Climate Advocate Ship of Fools University Bans Teaching Potentially Offensive Facts

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JaneHM – the University of New South Wales, the home university of Chris Turney, leader of the Ship of Fools expedition which got stuck in the Antarctic ice, has just forbidden lecturers from teaching anthropological historical facts which might offend Australia’s indigenous community.

University bans ‘inappropriate’ scientific data about the arrival of humans in Australia because it is offensive to Aboriginals who believe they have been here ‘forever’

  • UNSW lecturers told to not teach date Indigenous people arrived in Australia 
  • The language guidelines were sent out staff and approved by a working group 
  • Told more appropriate is that Indigenous Australians here ‘since the Dreaming’ 

Science lecturers at the University of New South Wales have been told to stop telling students that Indigenous people’s arrived in Australia 40,000 years ago.

In a letter sent to staff the lecturers were told that it is ‘inappropriate’ to teach dates and they should say Aboriginals have been here ‘since the beginning of the Dreamings’ because that is what indigenous people believe. 

A set of classroom guidelines were circulated in the science faculty this month which alerted the scientists to the existing language advice, according to The Weekend Australian

The guidelines say teaching a date for the arrival of Indigenous people ‘tends to lend support to migration theories and anthropological assumptions.’ 

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7194759/University-staff-tell-students-Indigenous-people-Australia-dreamings.html

Maybe we’ve all been unfair to Chris Turney.

Perhaps Turney got into trouble, because he was never taught that Antarctic pack ice can be dangerous to ships, because learning there is lots of floating ice around Antarctica would upset climate activists, who are utterly convinced it has all melted away.

186 thoughts on “Climate Advocate Ship of Fools University Bans Teaching Potentially Offensive Facts

  1. Meanwhile, Guadalajara in Mexico is buried in ice 1.5 metres thick after an extraordinary hailstorm. This from the BBC:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48821306

    One of the local officials is quoted as blaming it on “climate change”. Of course, what he means is ‘global warming’ because that is what people actually mean when they talk about this issue. But when your townsfolk are shivering in the street and trying to get their kids to school over a yard of ice, the phrase ‘global warming’ sticks in the draw.

    WUWT ran a story a few years back about cattle in South America (Argentina from memory) being frozen to death in an unprecedented ice storm.

    The official is right, though. As the interglacial draws to its close, the climate is changing and incidents such as these will become more common. Although judging by this report (above) emerging from the increasingly slapstick landscape that was once proud Australian academia, the authorities will probably discourage the reporting of it. After all, we have to bear in mind the sensitivities of the warmist community…

    • Yes John. I also had to laugh loudly at this:

      “”
      State governor Enrique Alfaro described it as incredible, according to AFP.

      “Then we ask ourselves if climate change is real. These are never-before-seen natural phenomena,” he said.
      “”

      He admits that climate change is natural. He is either not long in his line of work or not long it 🙂

        • Sounds like a natural phenomena that has never happened before! Well we have to start somewhere – but lets make it somewhere else.

      • How does he know it was never seen before? And, just because no humans were around to see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    • “The official is right, though. As the interglacial draws to its close, the climate is changing and incidents such as these will become more common. ”

      This is weather.
      By definition.
      Climate refers to 30 year averages of weather conditions.
      Climate change refers to changes in the 30 year averages.
      Hailstorms are categorically not climate.
      They are not climate change.
      Implying a hailstorm happened because “the interglacial draws to a close” is as wrong as saying it is due to CO2

      A hailstorm, like every storm, is a weather event.
      It is not and never will be climate.
      It has nothing to do with global warming, and climate change is a deliberate misdirection and obfuscation.
      Hailstorms are not climate change, and the official is not right.

      Just wanted to make sure at least one person called out that malarkey.

      • Thanks — same argument I’ve been making that the mathematical term “climate” has been & continues to be grossly abused (marxists love to word-smith). Weather is the only thing that’s real & can be experienced. Since weather changes constantly, “weather change” would not be an effective propaganda phrase.

        • I have not, as of yet, traveled the globe as much as I have wanted; I have only been off the North American continent twice; Hawai’i and London, UK. I have, however, lived in 11 States of the United States from Georgia to Massachusetts along Atlantic coast, the mid-west, Oregon and Washington. Traveled the nearly entire state of California for business and recreation. I have been to all but two States of the Union through all seasons.

          I can reasonably state that at no time has winter weather or summer weather has been outside of its natural variably. I have been doing this traveling, moving, since the age of 21 which is nearly 30 years. I always ask whomever is arguing that the climate is changing catastrophically please show me where. What I have noticed is how much more green the places of the planet I have traveled to, left and, returned.

          I also ask if they actually know what the average planetary temperature is per NOAA/NASA. (It is a dubious and practically useless number).

          Locally based environmental damage is NOT the same thing as climate change; it used to be only the layperson activist that was emotionally incapable of separating the two.

          ****
          The University mentioned in this article is literally suggesting that we stop teaching 2+2=4. They actually state they want to suppress scientific data for emotional reasons. The degrees from this University going forward should be invalidated and any accreditation this University holds should be revoked.

          These “scientist” are now the old world Witch Hunters who had no moral or ethical problems burning innocent victims at the stake. We seem to be headed back to the dark ages.

  2. I love that they show that they think these people actually ARE lessor beings because they cannot upset the religious traditions of these people — though they would never extend the same courtesy to white Christians. I am an atheist and I do not think science should be politicized. Reality just is. These kinds of racist bigotry of implied emotional instability and stupidity makes me kind of sad and sick.

    • It’s common amongst the Left and was once described as the soft bigotry of low expectation. The blindness to Islamic exegesis would never be extended were Muslims white.

        • Arabs are Caucasian that’s people that were light skinned mixture of white and black whom were forced northward by the blacks from the Caucus Mountains in Africa. Needless to say, but, racism has been part of human nature for a very long time. Tribes were territorial like all animals and forced those weaker away. Even the tribes in Africa that are by blood related hate each other by cultural differences.

          • There is no such mountain range as the Caucus.
            There is one called the Caucasus, but it is no where near Africa.
            Those mountains are in Europe between the Black and Caspian Seas.
            Holy crap that may be one of the most fact free and offensively ignorant posts I have ever seen.

    • ‘These kinds of racist bigotry of implied emotional instability and stupidity makes me kind of sad and sick.’

      Perfectly highlighted by how selective they are about WHO they’re concerned about offending.

      And they practice bigotry at both ends of the spectrum – discrimination AND favoritism

      • “…because that is what indigenous people believe.”

        They believe it … all of them … every one of them. Indigenous groups throughout the world are all united in their respective & unwavering group-think.

        To interfere in any way with the emotional spirituality of their group-think would, of course, be racism.

        And by reasonable extension, to interfere with ANY emotionally led group-think (no matter how ridiculous), is akin to racism.

        … must be a racist.

        • I was once a missionary in an organization that did Bible translation for indigenous languages. I guess UNSW would have a fit with that; how dare we let indigenous people hear about a religious view that conflicts with the one they have! (If you read the gospels, it’s clear that offending someone’s beliefs was not on Jesus’ list of sins.)

  3. Well, if I were a lecturer, I’d be in trouble within the week. No way am I going to tell “their” story, when we know what the real story is. They can just grow up.

    • Good point really. Its all a bit paternalistic in 2019. Its one thing to have cultural beliefs and legends it another to say to educated urban indigenous people (the real ones, not the benefit miners) that they cant handle the truth. Why is it OK then to teach historical and cultural continuity of societies when we have Moses , the great global wetness and all?

      • It has nothing to do with not offending the Abos , they are just the excuse for more totalitarian rules.

        Paternalistic, as in tyrannical father.

        At least the illiberal liberals are showing their true colours now. Facts be damned, the truth is what we say it is. So do what we tell you.

          • When visiting Australia I was quietly admonished that such an epithet is considered an ethnic slur and derogatory.

          • I live in Australia, and I would never use that word. I’m not PC, but I go by the rule that you should never use a word about people that you would not say to their face. And if you said this to someone’s face you would end up in serious strife.

        • Wow! What happens if two people of differing religious background encounter a Paleo-Climatologist who says Adam is predated by hundreds of thousands of years?
          They might have to refer to Genesis, where the language goes “men of old…” but donot offend them.

    • “when we know what the real story is”? That’s a bit of a stretch when there is so much in the history of humanity which is still so obscure.

      In archaeology we can always say “the earliest evidence for people in this region is X”, but what no one can ever confidently say is: “there was no one before X”. You could argue that statistically it is unlikely that at any time much greater than X that there was anybody there. But as no one seems to know the right statistics to use I doubt statistics is much help.

      Indeed, there is a famous problem which I call the Dundee bus problem which I have harangued statisticians about for many years. If someone were cycling along each morning for a month and encountered buses 123, 321, 111,etc. and they were to assume that the buses had been numbered sequentially and that a random set could be seen, what is the best estimate of the highest numbered bus? I’ve had several suggestions of an answer from extremely capable statisticians … which I might accept, except they all seem to be different.

      • I’ve seen figures ranging from 120,000 years, and this article says 40,000. We might not know precisely when they arrived, but we do know that they did. And I’m sure a lecturer teaching the subject would know far more than I do. But teaching them their own legends is just silly. Why did they take such a course in the first place if they don’t want to learn?

      • Interesting question. Maybe you need to specify the conditions more precisely. Is there an implicit assumption that there are only three digits? What does “etc” mean? Does “etc” include anything more than the digits 1,2,3 ?

        In order to hope for a consistent answer you need to pose a well defined question.

        You are right, archaeologists make massive assumptions and tend to pretend it’s all certain science.

        The migration hypothesis is dogma like CAGW is and anything which does not fall in will be adapted so that it does.

        • You are right, archaeologists make massive assumptions and tend to pretend it’s all certain science.

          Yup, ….. and one shouldn’t pay much attention to archaeologists “dating” of human fossils and/or artifacts unless it is stated as: “first appears in the archaeological record at such n’ such a date”.

          They really can’t “date” the arrival of the Clovis Culture into North America simply because they didn’t bring the Clovis “point” knapping technology with them ….. and thus a small group of them could have been resident in North America for hundreds if not thousands of years while “inventing” that knapping technique.

          • Except that the Clovis point technique is extant in Europe too. Thus the quandary is: did they develop it independently or bring it with them, and if the latter than how did they get to the New World?

          • I was not aware that the Clovis point was ever found in Europe. Please cite a url link for that info.

            And if the Clovis point is extant in Europe, then for sure, they brought it with them, …… which is pretty much a proven fact as defined by this “Clovis Point Sites Map”.

            Just like the Europeans who landed on the East coast, … spread north and south, ….. and then migrated westward, …… so did the Clovis Culture.

        • That is what I was going to say.
          It never said there was a limit on the number of digits.
          There is no way to say much of anything about the highest number given the information that was supplied.

      • re. the Dundee bus problem

        It depends on how much data you have and how well the distribution of buses is random.

        In WW2, it was necessary to know how many German tanks there were. Since the Germans, being very methodical, gave the engine blocks sequential numbers, and since there were a lot of destroyed and captured German tanks, Allied statisticians were able to give reasonably accurate estimates of the number of German tanks of various types. link In fact, the statistical estimates were much much more accurate than what the spies were able to guess.

        • They were probably well aware of the risk but could not bring themselves to issue numbers which were out of order. Das ist nicht moeglich ! Das geht nicht !

      • 999 The buses are numbered sequentially, one bus per number(anything else is silly). “a random set could be seen” means no one is choosing which buses to use based on numbers.

        If you constrain the number of buses to a subset of 999 there is no way to predict which bus has the highest number, since it depends on the number of buses and which numbers are chosen to put on them.

        • The 3 digit Bus # could represent Route # (1 thru 9) and the individual busses (01 to 99)

      • “In archaeology we can always say “the earliest evidence for people in this region is X”, but what no one can ever confidently say is: “there was no one before X”. You could argue that statistically it is unlikely that at any time much greater than X that there was anybody there. But as no one seems to know the right statistics to use I doubt statistics is much help.”

        Well said. That’s one problem I have with scientific pronouncements. We can’t say anything for sure, for the most part, regarding things we can’t currently see and measure. The evidence won’t change, but our interpretation will, over time.

        • I recently watched or more precisely listened to a documentary, “Neanderthal Apocalypse”. While it was good and had current information too much it was delivered with a 2 + 2 = 4 mindset. No consideration or discussion by any of the lecturers within the documentary had the fortitude to say, “but our narrative of these facts maybe wrong.” It was presented as “settled”.

          The reality is while each of the facts individual are probably OK, we generally paint too broad a picture of whatever reality we are trying to reconstruct with a narrative that may have no basis in reality. It is not the those individual nature of each of the archaeological facts it is the narrative, the human interpretation.

          So much of our past (>20000 years) has been wiped cleaned by ices ages, volcanic activity and geological events, minor but less dramatic locally by smaller meteor strikes that I doubt we will ever obtain a complete picture.

          • You can add rising sea water to the list of things that have covered up archaeological evidence.

          • “You can add rising sea water to the list of things that have covered up archaeological evidence.”

            Rising and falling, and freezing and unfreezing, ad infinitum.

          • Yes, just like MarkW said, the sea level rise of 400+ feet is now covering up most of the evidence of early human habitation simply because the humans of yesteryears also preferred living near water (tidal zones, lakes, rivers)

  4. I am (almost) sorry to be an Australian.

    There should no longer be claims of ‘worst since …………..’ as the Earth and its climates have been here ‘forever’?

    • Plenty of dreaming going on here, in fact for the last X thousand years that’s all that’s been happening. (except of course breathing heavily down a hollow stick)

    • We won’t until the morons start suffering consequences, like having their classes disbanded or being fired for incompetence.

    • Oh no just when you think it could not get any sillier there is always just one more level they go.

    • Since human stupidity is infinite (well, at least more infinite that space) we can safely assume that we cannot predict a peak. 🙂
      PS. do not question what ‘more infinite’ means…we’re on a roll.
      How does one measure stupidity anyway? Mistakes pre minute? Speed at which they learn? Demonstrations of knowledge measure ignorance not intelligence?

  5. Myth becomes science?

    Well why not? That’s the way it’s been with “climate science” for decades now so they should be used to it.

  6. This is the kind of Radical Left wing Thought Police/Speech Police shit that set-off Dr Jordan Peterson’s open resistance to directed speech codes and his rise to rock-star level at Ottawa University.

    Dr Peterson openly resisted the calls for use of approved speech (for transgender students) that the Trudeau PC government thought it was gong to be okay to impose on Canadien universities.

    “(Dr. Jordan) Peterson first gained public attention when, in a series of YouTube presentations, he critiqued Canada’s Bill C-16 by which the federal government added gender expressions and gender identity to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. Peterson rightly sees this move as jeopardizing free speech and as a dangerous government encroachment on freedom of expression…”

    ref: https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2018/08/the-mod-jordan-b-peterson-a-sign-of-the-end-times/

    Is there a “Dr. Jordan Peterson” at UNSW? In Australia’s academia?

    This is the sort of thing that tests where one’s character lies for those anthropology professors at UNSW.

  7. Yet another example of free speech banned. Any opinion which offends must not be published – it is regarded as “hate-speech”. But an objective, sober opinion about any issue, any one person or any one group of persons must always be tolerated, irrespective of how many folks it “offends” – and it can never be hate-speech. The orators in Hyde Park are never prevented from speaking – but, and this is a very important but, they are not free to tell lies about anybody or anything. We have legislation to guard against this – and yes, at times it must be determined in a court of law whether a statement, a speech, is true or not. Words must be judged by one yardstick only, namely whether the meaning they convey is true in fact and in substance. I wish we here in Australasia had similar safeguards as the United States have in their first amendment.

    • It’s worse then that.
      The only speech that is banned is speech that offends a liberal, or an officially recognized minority group.
      You are free to insult all other groups as much as you want.

    • Why not close down universities and simply give everyone who applies a certificate of participation?

      That could potentially save some money, except for the administration. Besides, entrance qualifications, exams, tests, indeed classes for that matter, are all hateful and potentially offensive and upsetting, in addition to being racist, sexist, etc., etc.

      But first, close the libraries as burning books will not be tolerated because of carbon emissions.

      • What would all the academics who don’t have what it takes to survive in the real world do?

          • Indeed. In The Silver Chair (one of the Narnia Chronicles), a boarding school administrator who claims to have seen a lion (he did, Aslan) is forced to leave the school, under suspicion of being a little daft. “…the Head’s friends saw that the Head was no use as a Head, so they got her made an Inspector to interfere with other Heads. And when they found she wasn’t much good even at that, they got her into Parliament, where she lived happily ever after.”

      • It is probably the reason a lot of American Celebrities just paid the colleges directly to by-pass all the application processes.

        With all the virtue signaling, diversity causes in the western world university campuses why would a person with means not just pay to have their kids accepted to the university of their choice. I mean the only color most college administrators care about is Green; and that means two things. Truth and reality are not even a consideration these days.

  8. How condescending. They think aboriginals are stupid and have to be indulged like little children? I actually respect the aboriginal and have had many a conversation about dreaming and dream time . It is a part of life that I don’t fully understand, although I’d like to. But I would never dream of thinking it was something we could not discuss and explore together. I certainly wouldn’t “shield” or ‘”protect” them from the “real” world and not discuss facts or beliefs as equals both intellectually and spiritually. Christ, this offends me. Native Australians are adults, not children, and should be interacted with as adults.

  9. There seems to be an endless list of myths and made up facts about native Australians that we are just supposed to accept and if we question them we are labeled racist.

    Modern humans arrived in Australia a bit earlier than 40,000 y/a, Mungo Mans remains have been dated to 43,000 years. However Mungo man is not a direct ancestor of modern day native Australians, DNA mapping shows that they are removed from Papuans by only 30,000 years, so they are a later wave of immigration than Mungo Mans people. The claim they have the oldest continuous culture in the world is also highly doubtful as African cultures like the Kalahari Bushmen must be tens of thousands of years older.

    So they are not indigenous, they are not aboriginal and they don’t have the oldest culture, but let’s not let facts and science get in the way of screaming racist.

    • neil, I think you are correct. The last full blood Tasmanian aborigine died in 1876. There is evidence of these people living in Tasmania about 40,000 years ago. One presumes that that original inhabitants arrived in mainland Australia somewhat earlier. Later invaders of Australia from PNG ( about 3000BC) killed off the earlier settlers on the mainland. Some of the aborigines in north Queensland admit that their ancestors only arrived in Australia from PNG one thousand or two thousand years ago.Tasmania was isolated from the mainland in the period 16,000 to 12,000BC before later invaders from PNG. There are no full blood aboriginals that can claim to be first settlers. Some in our extended family in Tasmania mention that there was a “black sheep” in the family two generations ago. In a small way it is possible that some descendants in our family have more claims than aborigines in Australia to early heritage sites (especially cravings),

    • “not indigenous”? In the context of the spread of humankind across the planet, there is, so far, only one indigenous source- somewhere near or in Ethiopia. All the various offshoots of the original ancestors appear to come from out migrations from that region. No one has published finding fossils older than “Lucy” anywhere else in the world.

  10. II recall reading many years ago that before the present race of Aboriginal
    people, there was another race in Australia.

    I wonder if today’s Aboriginals realise just how lucky they were that the sea
    level rose, thus cutting Australia off from today’s Indonesian and the Papua
    New Guinea modern people.

    Only the Torrens Strait Islander people are the “”Modern”” Australians,
    they have language and culture similar to the PNG people who are very close, a few’
    miles away. Motu is a Malaysian language variation. Its also spoken by the
    coastal people of Papua.

    While I can admire the fact that today’s mainland people survived in the
    mostly very dry conditions of Australia, they are in culture a stone age
    people, who sadly do not want to adopt to the modern world.

    Their art is similar to the Tammel people of Southern India so there may be a long ago connection back there. We are all migrants in a way,

    MJE VK5ELL

    • Sound thinking Mark, but that would remove about half of the lecturers and most of the permanent staff.

    • What is next perhaps we don’t teach the earth is round because we might offend “Flat Earth” believers.

  11. So, if you are of Post 1788 extraction are you allowed to state Terra Nullas as hard university level fact because ‘that is what your culture believed’?

    A few years ago I made the joke that the most useful role of higher education was keeping the unemployable out of the job market for another 4 years.

    I don’t make that joke anymore. I still say it, just not by making a joke.

    • The annual high school curriculum could also be learned and studied in about 1 month and exams passed, then take the next 11 months off to do life-stuff.

      i.e. ‘high school’ is daycare, so that parents can go out to work and pay the taxes to pay the daycare workers (teachers).

    • No those same people would call that statement offensive because you have “white privilege”. You have to be a minority or disadvantaged to be offended.

      • I am white (As my African wife reminds me). I am an English, Irish, Scottish…cross. I am also African, well my ancient mother was (mDNA).

  12. “Heartland Institute Throws Down the Climate Gauntlet to Dem Candidates”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIA1UTbs2Y8&fbclid=IwAR3J9atbF_jtD0_yO7TOdZpJUNBN0yGKAG4OdjPd-BVZsDo3jLQ-wktsGcE

    “The Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins challenged any Democratic presidential candidate to debate the science of climate change at the Heartland Insitute’s upcoming 13th International Conference on Climate Change on July 25, 2019 in Washington, DC.

    https://climateconference.heartland.org/

  13. I’d vote for a class that covered a half-dozen creation stories.
    That there are many attests to the ingenuity of humans.
    This should be embraced.

    Science, on the other hand is not settled.
    Just this week I read a report of the first use of chocolate, that says early explanations got both the where and the when wrong.
    If it is terribly upsetting for a person to learn their view of the world is not the only one, they need to get over it.

    As for “40,000” years ago, I’ll bet that is wrong.

    • That is a good bet for almost any pre-historic date. Science thinks it can date the past, but it is experimentally impossible.

  14. Surprise surprise, the rot Dr. Ridd spoke of at the JCU in Qld rears it’s ugly head at UNSW.

  15. The real reason they want these particular facts hidden from the public is that they indicate the possibility of ideas that are not very aliened with the narrative and if anyone trustworthy ever does the research I will be having a read for Sure.
    For instance, the Aborigines were not the original inhabitants of Australia, there were numerous unrelated Hominid tribes across the country such as Mongo Man…and one way and another the Aborigines killed them all. The loony left blame climate change, I realize that last part would be no revelation to anyone hear. I’m waiting for them to blame climate change for the burning of Notre Dame.
    Anyway, they don’t want people to think for themselves and endanger the precious narrative. Bugger the truth, the science is in and your facts are the Devils heretical playthings to the puritanical, sociopathic Left.

  16. I guess this fits neatly into the modernists game play.
    “Never let a fact, get in the way of dogma”

  17. Do Australian university professors have tenure….. because this is what tenure is for… this is when the professors of hitory and science tell the univeristy head and it’s management board to F**k off…

    • This is a good question. I suspect not however. Australian university employees really are on a good deal salary wise, and up to 19.5% superannuation (Paid for by the Govn’t, NOT a component of a “salary package”). They are looking to stay for 30 years to reap full benefits that are paid by lesser, mortal, tax payers, like me.

    • I was looking for this kind of logic.
      This becomes the next question doesn’t it. Do we teach Christians about the young earth?
      If yes, then; do we teach other people whatever they want to believe also? Where does it end? What’s the point of a university if you can so easily avoid the learning?

      • From now on it will be banned in all Universities to teach Geography, Astronomy, or any other such ‘science’ that would question that it’s Turtles All The Way Down.

        ~¿~

    • Aren’t evolutionists offended when inconsistencies in the orthodox Darwinian timeline are brought up?

      To rip from Neitzche, he who would challenge dogma should look to it that he does not become dogmatic himself.

    • I have had good friends (back in the 1960s and 70s, and even later) who were creationists. While they vigorously argue their points, I don’t think “offended” is the right term, or even surprised; “skeptic” is much closer. (To be clear, I don’t buy their science.)

      “Offended” might have been appropriate in the late 1800s, or early 1900s, I don’t know. And of course your question was whether *some* creationists might have been offended, which is certainly possible. I just don’t think it applies to most of them, in the last 50 years.

  18. According to the Bible, it is about 7500 years since Adam and Eve. Any evidence that this date is wrong, was placed by God as a test of your faith.

    God Created this World according to His plan. If the Climate oscillates a bit, then this is how God made it. Thinking that humans or cow farts have anything to do with it, is preposterous.
    Anyone who DENIES this is a hater, unfit to teach impressionable young minds.
    /s

    • You’re off by a couple years. Adam and Eve walked out of the garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago.

      1. The entire story from Adam and Eve till the end is a total of 7,000 years. No more, no less.
      2. The last 1,000 years is when Jesus sits on the throne of David and reigns over earth.
      3. The Jews must again occupy their home country.
      4. The Jews must build the third temple. This is when the statue is set up in the temple, and this is the trigger for Armageddon, beginning the final 1,000 years.

      So we are close, but we don’t know exactly how close.

        • Are you ABEL to get reparations?
          This particular post is a very sad one for me. UNSW is my alma mater – back in the days of log tables and slide rules. Then again, any tertiary institute which decides to saddle itself with the likes of Chris Turney is automatically discounting itself from sensibility and learning.

    • What was the /s for? If for sarcasm who was aimed at? If satire what were you satirizing?

    • I do not recall the bible giving a date for the first humans, that is a human invention from incomplete information.

      • Actually, the first 11 chapters of Genesis include a number of geneologies that include how old X was when his son Y was born. These culminate with Abram. The genealogy from Abram (Abraham) to Jacob (Israel) is obviously short and well documented in Genesis. Various biblical documents tell us it was about 400 years (a touch over) from when the children of Israel went to Egypt until the Exodus, and another 400 years or so from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon’s temple. The records of the kings provide data for determining when the temple was founded to the known date when it was destroyed in 586 or 587 BC. Since your comment focused on first humans, and Genesis says Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, there is no room for an undocumented gap. The Bible is clear that the first humans date to about 4000 B.C.

  19. University bans ‘inappropriate’ scientific data about the arrival of humans in Australia because it is offensive to Aboriginals who believe they have been here ‘forever’
    >>

    Australian tax payers ban funding for an out of control ‘university’ that’s administered by morons.

  20. Rhys, you think the University Admin is ‘correct’? If so, why?

    We have a serious problem with Universities being administered by mentally-deranged ideologues. The aspects relating to Climate-Change™ stemming from this are just a tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.

  21. Problem you have Rhys is being unable to recognise the leftie (actually marxist-socialist) claptrap that is climate change .

  22. Unfortunately “leftie claptrap” and “climate change” are concepts with virtually 100% overlap.

  23. So basically they’re promoting another form of creationism … which is quite logical, because creationism rules out the possibility that natural variation could have caused the evolution of complex lifeforms and so states “a being must have caused it”, and the climate cult similarly rules are the possibility that natural variation could have caused all the complexity we see in climate and says “beings must have caused it”.

    So, there is an internal consistency to their lunacy.

  24. Those people are clearly incompetent Marxists. Do they expect all of the students they don’t want to ‘offend’ to be running on as few neurons as themselves and not notice the inconsistencies?

    The logical corollary to their ruling is that they also can’t teach evolution. That pretty much means that they have to cull most of biology back to sometime before Darwin. While Darwin is given a great deal of credit, perhaps rightfully, it clear from the history of science that others were coming to similar conclusions based on consideration of the increasing data from observations of the natural world. Thus those clues also have to be removed if they don’t want students to draw too many logical conclusions.

    Do you think the school has the political power to force a name change of one of Australia’s major cities?

    This makes me think of a video made by some government agency showing the daily life of a small group of remote peoples the Amazon rainforest who still live as they have for hundreds or thousands of years. From the film it was apparent that they do strange things to their bodies to differentiate themselves from other tribes and they spend most of their time gathering food.

    The video was filmed by a small group who came to spend a few days with the tribe. The narrator explained that the location of such peoples was a closely guarded secret, to protect their culture from modern contamination. As he faced the camera expounding how they needed to be protected so they could continue in live as they wanted, every person of the tribe was turned away, watching the small airplane that brought the officials run down an open stretch, take off, and disappear into the blue. Maybe he never heard the song with the chorus line ‘how you gonna keep them down on the farm once they …’ .

  25. ”>>it is ‘inappropriate’ to teach dates and they should say Aboriginals have been here ‘since the beginning of the Dreamings’ because that is what indigenous people believe.”<<

    Garbage. Modern Aboriginals believe the same things everyone else does. I've heard them say it with my own ears countless times before. 40 thousand years this and 60 thousand years that. Is the Uni now telling these people that they ''should'' or ''can'' or ''are entitled'' to only believe and hear ancient beliefs? Nauseating stuff indeed!

    • Dreamtime is there version of creationism. Perhaps UNSW is also going to ban mentioning anything in science subjects referring to more than 6,500 years ago since it may offend Jews and Christians.

  26. This is not new. See
    http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/australia_kimberley.php
    A huge fight broke out a decade ago when these petroglyphs were dated (by a wasp nest over weathered glyphs).
    The only way anyone could arrive there 28,000 BP was over open ocean, implying navigation skills at that time of a level not seen since the sea-peoples later.
    These glyphs have a remarkable stylism like Lake Chad, Africa, with bracelets and hair patterns.

    The British Empire alway likes to promote tribalism where such navigation skill is frowned upon. Australia is getting Royal treatment indeed. You see, no one before Cooke, let alone dark skinned, could have possibly crossed open ocean. Heyerdahl proved that wrong. The Kimberleys hit a major Royal nerve.

    Note how Prince Charles likes to dance in grass skirts at remote islands.

    Today look at the tribes called “extinction rebellion”, or Greta’s rabble. Note the Royal support they get.
    This is not just a proliticaly-correct left-wing “thing”, but an imperial strategy. Not sure if J.Peterson quite gets that, being in the Royal Dominion of Canada,

    • I should think that any Abo who signs up for a science degree probably wants to learn what science has to offer, they do not want a special cut-down PC version of science. They will have direct line their own cultural beliefs and maybe want to learn other ways of interpreting stuff.

    • You would be correct.

      What will happen next is a mob of smarties will claim they don’t want to talk about the colonization of Australia because they find it offensive and the university will find itself in the middle of a double standard.

      • A few years back, there was a big to do about how Native Americans were all upset over sports teams using Indian themes. At least that’s what all the big named liberals were telling us.

        Problem was, when anyone went out and talked to actual Native Americans, not just the ones the media named as “leaders”, most of them couldn’t care less.

    • I don’t believe there are any monkeys in Australia, so the Aborigines couldn’t give them anything.

  27. So, if science lecturers can tell students to lie about science facts, couldn’t science lectures lie about another science field like climate change?

  28. Eric Worrall says Brett Lackey of Daly Mail says someone at The Australian says that the UNSW says that in some classroom guidelines it says…

    What a steaming pile of bs. Really Eric? This is what you’re trying to pass off as journalism?

      • Lackey? is that his name, or occupation?

        Apologies if this not an original comment.

    • Apparently its an advisory for the subject to be treated with care.
      It is reported with quotes in The Australian, [paywalled].
      A few years back I attended a lecture given by the Museum of Sydney about the Chinese Silk Roads.
      The lecturer chose this topic because it did not jump on the toes of those in the audience who believed the
      Earth was created, complete with geological and fossil records, at about 3500 BC.
      There was no effort to explain that these trading routes predated 3500 BC.
      This is a tricky area as the group of 8 universities in Australia are dragged screaming, to setting out a code of conduct for their administrations, that prevents victimisation of academics on the grounds of free speech and fair comment.
      As Patrick MJD pointed out above, with Dr Ridd, another example is running at UWA, where,surprise surprise, the directive has come down that we must look at the French Report seriously.
      This is no beat up.
      There are important principles at stake, freedom of association,speech, religion,the curtailment of illigitimate corporate power, in these cases wielded by government funded universities.
      This site sits under the constitutional right to free speech of the USA, something not yet afforded in OZ.
      You will not be shut down or de platformed.
      Thats all we Aussies want of our unis.

      • We will likely never have free speech as a law in Australia it just doesn’t work with the way our laws are framed, they say what you can not do not what you can. You also have no right of association in Australia because that area has never been given up by the States to the Commonwealth and hence why things like the bikie gangs law are state by state. The only rights we are actually given come under the Human Rights Act because the Commonwealth signed into that and that does infer rights.

        However none of that has anything to do with the topic. The truth and facts are easily defended under law in Australia which in theory is what universities should be doing, and why with stupid actions like they have taken they put themselves at risk.

      • Consider this:

        The Big Bang was the literal Mother of all Quantum Events. From that first (potential) moment the Quantum Waveform Evolved wherein EVERY POSSIBLE QUANTUM STATE IS REPRESENTED over potential time…just waiting for an OBSERVER to evolve within the waveform itself to make the observation that COLLAPSED the BIG BANG waveform out of the quantum potential field and into a physical reality.

        That first observer might have COLLAPSED the quantum waveform into reality shortly after you were born creating YOUR world when your potential nervous system in the quantum potential field achieved the ability to make field collapsing observations.

        Or that first Observer might have been Jacob when he fought an angel (quantum waveform?) about 6000 years ago…a waveform complete with dinosaur bones and vast deposits of coal and oil…and a 13 Billion year chain of evidence in cosmic and geologic measurements.

        It didn’t matter how nearly impossible the properties of this solar system and earth were…the quantum field just had to be possible…and it had to contain the emergence of an OBSERVER to collapse the field into reality.

        This is the only scenario that explains to me the nearly impossible hundteds of thousands of extremely unlikely predisposing conditions that had to occur on earth over the (potential) eons for life to exist on Earth..

        This hypothesis also explains the Fermi Paradox…Earth was where the QUANTUM FIELD COLLAPSING Von Neumann OBSERVATION EVENT OCCURRED. Sentient Life (with Von Neumann Observers in it) likely exists nowhere else but here on Earth.

    • Once again, Loydo decides to attack the man rather than deal with the issue.
      I guess you are still upset over being embarrassed over and over again.

        • Fascinating, pointing out that one is using an ad-hominem is itself an ad-hominem.

          Once again, Loydo demonstrates that he doesn’t have a clue as to what ad hominem means.
          Then again, he doesn’t understand any of the other terms he mis-uses on a regular basis either.

    • I’m not familiar with Australian journalism (nor which outlets are more reliable), but you can read the story at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous-arrival-has-no-date-dons-told/news-story/f3c3a28637afd33b1c090ba0ec74202b. It’s a little more nuanced, although still bizarre. I found the following statement interesting: “One scientist said most academics got on with their work and did their best to ignore such documents.”

      There’s also the following bizarre statement: “Last year a UNSW science faculty research centre said the First People “arrived soon after 50,000 years ago, effectively forever, given that modern human populations only moved out of ­Africa 50,000-55,000 years ago”.” I guess the five orders of magnitude difference between 50k years and the approximately 5 billion year age of the Earth doesn’t matter. (Not to mention the infinite difference between 50k years and “effectively forever”, whatever that means.)

  29. Really clever graphic, perhaps we should have a proper attribution underneath. What is written on the corner is illegible at this scale.

  30. In the early 1970s my employer started to develop the new uranium mine, the big one, at Ranger One in the Top End of the Northern Territory. Already there were local aborigine families and settlements and a few pastoralists running cattle.
    On the advice of senior anthropologists, from the start we attempted to document the sacred sites and their histories and the Rainbow Serpent folklore and similar. We were warned that there was not a great deal of authentic history kept in the minds of the then generations. We were warned of an impending invasion of academic anthropologists, especially from Canberra, each of which had his/her own ideas about confections suitable for planting in aboriginal minds and growing on to be regarded as the Bible for evermore. Despite our small effort -it was not our speciality – the academic flood happened and history now records a lot of synthetic nonsense.
    I was there one time with some senior aborigines and a couple of anthropologists, one of whom was reporting some recent age dating putting ochres in rock paintings as 4,000 years old. At the time, this was the oldest date so far reported for any aboriginal artefact in Australia, IIRC. None of us, locals included, had any idea that the cave markings might be of this great age. It follows that there is no genuine link that now says that paintings or artifacts in general up to 15,000 years old were known are known, to aboriginal people. They are no more than aboriginal people repeating what academics told them to say.
    Do you, dear reader, have any written or oral history of your antecedents and what they were doing 15,000 years ago?
    There is much soft evidence that most, if not all, of the aborigines of today have no or very little authentic or supportable information older than a couple of generations ago. In our consultants’ questioning in the 1970s, next to nothing of substance was revealed. Of course, this conclusion relates only to those people at that time and place. But I doubt that other sources were much richer than our lean pickings. I remember leader Big Bill Niedjie laughing at a sacred site designation on an official map, saying it was no more than a place to go when you felt like catching a flying fox for a meal. And many more dismissive stories like this.
    They seemed to remember about as much of their past as you or I do. In the absence of a written aboriginal language, that seems to amount to not much.
    That means that there is little cause for concern about this academic censorship raised by the article above. These clever academics are proposing to censor nothing more than their academic colleagues invented a few decades ago. The worm has turned.
    This is written by the original Geoff Sherrington who has been using my genuine name since the earliest days of WUWT. An imposter has been taking my name in vain. We squash such slugs. Geoff

    • Have a look at the link above to the Bradshaw petroglyphs, some definitely dated to 28,000BP in the Kimberleys. The controversy centers on open-ocean navigation at that time or even much earlier.
      This is a huge discussion in itself.
      The Aussie academics are following orders from Oxford, the self proclaimed center for anthropology, a key part of imperial strateg to keep Australia depopulated, underdeveloped, and green.
      See
      https://cecaust.com.au/policies/energy-resources/mineral-resources

      • There are human sites about the same age in the western Solomons (Buka) so, yes the ancestors of Papuans/Aboriginals were capable of ocean navigation at that time.
        It is perhaps more doubtful 45-50,000 years ago. The first crossing to Australia may have been accidental.

        However the very early colonization of Australia less than 10,000 years after leaving Africa and the virtual absence of contemporary finds in South Asia suggests a mobile coastal population that had acquired some water crossing capacity very early (the ice-age coasts are of course now under the sea).

    • Thanks for that first hand account. Abos are a pretty carefree lot, hard to imaging them retaining much in terms of an oral tradition without it constantly changing at every retelling.

      Academics force feeding them a “culture” , most of it invented after seeing a few bones and a streak of ocre painted on a wall, seems more probable to me.

    • Geoff
      Whilst in general agreeing that references at university level (if true 3 hand news) of aboriginals having been in Australia forever is poor education. I think you need to look at recent evidence. If nothing else, it seems to suggest that the arrival of humans to Australia is indeterminate – somewhere between 30,000 to 120,000 years ago
      https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/
      Over the last few decades, a significant number of archaeological sites dated at more than 30,000 years old have been discovered. By this time all of Australia, including the arid centre and Tasmania, was occupied. The drowning of many coastal sites by rising sea levels has destroyed what would have been the earliest occupation sites.
      Recently published dates of 120,000 years ago for the site of Moyjil in Warrnambool, Victoria, offer intriguing possibilities of much earlier occupation (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 2018). The site contains remains of shellfish, crabs and fish in what may be a ‘midden’, but definitive proof of human occupation is lacking and investigations are ongoing.

      • 40,000 or 120,000 it does not really change anything and especially regards what is being discussed.

  31. How humiliating for the UNSW to suggest this set of rules. No one anywhere is exempt from being offended, however, facts are facts and there is no point in trying to hide them. No one will ever be able to place Aborigine inhabitation of Australia, so please tell me how they may be offended if an actual date of habitation may be verified.

    • Being that this is treating a racial group as simple minded children that need to be sheltered from the hash truths of reality, I would think that the response of the group being so treated would be offense at being so treated or complete contemp for the the people suggesting it as necessary or desirable.

    • Yeah, not credible based on evidence. “Lucy” is much older, by millions of years, and was found in what is now Northern Kenya.

  32. I’m curious about the idea of ‘not offending indigenous peoples’ beliefs.

    What do they believe about nuclear physics. Did they believe in quarks, and if not is NSW going to tell their physics profs that talking about quarks is ‘inappropriate’?

    How about mathematics. Did they have the concept of concept of ‘0’, irrational numbers? If they didn’t will NSW forbid math profs form discussing the subjects?

    • Try telling the greens about He3 fusion, and mind that their feelings are not disturbed.

      The extinction-rebellion crowd are a modern form of “indigenous” tribe, synthetically created by the very same imperialists who designated their colonial indigenous peoples to remain undeveloped while they looted resources and land. Imagine today Australians to be so designated, green, undeveloped, de-populated, while globalized corps. loot abundant natural resources.
      Those Australians include Dravidians as well as Europeans who got one-way transportation.

    • The aboriginal people only had a basic numbering system usually 0 to 15 depending on dialect as they are hunter gatherer . They had no wheel discovery and hence no Pi or irrationals as they would hardly have time to sit around and study maths in such a harsh enviroment. They do have extensive lists of toys, weapons, medicine, resins, poisons, traps and the like which are useful to survival many of which are unique and very complicated and they survived where you and I would die even today with our knowledge.

  33. They told me if I voted for Trump, Young Earth Creationists would take over education.

    They were right.

  34. But wait, there’s more:
    https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/indigenous-terminology

    “Indigenous Terminology

    (The information on this page was adapted from “Using the right words: appropriate terminology for Indigenous Australian studies”, in Teaching the Teachers: Indigenous Australian Studies for Primary Pre-Service Teacher Education, School of Teacher Education, University of New South Wales, 1996.)”

  35. This latest episode recalls the Mungo Man DNA debacle. Here is a precis:

    1st DNA analysis establishes there is no genetic evidence to connect Mungo man with modern inhabitants of the region.

    No-one thinks anything of this for some time until someone realises that this implies that modern inhabitants may have replaced Mungo!

    The establishment becomes concerned that if this fact is allowed to stand, it potentially weakens the whole justice case for modern day persons.

    A second DNA analysis is hastily performed. This time it establishes that Mungo is genetically connected to the modern day inhabitants. The previous finding is held to be discredited.

    Under the pretext of not offending the newly established current relatives of Mungo, further access to genetic material is then locked away forever so that no-one can test the new claim (or the previous claim).

    The prevention of further scientific research into the issue, including replication of results, is a classic case of post-modern science.

  36. Another question to add to the “Who gets to decide and why” list
    “Who gets to decide what’s offensive and why?
    How much is the “appropriate” amount of sea ice? Who gets to decide and why?
    What is the “appropriate” amount of CO2? Who gets to decide and why?
    What is the “appropriate” global average temperature? Who gets to decide and why?
    What is the “appropriate” sea level for the planet? Who gets to decide and why?

  37. These neoMarxist have no problems insulting people…or lying when convenient (to just about everyone).

    They just think that stupid people like the aborigines can’t handle the truth…and to prove how extremely virtuous they are, these socialists insist on treating the aborigines with polite condescension…a common practice of benevolent overlords everywhere.

    Muslims get the same treatment. The very virtuous socialists understand and sanctify the longstanding cultural practices of Islam… where ACTUAL brutal patriarchal authoritarianism is universally practiced…but don’t worry, those stupid Muslim women are used to it and wouldn’t understand being treated like anything but the rightful possession of abusive men. That’s perfectly understandable, and besides, lots of Muslims hate America too.

    Christians are free game for ridicule of course…except occasionally the pro-communist Jesuit Pope and his pedophile minions when he treats the seriousness of the manufactured Climate Crisis correctly.

    Anything but the truth to gain and hold onto illegitimate power…and their oh so perfect virtue.

    History is one long horrible story of the benevolent brutal actions of people like today’s Marxists in their quest to obliterate individual freedoms everywhere.

    These are the VERY people the US Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted the Constitution based on the supremacy of the individual.

  38. I presume the next edict will be to stop all mention of evolution because there may be some Creationists in Australia who would be offended.

    Or it would be if Creationists held the same stature with Progressives as (rich) Scientologists from Hollywood.

  39. You are not allowed to hear the truth because you might be offended by it. How extraordinarily patronizing and racist is that?

    • Yes it would seem that UNSW still believe that native Australians are too primitive and ignorant to understand science, and are stuck in the dark ages like Europe in the 14th century.

      Imagine if a conservative organisation suggested this, the left including UNSW, would be screaming RACISTS!

  40. We can’t say what the facts are because that would contradict their beliefs??
    Is that all indigenous peoples beliefs or just this one belief of the Australian aboriginals?
    Because I’d hate to see how they’d teach the Etoro tribes beliefs.

  41. Is it okay to lecture about the transition point of political correctness and agenda science as mainstream commandments in the academy and in policy?

  42. Aren’t these the same people who get their knickers in a wad over the teaching of Creationism?

  43. The modern flight from science and reason.

    Universities now mandate lying to protect ignorance.

    It will never be enough.

    Every generation will need descend further into intolerance to demonstrate their special piety.

    The end will be complete stupidity; the destruction of every hard-won advance.

  44. “In a letter sent to lecturers…”

    Please identify the person or persons who sent this letter to lecturers. Does anyone have a copy of such a letter, to show the world? Does the letter have the school’s letterhead on it? Did adults sign their names to such a document? Do the administrative leaders of the school share the point of view of the writer or writers?
    From what authority can a college professor be instructed to suppress historical knowledge in a field of study?

  45. Welcome to the world of political correctness,30 years ago we used to mock where PC was heading.
    Totally predictable and boring.
    Tiny minds inhabit tiny restricted worlds..Like Academia.
    On the brightside,as in you could not make this up,under todays Human Rights Inquisitions you cannot verbally warn a Social Justice Warrior of the predictable consequences of their actions.
    As they boldly march toward the cliff edge,you must remain silent.
    For saving their lives is of less social consequence than “making them feel stupid”.
    Forget worksite safety,you must save yourself from the Tribunals before all else, your livelyhood and family are depending on you.
    Now only the emotionally under developed can believe that anyone outside of themselves,can MAKE them FEEL anything.
    But emoting is the modern discourse,soon to be replaced by”Point and Grunt”.

    • No, Mr. Kernodler, you have only been here for a month or so. Robert Kernodle, however, has been here since the Big Bang.

  46. Intellectual advancements are made largely by diversion from prevailing orthodoxies, therefore those who are so deeply invested in controlling perspectives, thus limiting them, are not interested in advancements or truth.
    “Progressives” ( I put the word in quotes since I see little progress in their ideas) do not recognize truth but narratives. Contradicting themselves, they do believe in true narratives however. Its depressing to see civilization self destruct.

  47. Every group tries to legitimize their people’s history by dressing it up in play clothes. Textbooks are filled with this act. The winners degrade the losers. Then the losers dress up their own history in play clothes. Finally someone comes along to try to weed out loserness, victimhood, and grandiosity from the historical record in order to get some kind of understanding about the realities of any group of people considered to be originally aboriginal but no longer the majority. Winners become subject to the same scrutiny but the search is hampered by the humanistic belief in the underdog. Taken all together, histories of anything are rife with bias, which is why social “research” must be swallowed with a fifth of anything that is 100 proof.

    It’s good to be King of course, but better to be cynically skeptical.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eg1ucnv1Dqk

  48. The University of New South Wales is a leading Research University in Australia. Among its notable alumni is a certain Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia.

  49. “The guidelines say teaching a date for the arrival of Indigenous people ‘tends to lend support to migration theories and anthropological assumptions.’ ”

    And not teaching it doesn’t?

  50. And so say all those people who blow up at the word “d enier”

    and to quote Rabett at them
    “Another bunch who wants to steal the suffering of the Holocaust victims for themselves. “

Comments are closed.