The second paper due for my Geography 100 class is on (drumroll) Glowball Warmening and The Greenhouse Effect. It is due today. I finished and submitted it yesterday, via email.
I had to read a chapter in the $100 textbook about how man’s contribution of CO2 and other Greehouse Gases are the cause of Glowball Warmening. It included sections on weather patterns and how they help mold the different regions of the planet versus how the terrain molds the weather patterns, changes in precipitation patterns because of Warmening caused by man-caused GHG’s, and how all of these things effect storms and their severity, just to name a few of the topics.
The book does not let the student question their “facts”. It is hammered in repeatedly. There is not a single mention of skeptics or “deniers” or any of their arguments. Which is more than somewhat funny because, at the end of the chapter there is a section titled “Critical Thinking”. At the end of this section is where the questions Der Professor chose for us to answer are located.
The questions were to be answered in essay form (two pages, double spaced and footnoted) and did not include any openings with which one could dispute their theory on Anthropogenic Global Warming without looking like an asshole spoiling for a fight (aka: “That Guy”).
For instance:
#3 – Growers sometimes intentionally elevate the levels of CO2 in their greenhouses to increase plant growth, and warmer conditions also may extend agricultural regions farther toward the poles. With more CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is there also an expectation of better crop production? What evidence can you find of this possible benefit?
#4 – Some dry regions will likely benefit from more rainfall, and some productive areas may become too wet or dry. What do the models predict for changes in precipitation? Which countries will gain and which will lose if the atmosphere warms?
Do you see where I’m going here? That is one hell of a strong front to have to work through when you don’t believe in AGW or to get through to even question it.
No arguments allowed. Just go to NOAA’s site, and the EPA’s site, and the IPCC’s site and get your info. Convert it into your own words and move on to the next question. If I were some dew-eyed college freshman straight out of high school (like 90% of my classmates) I’d probably not even have the faculty to question it. Sadly for me (and my grade on this paper), I’ve been blogging the fallicies of AGW for six years and have just oodles of links to back me up.
None of which I got a chance to use because of the clever way they worded the questions.
I swear I used all the snark I think would be allowable and still pass. Namely, finding folks who don’t believe in the “A” in AGW and using their data. It took probably 25-50% longer, but I hope will be worth it. My favorite footnote was from a very well lettered group (The CGFI) who declares that more CO2 in the atmosphere will be the best thing to happen to crop production since raindrops. This almost directly refutes the EPA’s and the US Dept. of AG’s doomsday models, whose links I “accidentally” lost in the ether.
I’ll hopefully hear back within a week on how I did. I’ll let you know.
