[uBeR]

OK, if it is in climatology, he shouldn't be teaching biology. Lol. Either way, a B.S. in climatology wouldn't give any person a qualification to dictate what is propaganda.

Crichton is a medical doctor if I am correct, which doesn't really give him any meaningful credibility.

But I think your lack of noticing your teacher's bias is key here. No person is without bias. We give these people the responsibility to teach our nation; our assumption is that we can trust what these people say--that they will be objective and forthright. That is what makes it disturbing when a person would abuse this position to impose ideological views to mar an institution so valuable to the advancement of a society. In this case, the teacher's is rather clear; there'd be no reason for him to attack a film in such a way he did for what is considered a generally accurate film. (I still don't think it deserved him a Nobel prize, which is the topic of this thread). Either way, I'm interested in the science of things, in which case things are pretty telling. It's when you begin to politicize things that it becomes riddled with incongruous twaddle.