ACLU and other atheist groups will be making sure that no government funds or government-specified opinions are made about it, under the flag of 'separation of church and state', right?
Arf!
(My original reason for the handle was/is to encourage others to use one as well - you could scarce pick a worse one than mine - so that the threads would be more than just one anonymous comment after another)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to scratch at some fleas for a while.
I'm sorry Stinky but your post is so ambiguous I have no idea what you're intending to say. I can't tell if you're for or against anything. The only thing I can assume is that YOU assume AGW is false because of your original post. This right here illustrates that you are NOT indifferent. You have made an assumption. Therefor even the person you cited... Galileo would have thought you a fool.
I think anyone who has a strong agreement and holds no possibility in their heart for another thing being true has no place in science, this is called indifference. I agree there. But your posts reek of inconsistency, ironically.
Did you want me to elaborate on your points or something cuz you were too lazy to do it on your own?
Anon,
Best identity crisis i've seen in a while, but get help.
Wow, Jon has more patience than I do! This guy is trying to use f-bombs and posting items in rapid succession so he can get Jon to delete his posts. From my experience reading this blog for some time, Jon RARELY deletes post, no matter how devoid of intellectual thought they are.
And by the way, are you planning to actually answer my point about the ACLU and the atheist organizations? (Not all atheists by the way have this visceral reaction at the mention of God). Seems like if one was an atheist, they honestly wouldn't care enough about a mention of God to make any deal about it at all. But there is a deafening silence about giving a pass to the Church of Global Warming. So, are you planning to actually respond or does it make you feel better to call me names? I can accept it either way.
I tend to use the DATA that says the Earth has not warmed significantly in the last 15 years as proof that the Catastrophic AGW doomsayers do not know what they're talking about.
Overall, they want me to hyperventilate about a .7 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the last 100 years, half of which happened before 1950.
Oh woe is us!
The other side of the equation - that the "bad" effects of "Climate Change" are going to be worse than the "good" effects - is always assumed, never demonstrated.
Post a Comment