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: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Colleges – the absence of learning. Instead it is filled with ignorant opinionated professors, safe spaces and tender feelings.
What a waste of money.
Why would anyone take such a useless nothing course anyway? Oh, I know. An easy A.
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:
[Emphasis added.]
Zimmer’s letter follows a report generated by a specially-organized university group on freedom of expression.
Similarly Os Guiness advocated: The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It
When do they receive their teaching award at the White House?
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.
A warmunist catechism class. An elective brainwashing class. Taught by the equivalent of warmunist nuns. What a waste of college tuition dollars.
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”?
“Research is in early modern recipe collections.”
And presumably getting paid for it!
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.
===========
Undoubtedly her Early english recipes:
– potions
– elixirs
– incantations and spells.
This is why universities are great centers of learning. Students enter with a little intelligence and leave with none.
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.
“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.
What are “Medical Humanities” anyway?
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.
Sociology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.
We will not, at any time, eat beans.
=================
That’s nice of you. We don’t need another Blazing Saddles scene.
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.
“Consensus” has no place in science, consensus only plays a role in politics and mobs.”
Andy May
@ur momisugly Stephen Heins
Don’t forget religion.
Ian M
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.
“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.”
How are any of these three qualified to discuss “Medical” Humanities?
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
Once upon a time, colleges were places were the debating of opposing ideas was the ideal.
Then the leftists took over.
On a slightly related note, I passed this sign recently. I had to smile. http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll169/Hasselblad500CM/SAM_0117s_zpszd9igae7.jpg
Thanks, I nicked that for wide distribution.
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.
MACBETH
How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags!
What is’t you do?
ALL
A deed without a name.
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.
These guys?
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.99185!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_1200/gal-clash-titans-stygian-witches-jpg.jpg
“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.”
CU Boulder is my alma mater. UCCS has gotten an ear full from me & then some plus a link.
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.
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.
Let no one ever mistake academia as a place for the open-minded.
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”.
Atheists would do well to read the bible rather than garner their understanding from HuffPo.
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?
… consensus? (20th century web hosting.)
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.
These people are free to take all the rope they need…
They’re already consuming plenty of hemp. Part of the “native way of knowing” you see.