AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Drachasor]

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.

Astrology isn't part of Astronomy. Atmospheres and how they work IS.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Exactly.

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

Of course...the fact that he was talking about global warming has nothing to do with it.

 

[Cleon]

Seems to me the question of whether global warming is part of the Astronomy holy book curriculum is secondary (at best) to the question of whether people are dishonestly quoting him out of context in order to stir up a political witchhunt.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

That's the only reason he's being targeted so it's entirely relevant.

Any time I had a lecture that was "tangentially" related it was optional, not on the exam and at the end of the yea once all of the curriculum was covered. Unless it was a visiting prof doing a lecture. This just amounts to hand waving.

But this is by far the most reasonable argument in defense of this professors actions.

 

[Furcifer]

Of course...the fact that he was talking about global warming has nothing to do with it.

Nonsense, as I mentioned there are numerous classes at LSU that discuss Global Warming and none of them have been "targeted".

You're being dishonest.

 

[Furcifer]

Astrology isn't part of Astronomy. Atmospheres and how they work IS.

Deny deny deny.

Nice try, nobody is going to buy that the movie Water World has more to do with Astronomy than Astrology.

 

[Furcifer]

Seems to me the question of whether global warming is part of the Astronomy holy book curriculum is secondary (at best) to the question of whether people are dishonestly quoting him out of context in order to stir up a political witchhunt.

But it's only by deviating from the curriculum that this conservative group has any leg to stand on. If it was part of the curriculum there's no story, no controversy, no problem.

 

[Cleon]

But it's only by deviating from the curriculum that this conservative group has any leg to stand on. If it was part of the curriculum there's no story, no controversy, no problem.

Then why lie about it?

 

[Drachasor]

That's the only reason he's being targeted so it's entirely relevant.

Any time I had a lecture that was "tangentially" related it was optional, not on the exam and at the end of the yea once all of the curriculum was covered. Unless it was a visiting prof doing a lecture. This just amounts to hand waving.

But this is by far the most reasonable argument in defense of this professors actions.

You don't seem like an idiot, so I have to believe you are being disingenuous. He is totally getting targeted because it was on global warming. That's why they edited the tape. It's laughable to propose otherwise.

Of course, that you deny atmospheres are relevant to astronomy does question the idiot thing, I suppose. I think I'll still assume you aren't stupid and are just being disingenuous with that as well (it's just even more laughable than the other thing).

 

[Furcifer]

Then why lie about it?

What lie? I haven't looked at the edited video or this conservative groups nonsense concerning the lecture.

I've only looked at the claim from the prof he's been unfairly targeted. Because he's deviated from the curriculum he's opened himself up to all kinds of headaches. The same way I would expect any prof to take flack for deviating from the lesson plan at any University.

 

[Furcifer]

You don't seem like an idiot, so I have to believe you are being disingenuous. He is totally getting targeted because it was on global warming. That's why they edited the tape. It's laughable to propose otherwise.

No this is in correct. There are plenty of other courses discussing Global Warming, none of them are receiving this attention.

Of course, that you deny atmospheres are relevant to astronomy does question the idiot thing, I suppose. I think I'll still assume you aren't stupid and are just being disingenuous with that as well (it's just even more laughable than the other thing).

You obviously don't know the difference between Astronomy and Astrophysics. Not only that but the difference between Astronomy, Climatology and Political Science. I suggest you familiarize yourself with all four subjects and then get back to me about where Global Warming belongs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Were you aware that Wendell Potter, the CEO whistleblower from Cigna has disclosed the insurance industry's concerted effort to discredit Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko"? Any chance you may have been influenced by this intentional smear campaign against Moore?


The Fear of Sicko: CIGNA Whistleblower Wendell Potter Apologizes to Michael Moore for PR Smear Campaign; Moore Says Industry Was Afraid Film Would Cause A 'Tipping Point' for Healthcare Reform

Democracy Now has a couple previous interviews with Potter before the apology to Moore talking about the same incident.

The right wing has done a good job distorting both the films of Moore and Moore himself. I've read the 59 Deceits and the rebuttal to it on Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 911". I've listened to Potter describe the campaign to portray Moore and any health insurance reform as communist or socialist. And I've seen people blindly influenced by the talking points.

You might be interested in taking a second look at Moore giving consideration to the propaganda campaign that has been waged against him and his films.


MoveOn was also targeted. A video that was submitted to them, not chosen but hadn't been censored was promoted y the right wing as a video MoveOn was responsible for. The news media barely corrected the lie again told about MoveOn. I really think you should look at them as well. Their antiwar ad about General 'Betrayus" was met with an incredible campaign of the typical Karl-Rove-exaggerated-outrage that is one of the tactics in Rove's Playbook. MoveOn has also been seriously and effectively mis-portrayed.

 

[Corsair 115]

Nonsense, as I mentioned there are numerous classes at LSU that discuss Global Warming and none of them have been "targeted".

But how many of those other classes also have a convenient video recording of the lecture? Preferrably a lecture where the professor makes comments that can be edited to remove the proper context?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly.

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

Really. Got any other examples of Professors targeted for being off topic which was not relevant to a right wing political position?

 

[Cleon]

What lie? I haven't looked at the edited video or this conservative groups nonsense concerning the lecture.

The lie is in misrepresenting his lecture as being one-sided and preachy to the point of ridiculousness - when a view of the entire video shows that the over-the-top "you're all murderers" routine was a rhetorical device.

I've only looked at the claim from the prof he's been unfairly targeted. Because he's deviated from the curriculum he's opened himself up to all kinds of headaches. The same way I would expect any prof to take flack for deviating from the lesson plan at any University.

I really think you're just using that as an excuse. But hey, whatever. Enjoy the ride on the bandwagon.

 

[Furcifer]

The lie is in misrepresenting his lecture as being one-sided and preachy to the point of ridiculousness - when a view of the entire video shows that the over-the-top "you're all murderers" routine was a rhetorical device.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. Are you saying the edited video has him calling the police telling them there are murders in his classroom??? Short of that how could it not be considered a rhetorical device? I mean that's obvious to anyone isn't it?

I really think you're just using that as an excuse. But hey, whatever. Enjoy the ride on the bandwagon.

Me? An excuse for what? All I've said is this "loosely related" nonsense is an excuse. I don't think anyone would be saying the same thing if he was teaching Astrology. The same goes for any other "hot button" topics.

 

[Cleon]

*facepalm*

Ok, this obviously isn't worth the effort. Now bowing out...

 

[Furcifer]

Really. Got any other examples of Professors targeted for being off topic which was not relevant to a right wing political position?

This is very true. But we're talking specifically about his claim that it's unfair.

Think about it like this, if your child came home and complained "the teacher is picking on me, I'm the only one she tells at for throwing spit balls" what would you say? Would you make excuses saying "Is there anyone else getting yelled at for throwing spitballs?"

Just because you're the only one that's got caught doesn't make it right.

 

[Furcifer]

*facepalm*

Ok, this obviously isn't worth the effort. Now bowing out...

Obviously not, you're trying to defend the ridiculous notion that it's perfectly normal to lecture an Astronomy class on heat waves, hurricanes and Kevin Costner flops.

I mean Aliens I can see, Water World not so much

 

[Drachasor]

No this is in correct. There are plenty of other courses discussing Global Warming, none of them are receiving this attention.

When Evolution was first brought up and taught in colleges, after a while few people made a big deal over the it being taught in college. However, massive complaints were made about it being taught in High School Biology class. Controversial truth is typically most ferociously assaulted at the edge of the information spread in education.

You obviously don't know the difference between Astronomy and Astrophysics. Not only that but the difference between Astronomy, Climatology and Political Science. I suggest you familiarize yourself with all four subjects and then get back to me about where Global Warming belongs.

Colleges don't have separate Astronomy and Astrophysics departments. The intro courses don't necessarily teach only one of them either. Talking about atmosphere and how Astrophysics can relate to life on Earth is certainly a valid topic of discussion in an intro course. Not something the whole course should be based around, of course, but for a lecture or two? No problem.*

Btw, did you mention Political Science because you refuse to believe Global Warming is real?

*My old into Astronomy book: Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics (Fourth Edition). It goes over atmospheres, the effects, Earth's seasons, as well as some particle physics (among other things). Global Warming fits in here pretty well. So again, it just doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about OR you have an agenda.