I was pretty smug about what I believed when I went to college.
There, I encountered a number of professors who agreed with my smug, self-satisfied beliefs – and one who challenged them, assaulted them, turned them on their heads.
Of course, I went into college a liberal – and Doctor Blake was a self-described “monarchist”. Doctor Blake cajoled me into reading Crime and Punishment, Modern Times by Paul Johnson, The Gulag Archipelago, and PJ O’Rourke’s essays (the ones that later became Republican Party Reptile). I entered college as a kid who had been just too young to vote in 1980 – and in 1984 I voted for Reagan (and in 1996 may have done it again, although I don’t remember).
The challenge to my “beliefs” was a whack up side my intellectual head. It was also one of the things I went to college for in the first place.
Of course, Dr. Blake wasn’t on a mission to create young Republicans – indeed, I barely remember him discussing current events or politics in class. He was not on a mission to indoctrinate kids, and while when called upon he did talk about why he was a Republican and why the Democrats were wrong, it was never as an abuse of his position, at the front of a classroom.
Which is where the line needs to be – and all too often isn’t.
So as I join with King Banaian and Janet Beihoffer in hoping you can attend Indoctrinate U at the Oak Street Cinema starting this evening, I’ll also draw your attention to the latest Katherine Kersten piece. Not every professor, it seems, is as forebearing as Dr. Blake:
t’s become a common complaint that U.S. campuses are home to a stifling liberal orthodoxy where contrary beliefs are persecuted. Doyle says it’s no illusion.
A new film, “Indoctrinate U,” documenting that atmosphere, opens near campus tomorrow.
Bethany Dorobiala, a senior political science major at the U of M, knows just what Doyle is talking about. Dorobiala was one of the few students who agreed to speak on the record about the problem.
In many courses, Dorobiala says, professors load up reading lists with books that reflect their ideological agenda. “If you speak up in class and present an alternative view, you may risk being ridiculed by a professor twice your age with a PhD.,” she said. “Students who agree with the professor’s politics are regularly praised and encouraged.”
Dorobiala has encountered this disregard for intellectual diversity in classes outside of political science. “In geology class, I had a teacher who made side comments bashing President Bush,” she said. A rigid orthodoxy prevails on issues as disparate as the death penalty and global warming, she says, and some professors regularly pontificate on topics outside their discipline.
Read the whole thing. Check out the movie.
Challenge is good. Abuse is bad.
Thinking for yourself is good. Whining about mean professors is bad.
I may try to make it tonight.
“A rigid orthodoxy prevails on . . . global warming” because it is a well tested scientific theory. I know you GOP post-modern hippies feel free to believe whatever feels good, but I am glad our universities still stand up for the good old scientific method.
That same good old scientific method that predicted global cooling a few decades ago, Rick?
I’m not denying global warming has been ongoing for 10,000 years or so, but it’s the “anthropogenic” angle that’s a whole lot of questionable.
Yossarian:
“That same good old scientific method that predicted global cooling a few decades ago, Rick?”
Yes, as we gather more evidence old theories are tested and rejected. That is the very definition of science. Theories that survive, like global warming, are ever more reliable. That is why we no longer bleed people for a fever, we use antibiotics. The fact that scientists looked into global cooling very closely and rejected it provides more not less reason to believe them about global warming.
Here is a nice summary of the 70’s global cooling research – why is was first thought up and latter definitively rejected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling.
“it’s the “anthropogenic” angle that’s a whole lot of questionable”
Then point us to a peer reviewed article that establishes some other cause for the consistent rise in global temperature since humans began pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Okay, first, let’s agree that citing Wikipedia for anything other than a history of the IBM blue buildings in Rochester is basically pathetic.
Second, if global cooling is now definitively rejected some 30 years later, doesn’t it stand to reason that maybe, just maybe, the GW Chicken Littles may be jumping the gun a tad. You want a cause for a consistent rise in global temperature since humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, when scientists aren’t even really certain what started the interstitial period of warming 10,000+ years back (which we humans benefited from greatly, you’ll notice, or perhaps you’d like most of North America covered in glaciers again?).
Psssst hint to you environmental types……people would take you a little more seriously if you all weren’t a bunch of wackjobs who come up with a new cause every 8 years or so. I’m still waiting for nuclear power plants to explode. I was pretty little then but do remember the 70s.
Acid rain. The ozone layer thing.
Any NW Wisconsin people here? Recall the fit they threw over the Flambeau mine in Ladysmith? The huge protests? The mine opened, played out, land reclaimed, and the environmentalists were 100% wrong again. You people have zero credibility.
“Okay, first, let’s agree that citing Wikipedia for anything other than a history of the IBM blue buildings in Rochester is basically pathetic.”
If you have a more reliable source of information on global cooling, please provide it. If you dispute any passage in the article I cited, feel free to correct it.
“maybe, just maybe, the GW Chicken Littles may be jumping the gun a tad”.
Like any empirical prediction, GW could turn out to be wrong. But the question is there any evidence that it is wrong. I asked you to cite some peer-reviewed evidence, you can not.
“I asked you to cite some peer-reviewed evidence, you can not.”
No, I’m at work. I will not.
Mitch…
Your post here seems to suggest that other professors aspouse joining a political party, or advocate FOR that party in particular, rather than presenting evidence for the students, as your Professor Blake did.
That suggestion is pretty specious. Does it ever happen, no doubt, on the other hand, having been in school recently (up through 2005), I can assure you that during my ENTIRE experience, at ISU, at the U, at Concordia, NOT ONCE did any professor advocate for a party, Democratic or Republican.
The closest anyone ever came was about abortion, when my Professor at Concordia criticized our societies beliefs, to me alone, in a private conversation. Our ethics class, lead by a Misouri Syned(Synid) Lutheran Pastor – and dyed in the wool conservative in fact did the exact OPPOSITE on a specific question of ethics about selling technology you know will be used for evil intent. The Republicans in the class basically said “I’m not responsible for how it’s used after I sell it,” while I, and the Prof, said “no, if you KNOW it will be used improperly, you have a moral imperative to not enable that act.” The question frankly was a simple ethical question – and the Prof was pointing out that some questions are ambiguous, others aren’t. I said the Republicans, because they who said it prefaced their comments with “I may be too much of a Republican but…” yet of course, the Prof was a Republican.
The point is, you create a fiction, or at least aggrandize it, by suggesting that colleges ‘indoctrinate’ our kids, and that I guess from that you are suggesting that otherwise, what? The kids wouldn’t be liberals? Bah. If the evidence suggests something, just as you did with Professor Blake, it’s not beyond the realm of correctness that kids draw conclusions.
As far as peer reviewed papers go.. the VAST preponderence of peer-reviewed scholarly articles in this country have concluded two things.
1. Global warming exists (which you neo-cons USED to dispute but no longer do)
2. Global warming is in part man caused (which even Karl Rove doesn’t dispute) – the dispute at this piont is how much change is likely, and how fast.
Considering you were dreadfully wrong about the first point, have little scientific research supporting your position on the second – why should we consider it as US who are indoctrinated, rather than considering it is YOU who seem to have gone out of your way to find self-fulfilling rhetoric to hide behind?
How about the world respected climatologest who spoke at the Univ of Colorado last week? He said in 10-15 years we are all going to look silly.
And then theirs the funding thing.
congrats Peevish, you are now allied with Georg W. Bush.
Chuck:
We would take people like you more seriously if you did not make such obviously false claims.
“I’m still waiting for nuclear power plants to explode”
You must have slept through Chernobyl.
“The ozone layer thing”
One of the classic success stories of environmental activism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
“Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068”.
Yossarian:
“No, I’m at work. I will not.”
Take your time I am a patient man.
Chuck:
“How about the world respected climatologest who spoke at the Univ of Colorado last week?”
I am unaware of any such person. Provide a name and cite a peer reviewed article he published on the topic.
“And then theirs the funding thing”
Yes the oil and gas industry will fund any sort of disinformation so cretins like you will have some hook on which to hang their foolishness.
One other thing, the student in that article, didn’t say how someone might be agreeing with politics or not. Nor how someone might criticize the professor, or not. If criticizing the points of global warming, when evidence is scant that it’s not human caused, is met with scorn, then what the heck do people want, should the professors say to someone who says that 1 +1 =3 that they are right, or that it’s a controversy or in serious dispute when it’s not? The fact that less than 1 percent of scientific research done outside of corporate interests/invested research concludes anything OTHER than human causation, doesn’t mean there is controversy, it means there are people with ill-intent attempting to discourage real debate by claiming, since voices exist on both sides, that there is controversy.
It’s the same as claiming that, since members of the KKK say blacks are lazy and stupid, that whether blacks are lazy or not, is in dispute, is a controvery and is undecided. Would you expect a Professor, who has done (in most cases) exhaustive research in the fields they are lecturing, to accept the views of what is an indoctrinated student presenting the next closest thing to mideval and ignorant views on a topic? Isn’t their job to challenge such views (which your student suggests is ridicule) and for that matter to refute them?
If I stand up and say the fundamental theorem of calculus concludes that the derivitive of X to N is N*10X to N+7, shouldn’t a professor say, “No, that’s not right?” Science has concluded that carbon dating is a reliable method, are you saying that since the creationists say that the earth is only 50,000 years old, that a professor of archeology is obligated to accept the continuing dissent in his class of a student who, every time the professor makes a point, says “but professor, that’s not PROVEN.” Is that professor NOT supposed to say “yes, actually, it’s valid in the scientific model, whereas your supposition the earth is only 50,000 years old has been disproven by methods which we hold to be both proofs, and are used as the basis for technology on which you rely daily.” Is the Prof REALLY supposed to say, “gosh Jonnie, you know, you’re right, there is HUGE controversy and what I’m saying is really only ONE theory among many – and those other theories have an equal chance of being true?” If so, I guess we’d better all stop going to school, because, what’s the point? I mean, we can’t conclude anything. You don’t know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1+1=2, or that Newton’s fundamental theorem is valid.
To be candid, your Dr. Blake went FAR beyond anything ANY liberal professor EVER said to me in any class, anywhere. No Professor I’ve ever had made any sort of claim to party affiliation, why one party was right or the other wrong – except, as I said, in private, and even then, it wasn’t about party. Had I had a prof make a statement about a party, i’da have said, in class, that’s dead wrong, Proff, keep your politics out of class.
derivitive of X to N is N*10X to N+7
Hypocrite.
RickDFL: correlation is not causation.
A “well tested scientific theory” actually has to be tested. What “tests” were performed, and by whom?
While you’re waiting, Rick (and apparently have loads of free time), perhaps you could find a peer reviewed explanation for the current glacial interstitial period we’re been enjoying and thriving under for the last 10 millennia or so.
mitch, get real
btw, Genaralow Wilson was freed.. yay.
So Mitch,
When your beloved Dr. Blake decided to criticize Democrats, which I’ve never once had any professor do anything similar in reverse toward Republicans – that wasn’t crossing the line, right?
You CONSTANTLY bitch about things you either don’t do yourself, or don’t expect of your party, what would you expect others to think of you?
You then do EXACTLY what you bitch about me doing to you, but get your undies bunched by being called a hypocrite…
All I can say is, if the shoe fits, you’re Cindarella. Would you rather be referred to as two-faced? I’m okay with that.
I also find it ironic that Mitch, after having (in the past) criticized me and Rick and Jeff, for taking work time to post, you sure seem to have enough time to post things here yourself..as do your Lilliputians.
Twofaced.
Silly environmental types, stirring up all that phony “acid rain” fuss, eh UpChuck? Bet they also don’t believe that the world is only 5,000 years old and that Jesus had a pet dinosaur.
It must be a comfort to industry lobbyists everywhere to know there are willing idiots like you ready to swallow anything they feed you.
Mitch, after having (in the past) criticized me and Rick and Jeff, for taking work time to post,
When have I ever done that?
you sure seem to have enough time to post things here yourself..as do your Lilliputians.
Twofaced.
No, merely responsible for my own schedule on the job. Work gets done (and, might I add, impeccably and way ahead of schedule).
Leaving comments is an occasional mental diversion, when a moment of thought is needed when solving something or another. And I”m a blazingly fast typist.
My actual posting takes place from 5-6:30AM every morning and, rarely, over lunch.
Not that I need to defend myself from anyone or anything because, lest anyone forget, on this blog I am the sole arbiter of the law.
I’m a benevolent despot, but a despot nonetheless.
Peev should not be one to throw stones about people CONSTANTLY bitching about anything.
When your beloved Dr. Blake decided to criticize Democrats, which I’ve never once had any professor do anything similar in reverse toward Republicans – that wasn’t crossing the line, right?
Y’see, PB, this is where the almost-invariably faulty assumptions you slather on every argument get you in trouble.
The political discussion with Dr. Blake took place outside of class, in a series of wide-ranging discussions that covered politics – ON OUR OWN TIME. He was my major advisor, so we talked a lot.
Not, as it happened, in class; he didn’t lard up discussions of, say, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” with all sorts of agendamongering.
You CONSTANTLY bitch about things you either don’t do yourself, or don’t expect of your party, what would you expect others to think of you?
What on earth, again, are you talking about?
I taught college-level writing, design and usability. Not a word about politics passed my lips (although we DID run a usability test on the infamous Broward County Butterly Ballot).
You then do EXACTLY what you bitch about me doing to you, but get your undies bunched by being called a hypocrite…
No, I call you on wrongly calling me a hypocrite for about the thousandth time.
All I can say is, if the shoe fits, you’re Cindarella…
And if it doesn’t – and it never does! – then you’re the wicked stepmother!
I also find it ironic that Mitch, after having (in the past) criticized me and Rick and Jeff
Everytime peev says something like that, I skip a beat…
Oh good god Mitch,
First, you criticized Rick and I about a year ago for taking time during our work days to do so.
In about August, just before you banned Jeff, you criticized him just the same.
You’ve said, in the past, you rarely post during the day.. only occassionally when you’re sitting on the phone or some such, when you criticized Rick and I.
and just one other thing, Mitch, my work gets done too, that’s why I didn’t reply to your comments on the 2nd amendment until late yesterday. But tooting your own horn means no one else will. I believe you that you do most of your posting during the morning, first generally I believe you, second the facts support it.
I type pretty fast too – though with lots of usage of pronouns when I shouldn’t, and often with misspellings.. sorry about that. for me, it’w when work is slow – and for about 6 months – until earlier this month – it was the worst – the hardest of my life.. but has been easier of late.
Benevolent despot – well, sometimes benevolent, usually a despot, but it’s your right.
Yossarian:
First, the term “glacial interstitial period” is not a recognized scientific term. Thanks for proving your scientific illiteracy for all of us. Ice Ages are called glacials, periods between ice ages are called interglacials. We are currently in the Holocene interglacial.
Second there are a variety of theories about the cause of the glacial/inter glacial cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages
Third, so what? How does our inability to totally understand the cycle of Ice Ages, force us to have no confidence in our theories of Global Warming? It is like saying you won’t take aspirin for a fever because science can not halt the aging process.
Oh good god Mitch,
First, you criticized Rick and I about a year ago for taking time during our work days to do so.
No, I didn’t “criticize” you, I ribbed you.
In about August, just before you banned Jeff, you criticized him just the same.
Help me out here – I’m not aware that I’ve ever banned a “jeff”. I’ve banned two of Eva Young’s fecktards, a couple of Jesus’ Generals’ drooling droogs, Doug, and you, twice. That’s pretty much my entire list.
You’ve said, in the past, you rarely post during the day.. only occassionally when you’re sitting on the phone or some such, when you criticized Rick and I.
Which was, and remains, the truth.
and just one other thing, Mitch, my work gets done too, that’s why I didn’t reply to your comments on the 2nd amendment until late yesterday.
No, I figured that. Just so we’re clear on things, let’s note here that having worked with you twice, I’d have no hesitation about recommending you (in the context of your day job) to any manager I have, just in case you’re ever on the beach.
No group hug needed – just saying I’m not going to attack your professional integrity. Merely…well, the stuff I constantly riff on here.
But tooting your own horn means no one else will.
Fortunately, I don’t want or need anyone to! That’s what the blog is for!
Benevolent despot – well, sometimes benevolent, usually a despot, but it’s your right.
By your leave.
Methinks Peev doesn’t understand the difference between “posting” and “commenting.”
Then again, Peev doesn’t have his own little blog, so I shouldn’t be surprised he doesn’t know the difference.
Sorry, you’re right, Doug.. whom you criticized for ‘not having enough to do during the day.’
And Mitch YOU didn’t clarify it was outside class. and I said IF, and candidly that’s the thing YOU get all slathered about.. you fail to grasp the qualification I make (frequently) or don’t fully read the point, or duck it and focus on something meaningless.
From my post: “Of course, Dr. Blake wasn’t on a mission to create young Republicans – indeed, I barely remember him discussing current events or politics in class. He was not on a mission to indoctrinate kids”.
SOME discussion of politics was inevitable – because literature DOES often take place in a political context (Tolstoii, Dostoievskii, Hemingway, Byron, Keats and of course Steinbeck all reflected political currents , for example).
But he challenged everyone’s political presumptions, and only in context of the academic discussion, to gain a better understanding of a work of literature’s context.
He never converted ANYONE in class.
“First, the term “glacial interstitial period. . .”
Thank you for that riveting Google-based scientific tut-tuttery. That you’re able to surf the InterWebs for scientifically-approved terminology whilst I am not, does not in some way expose illiteracy on anything.
Second, again with Wikipedia. Do you have that bookmarked as your source for everything?
“How does our inability to totally understand the cycle of Ice Ages, force us to have no confidence in our theories of Global Warming?”
If you don’t understand the climactic processes that resulted in the most human-friendly global environment ever known, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m just a tad skeptical that humans really know what the hell they’re talking about when it comes to global warming today.
That we’re at the point where humans are now blaming themselves for the environmental good fortune that’s permitted human domination of the planet strikes me as kind of silly.
Mitch, you got all twisted about being called a hypocrite, and now say, the shoe never fits..
OMG.. I’m about to fall down laughing.
First, I never said, as a teacher you were engaging in conduct of encouraging political party or views. My larger point, again you focus on the little words, not the big thoughts, was that yesterday, you bitched about someone (AC) castigating Republicans about pork barrel farm subsidy – and you accused me of offering excuses – AND you made at least what? truncated ? claims that there were only three cases of relevance abuot the 2nd amendment (your words “that’s about it”), while lecturing me to go read more.
You then –
1. Offered excuses for Republicans – hypocrisy
2. Either didn’t know or failed to acknowledge there were some pretty profoundly important cases beyond Miller and Presser.
3. Offered up the fact that Democrats do something is somehow a mitigation for Republicans
all at the same time you bitched about my using the exact same point – namely that Republicans do the same thing too – as some sort of screed/meaningless point. So you take a specific tact/action, and then complain loudly when it happens in reverse. THAT sir, is hypocrisy. And not only I, but Doug, Rick, AC, Flash, MANY others have shown you to be just such.
Today – in a (childish?) reply, rather than tell us why a Professor should accept a student disrupting class on Scientific Theory/Evolution/chemistry – whatever – and accepting that such conduct isn’t something that should be white-washed as merely expressing an alternate theory, your simply replied with “hypocrite” as if that somehow absolved you of your conduct – or addressed the question THEN you pissed and moaned about my not getting things because YOU DIDN’T engage in somethign as a teacher, when your conduct as a teacher was never called into question, not once, nor was the point made that Dr. Blake talked about Dems outside of class, you didn’t clarify it, why was I to assume it? In fact, your words were “when called upon”, which at least gives an impression of “in class” because oh, let’s see, what do teachers do when they want an answer, oh, they CALL UPON students.. so the impression was pretty clear.
Yet, you get your undies twisted that you LEFT OUT an important fact, and call me delusional for saying Dr. Blake crossed the same line you don’t like, when you created that impression yourself. In short, it’s you who have an issue being clear, but bitch about clarity, thus making you, yet again, a hypocrite. I don’t claim to be perfectly clear, I also know no one is, I don’t self-aggrandize about my typing speed, my benevolence, I don’t need to – I’m pretty self-assured about my benevolence – I’ve tried to be conciliatory.. care to reciprocate?
Mitch, you got all twisted about being called a hypocrite,
Yep.
and now say, the shoe never fits..
Yep again.
Either didn’t know or failed to acknowledge there were some pretty profoundly important cases beyond Miller and Presser
All of which since 1939 were merely interpretations or amplifications of Miller.
your simply replied with “hypocrite” as if that somehow absolved you of your conduct
IT WAS A JOKE! A JOKE! A MURTHA-FARGING JOKE!
Attaching a moral label like “hypocrisy” to a FECKING EQUATION…IT’S ABSURD TO THE POINT OF DADAISTIC.
call me delusional for saying Dr. Blake crossed the same line you don’t like
No, I said – and showed – that you were mistaken.
I read Peev when his posts are 10 lines or less. Kind of like walking past a Volvo in Highland Park. I only read the bumper stickers if there are less then 10 of them on the back of the car.
Rick DFL said “You must have slept through Chernobyl.”
Surely you are not comparing the Soviet Empire to America? We tend to have a little more rigerous safety standard.
btw, Genaralow Wilson was freed.. yay.
Yay!!!! Underage blowjobs for all!!!!
Chuck:
“Surely you are not comparing the Soviet Empire to America? We tend to have a little more rigerous safety standard.”
Because we have a strong environmental movement that keeps scientific illiterates from having anything to do with the regulation of nuclear power.
scientific illiterates …
…like those who see no difference between Soviet-era reactors and western ones?
scientific illiterates …
…like those who see no difference between Soviet-era reactors and western ones?
Mitch, we also would have accepted: “…like those who believe Algore actually knows anything about the climate”.
scientific illiterates …
or the even shorter version
“…Algore”
Peev’s long-winded, increasingly incomprehensible posts are due to global warming. I challenge anyone to find a peer reviewed article in the wikipedia that refutes this claim!
Mitch:
“…like those who see no difference between Soviet-era reactors and western ones”
Ce n’est pas moi. Western reactors were safer in part because the environmental movement insisted on more rigorous safety standards.
Because we have a strong environmental movement that keeps scientific illiterates from having anything to do with the regulation of nuclear power.
No, you have movies like The China Syndrome and Silkwood.
Western reactors were safer in part because the environmental movement insisted on more rigorous safety standards.
And in at least as much part because Hyman Rickover realized that reactors needed to be PERFECT, with no PR disasters, creating a nuke engineering culture in this country that hammered incessantly on safety long before there WAS an environmental movement.
RickDFL said:
“Because we have a strong environmental movement that keeps scientific illiterates from having anything to do with the regulation of nuclear power.”
But you keep on trying and, despite those pesky environmentalists, you may one day have something to do with nuclear power regulation, RickDFL. You may not be much for logical argument or information source discrimination, but you’ve got moxie! 😉
Allrighty, then! Let me see if I can set DFLRick straight on a few things! (I got pretty agitated early on, so I’ve only read about twenty posts.)
1) As is the case with all your ilk, you swear that the debate is over vis-a-vis global warming, yet you never, EVER, acknowledge any of the climatologists who support alternative theorum regarding the issue. Indeed, the line “the debate is over”, is one which your overlord, Al Gore, is want to repeat ad nauseum. The “debate” is far from over when said overlord has to use bloated facts (lies!) to advance his agenda on the issue! Even scientists on his side of the issue have taken exception with many of the claims made in An Inconvenient Truth.
My bS alarm always tells me, If someone needs to lie to advance their position, then the position is faulty!
2) If the rise in global temperature over the last 100-plus years is attributal to CO2 emmisions, then by our very nature, man is “in part” to blame, as we exhale CO2, and fart CO2, and use fire to heat our homes, emitting more CO2. Cows, Chickens, Pigs, Dogs, Cats, Zebras, Gorrillas, Giraffes, Hippos, and all other forms of life emit CO2, as well. To be sure, animals don’t drive cars, but we humans actually THOUGHT and used our INTELLIGENCE to harness the power of fire, and thus the internal combustion engine was born! Would you, Rick, have us go back to a time prior to that invention?…. I’ll wait…. Gotta car, Rick?
Stiiiiiiiillllll waiting, Rick!
Malcom:
“you never, EVER, acknowledge any of the climatologists who support alternative theorum regarding the issue.”
Please name and cite a scientist who has published peer-reviewed research that says that there has not been a rise in global temperature due to increase CO2 output.
“Would you, Rick, have us go back to a time prior to that invention”
No I would have us harness the same inventive skill to replace our current technology that produces less CO2. In addition our technology can help devise ways to reduce or capture CO2 in the atmosphere or mitigate the global warming effect it produces.