ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Environment & Green Issues

Don't You Dare Question Climate Change!

Updated on September 19, 2016
RJ Schwartz profile image

Scientific study unlocks the secrets of the universe, however it's being used to today influence public opinion, sometimes incorrectly.

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs is offering an on-line class this semester entitled, "Medical Humanities in the Digital Age." The course is being taught by three instructors, Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren, and Eileen Skahill. What's making news about this class is an e-mail sent to all students who've enrolled. It states, "We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the 'other side' of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course." Students who might feel differently are being told not to enroll or to drop the class if already enrolled. The Communications Director of the University, Tom Hutton, not only supports the teachers policy, but added that the ban on debate even extends to discussions between students in on-line forums. And to make matters even more subjective, enrolled students have been given an approved list of reference materials to use for research. These materials are the only acceptable sources to be used for the class as they have been approved by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Great Climate Debate

The Global Warming, Global Cooling, Weather, Climate Change debate has been raging for years, with two polarized sides of the debate both speaking loudly and proudly in favor of their chosen platform. Both sides can produce “evidence” to support their claims. Both sides can produce a, ‘who’s-who’ list of supporters for their agenda. The striking difference between the two sides rests in the scientific method. Those who feel climate change is man-made and will eventually destroy the world are very vocal and demand that any and all debate, discussion, or questioning those beliefs should be immediately stopped. They often use the term “settled science” to somehow support the totalitarian approach of silencing opposition. In fact, many of them want to see “deniers” punished for not subscribing to their way of thinking.

Over the last few decades, this group has shifted terminology multiple times before finally settling on climate change. When Global Warming measurements showed no significant warming for several decades and funding started drying up, they moved to a more generic mantle. “Climate change” refers to the broader set of changes that go along with global warming, including changes in weather patterns, the oceans, ice and snow, and ecosystems – basically a high-class word to describe weather. They still cling to the original rationale though; saying the climate is changing is because people are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The Other Side of the Debate

The opposition groups to the concept of climate change always challenge the narrative. They refuse to rely on climate models that do not make accurate predictions, growing tired of so-called scientists ‘adjusting” data points to meet an agenda. Most are fed up with repeatedly demonstrating the failures in methods employed to measure global temperatures or how this so-called scientific community continues making excuses for being proved wrong. The US government’s Global Historical Climate Network, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the National Climate Data Center all have been called-out for suspicious “adjustments” to the actual temperature data being gathered. These manipulations have been used as the rallying cry for those trying to pass a climate change agenda, but they are based on a false foundation.

The fact that the climate change side wants to end all debate raises more red flags than it dispels. After all, the Climate Change Theory is in fact theoretical, as is the Big Bang Theory. A theory is always open for debate and discussion. One of the most important cornerstones of science is the willingness to challenge the conventional wisdom. Climate researchers have been trying to go back in the records and “find” instances of long-term understanding of the world’s climate. Unfortunately for them, they only cherry-picked the data and when others brought everything forward, they looked worse off. In order to save face, the “warming” community is now trying to shut down debate on the topic. Despite the glamorization given in the mainstream media, the report stating that 97% of Climate Scientists agree with the Global Warming Theory has been debunked and proven false.

Intellectual Neutering

These three professors cite that theory as part of their agenda. 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, but to the warming community, it was fact.

Laroche, Haggren, and Skahill
Laroche, Haggren, and Skahill

Meet the Unqualified Professors

Rebecca Laroche, Ph.D. is the only instructor with any information available about her on the University website. Her bio reads, "Rebecca teaches Shakespeare, early modern women's writing, and the environmental humanities. She is the author of Medical Authority and Englishwomen's Herbal Texts. She was guest-curator of "Beyond Home Remedy: Women, Medicine, and Science" at the Folger Shakespeare Library. She is working on a book titled Shakespeare, the Herbal, and the Intimate History of Plants and is co-authoring Shakespeare and Ecofeminist Theory." She is a professor in the English Department, a graduate of Yale University and has focused on 16th and 17th Century literature and women's roles in medicine. There is no evidence of any climate studies or meteorology studies in her educational background. Her personal blog site is focused on old recipes.

Eileen Skahill, MA is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology. She does not have an on-line biography listed on the University website. She holds a Masters Degree in Sociology from the same University she teaches at currently and a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from the University of Colorado in Boulder. A cursory internet search reveals very little about her except for the fact that she too seems to have no education to support her climate theorizing. Her area of inquiry is in the sociology of climate change with an emphasis on environmental and social justice movements.

Wendy Haggren PhD's bio has been removed from the school website, very recently. She works in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and has published papers on multiple topics; none relating to Climate Change. Her research is focused on DNA and genetic engineering. In researching her past on the internet, almost every single link has been scrubbed or deleted. She does have a PhD in Biology

Who Needs Qualified Teachers

How do three unqualified educators get to decide on how people think? Moreover, since when did science become something that teaches people to stop asking questions?

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 9 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    I'm not confusing tipping points, read the link Doc. The wackos are the ones pointing to tipping points, the end of life, etc.etc. Total BS. People who say things like "it is quite possible that it is already too late to save Miami Beach from sea level rise." are nothing but fear mongers and loons in my opinion - this man made global warming is a fraud and 5o years from now virtually little will have changed but the loons will still be pushing the fraud of man made global warming just like they've been pushing it for the last 50 years.

  • Doc Snow profile image

    Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

    "Also, climate science should be removed from politics - we don't argue math or physics in Congress do we?"

    Agreed. We should limit the political debate to matters of policy--ie., what we do about the science.

    "...those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point”..."

    You're confusing things, I fear. Tipping points are generally not very predictable in advance. The various pronouncements mentioned in the Breitbart article are obviously about political deadlines, not physics.

    It's also important to remember that there is a long delay between commitment and consequence. That is, when and if we do hit a critical emissions threshold, the world won't end. It takes a long time for the oceans to warm up to an equilibrium temperature in response to a given level of greenhouse forcing.

    So, for instance, it is quite possible that it is already too late to save Miami Beach from sea level rise. We may already have released enough carbon to commit ourselves to to a level of SLR that will inundate the place. But it will probably take at least a couple of decades for that to play out.

    And when it does happen--I'm optimistic, it possibly could be just "if", but "when" seems more likely with the cards stacked against any constructive action in the US for the next 2 years at an absolute minimum--when it does happen, we still won't be able to say just when we were committed.

    I suspect, though, that long before we get to that point, we will see a serious slump in the real estate market there. Hasn't happened yet, but trust me, it will.

  • Doc Snow profile image

    Doc Snow 9 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

    "Also, climate science should be removed from politics - we don't argue math or physics in Congress do we?"

    Agreed. We should limit the political debate to matters of policy--ie., what we do about the science.

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 10 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    The "debate" has already gone on for nearly a century since the greenhouse effect and man made global warming first appeared on the scene when Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5 degree C temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

    In the early 1800s Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, was about 290 ppm (parts per million).

    Mean global temperature (1850-1890) was roughly 13.7°C.

    The Mean global temperature in 2015 was 14.7°C, the warmest in thousands of years. Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 400 ppm, the highest in millions of years.(If you believe the statistics)

    But do you know how many doomsday predictions the global warmers have made that never came true ? For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming. Check it out: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-pred...

    So waste your time sifting through the fake data, the fake science, the media spin and the government agendas if you wish, the simple and obvious answer is staring you all in the face - just follow the money the charlatans perpetuating this fraud on the world are making, wanting to gather through taxation and the historic propagation of this "science" with lies and fear mongering and you have to come to the only conclusion there is, the idea that man made global warming will doom the earth is a nefarious fraud.

  • RJ Schwartz profile image
    Author

    Ralph Schwartz 10 months ago from Idaho Falls, Idaho

    The debate must continue - if the scientific community would stop adjusting the data, fewer people would step up and argue the point. The measurement system is flawed also - some measure surface temperatures, while others use satellite temperature readings. Also, climate science should be removed from politics - we don't argue math or physics in Congress do we?

    Thanks for the continued discussion

  • Readmikenow profile image

    Readmikenow 10 months ago

    The only thing that is settled about the science of climate change is that the science is not settled. There is still much scientific debate about evolution. THAT is not settled science.

    http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theor...

  • Doc Snow profile image

    Doc Snow 10 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

    Ralph, thanks for writing on an important topic.

    I was intrigued to read of the course you describe. But I have to say, having read the course syllabus for which you provided the link--and thanks for that!--that it makes sense to me that they don't allow 'debate' of climate change because the course has nothing whatever to do with climate change. Unless I missed it, the closest it came was a unit of fracking natural gas, which does bring in the idea of carbon footprint. In other words, the course essentially moderates off-topic commentary. That's also why the profs don't have climate change credentials; they aren't teaching a climate change course. As the syllabus says, the course is about medicine and its context in different societies.

    Moving on from that, I must also disagree with your claim that observations of the natural world do not support the work of mainstream climate science.

    --Global mean surface temperatures, the 'headline' number for warming, are at present squarely within the ensemble mean of model projections. IOW, yes, the world is warming as predicted.

    --Arctic sea ice is declining as predicted--actually, even faster than most models originally projected. True, Antarctic sea ice has been on an increasing trend over the last decade or so, but it does not offset what has happened and is happening in the Arctic, as is often lazily assumed. (And at the moment, that trend has been drastically interrupted by exceptionally strong summer melt in the Antarctic, which has brought the global extent to a record low as well. We'll see how it 'recovers' in the Austral fall.)

    --Numerous other indicators are following the outlines of long-made projections. These include severe challenges to coral reefs worldwide due to ocean acidification; worldwide phenological changes to a host of species of plants and animals; significant changes to atmospheric and oceanic circulation; and increases in atmospheric water vapor and extreme precipitation, among others.

    I've written about many of these changes, for example, here:

    https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Climate-Change...

    A small note: it's not correct that 'alarmists' have changed terminology. The terms "global warming" and "climate change" both appear in scientific literature going back decades, and have different meanings. "Warming" is specific; "climate change" includes many non-temperature-related issues, like the ones just mentioned above. So it makes sense to use one or the other as is appropriate for a particular topic. The only instance I know of where someone has preferred one term over the other for political reasons was the case of Republican political strategist Frank Luntz, who suggested that "climate change" sounded less scary than "global warming", and that it should therefore be preferred by those opposing Kyoto. You can read about that in some depth in an interview Mr. Luntz did back in 2007 or so:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitic...

    A final note: thanks for allowing dissenting voices in your comments. I have not always been afforded that courtesy when 'debating' climate change with other Hubbers.

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    And Joey, anyone (wikipedia "survey " really?) can list so called study results without examining them like they do in the article I gave you. This is the most recent study, a truth seeker (which you are not) would wonder why Wikipedia didn't include it. Could it be it doesn't fit the left wing agenda?

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-stu...

    Here I'll make it easy for you so you don't have to read the article:

    "Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming."

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    Well said RJ. Do you believe Joey said I didn't respond to his claim the "Vast majority of scientists believe there is truth in the concept of global warming." That's virtually all I did and if he read the article which I told y'all he wouldn't even read, it explains how his statement is nowhere near true but just left wing talking point used by Obama and Kerry, not scientists by any stretch of the imagination.

    "According to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conductedin 2015 by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know. Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled."

    Read the whole article Joey http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-pe...

    or why don't we just give your statements as much credibility as the one you made about Hillary, "And, BTW, Hillary never said her husband did not have an affair." I proved to you that is exactly what she said and you just ignore that you were totally wrong, as you are about everything you commented on. Now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth? No one here said "the Clintons are murderers" except you just now. You need help Joey,

    You are BRAINWASHED .

  • profile image

    Setank Setunk 14 months ago

    96% of CO2 emissions are natural, not man made. CO2 breaks down in the atmosphere quickly. Hybrid crops used for Bio-diesel produce heavy amounts of NO2 which is 385 times more potent as a green house gas and does not readily break down. Then there are the emissions from burning the Bio-diesel.

    Wind turbines are an even bigger scam than Global Warming. The high cost of generating power this way is hidden through tax payer funded subsidies. It is all a government bid to take control of energy.

  • RJ Schwartz profile image
    Author

    Ralph Schwartz 14 months ago from Idaho Falls, Idaho

    Joey - I'm not going to interject myself into the on-going debate you and DTMB are having, but I'd like to pose a simple question or two.

    No other scientific discipline that I'm aware of ever said - it's settled and no more can be learned so we demand all opposition stop now. That is what the climate researchers are doing and it's wrong - do you agree that we should stop all research? Or only research which tries to prove the theory wrong?

    When you cite polling data from people who's jobs all depend on them saying global warming is man made, of course they are going to agree. Does consensus mean fact? History tells us NO - just ask the flat earth society.

    I'm not about to try to dissuade you from believing what you would like, but what gives you the right to tell me how to think? And moreover, what kind of future will our world have if we continue to allow agenda driven politics to override real education?

  • joeyallen profile image

    Kerry Allen 14 months ago from SE Texas

    There are no other Progressives responding to your posts because we are so tired of conspirators like you. We actually have lives and know what truth is. What you say will never ruin my world because I know where you are coming from.

    I used the terms global warming and climate change because each is affected by man-made fossil fuels.

    You still have not responded to my most important point(What are you afraid of?) which is:

    90% and upwards of scientists believe global warming is caused by man-made fossil fuels.

    shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...

    If you do not believe this, our conversation is over.

    Oh, do you believe the Clintons are murderers? If you do...this proves my point that you are a conspiracy believing clone of Cruz as are the Tea Party loonies.

    https://thinkprogress.org/five-conspiracy-theories...

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    You, Joey, are the only one here who is blind and a walking, talking inaccuracy. The left has suckered you into their propaganda and web of lies because you practice NO discernment. Pay attention if you can.

    See again you raise a straw man and demonstrate you have not researched both sides of the issue at all. Your straw man, I quote "Vast majority of scientists believe there is truth in the concept of global warming." is not the same thing as scientists believing in MANMADE global warming, manmade warming is what we are discussing. Climate does change, it can warm and cool and history attests to the fact that no one really knows if fossil fuels can cause any significant warming, as a matter of fact there is plenty of scientific evidence it doesn't but you wouldn't know that because you have bought into the lie that "The vast majority of scientists believe there is truth in the concept of global warming."

    Watch this whole video (and I seriously doubt you will because you are brainwashed) of Cruz questioning the President of the Sierra club

    https://youtu.be/Sl9-tY1oZNw?t=19

    and if you have any discernment whatsoever you will see how Mair knows little of the truth and hides behind the talking points his staff is feeding him...deceitfulness on display. Then read the article which pokes the 97% BS full of holes. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-pe...

    But see if you were honest and ever looked at these facts you wouldn't spew the tripe you do about this issue. The left has suckered you into their propaganda and web of lies because you have NO discernment. How's it feel to be their sucker?

    And BTW, Hillary did say Bill never had an affair with Monica and she blamed the notion on the vast right wing conspiracy. It's on tape right here on Good Morning America - 1998

    https://youtu.be/4CnDWySwIUE?t=185

    another example how you know not the truth, probably about anything because you are brainwashed by the left. Anything else you believe you'd like me to debunk?

  • joeyallen profile image

    Kerry Allen 14 months ago from SE Texas

    It's interesting that Taze (who are you?) ignores my point. The point being is that a vast majority of scientists believe Climate Change is caused by man-made fossil fuels.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientist...

    You are blindly saying I'm doing what you are doing...ignoring facts. You don't have the right to your own facts. Anyone can single out a couple of scientists who believe what you believe. My point, once again, is 90% or more of the scientists believe that Global Warming is man-made.

    This is fact.

    And, BTW, Hillary never said her husband did not have an affair. She stayed with him and they worked it out.

    Your response above is chock full of inaccuracies.

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    Well said breakfastpop. Given their comments one has to assume that Oztinato and Joey don't give a hoot about the premise of this article either. Since they never even mention the absurdity of teaching an online course mandating that "We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the 'other side' of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course." they must be OK with it. Evidently they agree that universities should no longer be institutions of higher learning but obedience training centers best suited for dogs.

    Just as joey demonstrates, what liberals always do when they are wrong, they raise straw men, ignore the facts that are staring them right in the face and instead of addressing the facts argue that the bearers of the truth (or at least a more than credible opposing view) are crazy or part of some evil conspiracy that wants to destroy the earth (no different than Hillary claiming her husband had no affair with Monica, it was the vast right wing conspiracy, standard liberal playbook) . That's exactly how the left has kept this fraud alive fior 45 years and will for the next 45 years, mark my words, in 2061 virtually nothing on earth will have changed and they'll still be singing the tunes of chicken little.

  • breakfastpop profile image

    breakfastpop 14 months ago

    Sadly, not discussing another point of view is now widely accepted in schools, universities, media, Washington and on and on we go. The dumbing down of America continues rapidly.

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    No one condemned science or scientists. There are many scientist who don't agree with the ones who claim mankind is going to destroy the earth by man made global warming.

    http://wearechange.org/top-scientist-resigns-admit...

    More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The global warming scientists do have an agenda, an agenda of keeping their jobs and aiding and abetting politicians in governments wanting to perpetrate the fraud solely to gain power and money. Most are employed by the UN, most of those get money and grants to study their fraudulent claims and that is a huge motivation to continue the fraud of man made global warming as evidenced by the Climategate scandal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/...

    You know when global warming advocates (like oztinato) say forget the science and have to point to "remote tribes who haven't heard about the science." as some sort of evidence of global warming, then you know man made global warming is a fraud.

    And of course the last two commenters have nothing to say about the fact that this is a lie that has been perpetrated since the 1970's with all sorts of predictions from "scientists" that have never come true, not even close. 45 years of proof it is a fraud means nothing to them.

  • joeyallen profile image

    Kerry Allen 14 months ago from SE Texas

    Scientists have an agenda, that's right. They are in pursuit of truth...that's the definition of a scientist's profession. Just because you say they are liars and "have an agenda" doesn't make it true.

    I, for one, am on the side of the vast majority of scientists who believe there is truth in the concept of global warming.

    What is your agenda? Are you on the payroll of the oil companies?

    Excuse me, this is exactly what you are saying about scientists.

    Kinda mean isn't it?

  • Oztinato profile image

    Oztinato 14 months ago from Australia

    It's a bit like the God debate: what's totally obvious to one's own senses and doesn't need scientific proof is denied. ie climate change is obvious even to remote tribes who haven't heard about the science.

  • Misfit Chick profile image

    Catherine Mostly 14 months ago from Seattle, WA - USA - The WORLD

    It really has made people choose sides... The problem is that most of the messages and the fixes are wrapped around life & death scenarios: if we don't clean up our act, we'll all die. Of course people are going to take it seriously. It reminds me of the 2nd coming, ha!

    There are plenty of resources on this planet that are constantly being renewed as 'old matter' continues to deteriorate. They are simply being hoarded for economic gains for a few. While I don't have an objection to 'cleaning up our act' a bit - making people believe that we're all doomed is irresponsible, selfish and cruel. Is there any doubt that our 'kings' in this day and age are any less power-hungry than they have ever been?

  • RJ Schwartz profile image
    Author

    Ralph Schwartz 14 months ago from Idaho Falls, Idaho

    I'm quite pleased at the civility of the responses so far. Since its inception Global Warming has been polarized (no pun intended) and has forced people to choose a side.

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    Thanks for that link mike, I see I was wrong! Not the 80s, you can go back to the 70s to see the wrong apocalyptic predictions of global warming nuts.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-w...

  • profile image

    Setank Setunk 14 months ago

    The problem with science today is its academic foundation. Too many academic scientists, with out real jobs, are looking to publish instead of discover. Publishing is what keeps the grant money flowing so they don't have to get real jobs.

    Fortunately there are plenty of REAL scientists making legitimate livings who waste little time on quackery, and Global Warming is a Progressive back science fantasy tooled to get control of the energy sector.

    Humans are having a detrimental impact on the planet, but we need to be worried about water not warming.

  • Readmikenow profile image

    Readmikenow 14 months ago

    Ralph, enjoyed reading the article. There are a number global warming predictions that have proven not to happen. This article National Review really gets it right.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-go...

  • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

    Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 14 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    Jack, just a peak at the history of the global warming issue confirms that time has already resolved the issue demonstrating climate change proponents have ulterior motives for brainwashing the public to believe this lie not the least of which they can get rich from doing so. None of the "climate change predictions" from the charlatan scientists and hucksters like Al Gore going back to the '80's have come true and going forward they won't either because it is a huge fraud as evidenced by such things as what Ralph is writing about here.

    I can't find a bio on Wendy Haggren anywhere on the internet either probably because she specializes in the genetic engineering of yeast for the production of biofuels, not climate science.

    "Universities are no longer institutions of higher learning... they are obedience training centers best suited for dogs

    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!)"

  • jackclee lm profile image

    Jack Lee 14 months ago from Yorktown NY

    Ralph, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I debated Doc_snow here on HubPages. He is one of the more reasonable person on this topic. As you say, most of them won't even consider another point of view. I do believe time will resolve this issue. As the boy who cried wolf, you can only do that once...