AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Furcifer]

First, Are you sure you understand how a university education works? Good professors go the great lengths no to silo their material and instead show how things are interconnected.

Now he's the John Keating of LSU.

You obviously didn't watch the entire video. While it may have been thought provoking, it wasn't "interconnected" to Astronomy.

Second, your contention that th9is material isn't suitable for an astronomy course is simply wrong. Understanding why planets are the way they are is a big part of what astronomers do. Giving that relevance to the students day to day lives is a big part of what teaching is about.

That's cute that you think that, but it has nothing to do with a first year Astronomy class. Who are you trying to kid here?

In any case, you clearly have trouble with the material itself rather then the teaching style and no one is fooled by your occasional suggestion you are really trying to argue the latter.

Always with the strawmen. There's nothing wrong with the material. I myself paid to be lectured on this material, in a University. For an entire semester, not just by some grandstanding professor for a single lecture.

Your argument is utter nonsense and driven by politics not critical thinking. You wouldn't ascribe these altruistic motivations to some professor lecturing outside the curriculum if it were anything but Global Warming.

This is the problem with alarmism, it destroys rational thought and critical thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You've mentioned the video several times now, 3bodyproblem. Is that the 10 minute video cherry picked from the one hour class or is there an unedited video out there?

 

[davefoc]

Wow,
A professor plays Devil's advocate on two sides of an issue and has this done to him?

And some people think the professor has a problem?

Recently, I have been forwarded a variety of right wing emails. Several of them consist of completely false information. They are just a collection of BS that somebody writes up and somehow manages to get mass distributed on the internet by conservatives* that forward them. As near as I can tell the people forwarding them to me believe them.

Is this what conservatism has come to? The movement is so insecure about their ideas that they need to resort to fraud and egregious misrepresentation?

* conservative in the current sense of the word - partisan Republican, social conservative and jingoistic with respect to foreign policy

 

[Furcifer]

You've mentioned the video several times now, 3bodyproblem. Is that the 10 minute video cherry picked from the one hour class or is there an unedited video out there?

There's a 40 minute video that was posted earlier in this thread.

Like I said, he seems to be playing devil's advocate. He's very animated and seems to be giving the "worst case scenario". He's acting the alarmist.

It's hard to say what his actual beliefs are from the video. It's not really relevant to the real question at hand; is he being unfairly targeted by some conservative group on campus?

I'm not even saying he needs to stop having the lecture. It's his prerogative. I'm just saying he's open to criticism because it's not really Astronomy.

If he feels he's being unfairly targeted all he needs to do is have it added to the curriculum. I doubt if he can, because it really isn't Astronomy, but if he does, then if the criticism continues he can claim he's being unfairly targeted.

I would vehemently object to anyone forcing him to stop. He has the right to present the lecture in his class, he just doesn't have the right to be free from criticism for doing so.

 

[Furcifer]

Wow,
A professor plays Devil's advocate on two sides of an issue and has this done to him?

I didn't see him playing devil's advocate on both sides of the issue in the video The audio isn't the best though. What do you feel he says that would lead you to believe he's advocating both sides?

 

[davefoc]

I didn't see him playing devil's advocate on both sides of the issue in the video The audio isn't the best though. What do you feel he says that would lead you to believe he's advocating both sides?

From an article linked to earlier in the thread:

In a press release the group selectively noted that Bradley Schaefer, a professor of physics and astronomy, had warned students who didn’t support government regulation of carbon emissions that “blood will be on your hands.” What the video and press release left out, however, were other provocative comments – found in a longer version of the video – Schaefer made toward students who supported regulation.

Assuming this characterization is correct the people who published this edited video acted reprehensibly. Lying for your side is nothing new but this is just about as disgusting as it gets.

 

[Trakar]

You've mentioned the video several times now, 3bodyproblem. Is that the 10 minute video cherry picked from the one hour class or is there an unedited video out there?

http://vimeo.com/16649140

 

[Trakar]

...Assuming this characterization is correct the people who published this edited video acted reprehensibly. Lying for your side is nothing new but this is just about as disgusting as it gets.

In the first few minutes of video as the class is entering the room he is lecturing one section of the class about how they are wanting to get rid of the internal combustion engine, institute strict population control, and return to nature without the benefits of modern technology. Then he switches over into the section cherry picked out for inflamatory recording clip. The professor switches back and forth between the extremist perspectives advocating them and then attacking them (while chuckling in asides to students and assistants). Not at all as it is characterized by those pushing the video for political purposes.

 

[Furcifer]

From an article linked to earlier in the thread:
Assuming this characterization is correct the people who published this edited video acted reprehensibly. Lying for your side is nothing new but this is just about as disgusting as it gets.

Maybe you don't understand, I said what did you hear on the video that lead you to this conclusion. You know, quotes?

I think it's obvious you never saw the video and are just parroting what you've read somewhere else. You're the one perpetuating a lie.

 

[Furcifer]

In the first few minutes of video as the class is entering the room he is lecturing one section of the class about how they are wanting to get rid of the internal combustion engine, institute strict population control, and return to nature without the benefits of modern technology. Then he switches over into the section cherry picked out for inflamatory recording clip. The professor switches back and forth between the extremist perspectives advocating them and then attacking them (while chuckling in asides to students and assistants). Not at all as it is characterized by those pushing the video for political purposes.

Since you watched the video, can you quote any examples of this professor "advocating for both sides" like Dave claims? He's not playing Devil's advocate to both sides of the room. It's pretty clear that he's presenting the dooms day scenario throughout the lecture. He goes so far as to discuss Water World and how that's a virtual certainty, although the amount of water stored in the poles isn't enough to raise sea levels to cover all the land. He laughs at people telling them their coastal land will be worthless and a bad investment. He threatens the lives of the students and their children are in danger. He tells them there will be more hurricanes, more heat waves and tsunami's.

To say he's advocating both sides is a complete lie. It's very clear which way he is leaning in the lecture, towards Armageddon. He isn't presenting things as probable outcomes or giving them any context. And not once does he mention the positives associated with climate change.

Please don't play the fool, it's quite obvious he's acting the alarmist in the video. That's why he's been subject to so much scrutiny.

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not even saying he needs to stop having the lecture. It's his prerogative. I'm just saying he's open to criticism because it's not really Astronomy.

People already covered on the first page of this thread how Astronomy relates to global warming. The Earth is a planet, remember, not some mystic dimension of pixies and elves.

Your definition of "what is really Astronomy" is wrong.

Since you watched the video, can you quote any examples of this professor "advocating for both sides" like Dave claims? He's not playing Devil's advocate to both sides of the room. It's pretty clear that he's presenting the dooms day scenario throughout the lecture. He goes so far as to discuss Water World and how that's a virtual certainty, although the amount of water stored in the poles isn't enough to raise sea levels to cover all the land. He laughs at people telling them their coastal land will be worthless and a bad investment. He threatens the lives of the students and their children are in danger. He tells them there will be more hurricanes, more heat waves and tsunami's.

To say he's advocating both sides is a complete lie. It's very clear which way he is leaning in the lecture, towards Armageddon. He isn't presenting things as probable outcomes or giving them any context. And not once does he mention the positives associated with climate change.

Please don't play the fool, it's quite obvious he's acting the alarmist in the video. That's why he's been subject to so much scrutiny.

That's because global warming is a fact. He'd be remiss as a teacher not to present it as such.

 

[Piggy]

The disturbing thing is how commonplace this sort of thing has become. Don't people even feel a twinge of guilt at manipulating video like this?

You might be interested in the recent Atlantic article Truth Lies Here.

 

[Furcifer]

People already covered on the first page of this thread how Astronomy relates to global warming. The Earth is a planet, remember, not some mystic dimension of pixies and elves.

Your definition of "what is really Astronomy" is wrong.

It's not part of the curriculum in any "Astronomy" class in North America. That's how I defined it.

As far as how it relates to being able to to see the stars through the atmosphere, and the effects on the surface of Venus yes, but not HOW IT AFFECTS COASTAL PROPERTY VALUES.

Now stop, please, you're embarrassing yourself. If it was an important part of Astronomy it would be part of the curriculum, it isn't. So please stop trying to change what you cannot possibly change by making silly rationalizations.

That's because global warming is a fact. He'd be remiss as a teacher not to present it as such.

So is the efficacy of vaccines. Do you think that's part of the curriculum? What about evolution, do you think that's part of the curriculum too? No, it isn't, and I'll tell you why because it's an Astronomy class.

By your flawed rational Global Warming should be lectured on in English, because they write reports on Global Warming, Chemistry, because it really is about the chemistry of Co2, Physics, Engineering, Business, Biology, Politics, Computer Science...

 

[Drachasor]

It's not part of the curriculum in any "Astronomy" class in North America. That's how I defined it.

As far as how it relates to being able to to see the stars through the atmosphere, and the effects on the surface of Venus yes, but not HOW IT AFFECTS COASTAL PROPERTY VALUES.

Now stop, please, you're embarrassing yourself. If it was an important part of Astronomy it would be part of the curriculum, it isn't. So please stop trying to change what you cannot possibly change by making silly rationalizations.

The only person embarrassing themselves is you. People have brought up how it is related, how astronomy goes over it, and you pretend it has nothing to do with it.

This is like a physics class on mechanics going over car collisions and the efficacy of a seat belt.* The only difference is that it is more controversial. Only an idiot would think classes shouldn't go over controversial material. Teaching students to question their assumptions is part of the job of ALL education.

*Or, as my physics classes went over, calculating figures related to the lifespan of a tire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You might be interested in the recent Atlantic article Truth Lies Here.

I wonder why they summarize the issue as

How can Americans talk to one another—let alone engage in political debate—when the Web allows every side to invent its own facts?...

...mainstream news organizations have already ceded a substantial chunk of their opinion-shaping influence to Web-based partisans on the left and right

(emphasis mine)

While clearly the Web allows each side to invent their own facts, currently the preponderance of invented facts are coming from the right. And every example this author cites tells that very story. Yet he writes this BS that the lying is currently an equivalence. No, that comment is a false equivalence.

Here are all the very examples the author cites:

Digg Patriots were banding together to promote conservative-leaning online stories and to drive down the rankings of stories that the group felt showed a liberal bias....

...But the episode raises an intriguing, and disturbing, question, especially coming on the heels of a number of similar incidents....

...in September 2009, an estimated 60,000 to 75,000 people showed up on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to protest President Obama’s “socialist” agenda. Unhappy with that reported turnout figure, conservative blogs disseminated a photo showing that there had been, in fact, 2 million attendees. ...[it was a photo of another event]

...Many, but not all, of these incidents involve movement conservatives, who continue to prove savvier than their liberal counterparts about deploying new media (see Matt Drudge, aggregation; Rush Limbaugh, talk radio; Sarah Palin, Twitter)....["but not all" yet that right is all that are cited]

...the ACORN takedown was based on a forgery ...

...the conservative Web activist helped cost African American USDA official Shirley Sherrod her job...

...conservatives even have their own alternative to Wikipedia, called Conservapedia. Its founder, Andrew Schlafly (Phyllis’s son) has compared Wikipedia to a “lynch mob.”... [Wiki being the product of 'reality has a liberal bias' problem conservatives face]...

...The Bush White House credentialed and, at press conferences, repeatedly called on blogger Jeff Gannon—whose online “news” outlet turned out to be essentially a front for the conservative activist group GOPUSA. ...

For the lying left, the article cites Wikileaks as the left's distortion. Excuse me but has Wikileaks been editing documents except to take names out? Is there an accusation Wikileaks is only releasing documents that they cherry pick for a liberal point of view?


This BS false equivalences is as distorting of the facts as are the organized right wing distortion efforts.

 

[Piggy]

I wonder why they summarize the issue as (emphasis mine)

While clearly the Web allows each side to invent their own facts, currently the preponderance of invented facts are coming from the right. And every example this author cites tells that very story. Yet he writes this BS that the lying is currently an equivalence. No, that comment is a false equivalence.

Here are all the very examples the author cites:For the lying left, the article cites Wikileaks as the left's distortion. Excuse me but has Wikileaks been editing documents except to take names out? Is there an accusation Wikileaks is only releasing documents that they cherry pick for a liberal point of view?


This BS false equivalences is as distorting of the facts as are the organized right wing distortion efforts.

Well, you don't have to go any farther than Michael Moore or MoveOn.org to find leftie lies. And just look how the whole Juan Williams thing went down -- it's entirely analogous to Shirley Sherrod.

 

[Upchurch]

Astronomy professor indoctrinates students to the dangers of AGW.

Indoctrination

It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

It seems to me that the professor was prompting them to critically examine their various positions on the effects of Global Warming and, more precisely perhaps, what to do about it.

 

[Furcifer]

The only person embarrassing themselves is you. People have brought up how it is related, how astronomy goes over it, and you pretend it has nothing to do with it.

You can try to relate it all you want, it's irrelevant unless you can show how it's part of the curriculum. The curriculum defines the course material suitable for class lectures. I suppose you think lecturing on Astrology is appropriate too because "it's related". Unbelievable.

This is like a physics class on mechanics going over car collisions and the efficacy of a seat belt.* The only difference is that it is more controversial. Only an idiot would think classes shouldn't go over controversial material. Teaching students to question their assumptions is part of the job of ALL education.

*Or, as my physics classes went over, calculating figures related to the lifespan of a tire.

It only has to do with the curriculum. It's not part of the curriculum. If you don't understand what a curriculum is just say so. Making stuff up about how it's related is BS. Global Warming and the lecture this prof presented has absolutely nothing to do with Astronomy.

The fact that it's controversial has nothing to do with it. Do you realize LSU has classes (hours and hours of lectures) that discuss Global Warming and they aren't getting the attention this class is getting? You're trying to make it out like it's some sort of censorship, and that's patently false. Nothing is being censored, it's the fact that this isn't part of the curriculum and this prof has decided to change it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

It's not part of the curriculum in any "Astronomy" class in North America. That's how I defined it.

As far as how it relates to being able to to see the stars through the atmosphere, and the effects on the surface of Venus yes, but not HOW IT AFFECTS COASTAL PROPERTY VALUES.

Now stop, please, you're embarrassing yourself. If it was an important part of Astronomy it would be part of the curriculum, it isn't. So please stop trying to change what you cannot possibly change by making silly rationalizations.

It's related to astronomy and planetary science as was pointed out to you earlier. Whether or not it is explicitly in the curriculum for this particular class is irrelevant. Many times professors will be able to cover all of their material in fewer than the given lectures and thus you can have special lectures covering related/tangential material.

 

[Furcifer]

It seems to me that the professor was prompting them to critically examine their various positions on the effects of Global Warming and, more precisely perhaps, what to do about it.

Exactly.

He's just being targeted because this has nothing to do with Astronomy.