Meet the climate change bigoted professors who BANNED informed debate: Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill... NO THINKING ALLOWED
Wednesday, August 31, 2016by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: man-made climate change, University of Colorado, scientific debate
(NaturalNews) If you're curious what real intellectual bigotry looks like, look no further than this story from The College Fix which details the anti-science absurdities of today's bigoted college professors.
According to the report, "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."
In invoking their intellectual bigotry and anti-science stance, these three female professors cite the widely debunked false claim that "97% of climate scientists agree on climate change." That statistic was fraudulently derived by a biased researcher hand-picking a few dozen email responses from an informal email survey that carries no scientific weight whatsoever (see below).
Apparently, teaching classes at the University of Colorado does not require you to actually know what you're talking about, because the 97% claim is the perfect example of politically motivated scientific quackery that's now accepted as consensus reality at America's zombie universities.
From the book A Disgrace to the Profession:
An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.
Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.
The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.
Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.
So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two not so much.
To the radical left, this is hilariously called "tolerance."
"Bigotry" is anything that disagree with their "tolerance" which is, of course, politically motivated quack science dogma.
Thus, if you walk into a class being taught by Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren or Eileen Skahill, and you utter a fact-based statement such as, "Hey, the temperature data being reported by NOAA were artificially altered to introduce a temporal bias," you are automatically considered a "bigot" and probably a racist, too.
On the other hand, if you walk in and obediently agree with every science lie you are taught about climate change, GMOs, vaccines, fluoride and chemotherapy, you will earn an "A" and be patted on the back for your cognitive obedience and conformity.
In other words, YOUR science doesn't count. Only our own in-house bogus science is the "official narrative" which shall be accepted in this quackery course. Wholly consistent with the intellectual bigotry and P.C. censorship of the radical left, you aren't even allowed to TALK about climate change in an online forum unless you 100% agree with the professors!
Oh my. When I was in college, I remember observing that a college lecture is the process by which the notes of the professor are copied to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either.
But now it's even worse. The very process of engaging your brain and thinking critically is condemned at the University of Colorado. Intelligent thought is BAAAAD! You are supposed to do conformist, idiotic things that demonstrate your absolute leftist idiocy, such as waving giant black dildos in everyone's faces as a bizarre form of anti-gun protest. Yep, it's happening on the UT campus in Austin, and the brain dead students there call it "Cocks not Glocks" because they stupidly believe they can stop rapists by carrying concealed black dildos which I'm sure you'll also find hidden in the desks of climate change professors at the University of Colorado. (By the way, I possess male anatomy and I also carry a loaded Glock any time I visit the UT campus. So can I please join the march and shout, "Cocks AND Glocks?")
Perhaps these three professors should take their brain dead climate change course material to the local dog pound and demand obedience from the residents there. You can't really give all the dogs "A" grades to reward their obedience, but you can always bring some doggie biscuits and bribe them.
The idea that human students are actually paying the University of Colorado to be treated like intellectual dogs is quite telling. If you can think for yourself, you are apparently not welcome at the University of Colorado. In fact, you will be asked to leave the class!
Thus, I offer you their emails along with a request that you politely send them links to information disputing the obvious hoax of man-made climate change:
Rebecca Laroche
rlaroche@uccs.edu
Wendy Haggren
Work : (719) 255-4156
whaggren@uccs.edu
Eileen Skahill
eskahill@uccs.edu
You might start by sending them links to ClimateDepot.com or books by Mark Steyn.
Then again, you're probably just pissing into the wind, as these three professors have already declared themselves to be cognitive idiots who are incapable of neuroplasticity (i.e. learning anything new or expanding their knowledge in any way whatsoever). One of them also has a PhD! (I didn't realize they were handing out PhDs for f--ktardery studies... hmmm...)
They also wholly misunderstand the very process of science. By definition, "science" embraces debate and discussion, and the very progress of science depends on the overthrowing of incorrect notions with new, expanded realizations supported by observational data. The NOAA faking satellite temperature data is not "consensus science" ... it's just consensus FRAUD.
Sadly, America's universities have largely devolved into indoctrination centers -- tuition-charging "re-education camps" whose goal is to prevent human beings from learning how to think for themselves.
From this, no real scientific advancement can ever be achieved, by the way. If "science" becomes nothing more than coerced obedience to a politically expedient selection of false ideas, then it ceases to be science altogether. Indeed, much of what college students are being taught today in the name of "science" is nothing more than sheer dogma, delusion and deception. Or, as I'm increasingly inclined to utter out of sheer exasperation: F--ktardery.
Then again, how else are the scientific dictators supposed to make sure people keep injecting their children with mercury, eating unlabeled GMOs and paying billions to Al Gore while guilt-tripping all humans for exhaling carbon dioxide?
And speaking of CO2, I bet these three brain dead professors aren't even aware that CO2 is the "elixir of life" for plants and speeds global reforestation, food production and plant growth across the globe. Plants are starving for CO2, and lowering CO2 in the atmosphere is cruelty to the planet and all ecosystems which depend on photosynthesis (which is, of course, virtually all natural ecosystems).
Oops, forgive me. I was actually citing real science there for a moment, and I apologize in advance if I violated your cognitive "safe space." Clearly, I need to attend the University of Colorado to be lobotomized by crazed college professors whose goal is to make sure all their students graduate from the university with brains that are just as damaged as their own.
According to the report, "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."
In invoking their intellectual bigotry and anti-science stance, these three female professors cite the widely debunked false claim that "97% of climate scientists agree on climate change." That statistic was fraudulently derived by a biased researcher hand-picking a few dozen email responses from an informal email survey that carries no scientific weight whatsoever (see below).
Apparently, teaching classes at the University of Colorado does not require you to actually know what you're talking about, because the 97% claim is the perfect example of politically motivated scientific quackery that's now accepted as consensus reality at America's zombie universities.
From the book A Disgrace to the Profession:
An opinion survey of earth scientists on global climate change was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.
Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.
The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.
Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."
Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.
So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two not so much.
No debate allowed: YOUR evidence doesn't count!
What's really interesting about all this is how it's yet another example of the radical left's demands for cognitive obedience and absolute conformity.To the radical left, this is hilariously called "tolerance."
"Bigotry" is anything that disagree with their "tolerance" which is, of course, politically motivated quack science dogma.
Thus, if you walk into a class being taught by Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren or Eileen Skahill, and you utter a fact-based statement such as, "Hey, the temperature data being reported by NOAA were artificially altered to introduce a temporal bias," you are automatically considered a "bigot" and probably a racist, too.
On the other hand, if you walk in and obediently agree with every science lie you are taught about climate change, GMOs, vaccines, fluoride and chemotherapy, you will earn an "A" and be patted on the back for your cognitive obedience and conformity.
All debate and discussion also BANNED in online forums!
"The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums," reports The College Fix. "Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states."In other words, YOUR science doesn't count. Only our own in-house bogus science is the "official narrative" which shall be accepted in this quackery course. Wholly consistent with the intellectual bigotry and P.C. censorship of the radical left, you aren't even allowed to TALK about climate change in an online forum unless you 100% agree with the professors!
Oh my. When I was in college, I remember observing that a college lecture is the process by which the notes of the professor are copied to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either.
But now it's even worse. The very process of engaging your brain and thinking critically is condemned at the University of Colorado. Intelligent thought is BAAAAD! You are supposed to do conformist, idiotic things that demonstrate your absolute leftist idiocy, such as waving giant black dildos in everyone's faces as a bizarre form of anti-gun protest. Yep, it's happening on the UT campus in Austin, and the brain dead students there call it "Cocks not Glocks" because they stupidly believe they can stop rapists by carrying concealed black dildos which I'm sure you'll also find hidden in the desks of climate change professors at the University of Colorado. (By the way, I possess male anatomy and I also carry a loaded Glock any time I visit the UT campus. So can I please join the march and shout, "Cocks AND Glocks?")
Universities are no longer institutions of higher learning... they are obedience training centers best suited for dogs
Now we really get to the crux of all this, which is that people like Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill are not teachers of any kind. They are cognitive dictators and obedience trainers whose skills are best suited to training animals, not people. (Hey, I hear the circus is hiring!)Perhaps these three professors should take their brain dead climate change course material to the local dog pound and demand obedience from the residents there. You can't really give all the dogs "A" grades to reward their obedience, but you can always bring some doggie biscuits and bribe them.
The idea that human students are actually paying the University of Colorado to be treated like intellectual dogs is quite telling. If you can think for yourself, you are apparently not welcome at the University of Colorado. In fact, you will be asked to leave the class!
Welcome to the University of Colorado's Department of Intellectual Bigotry and Cognitive Conformity
Since these University of College professors have declared nothing is open to debate other than their prognostications of obedient conformity, I think it highly appropriate to ask Natural News readers to email these three people links to other evidence these sad excuses for "professors" have never investigated on their own.Thus, I offer you their emails along with a request that you politely send them links to information disputing the obvious hoax of man-made climate change:
Rebecca Laroche
rlaroche@uccs.edu
Wendy Haggren
Work : (719) 255-4156
whaggren@uccs.edu
Eileen Skahill
eskahill@uccs.edu
You might start by sending them links to ClimateDepot.com or books by Mark Steyn.
Then again, you're probably just pissing into the wind, as these three professors have already declared themselves to be cognitive idiots who are incapable of neuroplasticity (i.e. learning anything new or expanding their knowledge in any way whatsoever). One of them also has a PhD! (I didn't realize they were handing out PhDs for f--ktardery studies... hmmm...)
They also wholly misunderstand the very process of science. By definition, "science" embraces debate and discussion, and the very progress of science depends on the overthrowing of incorrect notions with new, expanded realizations supported by observational data. The NOAA faking satellite temperature data is not "consensus science" ... it's just consensus FRAUD.
Indoctrination centers to produce intellectual idiots who will vote for Hillary Clinton
How much you want to bet that all three of these intellectually bigoted professors are voting for Hillary Clinton, a globalist criminal and traitor to America?Sadly, America's universities have largely devolved into indoctrination centers -- tuition-charging "re-education camps" whose goal is to prevent human beings from learning how to think for themselves.
From this, no real scientific advancement can ever be achieved, by the way. If "science" becomes nothing more than coerced obedience to a politically expedient selection of false ideas, then it ceases to be science altogether. Indeed, much of what college students are being taught today in the name of "science" is nothing more than sheer dogma, delusion and deception. Or, as I'm increasingly inclined to utter out of sheer exasperation: F--ktardery.
Then again, how else are the scientific dictators supposed to make sure people keep injecting their children with mercury, eating unlabeled GMOs and paying billions to Al Gore while guilt-tripping all humans for exhaling carbon dioxide?
And speaking of CO2, I bet these three brain dead professors aren't even aware that CO2 is the "elixir of life" for plants and speeds global reforestation, food production and plant growth across the globe. Plants are starving for CO2, and lowering CO2 in the atmosphere is cruelty to the planet and all ecosystems which depend on photosynthesis (which is, of course, virtually all natural ecosystems).
Oops, forgive me. I was actually citing real science there for a moment, and I apologize in advance if I violated your cognitive "safe space." Clearly, I need to attend the University of Colorado to be lobotomized by crazed college professors whose goal is to make sure all their students graduate from the university with brains that are just as damaged as their own.
Facebook (177)
Twitter
Follow real-time breaking news headlines on
Man-made climate change at FETCH.news
Man-made climate change at FETCH.news
No comments:
Post a Comment