Three professors ban skepticism of human-caused climate change

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Academic fascists: Three professors teaching an online course at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs have told their students that they are forbidden to raise any skeptical data or sources or even questions when the issue of man-made global warming is discussed.

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.”

The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. 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.

Putting aside the fact that the study claiming that 97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming has been debunked, this refusal to allow open debate by these fake teachers makes them the poster child for fascism in academia.

Hat tip to commenter cotour for finding this story.


  • Cotour

    Richard Feynman, what would he say to such arrogance? Has science been corrupted, like our government forever?

    Truth lies in mathematics and physics, not in the Subjective words of man.

  • wayne

    Richard Feynman
    The Uncertainty Of Knowledge

    “I can live with doubt & uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers… which are wrong.”

  • wayne

    “Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman”
    (TEDx Caltech 2011)
    (14:41 total)

  • ChrisL

    If it’s an online course, I’m guessing it has nontraditional (older) students in it. Those students (or their employers) are paying for the course. The professors are working for the students, not the other way around. At a for profit school, they’d be toast.

  • wayne

    I would speculate– nobody taking this class, is paying their own money. It’s all taxpayer funded, in one way or another. It’s an easy “A” for those who bark the Party line.

    “Humanities 3990-Medical Humanities in the Digital Age.”

    tangentially– Obama has done an excellent job driving truly private schools out of business the past 8 years. (ITT Technical Institute is about ready to shut down, they just announced they can’t accept any new students.)


  • wayne

    on a related broader note–

    “Freedom of speech under assault on campus”
    Daniel Jacobson
    CATO Policy analysis #796
    August 30, 2016

  • Perry Phillips

    The link to “has been debunked” brings up John Cook, et al who support the consensus. Is this a mistaken link? Has your link been hijacked by alarmists? I would like a link to the paper(s) that do debunk the so-called 97% consensus. Thanks!

  • Edward

    Perry Phillips,
    Read the abstract. Notice that they have ignored 66.4% of the scientists. Plus they have ignored another .3% of scientists. Thus, the 97% figure comes from — at best — the remaining 33.3% that they used for their study. This means that since 97%, of the 33.3%, are the only ones who are part of the consensus, at most only 32.3% of scientists agree. That is a far, far cry from the 97% that is claimed. Near unanimity becomes much less than a majority. It seems that more scientists remain neutral, or skeptical, than agree, and only a few disagree.

    But then again, it is more impressive to say “four out of five dentists surveyed” than to say “one of three scientists agree.” Which one of those two gets your attention? The former sold more gum than if the advertisements said “one out of three dentists surveyed.”

    This analysis is based upon only what is admitted in the abstract. The method used to determine endorsement of AGW may have resulted in scientists who were neutral or who disagreed as counting among those who endorsed, as the level 3 endorsement is merely implied endorsement (see Table 2). The example shows that a neutral or disagreeing scientist would easily have been counted as endorsing. Individual scientists were not asked for their opinion or whether they agreed; some form of judgement-by-committee (team was the phrase used in the Cook paper) was used as a proxy for actual fact.

  • Edward explains it all. This is the paper that claims a 97% consensus on global warming, but when you look at it honestly, you find that this number is a lie.

    I should have been clearer in my post. I wasn’t pointing to the paper that debunked this result, I was pointing to the paper itself to show how invalid its claim is.

  • Laurie

    A tangent, if I may:

    What I would like to see is a serious evaluation of how UN/governmental climate-oriented policies can be anticipated to impact the livelihood and well-being of peoples and of individuals. Governments seem more proficient at punishing non-conformists than promoting or incentivizing solutions.

    My greatest skepticism is that of governments’ defense of the welfare of their peoples – it’s not even on the radar. I’ve had conversations with municipal planners, and they have bought into de-development hook, line, and sinker.

    Were people presented with viable, affordable alternatives, the vast majority of us would choose cleaner, greener technologies simply because it is in our own best interests. We don’t need to be taxed into poverty to curtail consumption – nationally or globally.

    One of the most hypocritical things I have ever seen was President Obama lecturing South Africans about living with less. Pitiful.

    Lead by example, I say, then we can talk.

  • D K Rögnvald Williams

    Isn’t our resident global warming supporter going to chime in?

  • Max

    I was wondering the same thing, perhaps he found out that BIG oil companies pay a considerable amount of taxes on what they produce. They also donate a considerable amount of money to political campaigns. This means Big oil money is being used to pay government scientists to maintain the global warming lie to reduce production and increase their profits and curb or destroy smaller oil companies and competition. This controversy has always been over economics… Not about the science.

    The religion of “warmatology” has now infected the schools to the point where they won’t allow any heretics or blasphemers from destroying the message…
    Those who use science or logic will be excommunicated and prevented from holding any jobs were government has an influence.

  • Cotour

    Here we go, the Leftist Pope has something to say from on high about “global warming”.

    I think Pope’s should be heard only on things concerning religion and not much more. This helps illustrates my earlier point about the difference between Libertarianism I.E. the personal philosophy / Christianity, and the business of organized religion I.E. the Catholic religion / organization / entity / party / business.

    Two very different things conflated to mean the same thing.

  • marge strach

    I am one of the popes mutts, and I disagree with the holy father. Scientific method is not being properly applied with these climate change computer models. They fail to take in account the SUN activity they only use the carbon gas measurements which is crazy stupid. Ya gotta love the Chinese scientists they debunked Obama’s climate change global( money scam on tax payers) initiative. They point out H2o
    It’s not a difficult to figure out has 95% affect on the planet, carbon emissions are about1/2% on true scientific measurements that have been tested meaning carbon emissions are so minute they do not have any significant impact on the earth…….I feel colleges are the pc flat earth society for dummies……sad

  • Cotour

    How depressing, to be forced to describe oneself as a “mutt” referring to your religious leaders socialist political agenda. Ah, the business of religion can be treacherous, never mind the spiritual aspect.

    I have compassion for your dilemma, and contempt for your Pope, as I have contempt for all who strive to redefine reality to suit their political and social engineering agendas. Sad? Very.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *