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:
Good luck looking for a “safe space” on the internet.
Or is that where things are heading ?
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.
I’m tempted to sign up just so I can drop. Credeets? I don’t need yore steenkeen credeets!
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,
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.
“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
+ a bunch.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Personally I’ve given up trying to understand the space invaders but if you fancy a challenge I’ll leave you with this sublime ‘jugstaposition’ of news items-
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/david-morrison-to-mentor-geocon-boss-in-wake-of-work-site-nudity-scandal-20160829-gr3k5s.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/28/topless-protesters-womens-rights-new-york-city
Silly of me but you’ll need some context with David Morrison-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/david-morrison-wants-australians-to-stop-saying-'guys'/7465824
It’s how we send in the troops to sort out these international threats to world peace nowadays. You gotta admit ISIS could die laughing.
Anyhoo to get back to the to the topic at hand these perfessers and their courses are sooooooooo yesterdays
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/12-ways-humanity-could-destroy-the-entire-solar-system/ar-AAiheEl?li=AA5249&ocid=spartandhp
Do keep up doomsdayers.
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.
Seems like the debate is to be shut down in Irish primary schools too. I am surprised that the book debated the subject given it was just published 4 years ago.
An Taisce are loo-la enviro nuts that object to any development in Ireland and are basically neo-luddites.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0831/813281-an-taisce-global-warming-primary-school/
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.
You gotta keep a sense of humour as there’s no rational alternative with these people-
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mad+as+hell+not+gunna+take+it+anymore&&view=detail&mid=7A62EF71D26716220D917A62EF71D26716220D91&rvsmid=7A62EF71D26716220D917A62EF71D26716220D91&fsscr=0&FORM=VDMCNL
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.
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. 😉
/snark
Mod, I think it is not good to call for this.
Here’s the online course “Medical Humanities in the Dark Age” of witch professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill
Human induced global warming is occurring (not sure if it is valid).
If AGW is an important issue, is another question.
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.
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.
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.
That school was not on our search list, but I’ll make sure it stays off.
Remember what intolerance looks like…
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23261289
“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.”
…
and
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/?page=2
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]
Typical warmista. Only those scientists who agree with us are legitimate.
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-
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
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-
http://www.sa.gsa.org.au/Brochures/HallettCoveBrochure.pdf
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.
It’s not ‘hate’, Mr Watts. It’s fact.
James Ardmore – then back it up with facts, or kindly STFU. Clearly you have nothing or you would have posted it.
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-
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/co2-causes-cold-hot-east-west-split-climate-change-in-the-usa/
Take your time Mark and Co. I understand perfectly in this day and age of Eisenhower’s warning to us all about Gummint funding of science that you’d want to check over any data, methodology and pal review process very carefully nowadays-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/03/two-hundred-million-dollar-scientific-grant-fraud-case/
and not take the chance-
https://web.archive.org/web/20160903230117/https://www.duke.edu/
observa:
We are faced with Gummint funding of pseudoscience.
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-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nobel-prize-judges-fired-amid-row-over-windpipe-surgeon-paolo-macchiarini-a7228311.html
Put up your science or shutup.
observa:
In other words, the U of C has sacrificed its honor for the sake of expediency. Amen.
Yeast infection.
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.
Dan King:
In this case, the professors are representing the philosophical basis for the curriculum of the course to be scientific. This it is not.