You are here

Untruther Michael Shermer Caught Posing as Professor!

Click here, and forward to the last ten minutes of today’s show, to hear Professor Anthony Hall expose “Professor” Shermer on Truth Jihad Radio.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, has been caught impersonating a professor. Oddly enough, Shermer – a leading 9/11 untruther – has been falsely claiming to be an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont University, home of leading 9/11 truth scholar Dr. David Ray Griffin. 

While pretending to be a professor, Shermer also travels around the lecture circuit impersonating a skeptic. Oddly, his skepticism does not extend to the official story of 9/11. As editor of Skeptic magazine, he presided over a lame attack on genuine 9/11 skepticism a few years back. (Anab Whitehouse schools Skeptic in skepticism.)

In addition to these impostures, Shermer apparently makes a habit of falsely claiming familiarity with books he hasn’t read. At a recent talk at Lethbridge University, Shermer lumped 9/11 skepticism with UFOlogy and holocaust denial, and derisively claimed that he had read all nine of his alleged colleague David Ray Griffin’s books. But when challenged, he was unable to name even one of them!

University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall, astounded that one of Griffin’s fellow Claremont professors would behave this way, emailed Jean Schrodel, the Dean of Claremont’s School of Politics and Economics. Professor Hall noted that Shermer had advertised himself as “Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont University,” yet was not listed among professors at the university website.  Quoting from Dr. Hall’s email:

I must say, (Shermer’s) illustrated talk seemed to me to be far below even the minimal standards for a university presentation. His approach was professionally and ethically substandard. Dr. Shermer seems to specialize in efforts to demean colleagues through tactics of guilt by association. He equates, for instance, those who study the historical record of what did or did not happen on 9/11 with Holocaust Deniers and with those who study supposed aliens from outer space. He groups all the targets of his smear job together without distinguishing them as individuals with various specialties, disciplines, orientations, and theories. With his dehumanizing hate speech and psychobabble he seeks to arouse the antagonism of his audience towards a generic category he identifies as “conspiracy theorists.”

In the question and answer session I asked Dr. Shermer about his view of the work of Dr. David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology at Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Shermer claimed to have read all of Dr. Griffin’s books on 9/11 and found them to be entirely without merit. Thus, the distinguished Claremont Professor Emeritus, Dr. David Ray Griffin, was lumped together by another Claremont professor (??) into a general pool of Holocaust Deniers and such. All of this was quite shocking to me and I said so publicly. I was therefore relieved to find that Dr. Shermer may not be associated with your well regarded school in the way he claims. 

I would appreciate an explanation.

The explanation, it turned out, was that Schrodel had never heard of Shermer. Whatever Shermer’s connection with Claremont is – and it does appear that Shermer may have managed to milk some grant money through Claremont  – he is NOT an adjunct professor.

Woody Allen’s character Zelig, who spends his life impersonating people, became a human chameleon on the day he falsely claimed to have read Moby Dick. Did Michael Shermer – that impostor posing as a Claremont University professor – start pretending to be a Claremont professor on the day he first lied about having read David Ray Griffin’s books? “Sure, of course I’ve read them all…and by the way, I’m actually a colleague of Dr. Griffin’s at Claremont! I was telling him what an idiot he is in the faculty lounge the other day…”

Chewing on a cigar and blowing smoke from behind a greasepaint moustache, Shermer breaks into song:

(apologies to S.J. Perelman)

I don’t care what you have to say
About what happened on that day
Whatever it is, I’m against it

Your thermate evidence is good
But let’s have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I’m against it
Whether you’ve elaborated
Or condensed it
I’m against it

I’m opposed to it,
on general principles,
I’m opposed to it!

I’ve read all Dr. Griffin’s books
They’re pretty lousy by their looks
Whatever he says, I’m against it
No matter how he finished
or commenced it
I’m against it

No matter how much evidence
To me its all irrelevance
Whatever it is,  I’m against it

“He’s opposed to it,
on general principles,
He’s opposed to it!”

My brain can’t bear to hear the truth
I’d rather have you pull my tooth
Whatever the truth, I’m against it
So please tell that professor who dispensed it
I’m against it

“He’s opposed to it,
He can’t allow himself to be exposed to it
He’s so opposed to it”

I love ad-hominem attacks
Don’t ever bother me with facts
Whatever they show, I’m against it

I think by now you may have sensed it:
I’m against it


96 Thoughts to “Untruther Michael Shermer Caught Posing as Professor!”

  1. Anonymous

    The word "phony" doesn't even begin to describe Shermer.

    This post perfectly sums up the utter lack of ethics & complete mindlessness of the empty suits the powers-that-be wheel out to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory.

  2. Anonymous

    I always thought Shermer was a little (i.e.: a lot) sanctimonious and I disagree with his position on 911 – among other things – but he probably is an adjunct professor. Adjunct are nothing more than temp slaves. None of my adjunct profs were ever listed on the departments' websites.

  3. Anonymous

    Shermer is completely soulless, dead eyes.

  4. Anonymous

    Strange then that his name turns up on claremont university's roster:

    Is he so good at posing that he actually works there?

  5. Anonymous

    Michael Shermer is quite clearly listed as faculty here: Is the problem that you don't know how to read, or that you think you will help your case by lying?

  6. Anonymous

    In addition to the CGU shedule linked above that lists him, a quick search for "Michael Shermer" from the CGU home page also finds this page of SPE Faculty Appointments which lists "Michael Shermer" under "Senior Research Fellows". He is also mentioned on this page, this page, this page, this page, this newsletter, and this magazine, plus another half dozen or so scheduling and admin related pages.

    He really is very good at this posing! I suppose its because he's been practicing it for so long.

  7. Brian Good, hiding behind his usual cloak of anonymity, has been spamming comments with angry claims that Shermer is really a professor, and providing links. But the links just add more proof that Shermer lied.

    Shermer billed himself as "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at Claremont. But the links provided by Brian Good call Shermer a Research Fellow (meaning someone who is milking grant money through a university) – NOT a professor. Shermer's grant money, by the way, is probably coming from the intelligence community and/or other US-Zionist forces in the big foundation world, who are using him as a propagandist dishing out a "see no evil" worldview to the half-educated.

    If Shermer were actually a Professor of Economics, the head of the Economics Department would know that. DUH.

    Falsely billing himself as a Professor of Economics is the least of Shermer's impostures. Impersonating a skeptic, and propagandizing for the ridiculous Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11, makes him a phony through and through.

  8. Anonymous

    Good Job Kevin, keep up the good work…

  9. Anonymous

    Well, from this link

    He is clearly teaching a class with economic content in the Spring of 2010. Does that not make him a professor?

    This specifically lists him as a Senior Research Fellow under "Other School of Politics and Economics Faculty Appointments."

    He has a faculty appointment and he is teaching classes, sounds like a professor to me.

    Your inability to admit your error is indicative of your movement.

  10. Anonymous

    Holy shhht you're delusional.

  11. "He is clearly teaching a class with economic content in the Spring of 2010. Does that not make him a professor?"

    No, it doesn't. I have taught classes in English Composition, English Literature, French, Humanities, French-English Translation, American Civilization, African Literature, Arabic, Folklore, and Religious Studies at two universities and three colleges, and in not one of these cases was I a professor. Why? Because the appointments did not carry the title "professor." (I WAS a professor once – a Professor of English it so happens – because that university appointed me to a position entitled "professor.")

    The bottom line is that Shermer is a Research Fellow, not a professor, and the Chair of the Economics Department at Claremont University has never even heard of him; yet he bills himself as a Professor of Economics. Does this matter? Not nearly as much as his falsely pretending to be a skeptic and critical thinker.

    If I had falsely billed myself as a "professor" for speaking engagements, of which I have had many ( ) the same mindless anti-9/11-truth fanatics who are defending Shermer would undoubtedly be gleefully attacking me. Maybe that's because they have lost their ability to be critical thinkers, much less skeptics, due to the emotional trauma they feel when even contemplating 9/11 as inside job.

  12. All of these alleged links only prove one thing: Shermer was in on the 9/11 conspiracy and he is promulgating these ideas as part of the cover up. Why else would he write these books about skepticism and teach classes? Why else would he be a director of the Skeptics Society?

    Seriously guy, do some fact checking before you shoot your mouth off. You are one of the reasons why journalism is so dicey these days

  13. jackson

    good job kevin, you're a total douche

  14. Are you seriously not able to just admit that you were wrong, and Shermer wasn't mis-representing himself when he said he was a professor at Claremont? This article, on the Claremont website, is literally titled, "Author Michael Shermer Returns to CGU, as a Teacher This Time" and he teaches a course called "Evolution, Economics, & the Brain".

  15. Len

    At the very least he is a "research fellow" who teaches. But even CGU on at least two occasions called him an adjunct professor:

    "…alumnus and Adjunct Professor Michael Shermer, Editor of Skeptic Magazine. Drucker School Dean Ira Jackson also delivered a dynamic talk on Globalization and the legacy of Peter Drucker. "

    "He's Michael Shermer, adjunct professor of economics at CGU, and you've probably seen him on TV."

    He was described as a "distinguished faculty member" on page 32 of this newsletter

  16. I'm curious to know whether Dr. Shermer said that he is currently an Adjunct Professor or has been in the past. A simple search of the Claremont website clearly shows that he has indeed taught classes there, some of them involving Evolutionary Economics.

  17. Interesting, the more they try to discredit the truthers, the more they lie, the more they expose themselves as blatant LIARSSSSSSSSSSS ! Just watched the video, Shermer is a complete joke… en francais dans le texte… 'il a plus de froc, c'est un sans culotte' ( plus de pantalon)… en quebequois, far more closer too you Kevin, 'il a les miches a l'air'…

  18. Anonymous

    Dear Kevin- You are probably a nice man, but you are so mis-informed and completely wrong. But there can be no arguing right,because I have met others like you. You are right. You have all the answers and proof. Everyone else is wrong. You take information how you can use it and turn it into something ugly. I should not even waste my time writing something like this, but then I should not have even read the article in the first place if I knew it would only bother me. You have no idea who and what kind of man Michael is. You know nothing about 911. You should be ashamed of yourself. And if others reading this want to know about Shermer's association with Claremont, you need only call the school, email, ect.

  19. Anonymous

    Here's the list of actual adjunct professors at the Claremont Graduate University School of Politics and Economics. Try to find Shermer's name on it:

    And here's a list of recent books published by the School of Politics and Economics FACULTY. Oddly enough, Shermer's name doesn't seem to appear here either:

    As already mentioned, he's listed as a Senior Research Fellow in the "SPE Faculty Appointment" section, because he's teaching a course or two and probably doing some postdoc work. But that's quite obviously not the same thing as being an adjunct professor, since those guys have their own separate page, and he ain't on it. So it's a little surprising that an eminent scientist like Michael Shermer would turn out to be so stupid that he couldn't tell the difference.

    Or maybe he was just being dishonest?

  20. Sean

    You can attack your critics all you like, it still doesn't give any validation to your own theories… maybe in you own mind it does though. Like children do, like children do.

  21. Anonymous

    You're making some really far out accusations for something that's not that big of a deal.
    I once padded my resume by saying I was in a managerial position when i was really just a "team lead"…does that make me a zionist?
    I was going to post a comment through my google account but it seems that you're trolling this Shermer guy hardcore so I think I'll stay anonymous to avoid the onslaught of oddly misguided comments.

  22. Anonymous

    Shermer isn't even listed on the neuroeconomics department's website under "faculty". I note that Zak did training at Harvard in "neuroimaging" – sounds very orwellian.

  23. Anonymous

    You do realize that just saying what you think, does not actually make you right…. right? And claiming things like "grant $ is coming from the intelligence agency or some US-Zionist forces" is a big assumption/claim to make with no proof. Have you by any chance ever take a course in logic? And how can anyone post anything anonymously after you last post? Is anyone anonymous this Brian guy? How are you so sure that he is the one anonymously posting things? How do have so many answers for everything?

  24. Hi Kevin! Since you're so interested in the truth, I thought I'd share this comment found on one of Michael's articles. Enjoy this bit of TRUTH: "I have a “theory” about the 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy theorists. I suspect that if you look at them closely you’ll find a common thread. They’re people whose actual accomplishments have fallen far short of their own belief in their abilities. Except for a few dynamic and enterprising “prophets” who gather a following of these individuals and make a good living doing so, they are for the most part well below average in documented accomplishments. They’re all going to disappear when they die without leaving the slightest trace on the world except a little documentation showing their birth, marriage, death, and driving records.

    They can’t admit it, of course, but they are driven by a sick need to feel important that is stymied by the fact that they’re so irrational, unpalatable and weak-minded personally that they couldn’t even get elected to the local animal control board.

    So they latch onto something that makes them feel important and fantasize that they’re going to be hunted by some shadowy government force that might somehow do them in to shut them up. They gather together and tell each other ghost stories to get themselves all shivery and excited. They publicly harass people who have actually accomplished something to make themselves feel strong, potent and dangerous, when the truth is that they are nothing of the sort. It’s like an adrenaline addiction, a stimulating drug they can create internally.

    No government conspiracy actually exists and they’re in no danger from any shadowy conspirators, but they get a tremendous thrill from believing it and imagining that someone might be after them and that they might be performing a tremendous public service that the world will thank them for later. For them, it’s just safe fun to worry and fuss and engender panic and fear wherever they go.

    They repeat uncorroborated gossipy information and rumors about their topic and claim that it’s being “suppressed” when it’s actually just being reasonably ignored because it’s wrong, distorted, or blatantly spurious. They rabidly yap about it endlessly on the topic to their family and acquaintances and rudely dominate the conversations they have with normal people who are too polite to tell them to buzz off.

    It’s been going on for millennia. People crawl out of the woodwork with conspiracy theories every time there’s a dramatic and distressing public event. It’s predictable, but also boring and depressing to see people being so stupid without having the slightest awareness that they’re acting like idiots." How do you like that theory?

  25. An adjunct professor is basically a supply teacher. There are so many of them that the head of the department doesn't keep track of them; the administrative department does. Research fellows also have some moderate teaching responsibilities, and gets grants for researching and writing books.

    Calling oneself an "adjunct professor" instead of a "research fellow" would be a humble thing to do; a research fellow can also be an adjunct professor, but not the other way around.

  26. Anonymous

    "who are using him as a propagandist dishing out a "see no evil" worldview to the half-educated"

    Holy hell… what is wrong with you people? Is this entire site an elaborate prank or are you all really this delusional?

  27. Anonymous

    Shermer looks for real evidence not wild speculation to come to conclusions.

  28. Anonymous

    Blogs like these are why people lump 9/11 truthers in the same category as UFOlogists and holocaust deniers. No regard for the facts – just a ravenous desire to seek patterns where none exist.

  29. Behold the special pleading! You have been found to be wrong in your initial implication and you're now going to use ad hominem attacks in a sorry attempt to discredit a critic (even if anonymous) and your personal target!

    Truth of the matter is, you use faulty evidence and faulty (middle-school-esqe) logic in an attempt to prove something that didn't happen. For that reason, you (and your ilk) should be lumped together with Holocaust denialists (for historical revisionism) and UFO believers (for cherry picking and strawman attacks on evidence contrary to your belief).

  30. Anonymous

    OMF you are all idiots?
    I just randomly came to this sight, ive been reading alot of shermer`s things in sceptic and scientific american.

    And wel…what is the problem here exactly? you are going on about someone and quoting a stupid song while this guy works there.

    I dont care what you truth people say, i dont care how right you may be on some points in these little side debates you have.
    The fact is that you are all wrong and idiots.
    But dont get too angry maybe all the people controlling you and your media and your world and your tiny little useless lives are watching you right now and trying to bring you down. scary

  31. Anonymous

    If you think anyone fails to notice that you are omitting all comments critical of your lies, you are mistaken, again.

  32. Anonymous

    This blog entry is just total bunk from the get go. Let's stop the ad hominem attacks because someone disagrees with you and your less credible stance on 9/11.

    Your argument is baseless with zero evidence. Get a life, you're just bitter because you can no longer teach as you've been blacklisted.

  33. You are plain crazy. You ought to be ashamed!

  34. Anonymous

    "Shermer's grant money, by the way, is probably coming from the intelligence community and/or other US-Zionist forces in the big foundation world, who are using him as a propagandist dishing out a "see no evil" worldview to the half-educated."

    -not the argument of a scholar.

    "propagandizing for the ridiculous Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11, makes him a phony through and through. "

    -again, not the argument of a scholar.

    Perhaps you're the phony spreading lies about 911 and other people.

  35. Anonymous

    This article is complete nonsense. This is not the argument of a scholar. I can't believe this Barrett character should not be allowed to teach anything to anyone. It's a shame any university gives him a job. What a moron.

  36. Anonymous

    Holy moly, this website is a whole bunch of crazy. You loons got effed in the a** by REALITY bitchezzz.

    An *actual* skeptic lets the evidence lead where it may! You guys clearly make up your mind first, then look for evidence to support your idea second, ignoring all that which doesn't. It's like you get a little hit of endorphins every time you think you've found a conspiracy. You're addicted to it!

    I will never return to this website, but it was good for a laugh. "Truthjihad" pffft lol

  37. It's a great episode in the history of 9-11 Truth. Hats off to Anthony J Hall and Kevin Barrett.

    Shermer equals untruth.

    Is it an inside joke that his fellowship is through the school of the dean of 9-11 studies: David Ray Griffin. Is it the style of untruthers to besmirch everything connected with those they oppose?

  38. Wow! Guess I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere – most likely some astroturf website devoted to conning people dumb enough to mistake Shermer for a skeptic.

    This controversy began with Shermer's outlandish and idiotic ad-hominem attacks on David Ray Griffin and the large majority of the world's population that doubts the official version of 9/11 (including over 80% of Americans: ). I responded in this blog post with a humorous parody of Shermer/Wagstaff, and a link to Anab Whitehouse's careful, genuinely skeptical analysis of Shermer/SkepticMagazine's shallow and deceptive attack on the 9/11 truth movement.

    Shermer's legion of zombies has responded with a flood of often obscene, sometimes laughably ungrammatical, almost always idiotic ad-hominem attacks, none of which actually address a single substantive point, whether about Shermer's claim to be a Professor of Economics, whether his analysis of the 9/11 debates is valid, or whether his ad hominem attacks on intellectual opponents are called-for or even the least bit clever.

    The only intelligent adversarial comment on "is Shermer really a Professor of Economics" I see here is from SallySings:

    "Calling oneself an 'adjunct professor' instead of a 'research fellow' would be a humble thing to do; a research fellow can also be an adjunct professor, but not the other way around."

    Thanks for that info, Sally. Honestly, I didn't realize that Adjunct Professor was such a lowly title. In 2004 I was offered a postdoc position as a Research Fellow at the University of California, and had no idea I'd be outranking professors! Everywhere I've worked, to the best of my knowledge, you're an "Instructor" or "Lecturer" if you're non-tenure track, and "Professor" if you're tenure-track. I suppose calling non-tenure track part-timers Adjunct PROFESSOR is sort of the faculty equivalent of grade inflation. Anyway, thanks to Sally, I now realize that when Shermer falsely billed himself as an Adjunct Professor, he was only hoodwinking people (like me until five minutes ago) who think "professor" means tenure-track member of a particular department, and who have no idea of what a lowly position "Adjunct Professor" really is these days. That's not a big deal – no more important than if I'd falsely billed myself an "Adjunct Professor" at speaking gigs when I was actually a Lecturer. (Naturally I never did that, since I'm a truther and Shermer's an untruther.)

    But Shermer's other impostures, addressed and parodied in this blog post, ARE a big deal. His work is brain poison, as the gibbering obscenities blathered by his followers here show.

  39. I just called the President of the United States and he never heard of Michael Shermer. He must not be an American either.

  40. Anonymous

    Do any of these commenters actually believe the official version of 9/11? I didn't know there were that many true believers out there. Even Fox News is reporting grave doubts.

  41. Eric, if you can't tell the difference between a Department Chair never having heard of an alleged professor in his/her department, and the President never having heard of a random American, you're dumber than I can even imagine.

  42. (Actual) Professor Anthony Hall passes on this tidbit from Claremont's President: "Michael Shermer assists Professor Paul Zak of the Economics department in an occasional single course in the transdisciplinary studies program of the University."

    Shermer ASSISTS an actual professor in an OCCASIONAL SINGLE COURSE? Some professor. Give me Quincy Adams Wagstaff any day.

  43. Anonymous












  44. @ Andy I am so low documented that at the end fo the month, I am still probably doing 10 times your average wage !

    image your shock !

  45. These brainwashed megaphonies… so I did teach to undergraduate how isolate DNA, RNA etc… I never mentioned it in my CV as a teacher and if I teached to help my director of research it was to help or replace him because he could not do it, but I never have teacher contract mentioning 'teaching'… it's just part of the usual business in research departments, did you ever put a foot in an Uni Eric? You must be one these highly documented and achieved people, hired by cooptation, where did you bought your CV… pathetic

  46. Matt

    I'm fairly convinced that Shermer is a fraud. Not just because of inflated job titles. But more because he presents himself as a trustworthy skeptical analyst while his ACTUAL arguments are systematically lacking in critical thought. His self-professed image and his reality are entirely contradictory. Especially in areas pertaining to disputed historical events. He has 3 basic templates for his arguments: "what's more likely", guilt by association, and mockery. How are ANY of those scientific? I would bet, for example, that he is completely ignorant of the fact that a congressional investigation concluded that JFK's murder involved a "probable conspiracy". Why would he not know this? Or be unlikely to discuss it? Because he's not a critical thinker, and it's much easier to simply mock those who ARE aware of this crucial historical fact. He's not interested in evidence that threatens his own personal set of sacred cows. Which makes him the OPPOSITE of a skeptic. And, to me, a fraud.

  47. Kevin, your lousy epistemology gives away your basically delusional nature. None of the anonymi above were Brian Good. He has an airtight alibi all day 10/10.

    You are hurting the cause of 9/11 Truth as long as you keep yapping. Please just shut up.

  48. Anonymous

    Kevin, please explain how your ad hominem attacks on Shermer make your position any more true?

  49. Kevin…you are beset by sycophants of the most obvious kind. Shermer is a tool, and you have further exposed his lies…but try convincing these mental patients.

    "Of course, fire melts steel!"

    Give me Bill Hicks over this LIAR.

  50. What a treat – a comment from Brian "SnugBug" Good! For once the sex stalker has the guts to use his real pseudonym.

    Anonymous (who apparently lacks the guts) should have asked how Shermer's ad hominem attacks on David Ray Griffin and the majority of the world's population that doubts the official version of 9/11 make HIS position any more true.

    Shermer has never offered any detailed critique or study of the 9/11 truth movement's position or the evidence on which it rests. All he has ever contributed to the discussion is ad hominem attacks.

    I have been engaged in detailed discussions of the 9/11 debates and the evidence that is at stake in these debates for much of the past five years, was lead editor of a crossover/scholarly book on the topic (co-edited by the prestigious theologian John Cobb and Jewish Studies professor Sandra Lubarsky), have an academic background in Arabic and Islamic Studies that is highly relevant to the topic, and am cited in scholarly books by David Ray Griffin and Anthony Hall. The final 1/3rd of my book Questioning the War on Terror sums up what I see as the most important evidence against the official version of 9/11 (or at least as much of it as I could fit in a limited space).

    This, of course, is a blog, not a scholarly journal. It's a place for the personal, the creative, the witty…and the occasional ad hominem attack (in this case supported with ironclad facts, i.e. Shermer's false billing of himself). When an impostor like Shermer insults the real deal (David Ray Griffin) I see no reason not to do a humorous exposé.

    If you want my arguments about 9/11, you shouldn't have much trouble finding them. Meanwhile read Anab Whitehouse's deconstruction of Shermer's lame Skeptic Magazine piece on 9/11:


    Here is the letter I received late yesterday, October 11, from Joseph C. Hough, Interim president of Claremont Graduate University. Dr. Hough, a former teacher of Prof. David Ray Griffin, is unequivocal. Michael Shermer "does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the [Claremont Graduate] University."

    That statement from Claremont's top official calls into question many things, including the integrity of a number institutions that have treated the CV padder Shermer as a genuine academic. These institutional clients and patrons of the non-professor (not even adjunct) include TED and Scientific American. Let these patrons and clients know how compromised they are by their poor editorial decisions in building up Shermer and ignoring, for instance, Professor Griffin.

    I have asked my own school, the University of Lethbridge, to do some sort of public statement to correct its misrepresentation of Michael Shermer in the advertised announcement for our invited guest's Lethbridge talk. Misrepresenting credentials is a very big deal in the academy. It puts into question the very legitimacy of the degrees that our students seek and obtain from us.

    Make no mistake about it. The mythological structures of the 9/11 Deniers and their well-funded patronage networks are plunging to the ground near the speed of free fall. The gatekeepers in the mainstream media and their accomplices in so-called progressive media should take note of the Shermer case and what it says of the quality of the folks with whom they have been keeping company.

    Check out Zak's (and presumably Shermer's)loony research! It keeps getting more and more outrageous.

    Hough to Hall, 11 October, 2010

    Dear Professor Hall,

    I did not know anything about Professor Shermer until I received your email and did some quick research. Michael Shermer assists Professor Paul Zak of the Economics department in an occasional single course in the transdisciplinary studies program of the University. He does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the University. The transdisciplinary program operates in cooperation with all our the various schools here, but is a separate program. That is why Dean Jean Shroedel would not necessarity know about Professor Shermer's presence on the campus. Professor Shermer, is, I have learned, a regular contributor to Scientific American and the founding publisher of The Skeptic.

    I have no idea what he said in criticism of David Griffin that upset you, but at Claremont Graduate University, we strongly support the principle of free speech for visiting colleagues who are invited to speak at the University. We support this very critical principle even when some of the members of our community may strongly disagree with what they say.

    For the record, David Griffin is an alumnus of Claremont Graduate University, and I know him to be a highly respected and widely published philosopher of religion and a fine teacher. He was, in fact, a student of mine some years ago. I have read some of his writings on 9/11, and though I do not agree with many of his conclusions in the most recent book, I have read nothing in the 9/11 writings that would indicate that he has ever varied his approach to his work–namely: persistent and exhaustive research on subjects that really matter to him.

    Sincerely yours,

    Joseph C. Hough, Jr.
    Interim President
    Claremont Graduate University

  52. October 9, 2010

    Kevin Barrett converses with Professor Anthony Hall (University of Lethbridge), author of the brand-new Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism. Earth Into Property is not just a stunning alternative history of the past half-millenium, it’s the third 9/11 truth book — after Zarembka’s The Hidden History of 9/11 and Peter Dale Scott’s The Road to 9/11 — to be published by a major university press!

    audio interview page

  53. Anonymous





  54. Anonymous

    L – M – A – O!!!!!!!!!!

    Last night "someone" edited Shermer's Wikipedia page. They removed 2 words – "of economics" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    Oh, and guess what else?

    On Shermer's own website, the words "of economics" were also removed last night… Compare: (CURRENT) (2008 ARCHIVE)





  55. Anonymous

    People have posted HARD PROOF you're full of lies, you have one e-mail where you claim to have proof, but don't actually SHOW it, we get it second hand.

    You have the mail, post it, legitimate, with full info, no excercpts or quotes, EVERYTHING.

    Time to put up or shut up, shitass. You've been shot down as a liar, do you have ANY legit proof for your so called facts, or just more 2nd hand garbage no one can corroborate?

  56. Anonymous

    Shermer taught an interdisciplinary course. "His course at CGU is an overview of how evolutionary theory enhances our understanding of several disciplines, including economics, psychology, and even religion."
    "Adjunct professor of economics" would then be a nice, succinct way to bill himself rather than "Adjunct professor who has taught a course that relates evolution and different disciplines, one of which being economics."

  57. Anonymous

    This website is an anile astroturf factory. Any "engineer" purporting to have "evidence" that 9/11 was an act of controlled demolition rather than the direct and indirect result of two airplanes crashing into two giant buildings of vulnerable design is either a dupe, an ignoramus, or a liar.

  58. Is this him? Below is a course. I would love to nail Shermer for his lack of scholarship, but maybe he is an adjunct professor (?).

    TNDY 402M 3328 1 4 Evolution, Economics, & the Brain
    Textbook Michael Shermer, Paul Zak M 1:00PM – 3:30PM Burkle 14 A transdisciplinary and integrative overview of evolutionary theory, evolutionary economics, and neu more »

  59. Anonymous

    I'm sure "approval" means "agrees with 9/11 truthers."

  60. Len

    Annoymous wrote:


    Wrong see my October 11, 2010 11:21 AM post

    At the very least he is a "research fellow" who teaches. But even CGU on at least two occasions called him an adjunct professor:

    "…alumnus and Adjunct Professor Michael Shermer, Editor of Skeptic Magazine. Drucker School Dean Ira Jackson also delivered a dynamic talk on Globalization and the legacy of Peter Drucker. "

    "He's Michael Shermer, adjunct professor of economics at CGU, and you've probably seen him on TV."

    He was described as a "distinguished faculty member" on page 32 of this newsletter

  61. Anonymous

    Wow, so much hate here.

  62. Anonymous

    Guys, seriously. There are doctors who can help you.

  63. Anonymous

    I agree.. almost everyone on here is a maroon!

    Having said that a google click away and you can find Dr. Shermer listed on the very same university as exactly how he claimed. How awfully deceitful of him. No?

    Please google magical thinking/magical ideation and try to comprehend it. Brain food from me to you.

  64. Anonymous

    Perhaps Kevin Barrett is a socialist Muslim blogger from the planet Ramulak planted here on Earth to disseminate gamma radiation and undermine America… then again, maybe he isn't…. But how can we really be sure he isn't?

  65. Anonymous

    Shermer rocks! You idiots who throw away 99% of the evidence against your stupid position and prop up 1% for your own conspiracy theory is the word example of poor thinking. There is no way that any of you who believe in this 1) are critical thinkers or 2) should be anywhere near a student…1000's of engineers vs a handful of yours believe the story of record. You idiots think that all the bombers were coordinated with a demolition team?!?! Come on.

  66. Lots of anonymous entities – people too cowardly to even use their real pseudonym – are lobbing ad hominem attacks (tacit admissions they're wrong) and lame obfuscations.

    The issue under discussion is very simple: Is Michael Shermer in fact an "Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University" (the exact words he used in promotional material for the U. of Lethbridge lecture) or is he not? Hint: The letter from Joseph C. Hough, President of Claremont Graduate University, posted above by Tony Hall, confirms that he is not. Hint: Shermer just removed "of Economics" from his website and Wikipedia page.

    The only defender of Shermer who even tries to address the issue is some guy named Len who at least has the guts to use his real pseudonym.

    Len, those references are from NEWSLETTERS for goshsakes! Newspapers and newsletters are not official sources, and are often wrong in the titles they bestow. For example, when I was a lecturer I was repeatedly called a "professor" by many news outlets. Had I decided to accept their opinion, and go around billing myself as a "professor" on the lecture circuit, I would have been smacked down very quickly by everyone from Bill O'Reilly to my Provost. Using false academic titles is a no-no.

    So Len, please find OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION from the Economics Department or the Administration at Claremont Graduate University (i.e. from official, not journalistic, sources) that Michael Shermer really is an Adjunct Professor of Economics there. If you succeed, I will admit that I was wrong. If you fail, I expect you to admit that you were wrong. Fair enough?

  67. Anonymous

    Shermer is just another pawn of the zionist criminal syndicate.

  68. Anonymous

    Montreal truthers should pick up where Prof. Hall and I left off. If Shermer is introduced as an "Adjunct Professor of Economics" you should let the audience know that he is being mischaracterized. In fact, even to say he is an "Adjunct Professor" contradicts what the president of Claremont Graduate University says.

    Joshua Blakeney
    Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
    University of Lethbridge

  69. Anonymous

    Len, thank you for at least taking the time and *trying* to answer the challenge.

    You know as well as I do that the pages you have come up with are newsletters which have not been fact checked. They probably went to Shermer's own website where he makes the statement that he is an "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU and took it at face value. (Ooops, Shermer removed "of economics" two nights ago, but the "Adjuct Professor" remains.)

    You and I also know the following:

    The CGU site lists all "Adjunct Professors" in the Economics department. Shermer is not on the list.

    The CGU site lists all "Senior Research Fellows" in the department. Shermer *is* on the list.

    From this, a LOGICAL, RATIONAL person would conclude that there are two possibilities:

    either a) Shermer is a Senior Research Fellow, and not an Adjunct Professor

    or b) the CGU website is incorrect or out of date.

    The CGU website is copyright 2009, two years after Shermer's claim which began in 2007.

    So that leaves you with one last option: The CGU website is incorrect.

    So, I encourage you and the rest of Shermer's fans to contact CGU and ask them to put the correct information on the site.

    If that happens and the CGU site lists Shermer as an Adjunct Professor, I will say the magic words "I was wrong and you were right" – not that it means much as an Anon but I will say it.

    Now, will YOU say the magic words when CGU tells you their site is already correct? Or are you the very small person I suspect you are?

  70. As usual, the truthers win on logic and evidence (as well as wit and style), while the untruthers win on insults, obfuscations, irrelevancies, and assaults on the English language.

  71. Arden

    Maroons and Ramulak radiation disseminators. lol.

  72. Thanks, Kevin, for hanging in there against such an attack of maliciousness. I've listened to several of Shermer's "debates" where his only "arguments" consist of ad-hominem attacks coupled with constantly shifting the subject again and again when his "points" are shown to be fallacious.

  73. Andy quotes Shermer –

    "…9/11 Truthers [are] people whose actual accomplishments have fallen far short of their own belief in their abilities… they are for the most part well below average in documented accomplishments."

    But 9/11 Truthers are at least as prolific in their writings as those who support the government's theory! So, by “documented accomplishments” Shermer must be referring to MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS. What Mr. Shermer is saying, then, is that popular beliefs get mainstream media coverage, where unpopular beliefs do not. I think this is something we can all agree with.

    "They’re all going to disappear when they die without leaving the slightest trace on the world…"

    Shermer is saying that this is all about fame and recognition. Truth, then, is a popularity contest. There is a lot of wisdom in this, but Mr. Shermer would be the last to admit it, for he continues…

    "They can’t admit it, of course, but they are driven by a sick need to feel important that is stymied by the fact that they’re so irrational, unpalatable and weak-minded personally that they couldn’t even get elected to the local animal control board."

    Why is our need to feel important “sick"? Pushing unpopular theories out of a belief in their truth strikes me as a healthier way to seek the recognition we all crave, than does inflating, or inventing, one’s own achievements. Right, Mr. Shermer?

    "So they latch onto something that makes them feel important… They gather together and tell each other ghost stories… They publicly harass people who have actually accomplished something… It’s like an adrenaline addiction, a stimulating drug they can create internally."

    This is hypocrisy. Mr. Shermer has hitched his own vaulting ambition to whatever will advance it, and from this dubious vantage point is kicking the faces of those who have chosen a nobler path to the same goal.

    "No government conspiracy actually exists"

    Here lies the core evil of Mr. Shermer's position: the endless repetition of a belief, stated as an axiom: the truth is self-evident, and therefore requires no proof.

    "For them, it’s just safe fun to…engender panic and fear wherever they go."

    But those who sow this panic profitably are the only people in the 9/11 Truth movement whom Shermer admires! At the start he singles out “a few dynamic and enterprising ‘prophets’ who gather a following of these individuals and make a good living doing so”. In Shermer’s world money=success=good. Truth is what sells.

  74. (continued…)

    "They repeat uncorroborated gossipy information and rumors about their topic and claim that it’s being 'suppressed'… They rabidly yap about it endlessly… to their family and acquaintances and rudely dominate the conversations they have with normal people who are too polite to tell them to buzz off."

    Sadly, this is, indeed, the cross that the fringes have to bear. Unpopular truths are – unpopular! Are we, then, to shut up about them? Mr. Shermer would have us all docile sheep, snug under Big Brother's umbrella.

    "It’s been going on for millennia. People crawl out of the woodwork with conspiracy theories every time there’s a dramatic and distressing public event. It’s predictable, but also boring and depressing to see people being so stupid without having the slightest awareness that they’re acting like idiots."

    His whole diatribe is saturated in derogatory epithets. Why? Delete them and you are left with a mostly fair appraisal of the perils of the fringe – that jumble of alternate theories off which the mainstream must feed to sustain itself, or stagnate and die. Edited, this last paragraph reads “Mankind is forever creating new theories in the effort to explain Black Swan events. This is a necessary dynamic of human evolution, against which the mainstream must fight tooth and nail, to ensure only the best theories survive."

    Michael Shermer, invested heavily in a corrupt status quo, is fighting a rearguard action against more powerfully explanatory ideas. The fact that he has had to descend ever further into ad hominem rhetoric to sustain his argument bodes ill for his future.

  75. Anonymous

    Here is our latest report on Michael Shermer:

    Joshua Blakeney

  76. Anonymous
    defines an adjunct professor as:
    "An Employee who is employed by the Employer pursuant to an agreement in an exempt salaried position working up to ten hours per course per week for a 16-week period, who has one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him or her, who is responsible for teaching such course or courses, whose responsibilities do not include research or community service, whose current period of employment will not be considered for purposes of determining whether he or she is eligible for tenure at the Employer, and who is identified in the Employer’s employment records as an Adjunct Professor."

    So, it seems that based on the fact that Michael Shermer teaches a class at the university and is listed as a research fellow, he is entitled to call himself an adjunct professor, whether he is listed under adjunct faculty or not. It's what's on the faculty's employment records that matters.

  77. Nice try, anonymous! But you lose, and here's why.

    First, Shermer called himself an Adjunct Professor OF ECONOMICS. Even if you were right and he were an Adjunct Professor, he would still have been lying and misrepresenting himself, because he most certainly has NEVER been an Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont.

    Worse, he doesn't even fit the definition of Adjunct Professor you've provided. To meet this definition, Shermer would have to fit all of the criteria, including "has one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him or her" AND be "identified in the Employer's employment records as an Adjunct Professor." We have already shown that he is NOT identified in the Employer's employment records as an Adjunct Professor. Instead, he is identified as a Research Fellow. Therefore he is not, according to this definition, an Adjunct Professor.

    Additionally, the letter from President Hough states:

    "Michael Shermer assists Professor Paul Zak of the Economics department in an occasional single course in the transdisciplinary studies program of the University. He does not hold any term or permanent appointment in the University."

    Has Shermer himself (not Zak with help from Shermer) had "one or more courses at the Employer assigned to him" at all times that he has claimed to be an Adjunct Professor – meaning throughout most of the past several years?

    If so, he would still not be an Adjunct Professor (and certainly not an Adjunct Professor of Economics) unless his employer's records identified him as such. They don't, so he isn't.

    I very much doubt that he has had a course or courses assigned to him at all times during the past several years. I think he's been going around lying about himself and inflating his credentials and cashing in on the cachet of the word "professor" not only without actually being one – we've already established that, since the employer's records show he is a Research Fellow, not a Professor – but without even holding a teaching appointment at the time he so bills himself! Move over, Quincy Adams Wagstaff – here comes Michael Shermer.

  78. Anonymous

    Why does Hough refer to him as "Professor Shermer" if he is not any kind of professor (adjunct or otherwise)? Also, the fact that he does not hold a term or permanent position does not mean that he is not an adjunct professor – these aren't permanent or term positions. -Scatty

  79. Scatty, I'm glad to see that you have conceded the point that Shermer is not any kind of professor.

    So why WOULD Hough muddy the waters?

    As Barrie Zwicker wrote, "Interim President Hough may not relish a minor scandal which could reflect badly on himself and the U as well as Shermer, and hurt Hough’s chances of being named permanent President, for instance." Does that answer your question?

    I am not sure what a "term position" is at Claremont. Normally Adjunct Professor positions ARE term positions, meaning:

    "These appointments are part-time, for a specified, limited term no longer than one year at a time."

    If "term" means "limited-term," and Shermer neither has a permanent nor a term position, that means he doesn't have any position.

  80. Anonymous

    I have to point out that this is the EXACT argument that Barry Zwicker predicited Shermer would make – playing with capital letters – adjunct professor vs. Adjunct Professor.

    Everyone reading this thread has to realize one thing: Shermer's own website has been altered – presumably by Shermer – at exactly the same time this controversy broke out. CLEARLY he has been calling himself "Adjunct Professor of Economics" from 2007 to 2010 and CLEARLY that WAS NOT TRUE….BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

    Now, why does Hough refer to Shermer as "Professor Shermer?" From Shermer's own online bio:

    "He [Shermer] was a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College (1989–1998), California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College."

    Read that again… he WAS (past tense) a college Professor, so Hough gives him the academic courtesy of calling him Professor.

    However, he DOES NOT hold the position of "Adjunct Professor" or "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU and HE IS LYING about it.

    Scatty/Anonymous – first of all thank you for attempting to make a reasoned argument – that is something that is CONSISTENTLY and sadly missing from Shermer's supporters, and it's really refreshing to see you attempt to argue the facts using logic and reason rather than with name calling and illogic.

    You have obviously done a lot of digging to make the case that, at a minimum, Shermer can legitimately claim the title of "adjunct professor,", but you know perfectly well, FROM THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, that the CGU Economics website displays a list of "Adjunct Professors" and that Shermer is not on it and that is listed ONLY as a "Senior Research Fellow."

    How then can you justify Shermer's current claim – on his own website – that he is an "Adjunct Professor" (with caps) at CGU? How can you justify that he called himself "Adjunct Professor of Economics" at CGU from 2007 to 2010?

    I ask you to look just as deeply at yourself. Is it scepticism you are interested in, or Scepticism, with Shermer as your Prophet? Capitals matter, right? And religion is powerful stuff.

    In the latest video, we see the email where Shermer says flat out that he has NOTHING TO OFFER to prove his title is legitimate. How long are you going to continue to stand by a man that is damaging to your cause?

  81. Anonymous

    Shermer is being shown up for the fraud that he is!

  82. Anonymous

    Interesting question. I'm assuming that what's on the website is not necessarily what's in the employment records. I googled "adjunct professor at claremont" and found at least two people who were not mentioned on the website of the department they work for at all. That was me that posted the question above, by the way, and my google password didn't work, so afterwards when I wondered why the president of the university had referred to Shermer as "professor", I posted it under my google password. Do you only post comments once you've approved them and thought of a good answer for them? -Scatty

  83. Scatty,
    Google obviously isn't going to be up-to-date on who's teaching what when.
    FYI, Adjunct Professor posts are temporary ("term") appointments meaning the person is only an Adjunct Professor while teaching that class. As soon as the semester is over, (s)he is no longer an Adjunct Professor. If you Google, you'll find zillions of ex-Adjunct Professors mentioned under their former titles.
    As for posting comments, there are two orders: (1) the order they come in, and (2) the order they get approved and thus posted. Since I'm not always on-line, the two orders don't always match. I will occasionally change the order, as was done to your post, in order to prevent confusion about who's saying what to whom. To wit, if someone responds to a Scatty post, I approve the response, and then later an
    other Scatty post intervenes BEFORE the answer, I will move the 2nd Scatty post to put it AFTER the answer to the first Scatty post. Got it?

  84. Anonymous

    Scatty, you correctly point out the ONE AND ONLY way that it is possible for Shermer to be the innocent party in all of this: the CGU website MUST be incorrect.

    In the comments above, as you can see, both Kevin and I have promised to publicly say "I WAS WRONG" if any of you can manage to prove that the CGU website is incorrect – by simply having them correct it.

    So, the task before you is very simple. Simply call or write the CGU and ask them to put correct information up.

    Isn't it odd, though, that Shermer hasn't done that? I mean, we know he took the time to take out "of economics" from BOTH his online bio and his online CV, and at the same time someone with a California IP address made the same change on his Wikipedia page.

    So, it's clear that, despite his jocularly twitter taunting when this story first broke, he is actually concerned about this. But then why not have the CGU "correct" their website?

    Why say that he has "nothing to offer" to prove his credentials?

    It was really, completely settled when Interim President Hough said Shermer has no appointment at CGU, term or otherwise.

    Remember, outing Shermer as a liar doesn't change any realities. There'd still be the irrelevancy of god-existence (sorry Kevin), creationism will still be junk science, and Deepak Chopra will still be a dork.

    But when someone goes around delivering talks with topics like "Why Do People Lie?" then they'd better be prepared for some scrutiny to see if they themselves might be the liars.

    And in this case, despite your attempts to exonerate The Prophet, Shermer's been outed as a liar – someone who inflates his academic credentials. The funny thing is he never even needed to do it; he just took it that far because he knew followers like you would fall for it without question – exactly like the cultists he condemns.

    Open your mind to TRUE scepticism.

  85. Anonymous

    Ooops, just read Kevin's comment where he essentially makes the same challenge.

    So, once again, it's time for the "Skeptics" to put up or shut up.

    If you can get CGU to say – authoritatively – that Shermer is an "Adjunct Professor," Kevin will publicly say he's wrong, as will I (fwiw).

    What are YOU going to do if we all find out that it was YOU that's been wrong?

  86. Anonymous

    Mock the conspiracy theorists like the illuminati/freemasons want you to do…..

    9/11 was in fact, a demented and Masonic Ritual. I would have rather accept that 9/11 was for oil than that of a cult's evil, sick plan to kill innocent people just to slaughter more innocent people.

    All they do is mock but they have no proof……..

    Even your famous idols were aware…..
    Hollywood was aware.

    Yutube: 9/11 in Hollywood. You'll see it is quite a popular number. No use in arguing, if you're not going to do your research.

    Conspiracy Theorist and proud of it, and no, I never wanted to feel like I belong. I just want justice.

    And where is Osama? i haven't heard his name in awhile? Wasn't the whole intent to get Osama? Now we are trying to create peace in the middle east? They aren't even consistent with their lie. And you people wonder why people would ever question their government.

    This "Professor" is a fraud.

  87. If you're going to respond to people who disagree with you, at least learn what the word skeptic means. It's like you DON'T WANT to be taken seriously. I guess if you did anything but preach to the choir your worldview would collapse…

    it's analogous to the music snob who doesn't want their favorite band to be popular, but who always complains about the band's obscurity.

  88. Sounds like u follow everything Shermer says U should be skeptical of some skeptics We are dealing with human beings here who we can see in history have lied cheated and the government has lied before.just like Shermer says he can connect information to prove hololcost we can connect factual information on government proven lies ie tonka bay look it up

Leave a Comment