[cogitator]

It qualifies her to study climatology and even to teach it; but the field has never been charged with forecasting future decades; this, she has apparently taken on herself and is openly biased on the side of AGW.

I would hazard that 90+% of scientists with credentials similar to hers would be "openly biased" on the side of AGW. The point was that the article only mentioned a side degree in religions, without mentioning her more standard academic credentials and background. But WorldNetDaily isn't supposed to be an unbiased source, either.

[Old Professer]

Quit guessing, that's what got us here.

Universities perpetuate dogma in science and culture, free thinkers aren't welcome there anymore.