A university Vice-Chancellor who called for climate change to become part of the curriculum on every course claimed more than £16,000 in expenses on flights, figures have revealed. The Telegraph has the story.
Koen Lamberts, the University of Sheffield’s Vice-Chancellor, spent the sum flying around the world on work trips as his institution faces a £50 million shortfall.
Prof Lamberts also spent £820 on non-standard rail travel to business events between May and July. His expenses rose by 68% compared with 2023.
The total amount of registered expenses for the Vice-Chancellor for this year is £17,799, with £200 filed for food and drink for business dinner meetings.
This comes as the university’s finances are under scrutiny amid its shortfall and the launch of a voluntary severance scheme to target £23 million in staff cuts.
Bosses hope this will allow it to regain a financial surplus by 2026 to 2027.
At a meeting of the Sheffield branch of the University and College Union (UCU) this month, 880 staff members voted for a no-confidence motion against the executive board.
Prof Lamberts has been President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield since November 2018, having previously held the position at the University of York.
In September 2019, he announced students would undertake compulsory lessons on climate change to address the “emergency” facing the planet.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Make the peasants pay for stabling the King’s horses.
I think I understand the mental universe of the climate hysterics now. They believe that there are two types of CO2: good CO2 and bad CO2. For example, Koen Lamberts’ CO2 (and that of his compatriots) is fine and wonderful, and doesn’t affect the climate. Whereas the CO2 produced by other people (the “lower orders”, perhaps) is definitely dangerous. The upshot of this belief in the two types of CO2 is that the climate hysterics must be free to travel when and where they want, but that we must be brought under rigid micro-managed control (to save the world from humanity).
Correct.
Or, looking at it from a different angle:
There are two types of people: the righteous and the unrighteous.
For the righteous (woke, lefty, nice people holding all the correct opinions) emitting CO2 (flying, heating their houses) is a form of self-sacrifice. When they clock up 16k worth of air miles, it’s all for the greater good of mankind (oops, sorry humankind).
In sharp contrast, the unrighteous (you and me) do it out of selfishness. When they go on holiday, they don’t do it for any other reason than having fun! They are despicable, stupid sub-humans with outdated, bigoted ideas, who don’t see the larger picture and haven’t embraced the idea of our green, net zero, multicultural utopia.
There are two types of people: the righteous and the unrighteous.
Yep. And it’s the righteous people who decide who’s who.
Indeed.
Two tier CO2!?
MTF (when he was still present here) once actually wrote that: Good CO₂ is emitted by natural processes not involving humans. In contrast to his, bad CO₂ is caused by humans burning stuff. That’s why the relatively miniscule amount of CO₂ that’s bad CO₂ is much more important than the much larger quantities of good CO₂.
That’s really an example of circular reasoning: It’s assumed that it must be bad because it involved human activity. Because of this, people are looking for bad effects which could have been caused by it. Once they find some, that’s supposed to show that the premise was true.
Brilliant!
When I was responsible for devising undergraduate degree courses in Applied Ecology (including Climatology), it was (and still is) mandatory that the syllabus for each component be subject to rigorous validation, to ensure that the course reached what was considered to be an adequate academic standard.
Since there is now abundant reliable evidence that the climate catastrophe story is scientifically false, any course indoctrinating students with this fallacy would appear to be in breach of this legal requirement for validation.
So any Degree awarded to students taking any course that includes this – apparently mandatory – component would appear to be invalid and academically worthless. Might not the awarding University be liable to challenge as having been in breach of its contract with its students? Just a thought.
Or to express it in another way, it looks like a basic requirement to indoctrinate the students, rather than training them to think effectively on any issue.
No need for rigorous validation any more.
That was before the Covid vaccine era.
Everything is a matter of faith now.
Anyway, who needs critical minds and independent thoughts? Too dangerous. People might even question whether a man can turn into a woman by putting a pretty dress on.
Plus now we have BBC Verify to rely on. No scope for any doubts. The science is settled!
“The science is settled!”
The $science is settled.
Another university idiot. There’s so many to choose from
I am not convinced that all of these people really believe what they say. They are in many respects no different to the grifting establishment politicians who stick to the official narrative, toe the party line to keep their jobs. This unremarkable vice chancellor probably thought he could get more government/Green funding for his deeply indebted university by wanting to make climate change tuition compulsory on all courses. And let’s face it such is the commitment to Net Zero by this government that they may just give him extra monies.
Is he any barmier than those people sceptical of the climate change yet still vote for establishment parties who all support the climate change lunacy?
I expect these Climate Change Lessons are going to corrupt Science even more than the Green Agenda already has.
Well, there seems to be a veritable epidemic of stupidity these days; is there a vaccine for that? I’m tempted to employ ‘Profanity and abuse’, but I see the notice that such ‘will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.’
Professor Lamberts should lead by example. He must walk, train, or cycle wherever the dear man must go. Sorry Professor…..no more flights for you.