Intolerance by the Climate Thought Police at University of Colorado

From the College Fix:

Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change

‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’

Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.

“… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”

More here:

Just look at these people. The class is taught by professors in Genetic engineering, English (with old cooking recipe collections), and Sociology/Social Justice.


Brilliant minds, all, which probably explains why they couldn’t even get the much regurgitated 97% consensus correct, and instead say 98%.

Rich McKee’s cartoon from yesterday needs to be updated:


328 thoughts on “Intolerance by the Climate Thought Police at University of Colorado

    • Disagreed. The professors are well within their rights to dictate the scope of discussion for the class and to suggest that people not comfortable with that scope of discussion go elsewhere.
      You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether NOx emissions are harmful.
      You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether other species can be intelligent.
      The class may be pointless and unfounded, but it is their class. They get to set the rules for the discussion.
      If professors couldn’t do this, every class could be turned into a theology discussion.

      • Also, if controversy is deliberately omitted from the curriculum, it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.

      • Let me see if I’ve got this correct vboring: you believe it is the right of the professors to teach false propaganda at a taxpayer-funded institution? So then you would not object to a course that was about creationism where the professors stated there would be no discussion of evolution?

      • I don’t completely agree. Fracking, for example, is NOT climate change. If all their sources are anti-fracking (which is hard to do when most studies say it is safe), then it would be quite ridiculous for them to say they won’t look at any other sources on fracking or discuss/debate the merits and problems with it. Especially, since it cuts CO2 emissions if you burn natural gas instead of coal.

      • vboring August 31, 2016 at 10:59 am
        “The class may be pointless and unfounded, but it is their class. They get to set the rules for the discussion.”
        Are you sure of that vboring? Did you check the legal and accrediting regulations to see if these teachers have this power?
        There are standards and federal requirements they have to meet.
        The only instance this type of behavior could be found appropriate and of benefit would be if they were teaching a class on Totalitarian governance.

      • “Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change.”
        This is wonderful news! The fact that a professor actually feels the need to proclaim that is an indication of just how strong and widespread the anti-AGW movement has become. It reveals the professor’s insecurity. We need many moresuch insecure man-made climate change hucksters.

      • vboring,
        I would expect if you t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems or the search for extraterrestrial life, to use your examples, the classes would be taught by professors in e.g., engineering, physical science, astronomy, etc. with the appropriate education and experience in those fields.
        As Just some guy points out below, if there is no allowance for disagreement and discussion, and the course is taught by professors with no experience in the discipline (it’s an course in “environment and health” and none of the listed faculty appear to have any background in “environment and health” or global warming/climate change) it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
        A I’ve noted before:
        Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.

      • I will admit I have not read every comment. But every comment here (and elsewhere) I have read did not deny them the right to set the syllabus for their class.
        What most of the comments are about is ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry. And why waste you money taking a class from professors that are clearly clueless on their expounded subject.

      • You’re quite correct. And I can’t see the university doing anything to them. My beef with this is that it earns actual course credit. Propaganda efforts like this shouldn’t be on the course for credit list.

      • No debate should be off limits in an institute of higher learning — we can now question whether State U of Colorado is that.
        There was even a kid that tried to argue against the geologic record using Biblical “logic” back in my Geol 101 in college. It was quite easy to logically quash his “reasoning” using the litany of science that the geologic record is based on, as it should be for any sound science. If their entire course is based on pseudo-science, then they should be bagging groceries, not brainwashing college students.

      • Well said. This a Science EDUCATION class, not Political science, or debate class. If the Neanderthals want to make up their own version of science, they can transfer out of the University.

      • My advice to any poor kid that has to deal with those censorious, eco-flake, hive-tool professors, described in the article, is to employ a jiu-jitsu flip on them. That is, slap an in-your-face, “PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!! fatwa on their undoubtedly brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie greenwashed-butts:
        Hey Prof!–drive a fossil-fueled vehicle and/or do you take frivolous vacations in similarly powered conveyances? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
        Hey Prof!–fly about to academic conferences that could easily be held as zero-carbon video conferences? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
        Hey Prof!–partake of imported foods and beverages? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
        Hey Prof!–denounce the IPCC’s annual CO2-spew conferences as veritable mass-slaughters of babies and privileged-white bears? BABY-KILLER!!! POLAR-BEAR KILLER!!!
        And then, after you’ve softened up these Gaia-gofer, good-comrade academic-phonies with all that, move in for the “money-shot” (but remember also that international law requires you to first issue a trigger warning advising all lefties who might read or hear what you are about to say next to either put their fingers in their ears and spout sing-song LA!-LA!-LA!’s, or, alternatively don an adult diaper): Advise the professors that coercion and brainwashing will never succeed, but rather the only approach that will work is LEADERSHIP!!!–LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!
        P. S. And, when you finish with that last pitch, step-back, because these hive-bubble bozos are goin’ to feel their virtue-signalling lifestyle; their fragile, safe-space sense of “specialiness”; and their hold on their flunky-grade troughs so profoundly threatened by your suggestion that they just might want to practice a little exemplary leadership, for once, that their inevitable response will be an involuntary-reflex, explosive, projectile-diarrhea bowel-movement.

      • vboring,
        The course in question is “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”.
        How did you come up with those examples you gave? How about these? ;
        *You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether CO2 emissions are a grave threat to the earth’s ecosystems, so if the teacher feels like it, they should be able to ban any who don’t believe they are.*
        *You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether “Climate deniers” can be intelligent, so professors have the right to exclude any who think they might be.*

      • Many many years ago while attending IU in Bloomington, IN I took a 200 level literature course on Russian Fairy Tales. We were not required to believe that the tales were factual.

      • However it is entirely stupid to premise a college course or pretend to base a college course on a totally unconfirmed assumption. As there is not a shred of defensible proof of man-made climate change, this course is a waste or money, time, and space and thus a fraud aimed at the students.

      • In the good ‘o 80’s I never had a science teacher once say this is the answer, if you don’t like it go to hell. Simply never. They said, state your position, and support it. Therefore, these are political science classes, not science classes. They have been placed in the wrong department. No wait, in political science, they said, state your opinion and justify it. Okay, this is just state Fascism. It is not even political science. If they have a Dept. Of Dogma, then they belong under that department.

      • The course is titled “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”. There is nothing about that subject matter that dictates anything about climate change. The professors are out of line to make demands of conformity in this case.

      • “You don’t sign up for a class on NOx emissions control systems to debate whether NOx emissions are harmful.”
        Actually, that is one of the very things I would expect to be debated in such a class. Producing evidence before demanding expensive mitigation measures should be such an obvious thing it doesn’t need to be justified. Because the professors don’t allow debate over the very premise of their class, that is why it can be described as nothing more than a theology discussion.

      • The professors are unconfident regarding the subject matter such that they refuse to engage in the discussion. It also implies they are incompetent professors — presenting a class the foundations of which they do not fully understand. These instructor fit the working definition of “useful idiots.”

      • You don’t sign up for a class on the search for extraterrestrial life to debate whether other species can be intelligent.
        Why not? The scientists searching for extraterrestrial life do not, as far as I know, claim that it certain to exist. Some scientists think that because our universe is so vast there are probably quite a lot of planets with life. Others think that the combination of conditions needed for life to evolve is so extraordinary that life is unlikely elsewhere. However no side claims to “know” the answer. That is why they are searching for it. Even if our galaxy teems with life if most alien life forms had the intelligence of jellyfish we would still feel alone.

      • If professors couldn’t do this, every class could be turned into a theology discussion.
        Ummm…this class has been turned in to a theology discussion.
        As far as I can tell, climate change is irrelevant to the subject matter of the course and they obviously have no expertise in the topic. If they were not willing to discuss the “truth” of CAGW because they were not willing to discuss climate change, that is fine. But this is more to be a declaration that they are unfit to teach and there’s nothing wrong with removing professors who are unfit to teach.

      • What is needed is for a bunch of registrants to drop the class, inform the school of the reason for their decision and demand an immediate refund of registration fees
        Once the school begins loosing revenue due to this, the course could be changed

        August 31, 2016 at 11:48 am
        “Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change.”
        This is wonderful news! The fact that a professor actually feels the need to proclaim that is an indication of just how strong and widespread the anti-AGW movement has become. It reveals the professor’s insecurity. We need many moresuch insecure man-made climate change hucksters.

      • My RUBBISH reply was to vboring. Your sentiment is also boring. If professors believe that the earth is flat and teach that if you want to debate this you should “drop this class” at an institution of higher learning, they do not have the right to do so. It’s academic fraud. Just like AGW is…. But to debate both sides is instructive.
        Win the argument with facts. The point is – they have few if any – this modern version of Larry, Moe and Curly Joe.

      • When the premises cannot be challenged, it’s teaching an orthodoxy. Not really different from teaching religion.
        It does seem like they’re conceding they can’t defend AGW/Climate Change on scientific grounds.

      • Why do they feel the need to have this rule in the first place? It is a very obvious sign of intellectual weakness.

      • Nice try, but what you suggest is not correct. The class is taught at a public supported University, and while the instructors do have a certain amount of latitude, they should not be allowed to exclude legitimate discussion regarding AGW. To suggest that 98% of “scientists” support their particular stance is of course not correct, and should be questioned. It appears these instructors only want those in the class who can be in agreement with a fallacious premise.

    • It also seemed like this seminar was a required course, but there were other seminars the students could select. However, having gone to a public college, I am aware that that alternate 3xxx course could be quite difficult to find, so in the end one would have to hold their nose and be indoctrinated.
      If this is a mandatory course, there should be some pretext at presenting several sides of the argument, and not just ram a bunch of progressive pet issues together and teach one side.

      • That’s the real issue. This course is on “medical humanities in the digital age”. What on Earth could they be discussing that mandated climate change belief?

      • There was a geology professor in the 80’s who was well known to flunk students who believed in the new theory of plate tectonics. The students all spread it around. You believe in plate tectonics, keep you mouth shut if you want to pass. So for that jackass, oh gee, I never too his course. Same here. If you are forced to take their vomit, regurgitate it back and move on.

      • medical (not science) humanities (not science) in the digital age (not science).
        Hey, let these clods run their theology course the way they like, maybe they’ll find they get the students they deserve (few .. or those who require a bib)
        I’m glad they’ve nailed their flag to the post, it’ll be harder for them in the future to deny their complicity in this scam when real science regains a foothold and the AGW theory is smashed apart as eugenics was. Too many people were able to duck and hide from their participation in that one, and subsequently were able to evolve their anti-human stance into the current AGW scare. This time the scoundrels won’t be able to hide so easily and with luck will be prevented from holding any positions of influence or corrupting any more young minds.

      • Goldrider: When I was an Assistant Professor in the Natural Sciences Division of a major campus of the UC system, I taught Science Illustration in the Science Communication Program which qualified as for Humanities credits for science majors. In the class we discussed the use of science in propaganda and how scientific data was manipulated in political movements to forward agendas and influence the ignorant.

    • Well said. Debating science is like debating whether the number 5 is greater than 3. Or the proposition do owls exist. This is a class in science EDUCATION, not in politics or debate.
      Let the Neanderthals have their own class.

      • What utter nonsense. One of the fundamental principles of science is skepticism, even in the face of so-called “hard facts”. You seem to be confused between what constitutes education and what is little more than indoctrination. The process of education also requires asking difficult and unpopular questions. What these “professors” are touting is not a science course and it is not education.

  1. I’ve already posted about this on my Facebook page.
    My old college Alma mater’s motto comes to mind and how out of place it is on today’s college campuses.
    Ceaseless Industry, Fearless Investigation, Unfettered Thought.
    Graduated in 1984. I still have my alumni sticker with those words on my vehicle.

    • I graduated from a small college in Colorado Springs in 1984. And Ronald Reagan personally handed me my diploma and officer’s commission.
      It was a good year.

      • “MarkW September 1, 2016 at 8:54 am
        One of the greatest regrets in my life is turning down an appointment to West Point.”
        I can relate to that. The greatest regret of my life was that I got out after nearly 12 years of active duty. I was a shoe in to attend the next Physician Assistants course. But at the time it seemed like the best thing to do for my family and myself. It probably was the best thing for my daughter since I was facing multiple moves over the next couple years when she would be in her HS years. But it wasn’t the best thing for me or my wife. I would have retired with 30 years of service in 2010.

  2. Yet another Department of Phrenology, Hitlerology, Stalinology.
    In the old USSR you could not teach the Theory of Evolution – it contradicted Karl Marx’s Theory of History.
    I imagine if you get a degree from this “University?”, your degree will be worthless.

    • Walt D. says:
      “In the old USSR you could not teach the Theory of Evolution – it contradicted Karl Marx’s Theory of History.”
      Not entirely true, Walt. Darwin’s theory was accepted in Soviet textbooks, though not discussed much, it was a slippery subject. Genetics was no-no in Stalin’s years (as it was proclaimed by Stalin to be a “bourgeois science”). Geneticists were ruthlessly persecuted in the 1930s. Nobody was allowed to ask, how evolution could be possible without mutation. Later, under Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the basics of genetics were gradually introduced in biology classes.
      Please, understand that Marx was just a figurehead in the USSR. What, exactly, was Karl Marx’s theory, almost nobody knew and nobody cared. Even his biography wasn’t generally known. For example, Russians didn’t know then (and most of them still don’t know) that Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew, one of the most rabid anti-Semites of his time.
      A lot of words were spoken and printed about communism but nobody really gave a rat’s behind. The important thing was to always say and do what you were told to say and do (whatever it was at the moment), and then to shut up. Most of the people obeyed.
      Most of the people do that in Western countries, too. Slavery is in their genes, whatever the color of their skin.

  3. Many youth are thinking of skipping the entire bother of getting a mortgage-sized debt, and businesses are thinking of educating their new employees on their own. College ain’t what it used to be, and the entire system may be a sort of financial bubble about to burst. Instead of ghost towns, imagine ghost universities.

    • The law and medicine, for two, are professions that one used to enter via apprenticeship. Engineering, as a formal discipline was late to the game and largely developed in a university environment, although some of it’s greatest practitioners (James Watt, instrument maker) did not receive formal training as engineers.

      • Engineering [back in the slide rule days] also used to be an apprenticeship process. The apprentice could start with surveying transitioning to civil engineering, or as a draftsman transitioning to mechanical engineering, naval architecture or even aviation.
        This coexisted for a long time alongside engineering schools such as West Point [USMA or ‘Hudson High’] or RPI.

      • There;s a reason you can’t get your Engineering license without 7 years of experience. No class can prepare you for the trials you face actually working as an engineer, so we don’t let any newbie have a stamp.

      • @Dave Levitt;
        Law and medicine were regulated along the lines of the guild system for hundreds of years before universities got into the picture the way they are now, although medicine has been taught in the various European universities for quite some time. So there was a formal process for them that could see you enter the “guild” a full member without ever darkening the door of a lecture hall. There wasn’t the same regulation for engineers so their training was much more ad hoc and almost anyone could hang out a shingle and call themselves an engineer. In the US the first engineering licensure law was in Wyoming in 1907. That’s pretty late to the game.

    • Could happen. I went back to my old college a few years ago. What had been homes and businesses located conveniently near the college were now…more college. The new buildings are red brick, expensive, but they appear to be empty mausoleums in honor of someone or other whose heirs had too much money. I didn’t see anyone go in or come out as I walked the length of the huge complex. When I was in school, there was never a time that I couldn’t find an empty classroom to study in or use the blackboard to solve problems. Bigger is not better.

    • No need to imagine.
      Much of what passes for higher education has been pretty spooky for quite some time.

    • It’s going that way in the UK too, with apprenticeships making an understandable come-back.
      I’m extremely proud to say that my son is going to serve in the RAF. Understandably, he has no desire to go to university to amass a huge debt. If he wishes to study for a degree, the RAF will let him to do it ‘on the job’.

  4. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.

    Putting aside the fact that the IPCC doesn’t actually do any peer review, one has to wonder what “inside” resources are being used for this course.

    • mpcraig,
      That statement just shows the overall level of both course knowledge and (I hate to say it) intelligence of the instructors (they don’t deserve to be referred to as professors).

    • Actually, if you dig into the IPCC reports and the citations of the papers used, and their citations(I know, a lot of digging. They bury it pretty deep) there is quite a bit of material to take to this class. Things like the quote about climate being a chaotic, unpredictable system, climate models being a chaotic and unsolvable, no way to make predictions to test, study only of the human causes of climate change which makes it impossible to study the actual climate, and more. Also, all the differences between the summary for policy makers and the actual statements in the various working group papers. Lots of material for discussion there.
      An enterprising student willing to risk and F(tape all the classroom discussion and office consultations) it could be very productive.

      • Any quotes from the IPCC that disagree with the incoming climatpokalypse will be ignored.
        They actually aren’t that bad, if you read past the Summary for Policymakers. The real issue is the people who honestly think we are all going to die due to this.

      • Also, in IPCC AR4 (report of Working Group 1) one finds the assertion that the doctrine of falsifiability has been replaced by the doctrine of peer review. Our new masters are sacrosanct peer reviewers!

  5. That such people continue to use the junk-level claim of ‘97%’ (or ‘98% in this case…) reveals their own alarmist advocacy. Oh, and Eileen sounds a whole barrel of fun!

      • The original study was 76/78 people – or 97.4%
        The question was something like “Do you believe the earth is experiencing a period of global warming” Well duh, it has been warming for 12000 years now – I was surprised two people answered no.
        [75 replies from 77 selected answers. .mod]

      • Marque2, you are close. I believe the questions were;
        1) Do you believe the climate is changing?
        2) Do you believe man has influenced the climate.
        There was much discussion here at the time because these are questions that most people with knowledge of the climate would answer in the affirmative.
        Thus, the deception is two fold. First, the 76 scientists do not comprise “97% of ALL climate scientist” and second, answering yes to both questions does not indicate support for the proposition of AGW.

      • From our host’s Dec 2013 article:
        Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
        Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”
        Thee threw out the 3 responders who answered “no” or “don’t know” before asking the 2nd question.
        IMO both questions were beneath the level of a real academic;
        – in the first, what scientist would NOT say temps are higher than “pre-1800 levels”. Little Ice Age anyone? Who were the 3 dopes of the “elite 79” who did not say “yes”?
        – when talking to only the “highest qualified” climate scientists, what is the meaning of the word “significant”? Does it mean something like “more than could have happened by chance”? If so any measurable (say 5%) impact by humans (deforestation, UHI etc) would require one to agree with the pro

  6. Where does that put the Anasazi who built entire villages in the cliffs of the American southwest starting around 500 AD, only to abandon them in the 13th century when the climate turned too dry for their subsistence farming methods?
    I guess the tourists who view the quaint remains of those cliff dwellings at for example Mesa Verde are left with the impression that their SUVs are responsible for such devastating (maybe genocidal) climate change. Not up for debate. The science is settled.

  7. This is prevalent in academia, at least on the East Coast of America. The management now is in the business of “telling what the student is to think”. And that is considered “Critical Thinking”. This is why I am no longer teaching in a local community college. I wanted my students to be able to sort things out for themselves, so I taught them all sides. They often were able, on their own, to realize the truth. I taught geography.

    • I’ve just put two kids through school in Colorado. This is their MO. They offer these ‘Indoctrination courses’ that take very little to get an A, Kids take them because it’s a quick way to boost your GPA. I’ve had to say to my kids: “you’re welcome to take such courses, but I’m not paying for them”.
      It’s best to take engineering where there are no electives.

  8. Yes sir -eeee folks,
    Spend your life savings to send you treasured children to a university to have their minds destroyed by Stalinists.
    It is important that we record the names of these people who intellectually harm our children and damage our society.
    Please put them in the database for future considerations at a time of our choosing.

    • Better to put them on paper or carve their names into the sides of cliffs (private property ones, of course). Those zeros and ones are far too easy to manipulate. It’s an excellent idea to keep track of who caused this mess, but make sure the medium used is permanent.

  9. In their overly idealistic minds, they want it to be 98% now, (growing from 97%) imagining that they are winning over more believers to the Cause. Leftist thought police scare me, but they will not win.

  10. Winston Smith was caught by the thought police by beauty and the rhyme “Oranges and Lemons ring the bells of St. Clements.”
    Evil can be very devious.

  11. Eileen Skahill’s LinkedIn page shows that she also brings an English degree to the table.

    Unversity of Colorado. Colorado Springs
    Master’s degree, Sociology
    2010 – 20
    University of Colorado at Boulder
    Bachelor’s degree, English Language and Literature/Letters
    1985 – 1988

    Note : That first word is probably not a typo. Unversity – a place where your brain prises open your skull and flees.

    • LOL. Too funny for words, however I’m using words here.
      98% versus 97% demonstrates innumeracy.
      So on top of that, she can’t spell? A person with a Bachelor’s degree in English language?
      Would it be ok to debate the spelling of university (unversity)?
      And how about this:

      “Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,
      Pale in her anger washes all the air,
      That rheumatic diseases do abound;
      And thorough this distemperature we see
      The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts
      Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,
      And on old Hiems’ thin and icy crown
      An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
      Is, as in mock’ry, set. The spring, the summer,
      The childing autumn, angry winter change
      Their wonted livieries, and the mazed world
      By their increase now knows not which is which;
      And this same progeny of evils comes
      From our debate, from our dissension.”

      From (Midsummer Night’s Dream – 2, 1)
      Would it be ok to quote Shakespeare as saying the moon was responsible for floods?
      Does this mean no discussion of Shakespeare?

      • Hey, it took me 10 years to complete my master’s degree! However, I have an excuse. I blame it on beer.

    • Master’s degree, Sociology
      2010 – 20
      Typo or time travel? started in the year 2010 and finished in the year 20. Darn who were her professors?

      • That would seem to indicate she isn’t finished.
        Does that make her unqualified?
        Who will be checking the work of this apprentice then?

    • “Master’s degree, Sociology 2010 – 20”
      Sounds like she has another 4 1/2 years yet to go before she gets her masters

      • Have to hurry – most curricula expire in 7 years – that’s typically how long you can use the course catalog you started with as a “contract” for the school to provide you with exactly those courses.

    • “Eileen Skahill’s LinkedIn page shows that she also brings an English degree to the table.”
      Steven Mosher has one of those, on the strength he too pontificates on the absolute certainty of anthropogenic global warming.

      • I have one of those as well, but the only job I could find was sports reporter and in a land where they wanted me to cover cricket, which I still haven’t a clue about. Was OK as my girlfriend of the time was there …
        I don’t buy AGW, however, even though my degree was = McKibben and from same school. Then turned to engineering.

    • Of the 2500 “leading scientists” who ostensibly signed on as supporting the IPCC’s First Assessment, most were not climate scientists, but sociologists, political scientists, and the like.

  12. “Her research is early modern recipe collections” WTF?
    “Her area of expertise is the sociology of climate change, with emphasis on SJW’s.”
    But does not emphasize the science….
    I bet we could actually find a course on Underwater Basket Weaving at THE UofC…..

      • Basket weaving is a useful skill. If they took the course, at least they would learn something. The underwater part, is to get really tight weave of the fibers you need to keep them wet and do the weave in a bucket of water. It isn’t a swimming course as many imagine.

      • I recall one graduation I attended at UNT, and someone actually did graduate with a masters in basketweaving. My wife didn’t understand why I found it so hillarious.

      • GA Tech has a PE class 1010, nicknamed drownproofing. It was actually started during WWII and was targeted at navy fliers. Needless to say we spent a lot of our time in swim wear.
        One day, while leaving the Baptist Student Union with a bunch of friends, I spotted a young lady that I knew from that class. I greeted her, she looked at me for a few seconds, then declared “Mark, I didn’t recognize you with your clothes on.”

      • The image of poor Mary’s face, a few seconds later when she realized what she had just said, will stick with me for the rest of my life.

  13. So, three barking mad, terribly caring, female “humanities” professors, teaching a non-course, want to shut down debate.
    I really believe that if the higher education budget was reduced by 25%, quality would be improved immesurably. I saw this when I was at Imperial college, London which had a 17% budget cut during one of the periodic financial crises to affect the UK. People ran around like headless chickens for a week, all the Dr Deadwoods were retired and much of the administrative procedures that made trying to do anything a nightmare were slashed. The place flourished and went from strength to strength.
    Cut educational funding. Save paper! Save academic waste! Improve standards. Even save CO2!

    • “So, three barking mad, terribly caring, female “humanitics”…”
      There, fixed that for you.

    • RCS,
      You might be right. But, your 25% budget cut may only work if the top level administrators come from private enterprise. If their only management experience is from within government their first reaction to any budget cut is practically always to cut those services that are most obvious and beneficial to the public (e.g., school administrators cut teachers not office staff). They cut those areas that will cause the public to scream the most. I don’t think I have ever met or even read about government administrators capable of operating in what is referred to in private enterprise as the “lean and mean” mode. I would be curious to see the backgrounds of the administrators at Imperial College London at the time of those cuts.

      • Constipated old farts!
        One of the most celebrated example was the access to the computer centre. Money for computing was gained in research grants. This was eventually allocated to departments who allocated it to students or the researchers who had obtained the grant. Students spent this money that was finally returned to the department one year later for allocation to further computer time units. At the time, major academic computing facilities did not do anything so mundane as use to computers to keep track of the administrrtion by using automated systems. This was expensive and time consuming (I well remember going with a bit of paper and begging for more computer units). External institutions, however, had unlimited units.
        After a near riot, the Rector explained the logic of this system. “You have to realise that at Imperial we have some of the most advanced computers in the World and that you will will not have access to this sort of power once you leave. This enforces discipline in the use of computers; after all, where else would you be able to use 128K of core with 10 10 Mflop capability?”
        I promise you that this is true (c1982)

      • @Joe Crawford.
        You hit a fundamental difference between government and business on the head. Indeed, businesses have to cut costs all the time, and the ones that survive are the ones that make the cuts invisible to their customers. But when government makes cuts, they make them the most painful for their customers. After all, what option do government customers have? There is not another government they can go to for the services.

  14. “… at University of Colorado”
    So, what is the required ganja intake required to complete the course ?

    • It’s not just in the intake, the course will provide instruction on preparation.
      Note, 1 is skilled in yeast fermentation. 1 is skilled in old English recipes, and the other in indigenous peoples altered mental states for perceiving the natural world (peyote, magic mushroom identifications and preparations).

      • Peyton Manning, who owns many Pappa John’s pizza places in Colorado, claims business has boomed since recreational MJ was voted in and gave new meaning to Mile High Stadium (where Broncos play football).

    • The Rector was right. I ran Space Shuttle trajectory Monte Carlo simulations in the 64k of memory the mainframe computer had at that time.

  15. Closed-minded bigots! Send us your young impressionable minds so we might instill shame and self-loathing for the unspeakable crimes of white privilege and the exhalation of plant food!
    Orwell’s 1984 stands as a chilling reminder of the dangers of abusive authority in quashing free thought.
    Fire the lot!

  16. I think it should be noted that this is not a required course for any students at that university. As a matter of fact, they have a number of other options from which to choose to receive the necessary Humanities credit.
    Personally, I am pleased that the instructors were up-front and honest about the direction they want the class to take and the starting point from which they will approach their topic. Every course needs to start somewhere and they’re very clearly stating their starting point. Extraneous topics (like debating the veracity of the starting point) will only get in the way of where the instructors wish to take the discussion over the course of the semester and detract from the lesson plans.
    Debating science can really get in the way of a humanities discussion.
    I’m fine with instructors choosing to teach a special topics course that will be available for those who wish to study that topic from a particular point of view, as long as the instructors are honest about what they want to teach and how they want to teach it. If it’s not required, as most special topics courses aren’t, then it shouldn’t be problem to share that idea. Students can choose to take it or not, however they desire.

    • Elective. How many of these students could elect out of viewing ‘A Convenient Untruth’ as elementary students?

      • An A -F grading scheme is so .
        The natural progression from childhood sports “participation trophies” for fragile minds.
        No, today’s academia are tending towards everyone who attends (watches online) and submits minimally required work gets a Pass.

    • I disagree.
      “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring.
      The statement “that human climate change is valid and occurring,” is such a vague statement. It’s not even a valid scientific statement because it lacks quantity; how much warming? I would agree that AGW is valid and occurring but I know of no scientifically credible evidence indicating that it will be any different in the future than it was in the past, i.e. very mild and mostly beneficial to humans and the biosphere to which we are inextricably linked.
      I read the syllabus and the course doesn’t even deal with the question of global warming. The final written assignment is to, “Contextualize the idea of plant spirit medicine with the other forms of traditional and “non- traditional” medicinal treatment and healing”
      Are students also not allowed to question or debate the question of the existence of plant spirits?

      • This is a major point of confusion for me. If this class is about medicine, why are they talking about global warming? One of these “professors” teaches English, shouldn’t she know the meaning of words? If the class is not about the medical field, why is it called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”? From the Dictionary app on my Mac:
        3 (humanities) learning or literature concerned with human culture, especially literature, history, art, music, and philosophy.
        The class title is word salad, and none of it indicates any connection to AGW. None of this makes sense. Is it a joke?

      • I would tell you surely that you should not question the existence of plant spirits.
        Especially the spirits from barley, hops, corn, grapes, or (if in the carribean) sugar plants.

    • I could agree to a point. If they said “this class is not about debating climate change, we will not get sidetracked” then that would be more than acceptable. I had at least one class back in college that said flat out that they would not discuss abortion, as it’s another topic that subsumes everything.
      However, they crush down on this harder than anything I’ve seen. Even anti-vaccine enthusiasts get a lighter treatment. The only thing I’ve heard that’s close is the moon-hoax group (the Flat Earth society would probably get that too if they were real instead of a bunch of trolls). It’s like they truly believe there is no debate on any aspect of the matter.

  17. If Scary Hillary gets in and has all the Supreme Court justices on her side this will become the norm. The once great US is crumbling before our eyes and China is laughing all the way to the bank. It is also happening in Canada with Trudeau 2.0 in office, the master of political fluff.
    Where will we be in 5, 10 years, the outlook is scary.
    About the only hint of hope is the political turn around in England hopefully will expand.

    • China has plenty of termites eating away at their economy. They too live in an imaginary universe.
      State owned enterprises is one example. These have been called Zombie businesses because they crank out products no one will ever buy. These can’t be shut down because millions will become unemployed, breaking the promise made by the current regime.
      The building boom left China with entire cities with no inhabitants.

    • The end is near and Hillary picked the bad ones on there now from her first unofficial presidency.

      • john,
        That video led me to this one. I couldn’t really believe the shot at the very beginning wasn’t just a clip that was edited and re-played a few times. But after watching the people in the background, it’s clear that it’s an unedited video.
        Just watching the first ten seconds was a real shocker. No wonder it went viral—more than 3,700,000 views. I really wonder now if she can make it to the finish line?

  18. They were laughed at in Grad school because they were “sub-par” now that they have a little authority they become control freaks. Think? Or the can’t think for themselves. Think/ or no think?

  19. So the academic union gives you the power to harm others now. That’s a new twist on justification of academic freedom.

  20. Colleges – the absence of learning. Instead it is filled with ignorant opinionated professors, safe spaces and tender feelings.
    What a waste of money.

  21. Science philosopher Stephen Meyer reviews the letter and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Robert J. Zimmer, President of the University of Chicago: “Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education.” Zimmer states:

    One word summarizes the process by which universities impart these skills: questioning. Productive and informed questioning involves challenging assumptions, arguments and conclusions. It calls for multiple and diverse perspectives and listening to the views of others. It requires understanding the power and limitations of arguments. More fundamentally, the process of questioning demands an ability to rethink one’s own assumptions, often the most difficult task of all.
    Essential to this process is an environment that promotes free expression and the open exchange of ideas, ensuring that difficult questions are asked and that diverse and challenging perspectives are considered. This underscores the importance of diversity among students, faculty and visitors–diversity of background, belief and experience. Without this, students’ experience becomes a weak imitation of a true education, and the value of that education is seriously diminished. …
    Some assert that universities should be refuges from intellectual discomfort and that their own discomfort with conflicting and challenging views should override the value of free and open discourse.
    We have seen efforts to suppress discussion of Charles Darwin’s work, to insist upon particular political perspectives during the McCarthy era, to impose exclusionary acts of racial and religious discrimination, and to demand compliance with various forms of “moral” behavior.
    The silencing being advocated today is equally problematic. Every attempt to legitimize silencing creates justification for others to restrain speech that they do not like in the future. . . .

    [Emphasis added.]
    Zimmer’s letter follows a report generated by a specially-organized university group on freedom of expression.

    r, a student organization invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from critics both on and off campus. To those who condemned the University for allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . .should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.” He insisted that the “cure” for ideas we oppose “lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they cease to be universities. . . .
    President Hanna Holborn Gray observed that “education should not be intended to make people comfortable, it is meant to make them think. Universities should be expected to provide the conditions within which hard thought, and therefore strong disagreement, independent judgment, and the questioning of stubborn assumptions, can flourish in an environment of the greatest freedom.”

    Similarly Os Guiness advocated: The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It

  22. Have heart. Poor professors know very little about climate change. They will not debate it because they can not debate it. What good would it do to anybody?
    Notice this is a Humanities course. Actually a great introduction to Humanities. Very human.

  23. A warmunist catechism class. An elective brainwashing class. Taught by the equivalent of warmunist nuns. What a waste of college tuition dollars.

  24. As with most articles on climate change, its ok to stop reading when you get to “model”. In this case, stop reading when you get to “sociology professor”.
    BTW, as a Canadian, I love America. But I’m just asking as a friend: is it entirely possibly that you have too many universities? Or is it a case that you simply don’t have enough qualified professors?
    Or is it a case that they’ve changed the meaning of “qualified”?

      • Imagine what those early cooks might think of the souffle that pops out of this academic’s oven, er, mind. I expect they’d find it inedible, even unrecognizable.

  25. A large percentage of colleges and universities have decided that since they reside within the borders of the USA, they have the freedom and liberty to teach nonsense.

  26. “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” That does not say “science” in anyway. It’s a philosophy, SJW class where actual thought is discouraged in most cases. They are not teaching climate science, they’re preaching social justice. My hope is only the SJW’s suffering from the affliction shown in the cartoon in this blog post take the class. The brighter students hopefully opt out.

      • Is it any wonder why today’s university graduates cant find jobs? Employers do look at transcripts.
        And students go into debt to take these kinds of courses.

  27. I doubt that these yokels even know where that 97% claim came from or what exactly it’s about. Even assuming it was accurately tabulated, it simply was the number of scientists (not climatologists, as I remember) who claim that humans are causing SOME of the global warming, a long way away from claiming humans are the only ones responsible. Of course, we know that the “opinions” were simply estimates by a bunch of undergrads as to what authors of various climate related papers actually believed and are also based on papers that were written quite a while ago, before the contradictory evidence concerning the amount and source of global warming became known.Even if these estimates were correct, they can be considered invalid at this point in time.
    Obviously these scientifically illiterate professors are not capable of defending their false claims
    about global warming, and are hiding behind false claims of consensus.

  28. Extract from my letter to Professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren, and Eileen Skahill
    “Please address the advice on science by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynmann’s commencement address to Caltech 1974: Cargo Cult Science.

    “It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. . . .
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. . . .you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. . . . It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching—to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity.”

    “Compare John Christy’s Testimony to Congress Feb 2, 2016. Note especially how the mean of climate model predictions since 1979 are running 300% to hot compared to the average of satellite and balloon temperature measurements.”

    • Perhaps they just left off “Marijuana” after “Medical” to keep the Feds from catching on.

    • The course they are qualified to teach-lecture on:
      Altered mental states through natural pharmacologic agents and their preparation

  29. Once upon a time, colleges were places were the debating of opposing ideas was the ideal.
    Then the leftists took over.

  30. While I agree the professors have academic freedom to set their “point of departure” for discussion in their classes, my thoughts turn to what the hell can be the desired learning outcome from a course titled, “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”?
    What junk! And those kids are being told to take out loans to pay for worthless crap indoctrination,. No critical thinking allowed.
    And taught by a trio of witches who (1) likes yeast biofuels (EtOH beverages), (2) collectong old English recipes (eye of newt, wing of bat), and (3) indigenous ways of knowing the real world (peyote anyone)?
    I found their picture online:
    If that’s not them, it’s a dead ringer of them.

    • From my favorite Dr Who/Shakespeare episode! Good job! Must be an easy ‘A’ class because if my kid was thinking of taking it, I’d withhold funds.

    • “While I agree the professors have academic freedom to set their “point of departure” for discussion in their classes, my thoughts turn to what the hell can be the desired learning outcome from a course titled, “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age”?”
      The professors are teaching a class that everyone will suspect is a kind of joke that should be taken to get an easy A.
      The professors do have the academic freedom to set their point of departure. They don’t have the academic freedom to select what is or isn’t a fact. In a class, they should not try to teach anything that they can’t defend. They may assume that certain information has already been taught. They can choose to discuss certain subjects and not discuss others. However, if they bring up climate change and try to teach students something that is false, then they open themselves to debate – like it or not. Instructors should always avoid teaching subjects and lecturing on topics that they don’t understand. Those who don’t deserve to be challenged.

      • The problem of course is the null hypothesis? And then can the null hypothesis be rejected based on evidence.
        The Progressive with a Climate Change orthodoxy-belief system to defend has a deep abiding need to position CAGW-climate change hypothesis as the null hypothesis which can’t be falsified since it always posits distant future events.
        When their humanities class begins with a psuedoscience bent, no amount of science fact can put the broken egg back together as it was from their “point of departure.”

  31. Universities are rapidly migrating away from the mission of providing an education and towards the mission of providing baby-sitting service for hypersensitive, unemployable wealthy children.

  32. I notice Skahill focuses on “…indigenous ways of knowing the natural world,”. Does that include using slit trenches to dump human waste and then move on? Burn wood for primary heating and cooking and illumination? The primary reason that indigenous peoples had a light impact on the natural world was that there were so few of them, they died quickly, and had few offspring that survived.
    Try putting 300 million people in the US using native american sanitation and native american energy production, and native american medicine and see how “natural” the “world” would look and smell. I get really tired of this refusal to seek real answers to problems, and instead create yet another safe space where they can ignore reality and feel good about themselves while doing it.

    • Yes, sure, but to be fair, on the plus side is Native American Costumery. We’ll all look picturesque and noble while starving to death.

    • no. It is a study in altered mental states produced from natural hallucinogens, esp. peyote, marijuana, psilocybin.

  33. At Penn State in the 80s I was in several classes with a doctorate student in Genetics/Evolution who turned out to be a Creationist. Brilliant guy too. Learned everything there was to know in both “disciplines”.

  34. Discussion of man-made global warming is virtually forbidden throughout institutions of all kind in the UK , so this post comes as no surprise to anyone in Britain.

    • Andrew, that’s a bit ambiguous. Do you mean debate is forbidden, i.e. AGW is de facto concensus?

      • more or less. The tv stations (notably the BBC – a virtually monopoly supplier of info in the UK) won’t allow any sceptics to speak on the subject. Nor will universities etc. Some newspapers occasionally print sceptic comments, but only at an infantile level (such as “it’s a bit cold today – so much for global warming)
        The internet and books by sceptics are the only outlets for sceptic comments in the UK.

  35. students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states.
    That’s hilarious. One of the best tactics to take with alarmists is to quote directly from the IPCC reports which themselves contradict most of the alarm. If I were to take this course, I could tie them in knots simply by quoting from their own approved source.

    • There is also the point , which may increase the contradictions that you refer to , that the latest IPCC reports were issued in 2013 (climate science aspects) and 2014 ( impacts, adaption and vulnerability) , and new papers are coming in since then at the rate of , what ? , scores per month .
      What kind of university , what breed of teacher, discourages looking at new work . I wonder what paroxysms of rage would result if an incautious pupil brought up the following news snippet noticed on “notrickszone”:
      “Dominating Factor”…Leading Warmist Climatologist Concedes Natural Oceanic Cycles Directly Related To Troposphere Temperature
      By P Gosselin on 31. August 2016
      Renowned climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif used to often appears on television, radio and speeches all over Germany to spread the word of an impending human-made climate catastrophe.
      (Hat-tip Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt)
      One of the highlights of Latif’s many appearances was the CO2 “fingerprint” in the atmosphere, which according to Latif is supposed to confirm the greenhouse effect. Up in the stratosphere it is supposed to cool because heat would be trapped by CO2 in the troposphere below. This of course always impressed his gullible audiences.
      Profound reversal. However, it now appears that the distinguished German scientist is now changing his mind profoundly. In a recent press release he and his fellow co-scientists in Kiel, Germany, conceded that the cooling is likely more a part of the 60-year PDO ocean cycle.

      • As soon as the word “troposphere” was uttered, these three so-called sociologists’ eyes would glaze over, and you would be silenced, if not dismissed, for “obfuscation” and “sophistry”. Because “98%”.

  36. Alums of a certain age start getting regular requests from their schools to leave them $$ in our wills.
    If my schools support nonsense like this, I just tell them to go pound sand. And I tell them why.
    Mizzou alums have done that, and the school is now reeling, economically and by reputation. Let’s hope it’s a trend.

  37. A similar situation?
    Decades ago in a university evolution course, on the first day the prof made an announcement that he recognized that there may be students present who might not believe in evolution. Still, he expected all students to answer the examinations using the information as taught in the class. If it made the students feel better, they were permitted to write the simple statement at the top of the exam words to the effect, “I do not believe in evolution, etc.” But then answer all the evolution questions as taught.

  38. So back in the 1970’s I was forced to take a class on religion at my undergrad school, because it was a southern liberal arts school. Interestingly, the professor said on the first day that he didn’t expect you to believe the material, but you had to remember it obviously to get a passing grade! Many religions were discussed in the class.
    This seems a little like that. Learn the material that is not open to theological debate. Climate science as religion!

  39. I propose to teach a course on the effects on the weather of witchcraft. If you do not accept that witches exist and can affect the weather, please do not take this course.
    /Mr Lynn

  40. There are a lot of things wrong with our college education today. One of those things is that we push students into college who would be far more productive and probably far happier if they were taught
    a manual skill. Instead our education system treats skilled labor with contempt and we end up bringing craftsmen (craftspeople?) in from overseas.
    Then we put some people into college with limited learning ability and dumb down the courses for them.
    Then we graduate more people than there are jobs available and saddle many of those people with terrible debt.
    Can we start a trend to teach masonry, carpentry, plumbing, electrical skills, etc in our middle and high schools and treat those who succeed in those fields with respect?

    • Gee, AllanJ…
      “Can we start a trend to teach masonry, carpentry, plumbing, electrical skills, etc in our middle and high schools and treat those who succeed in those fields with respect?”
      …that sounds like my old local Township school of the ’60s. They did have an academic track for people with the intellect to handle college level coursework as well as the trades track. I know fellow classmates that took the standard general educational track that learned more than most college graduates of today have learned. What is now college was high school stuff back when.
      I guess it’s Back to The Future.

  41. Eileen Skahill … Sociology of climate change … environmental and social justice movements …

    I remember the beginnings of political correctness and things have gotten much much worse. We are now in the era of trigger warnings and micro-aggression. Literally anything can result in a complaint and the gormless university administration will never support the professor. In fact, because of kafkatrapping, guilt is the only possible verdict.
    Imagine my joy as I discover that things are turning around.
    The University of Chicago has canceled trigger warnings and intellectual safe spaces.

    Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own. link

    The University of Windsor (in Canada) has canceled its Social Justice program.

    University of Windsor closing Centre for Studies in Social Justice link … Women’s studies has been in particular decline, recently cancelled entirely at Guelph, …

    If the link is to be believed, Professor Gad Saad (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada) has been able to say the following without getting fired:

    Life is a trigger warning if you’ve got a functioning brain, you’re going to be exposed to certain unpleasant realities, get over it. link

    • Professors Ms. Yeast Engineer, Ms. Shakespeare, and Ms. Social Justice Warrior can all go to hell. Actually now I think of it, anyone who wants to discuss climate change in their pointless little sparrowfart course is probably already on-board with the hysteria AND has their placards painted up for the next student debt-forgiveness protest march.
      That said Bob, the three snippets you posted gave me hope, thanks for that.

    • Personally, I am offended by the implication that I, as a female student, cannot survive university without a special lounge. Women have outnumbered men at universities (overall) for decades. If anything, men need a man cave. They are a minority!!!
      Those stupid centers are blackholes of waste that suck money from real collegiate needs.

      • Don’t forget, the only folks not part of diversity are white straight males. We were excommunicated for having in- considerately and with malice aforethought created the Age of Enlightenment, the scientific method, the industrial revolution, the technological revolution… as an effrontery to everyone else.

    • Bob,
      I agree. Maybe things are turning around. I just hope it’s not too late. It’s a shame academia has to reach the point of total absurdity before a small flicker of common sense starts to take root. I just hope that letter John Ellison, the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago sent out last week was the result of that flicker rather than in response to letters of complaint from alumni and parents. It does make you wonder how so many supposedly intelligent people can fall so far down the rabbit hole before realization strikes.

  42. Private funding sponsors a visiting “Conservative Thought and Policy” scholars program at C.U. with a new appointee each year.
    The first visiting Scholar in CT&P was Steven Hayward (2013-14). He taught Constitutional Law 1 and 2 plus a course in American Political Thought — and one in environmental studies, called Free-Market Environmentalism. I listened to an interview with him shortly after he finished his tour of duty, and it seemed pretty apparent that he had not only held his own with students, using wit and humor, but was a fairly popular, if anomalous presence among students on campus. Among professors, I suspect he was just a token gadfly.
    The program continues, bringing one conservative scholar each year.

  43. Since Rebecca Laroche’s area of expertise is texts from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (the age of Shakespeare), and she is involved in recipies/cooking, I sent her this email:
    Hello Rebecca Laroche,
    Since this is the area of your expertise, I thought you might be interested in this short video/lecture by Dr. Baliunas covering the same period of your studies:

    Best Regards,
    J Philip Peterson

      • good on you;-)
        my jaw dropped when shakespeare and cooking manages to get some dipstick a job teaching under Medical Humanities
        which itself has me wondering why? a course like this CAN get funded and taught

    • Very nice post.
      These examples of society punishing those who deviate from group think are fascinating. Similarly the Soviet Union was known to put those who objected to Communism into Mental Hospitals. I believe (not my specialty) that excommunication was more often used to punish evil thought than evil deeds.
      Group think is honored as much today as ever. That is strange in an era which worships “diversity”.

  44. If these professors had been around in the Middle Ages, we’d still be believing that the earth is flat. Where has rigorous science, skepticism and debate gone in our academia? I once had a professor who love to have people in his class disagree with him because he loved the stimulation of the exchange of thoughts and ideas. Shameful and quite sad.

    • Most people only shut down debate when they are not confident in their own knowledge or belief. Contrary facts and opinions are not permitted. Deep thought is something to be feared.

  45. Ok, so let’s start with the premise that it’s manmade and real. Can students contest the point that it’s a huge problem? Or that’s is not as rapide as told? That sentitivity is lower? Less hurricanes? Beneficial is some ways? That islands are not sinking? When you accept GW, what do you accept really?

    • Exactly. There seems to be an ON/Off switch, whereby if it is real and in part anthropogenic, it is a crisis. I am a 97%er, I just feel the magnitude of the anthropogenic portion is small, closer to an academic curiosity than a problem.

  46. Hillary would probably like to make one of these professors Secretary of Education. Hopefully she won’t get the opportunity.

  47. More importantly than any of these concerns, how do I get a job that pays me to collect recipes?

      • Steve, Steve, Steve,
        Her job was to collect recipes, not to invent recipes, nor to use them in making culinary dishes. All she does is collect them, which certainly does not require any kind of training or education.

  48. It is totally bizarre that the trio find it necessary to issue a taboo against climate skeptics. It may be an untestable premise, but I’ll lay odds that such a ham-handed declaration actually propels more students to consider opposing points of view. The good news is that there are must be enough doubters out there that these nitwits have to deal a preemptive strike to keep them at bay.

  49. This is interesting. I’m a student at UCCS (my major will go unstated but its not in these departments) I always assumed that UCCS was a pretty conservative school since we have a large student libertarian and republican contingent. I haven’t had any of these professors so I cant comment on their character. I will say that when I took Geology from the GES (geology and environmental studies) department that there was a strong pressure to conform to the consensus but alternative viewpoints were allowed in a post class anonymous survey. The “sustainability office” does have quit a bit of pull in school affairs and managed to get bottled water banned from sale on campus which is annoying for people who forget water bottles sometimes. I never expected to wake up to two of my daily reads talking about my school. I find many of my peers to be intelligent critical thinkers that simply keep their opinions to themselves. You get all types too since enrollment has been increasing substantially these past years. Maybe UCCS should consider solving its parking problems before telling its students what to think. Just my two cents.

    • “I find many of my peers to be intelligent critical thinkers that simply keep their opinions to themselves.”
      Think of how much better the education experience would be if everyone were permitted, even encouraged to express and debate their opinions.

      • I only now do recall getting talked down to by a physics professor for expressing a dissenting opinion on global warming when I first started taking classes. At the time my peers said that I “shouldn’t question the professor.” It shocked me at first but I realized that its wise to know when to pick your battles. Like i said you do get all types though so there are some highly militant students (and teachers apparently if this and trumps visit to the campus have proved anything) but I find that Colorado springs is a strongly conservative town still. It does bother me that I should have to keep my views quiet and that i’m considered “fringe” for having them.

      • Contrary to popular belief not all of us millennials are lazy brainwashed socialists incapable of individual or critical thought though I cant fault anyone for thinking that way considering what makes the news. I found my skepticism at a pretty young ageand I have been reading this site and many other related sites since.

    • The politics of Colorado Springs in general are overwhelmingly conservative/libertarian, and UCCS is still a mostly commuter school. As a result, your assessment is is not a surprise. The engineering department is certainly not about safe spaces, I can guarantee.

  50. This must be how IPCC meetings start as well.
    “The point of departure for this meeting is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be considered or discussed in this meeting.”

  51. It’s nice to see that freedom of speech is alive and well at Colorado as is the desire for free and open discussion.

  52. It is not as bad as the course on the poetic of Beyonce, but it is bad. The real question is why do the taxpayers have to pay the salaries of these ninnies, and subsidize the dissemination of what is apparently very thinly disguised political propaganda. It is about time to start defunding some of these places.

  53. What the heck does “medical humanities in the digital age” have to do with climate change? OK, I got my degree a few years ago now, but it is only 10-15 years since I left academia and I can’t for the life of me remember such stupid titles for course – let alone titles quite so unrelated to the subject matter that the professors feel the need to prescribe what opinions will be valid for students who take the course?
    In reading the research fields of the professors I still have no idea what they are doing running a course with this title.
    Can someone tell me if this is what all US colleges are like these days?

    • OK, managed to find the course description and there is nothing to do with climate change mentioned. Quite why the professors should have felt it necessary to write to a prospective student about this escapes me.
      The course itself looks pretty ridiculous to me (a mish-mash of alternative medicine, history of non-medical healing, on-line resources and modern social medical issues), but that is neither here nor there. I still don’t know why climate change is an issue for these professors?

    • Almost all colleges are in the business of collecting tuition and not just admitting students but retaining them. A few private universities, such as Harvard, have such huge endowments that they can guarantee that if you are admitted, you may attend, even if you need a full scholarship. In other cases, the retention business model has produced courses, programs, and entire degrees that are meant to get students in and keep them rather than teach and learn. This has caused many of the professors I worked with to question the ethics of “higher” education and many have taken retirement.
      There is virtually zero content in any program named ______ studies. Those are just ads for students. Had a student (i was his adviser) who majored in “leisure studies”. He then learned to become a butcher and works in grocery store.

    • I posted a comment on “Can someone tell me if this is what all US colleges are like these days”? but it seems to have gone into the bit bucket. Check back and maybe it will appear.

  54. So, (in the order in which tehy are listed above): the first is trying to figure out what ails her and how to get rid of it, the second still can’t figure out what’s for lunch, and the third just doesn’t have a clue… about much of anything.

  55. When the CU Alumni office comes begging for money, I urge everyone to refuse and point to this course description.

  56. Clearly they realize that their arguments in favour of CAGW will collapse under even basic questions from undergraduates. I think I agree with Scott McNealy – it’s time to eliminate tenure in universities.

  57. Wow, do I feel bad for Skahill what an unfortunate choice of specialization. No wonder she doesn’t want to debate. It would be like spitting on her career choice. I kind of feel for these folks that have devoted their lives to making the world a better place, but having such poor guidance along the way.
    They have no clue about the world.

  58. So they’ve just gotten more blatant about it. This crap has been going on for decades in our institutions of “higher learning “. “The debate is over” , “That’s hateful “, “You are a fill in the blank phobe” all mean the same thing. Lefty’s got no coherent counter perspective. Questions will not be tolerated even though they are the gatekeepers of tolerance. What a joke. Way to indoctrinate the next generation, jackasses.

  59. I’m tempted to sign up just so I can drop. Credeets? I don’t need yore steenkeen credeets!

  60. This forum thread is reminiscent of a Woody Allen movie in which someone suggests smoking research is fraudulent, and he can safely smoke.
    So we hear that the Science professor wishes to educate his class on the peer reviewed science,, and he’s not interested in junk science, non scientists who prefer to ‘debate’ instead of learn, and the musings of those with an anti-expert agenda. Sounds like a smart, no-nonsense guy to me, who has an interest in real scholarship,

  61. This is an outrage but people who oppose this indoctrination are not yet playing hardball. Jobs should require transcripts. Employers should look for this kind of bull and draw the proper conclusion depending on their own convictions.
    When they do they will either train, as some say, their own workers or automatically ask for transcripts, Political convictions of faculty and the character of the courses they teach can be surveyed by specialized firms who will sell or lease software containing lists of politically suspect courses at all known schools so suspicious cases can be flagged on transcripts. Students with too many suspicious courses can be excluded quietly and automatically.
    A serious question is to ask is how many need this course to graduate? If there is an alternative they should drop the course for it may and certainly should be held against them later. Signing up for this kind of course is strongly indicative of a definite lack of judgment.
    Students should take note of the possibility that one way or another they will ultimately be held accountable.

  62. “The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change”…..
    That’s reasonable.
    The three “professors” recognise that they are not qualified to debate the science…[ maybe]
    But they should have no place in a university, perhaps in a cooking school

    • I really think it could have been they held this course previously and had some nasty experiences with students that were aggressive and credible enough to make the professors look like dumbsters. Anyway, professor of English language or Sociology should have no reason to debate on AGW. It is not her profession.

  63. Don’t know if anyone actually read through the syllabus, but I graduated in the early 90s with a master’s degree (in geology) and never saw anything like this. most of my syllabuses (syllabi? not fluent in latin) were one to two pages at best, and were a general outline of the course and what texts were required. The syllabus for this course looks more like a road map and a cheat sheet.

  64. Would you book an appointment by the climate change clock?
    Note there is one scientist with a strongly vested interest, even though it might be need in centuries to come. The other 2 are sociology and English teachers. Marvelous credentials really.
    Will give them some credit though, they are upfront instead of slyly marking papers well down to fail sceptics.

  65. Why am I getting the impression that ‘nurturing’ women in droves are a burgeoning occlusion of rational objective thought and free speech in universities and a juggernaut of stormtroopers for marxbrothers’ new world order, nanny governance politics?
    With the gradual acquiescence and left shifting of the testosterone deficient right wing around the world, there is no doubt Donald Trump is the only one who can save the world from itself. Like a conservationist trying to save the Nile crocodile, while it is snapping at his ass, captures the nature of the problem.
    I was supportive of the women’s movement at one time being born to a smart woman and having a sister who was a true genius. But unfortunately most women, having remained activist and not maturing to their potential, have easily succumbed to the ‘safe places’ of Political Correctness and have easily slipped into the familiar role of nurturer which is ideal for exploitation and promotion of new world order neomarxytypes.
    I may have to wear a bullet proof vest if I keep this up!

  66. So – anti-vaxxers studying immunology? Young earth creationists on geology courses? anti-evolution beliefs and on an evolutionary biology course?
    There’s a line somewhere if you are going to embark on a course of study, surely?

    • I think this is rather in the sector where people are told to agree vaccination can’t have negative side effects, because 98% of doctors agree vaccinations are great.
      I do agree it is good to not let anti-vaxxers hijack a course, but to tell them there is nothing to debate is a convenient lie.

  67. I have just read this throughly enjoyable thread from beginning to end. Had a few laughs but I had more cries. The state of education is going down the tubes. In relation to any discussion regarding numerical proficiency by members of the left (an oxymoron, I realize) I just want to share my realization. They are not operating on the same scientific mathematical premises that we older folk learned. They have in fact created their own set of mathematics based on an al gore rhythm of their own making. So, of course, none of their models, projections or conclusions make any sense to us.

  68. The truth about these harpies is that it would not matter a fig if a course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” – like most university courses, papers, theses etc – were to disappear from the face of the earth.
    Tertiary education has become a vast holding paddock for unemployed/unemployable youth. That’s the truth.

  69. Office hours of these People With Giant Brains:
    1) Wednesday 3:00 – 4:40
    2) Tuesdays 12:30-1:30, and 4:30 – 6:30
    3) Wednesdays 12:00 – 1:00
    Nice work if you can get it. 😉

  70. Here’s the online course “Medical Humanities in the Dark Age” of witch professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill

  71. The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring

    Human induced global warming is occurring (not sure if it is valid).
    If AGW is an important issue, is another question.

  72. The problem with gov’t funding and subsidy is that it prevents “creative destruction”, even among the deliverables of higher education. Why else would you have this magnitude of worthless degrees being bought and sold? When I used to work for the FAA I found that it was packed with non-STEM “graduates” that had zero aviation experience or even interest, but they were getting $70k-$90k per year and being dragged along by a bureaucracy where 1/3 of the employees actually know what they’re doing and do 99% of the work.

  73. I’m guessing but it seems
    someone, sometime must have schooled them about their “religion” .
    Hit them with some imperical evidence.of a safe, stable, welcoming, warmer climate.
    Told them paradise is warm and fossil-fueled; and Hell is cold.
    They won’t or better, cannot again bear that unholy sacrelige
    I hope this is true.

  74. That they are unable to debate a college freshman regarding the science of AGW states that AGW is a fraud and every bit scientific as phlogiston.

  75. Remember what intolerance looks like…
    “The economist William Beveridge had set up the Academic Assistance Council, with the aim of rescuing Jewish and politically vulnerable academics.
    It was an organisation that would help 1,500 academics escape Germany and continue their research work in safety in Britain.
    It was quickly backed by academics whose names now read like a row of text books – J B S Haldane, John Maynard Keynes, Ernest Rutherford, G M Trevelyan and the poet A E Housman.
    Albert Einstein supported this high-brow escape committee with a highly-charged speech in the Albert Hall in London in October 1933.”


  76. Don’t come to the University of Colorado to debate whether climate change is real. After all, UC has a climate change research center as well as intimate links to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is also in Boulder.
    If you want to debate climate change why not attend the University of Alabama which has several climate science deniers on its staff, who also are paid by various fossil fuel interests to try to poke holes in established climate science?
    [Mark Richardson is an academic himself from UC Denver, and perfectly capable of looking up the details on Dr’s Spencer and Christy himself, but seems too lazy to do so. Instead he regurgitates libelous statements he assumes to be true. Have a look at the latest story on Global Temperature from Dr. Christy here, and then look at Dr. Spencer defending the greenhouse effect here, and then come back and tell us again how sure you are of the hate based regurgitations you utter. Anthony Watts]

    • I’ll bite Mark and offer you and the true believers at UC Denver a scientific challenge right here and now to explain to this South Australian why he should be remotely concerned about your so called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from the geological evidence in his own back yard and the more recent data from Australia’s CSIRO. The quintessential proof of your CAGW theory lies in the melting of global ice and its satisfactory explanation of relative sea level movements.
      Firstly the CSIRO’s global estimate of 20th century sea level rise here-
      in particular-
      “We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2014. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose about 23 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century”
      And then that geological record from Hallet Cove-
      in particular-
      “During the Recent ice age about 20 000 years ago,
      sea level was about 130 metres lower than today
      and South Australia’s coastline was about 150
      kilometres south of where Victor Harbor now is.
      The ice cap started to melt about 15 000 years ago.
      Sea level began to rise and reached its present level
      about 6000–7000 years ago.”
      and to save you the arithmetic that can be an average rise of 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years or over ten times the average annual rise for last century.
      Was that 8000 year rise due to aboriginal cooking fires or their well documented burnoffs to flush out game, or are you denying that science?
      The podium is all yours and UC Denvers or any other of your esteemed institutional minds on the public or private payroll. I do not discriminate like some, as science is science, whoever pays the piper or whatever their qualifications.

    • You reckon you could get back to me on that this century Mark or not? If you’re all struggling a bit for ideas in the staff room mate, perhaps you could try the undergrads at UC Denver for a few thought bubbles on Twitter as they’re usually pretty good for altering their consciousness rather regularly.
      Speaking of space cadets and extraterrestrial time lords, Stanford’s where it’s all at nowadays so you lot really do need to lift your game if you’re going to keep up in the ferociously competitive warmenista Olympics for mental gymnastics and synchronised drowning-

      • Yes Terry, sarcasm is wasted on them but you never know the odd one might get a guilty conscience and turn whistleblower like Climategate. They can obfuscate and refuse to answer the hard questions for some considerable time, but in the long run they won’t be able to hide from the abject failure of their policy prescriptions, as that must front real science not political séance, as South Australia’s Treasurer is rapidly finding.

    • “Don’t come to the University of Colorado to debate whether climate change is real. After all, UC has a climate change research center as well as intimate links to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is also in Boulder.”
      And there’s no hiding behind cosy clubs and Payola Review nowadays and what Eisenhower warned us about when you’re on the public teat either Mark, so don’t get all high and mighty about fossil interests or any other-
      Put up your science or shutup.

  77. These profs are stupid, no doubt. But surely as faculty they have an obligation to design the curriculum for their class. They don’t want to spend class time debating global warming. That’s fine–there is no reason why every class has to be devoted to that debate.
    Theology schools insist that students accept the core tenets of their faith. These profs are asking for the same courtesy. I can’t fault them.
    The class is not required. I certainly wouldn’t register for it, nor would I advise anybody else to. But there’s nothing wrong with it.

  78. Profs. Haggren, Laroche and Sakhill have proven themselves to be ignorant of or dismissive of the
    philosophy of science. Under this philosophy, the claims of models are falsifiable
    else they are not “scientific.” The claims of today’s climate models are not falsifiable
    thus are not “scientific” claims. Haggren et al are teaching dogma.

  79. The title of this course is knowingly misleading. The course isn’t a medical class. It also isn’t a humanities class. And it isn’t a science class. The title is a complete fraud. It should be described as a global warming propaganda class.

    • “… it isn’t a science class.”
      “It should be described as a global warming propaganda class.”
      I perfectly agree! That’s why this “class” has no justification in an institution of higher education in the first place. But on the other other hand – it’s based on the “premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring” and I think the professors have every right to ban students who disagree to that premise.
      I once had the bad luck to lecture a class on the bio physics of genetics with an flat earther attending who tried to turn the class into a debate about evolution every single time. -> A class is no kindergarden – You don’t like it, go some place else!

  80. Obama is “PARK ” making mode… this week Midway Atoll . How about next week the entire State of Colorado . OK minus COORs . Got to leave alcohol for all the unemployed and a place for tent cities .
    Why are Americans so determined to wreck their economy ?

  81. Research into Shakespearean age recipes is something that should be done over tea and dainties at mothers mornings?
    Too many cuckoos in the cosy nests of academia?

  82. Perhaps someone here can help me regarding the alleged debate about AGW. Years ago, I read a story about a formal debate that actually occurred between scientists. Audience polls were taken pre- and post- debate, with the result being that the skeptics had the more convincing arguments. The warmist scientists then proclaimed that they would never engage in such a debate again.
    Can anyone here point me to information about this?

Comments are closed.