On Twitter this week, there was a openly raw admission of why academia has descended into little more than intellectual tribalism, with ‘climate change’ being at the center of the issue.
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki decided to leave the University of Alabama, citing personal reasons, as well as the clear rise of wokeness and protectionism over truth when it comes to climate science. He said “I feel the profession…is no longer worthy of my efforts.”
In this episode of CCR, we will interview Wielicki, and he will field questions from host Anthony Watts, and our regular panel including Linnea Leuken, and H. Sterling Burnett. Join us at NOON CST (1PM EST) Friday January 27.
Watch Live here:
There need be quite a few more high-profile resignations (in my mind) at Universities, in all domains — but especially the sciences — to further punctuate the vapid banal idiocy that goes for ‘woke’ these days.
Not just Universities, that was ZionLight resigning from XR this week – and you don’t get much more tribal than that mob do ya….
There is a connection between those 2 people. Not just ‘climate’, much deeper.
You might guess by recalling some of my ravings.
I have actually explicitly stated why more than once.
So what connects me with ZionLight and Matthew M. Wielicki?
So, it was just for “personal reasons”. Again, if you don’t want to fight, just don’t announce it. Just go away.
I did my last 2 years of college at a institution that unbeknownst to me had been taken over by a radical lib admin and department heads. (and corrupt, president later fired for abuse of expense accounts) . It partially ruined my last years in school.
I noticed another thing there. The more liberal the prof was the worse they were as a teacher- did nt even teach the core of the subject matter. It wears on one constantly having to deal with these people.
The progressive Diversity,Inequity,Exclusion,Distancing (pDIED) doctrine is an ethical (i.e. relativistic) religion in government, academia, corporations, and certain forward-looking secular sects.
To quote Richard Greene regarding the recent WUWT story:
” It is not obvious that non-consensus climate change censorship at the college was more than one minor factor for leaving his job.
There is no indication of that, other than one sentence in one Tweet.
Other factors appeared to be much more important in his decision to quit.
There is no indication he ever researched climate change, or even talked about climate change in his job.
In fact, in response to the alleged pressure to not question consensus climate science, i appears the assistant professor was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
An article about him, celebrating his alleged climate beliefs (apparently not ever talked about, even on his own website), makes no sense to me.
This article is deceptive and misleading, in my opinion.“
After listening to the podcast, care to modify this opinion? Granted, few of us had the facts at that time to make an informed judgment.
Clearly, family reasons were significant, but Dr. Wielicki’s decision was heavily affected by DEI and climate issues he encountered in higher education, enough to cause him to just walk away without even a good plan for the future.
“There is no indication he ever researched climate change, or even talked about climate change in his job.“.
Wow! Talk about missing the point. The issue is not Dr Wielecki’s involvement in climate science. The issue is the distortion of the entire university operation by wokeness, including the suppression of genuine research and opinions on climate change.
“It is not obvious that non-consensus climate change censorship at the college was more than one minor factor for leaving his job.”
One minor factor????? Dr Wielecki makes it clear that the wokeness around climate change was all-pervasive at the university, affecting everyone in the earth sciences not just him:
“Contributing to this is the earth science communities silence on the false “climate emergency” narrative. Members of the community routinely discuss the mental health effects of climate catastrophism but dare not speak out……lest they lose their positions and research funds.“.
Richard Greene’s effort to discredit Dr Wielecki, as portrayed by pflashgordon, is just a mealy-mouthed attempt at character assassination.
I’ve read the Twitter posts PLURAL by Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki and his replies to other’s posts.
I suggest you and Richard Greene do the same
The UK’s academia is not any longer what it once was.
Distance between Oxbridge is Pyongyang is somewhat less than its some 5300 geographic miles.
My senior year in college I took a course called “Ecology” because I needed the credits to graduate … and it sounded interesting. One of the best undergrad courses I took.
There I learned, among other things, about how destructive the Smokey the Bear forest-fire prevention program had been by halting the natural evolution of our forests. It was the prof’s last lecture — he was going to work for an architecture/engineering firm where they wanted to hear the truth about the way the natural world works.
Resignations are good for one letter to a group that doesn’t care and says “good riddance”. What needs to be done is to stay and insist on having that group answer questions about their beliefs that do not align with observation.
Easier ‘said’ than ‘done’. Frustration when continually encountering Idiocy, becomes “too much”…. try it.
Wokeness and CAGW have both become religions, and you cannot question someone’s religion. Since religions are based on beliefs neither facts nor logic will work.
Somewhere in the course of the discussion, it was mentioned that geology was being taught under the moniker “the dynamic earth,” noting the disconnect between the course title and the weather/climate uniformitarianism being claimed as a baseline to the CAGW narrative. It caused me to glance at my office bookshelf where I have kept my introductory geology textbook from 1975, entitled “The Earth’s Dynamic Systems” (themed at the time off of the newly emergent theory of plate tectonics).
That old textbook has a brief chapter (Environment and Natural Resources) on the rapidly changing effects and extent of human activities, including greenhouse gases and minerals/resources exploitation. Written shortly after the first Earth Day (1970) and the report Limits to Growth commissioned by the Club of Rome in 1972 and clearly influenced by those, the underlying philosophy of this chapter of the textbook is somewhat Malthusian and pessimistic.
I was a sophomore in high school that first Earth Day, and I have never recognized nor commemorated the day in my 45+ year career as an earth and natural resources scientist/professional. Why? Because it was from the beginning an intentional realignment of the radical forces active at the time (anti-war; counter-cultural) into the environmental arena. Inevitably, this seemingly good idea was co-opted by the same brand of unscientific activism that characterizes today’s intolerant CAGW and Sustainability movements.
I too have a textbook,dated 1976, ‘Environmental Geology’ by Edward A Keller. I was doing a geography degree which had a geology component. The following quote is from the introduction to part one and backs up what you say.
“The immediate cause of environmental degradation is overpopulation, urbanisation. and industrialisation combined with, as yet, little ethical regard for our land and inadequate institutions to cope with environmental stress. These problems are not unique to a particular political system. and, therefore, we conclude that the salvation of the landscape community necessitates changing social, economic, and ethical behaviour that transcends political systems.”
Nice discussion of the current lack of academic freedom on campus. As Sterling recognized, it is the students at U of Alabama who are the losers: the professor be replaced by a DIE/climate crisis syncophant.
But I laughed out loud when [~ 41min] he mentioned that is moving to Boulder Colorado.
Talk about going from the frying pan to the fire! I used to live in Denver, and we called it
“the People’s Republic of Boulder” for its very liberal policies. Can only imagine how “woke”
Boulder has become and how he [and his PhD wife] will be treated for his apostacy.