My Lecturer on Climate Change

[don4l]

BJG1 said:

Had something of a piss-boiling moment in an Accountancy lecture today, when discussing problems with academic research, and discussing belief systems, my lecturer mentioned the CRU. Apparently afterwards sceptisicm on CLimate Change rose by 12%, to 52%, this, is, apparently, because 52% of the public are unable to make a fair judgement on the facts, they simply believed small misdemeanours undermined the whole argument, and thus, the belief system was shattered, and replaced by a new one, whilst the underlying science actually remains irrefutable. Clearly 99% of the public are ill-placed to comment, not just the 52% who happen to disagree with him.

He also used the old trick of lumping Climate Change Deniers and Man-Made Global Warming deniers in the same category, when clearly they are distinctly different.

I found it all a bit irresponsible, his casual dismisal of climate change deniers led him on to a point about Flat-Earthers, and as an academic, his opinion probably affects a lot of students' mind-set. I intend on sending him an email questioning a few of the things he said, was just wondering if anybody had any ideas on what I should mention?

How about the 350 year old motto of the Royal Society.
"Nullius in verba", or "don't believe anybody". This is the basis of all science.

It sounds like he has believed some of the things that he has heard. In other words, he is not intelligent enough to look at the data and interpret it for himself. As such, he should desist from making comment.

According to the founding fathers of the Royal Society, your lecturer falls at the first hurdle. He believes. Christopher Wren would treat him with the contempt that his ignorance deserves.

Ask him what "Nullius in verba" means to him.


Don
--

[Jasandjules]

In a similar situation I collated a group of signatures from the students in the class (i.e. they signed my letter of complaint) and took it to the head of department.

[_James]

don4l said:

BJG1 said:

Had something of a piss-boiling moment in an Accountancy lecture today, when discussing problems with academic research, and discussing belief systems, my lecturer mentioned the CRU. Apparently afterwards sceptisicm on CLimate Change rose by 12%, to 52%, this, is, apparently, because 52% of the public are unable to make a fair judgement on the facts, they simply believed small misdemeanours undermined the whole argument, and thus, the belief system was shattered, and replaced by a new one, whilst the underlying science actually remains irrefutable. Clearly 99% of the public are ill-placed to comment, not just the 52% who happen to disagree with him.

He also used the old trick of lumping Climate Change Deniers and Man-Made Global Warming deniers in the same category, when clearly they are distinctly different.

I found it all a bit irresponsible, his casual dismisal of climate change deniers led him on to a point about Flat-Earthers, and as an academic, his opinion probably affects a lot of students' mind-set. I intend on sending him an email questioning a few of the things he said, was just wondering if anybody had any ideas on what I should mention?

How about the 350 year old motto of the Royal Society.
"Nullius in verba", or "don't believe anybody". This is the basis of all science.

It sounds like he has believed some of the things that he has heard. In other words, he is not intelligent enough to look at the data and interpret it for himself. As such, he should desist from making comment.

According to the founding fathers of the Royal Society, your lecturer falls at the first hurdle. He believes. Christopher Wren would treat him with the contempt that his ignorance deserves.

Ask him what "Nullius in verba" means to him.


Don
--

This being the very same Royal Society which fully endorses anthropogenic climate change?

[Bluebarge]

Pfft. Students nowadays. In the old days we would have snapped our pencils and set fire to a joss-stick in protest.

Rage against the Machine!! Oh sorry, forgot, you want to become an accountant.

[Eric Mc]

Unfortunately, the pencil snappers and the joss stick lighters of the 1960s ARE now the establishment.

Maybe it might have been better if the accountancy students of the 60s were in charge today rather than the philosophy and social studies graduates.

[BJG1]

Bing o said:

Why did you not challenge him? He's an academic and should be capable of discussion.

I've destroyed hippies (students) outside of RBS before with some very simple questions. I'm about nowhere near of a Lord Monckton, but I can still kick hippy butt.

Or are you a Nu Labia academic who learns by wrote without challenging the status quo?

Because my lectures have about 200 people in them, and it's rare for someone to pull a lecturer up on something, especially off-topic. The point of this was to send him an email, so I am going to question him.

[BJG1]

Bluebarge said:

Pfft. Students nowadays. In the old days we would have snapped our pencils and set fire to a joss-stick in protest.

Rage against the Machine!! Oh sorry, forgot, you want to become an accountant.

I don't want to be an accountant, I do accountancy modules as part of a course In Accounting, Business Finance and Management. I should probably not give any further clues as to who my lecturer is. (I'm a 3rd year )

[Nick_F]

Eric Mc said:

Unfortunately, the pencil snappers and the joss stick lighters of the 1960s ARE now the establishment.

Maybe it might have been better if the accountancy students of the 60s were in charge today rather than the philosophy and social studies graduates.

Aren't they the ones running our banks?