AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[InfidelSavant]

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.



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.

Actually a lecture on astrology as part of the history and development of astronomy wouldn't be entirely out of line in an astronomy course.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

So you think Global Warming isn't being taught at the University and that's why this is related???

I took a University class 15 years ago dedicated to Global Warming, so your above point is irrelevant.

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.

What part of "Global Warming isn't part of the curriculum for this course" don't you understand?

 

[Drachasor]

So you think Global Warming isn't being taught at the University and that's why this is related???

I took a University class 15 years ago dedicated to Global Warming, so your above point is irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant. 15 years ago people made a big deal out of that sort of thing and teaching global warming in general. Now they pick at the edges when it is mentioned or discussed in classes NOT dedicated to the subject.

What part of "Global Warming isn't part of the curriculum for this course" don't you understand?

Global Warming fits into any intro Astronomy course. What part of that don't you understand?

Are you going by a few sentences describing the course? Guess what, you can't state every single lecture the course will have in a few sentences. Heck, even a syllabus doesn't do that in the vast majority of classes.

 

[Aepervius]

Blood is on our hands.

WI found soap and a lot of water a solution to that.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually a lecture on astrology as part of the history and development of astronomy wouldn't be entirely out of line in an astronomy course.

Agreed. I expect it comes up in much the same way I remember it coming up; discussion on the constellations leads to talk about astrological signs etc.
If some prof spent an entire lecture on making star charts, no matter how tangentially related to Astronomy that it, it's subject to criticism and additional scrutiny.

If this prof actually lectured on the science of Global Warming, like the effects of Co2 and how it relates to the atmosphere on Venus, and the Earth, that's perfectly fine. I've mentioned several times it would be expected. Even in an introductory course, in an astrophysics course I would expect it to be more in depth and require some actual calculus and physics.

I don't know if people just aren't familiar with the actual science of Global Warming or what, but this lecture wasn't about the science. It was about politics. There's no reason to divide the class up if he was actually talking about science for one thing. For another thing, Water World is laughably unscientific, which he points out in the lecture. If you think that lecture was about the science of planetary atmospheres you're clueless.

 

[Furcifer]

Global Warming fits into any intro Astronomy course. What part of that don't you understand?

lol, if you think that lecture was related to Astronomy you don't know science or Astronomy.

edit: there really isn't more I can say. I don't believe you think that lecture was Astronomy or science related. You know as well as I do it was politically motivated. Otherwise the approach would have been entirely different. I think you are deluding yourself and denying the obvious. You're not going to make me believe that was part of an Astronomy class, because I took Astronomy and that wasn't Astronomy. I had the exact same lecture and it was in an Environmental Ethics course. I know that's where it belonged, and that's why this prof is taking flack. So save your breath, and really stop trying to play ignorant as to why this guy, of all the profs in all the schools, is suddenly the center of attention.

 

[Drachasor]

I don't know if people just aren't familiar with the actual science of Global Warming or what, but this lecture wasn't about the science. It was about politics. There's no reason to divide the class up if he was actually talking about science for one thing. For another thing, Water World is laughably unscientific, which he points out in the lecture. If you think that lecture was about the science of planetary atmospheres you're clueless.

Such techniques were designed to get the students really involved in the topic. That's not at all a bad idea when teaching. While the Water World thing was undoubtedly the same, it was a bit silly -- but that's one thing out of a whole lecture.

 

[Furcifer]

Such techniques were designed to get the students really involved in the topic. That's not at all a bad idea when teaching. While the Water World thing was undoubtedly the same, it was a bit silly -- but that's one thing out of a whole lecture.

Which is good, the prof seemed like an engaging one. Astronomy can be one of those subjects that's as boring or fascinating as the prof makes it. It's almost always an elective, so you get that spread of students from different faculties taking it for different reasons. Some are taking because they're interested and it's a pleasant relief from other studies, for others it's just an easy "A" to fill a science requirement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

3body, you have not made your case despite the fact you think you have.

You've claimed GW was not a topic for astronomy. Your evidence is that whatever astronomy classes you've taken didn't include GW.

We've shown you astronomy course descriptions which included planetary atmosphere and comparisons to Earth. We've shown you astronomy classes include Earth since it is after all, a planet.

You've claimed the attack had nothing to do with right wing politics.

You cannot show a single other recent example of a similar attack on off topic course content that was not right wing politics. And neither the students in the class nor the dean of the university have an issue with what was discussed in the class.

I've posted links to the right wing propaganda group that was the source of this video.

 

[Furcifer]

3body, you have not made your case despite the fact you think you have.

You've claimed GW was not a topic for astronomy. Your evidence is that whatever astronomy classes you've taken didn't include GW.

We've shown you astronomy course descriptions which included planetary atmosphere and comparisons to Earth. We've shown you astronomy classes include Earth since it is after all, a planet.

At this point I can only laugh if you think this was an Astronomy lecture or has anything to do with planetary atmosphere. It was political and off topic, that's why he was made a target. You're only kidding yourself at this point.

You've claimed the attack had nothing to do with right wing politics.

Of course this is politically motivated, BECAUSE HE WAS TALKING POLITICS IN ASTRONOMY. That fact that he's wrong or open to criticism isn't political, it's because it isn't part of the curriculum.

You cannot show a single other recent example of a similar attack on off topic course content that was not right wing politics. And neither the students in the class nor the dean of the university have an issue with what was discussed in the class.

That's because you can't find another professor stupid enough to lecture on Global Warming in an Astronomy class if it's not part of the curriculum. I doubt if most Universities have retarded conservative watch dog groups either.

Anyhow, everyone's got the right to say what they want here. The profs got the right to lecture on Global Warming, and this conservative group has the right to point out that it's politically motivated and has nothing to do with Astronomy.

It's just as intellectually dishonest to claim this is Astronomy, as it is to edit together a video showing what he's lecturing on.

 

[FattyCatty]

Really? Because I took 2 semesters of Astronomy (to fill an Arts credit) and it never came up as part of the curriculum. Granted, times have changed, but surprisingly the solar system and the rest of the Universe really hasn't.

Apparently Astronomy classes have changed.

See this from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:

Astronomy 100
Exploring the Universe

Spring 2009
<snip>
SYLLABUS

Naked-Eye Astronomy

Tue Jan 27 -- Course Overview
Thu Jan 29 -- The Scale of the Universe
Tue Feb 3 -- Apparent Motions of the Sun and Stars Homework 1 due
Thu Feb 5 -- The Seasons; Phases of the Moon; Tides; Eclipses Quiz 1
Tue Feb 10 -- Global WarmingThu Feb 12 -- Planetary Motions Homework 2 due
Tue Feb 17 -- Gravity, Orbits; Birth of Modern Astronomy Quiz 2

And this from the CalSpace online program with scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the California Space Institute at UCSD in 2002:

Introduction to the Solar System
8.0 Planets of the Solar System
The Terrestrial Planets
<snip>
We are now using coal, oil and gas for production of energy (for the time reversing the long-term extraction of carbon from the atmosphere). Thus, carbon dioxide and methane are growing in abundance in Earth's atmosphere. Also, we are using limestones to make cement, which makes a modest contribution to carbon dioxide, as well. This recent change in the chemistry of the atmosphere of Earth is perhaps the most significant indicator of the presence of intelligent life in the solar system. (The emission of radio-waves carrying news about football games and stock prices is a close second.)

Chapter 9 -- The Earth in Space
9.1 Introduction to Earth
<snip>
Thus is the changing face of the Earth. Most recently, geologically speaking, the nature of the change itself has changed. Within the last two centuries, the human species entered a new phase of its history. Humans have become a major geologic agent, capturing vast amounts of water, changing the rates of erosion and the nature of geochemical cycles, and affecting the heat budget and the climate of the planet. Humans have set foot on a celestial body other than their home planet. And humans have begun advertising their presence in the solar system by making the home planet into a strong radio-emitter.

Also this from Iowa Valley Community College District, Marshalltown Community College (MCC) from Fall 2010:

COURSE NUMBER:

PHS 142 M01​

COURSE TITLE:

Principles of Astronomy​

<snip>
Chapter 8 -- The Earth

Questions to Explore:

How do we know that the planet Earth really revolves and rotates?
What is the structure of the interior of the Earth?
What causes mountain ranges, volcanos, and earthquakes?
Where did the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere come from and how have they changed with time?
Why does air temperature vary with altitude?
What is the greenhouse effect and how does it influence the temperature of the Earth?

He's lecturing outside the curriculum outlined in the course calendar. If he was teaching a course in biology and started lecturing about the merits of intelligent design he'd be subject to the same criticism of "propaganda".
<snip>
edit: it's discussed in a new class offered by the physics department: 64-203. Physics and Society-The Present. An Arts and Science course: 56-421. Science, Ethics and Social Policy and a Political Science course: 5-212. Environmental Policy and Politics, not in Astronomy.

eta: nothing on the LSU Astronomy course listings mentions global warming. ASTR 1101, 1102 are basically the same curriculum as I took.

Please provide links to the highlighted portions, as I could not find the information you reference. I could not find a syllabus or a "course calendar." All I found for it in the
Astronomy course listing in the catalog was:

*1101 The Solar System (3) Prereq: MATH 1021 or an ACT math score of at least 21. Fundamental principles of the solar system.

How does this show he was "lecturing outside the curriculum"? And how does challenging everyone about global warming without giving an opinion on what to do about it cause him to be subject to criticism of "propaganda"? That's not talking politics or promoting an agenda, it's discussing science and the ramifications of and differing opinions on the problem. He sounds like a good teacher.

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

How can you pontificate on this subject when you haven't even looked at the accusations?

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.

Can you prove he's deviated from the curriculum?

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

"I wasn't trying to push anything here," Mr. Schaefer told The Chronicle. "Almost the whole class was about the science of global warming. I put forth no opinions on how humanity should respond to global warming." He said his most provocative statements were meant to reflect what others might say and to challenge students to defend their positions.

And in the comments on that article, one of his former students says he discussed global warming when the class was given several years ago. Doesn't that sound as though it's part of his curriculum?

42. cjbellone - November 18, 2010 at 06:47 pm
I took Astronomy 1101 and 1102 with Dr. Schaefer in the Spring and Fall semesters of 2007. If I could describe the man in one word, it would be enthusiastic. It is evident to any student that spends even a single day in his classroom that Dr. Schaefer loves his subject.

That semester he reserved one day's lecture for the subject of global warming. It was honsetly one of my favorite class days. I did not feel exiled or ridiculed in the least for expressing my views on global warming. As to the relevance of the day's lecture, global warming is a phenomenon that happens to planets, which happen to be interstellar objects. Would you question the discussion of the temperature of Mercury, the rings of Saturn,the presence of water on Mars, or Jupiter's moons?<snip>

 

[Furcifer]

Apparently Astronomy classes have changed.
See this from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:

Yes, see this is exactly what you would expect. It's clearly outlined in the syllabus, there's a project and it's included in the grading through the project, in assignments and exams. This prof failed to do so and opened himself up to criticism.

Please provide links to the highlighted portions, as I could not find the information you reference. I could not find a syllabus or a "course calendar." All I found for it in the

Skeptic Ginger already linked it in this thread.

How does this show he was "lecturing outside the curriculum"? And how does challenging everyone about global warming without giving an opinion on what to do about it cause him to be subject to criticism of "propaganda"? That's not talking politics or promoting an agenda, it's discussing science and the ramifications of and differing opinions on the problem. He sounds like a good teacher.

It's not included in any of the calendars or course outlines. I searched for a syllabus but was unable to find one. If it's part of the curriculum there's absolutely no reason for the criticism, and in fact "unfair".

He does indeed sound like a good teacher.

How can you pontificate on this subject when you haven't even looked at the accusations?

It's about opening yourself up to accusations by not following the course material and presenting a lecture that isn't related to Astronomy. Any accusations beyond that are garbage, inflammatory and possibly slanderous. Before watching the video I thought he was a poor instructor, after watching the video I know that's far from true. I think that is what is unfair.

Can you prove he's deviated from the curriculum?

Yes, the material has nothing to do with Astronomy and leans heavily towards the politics of Global Warming.
There's a valid scientific part related to Astronomy that seems to be overlooked in this lecture. Perhaps it preceded this one? I'm not sure.

A better measure would be a comparison between say the class you listed from U Mass Amherst and this one.

I'll say it again, him being targeted at this point doesn't seem unfair . It appears from all the evidence he's deviated from the curriculum and presented a rather political lecture on Global Warming that has left himself open to these accusations. It's easily remedied by adding the lecture to the curriculum. If it already has been formally added to the curriculum then this conservative group doesn't have a leg to stand on and should probably release a formal apology.

 

[Meed]

It's not included in any of the calendars or course outlines. I searched for a syllabus but was unable to find one. If it's part of the curriculum there's absolutely no reason for the criticism, and in fact "unfair".

He includes it in the class, therefore it's part of the curriculum.

It's about opening yourself up to accusations by not following the course material

If you include something in your class, then it is course material.

and presenting a lecture that isn't related to Astronomy.

It wasn't all astronomy in a direct sense, but it was certainly all related to astronomy.

I had a biology class once where we were made to answer the question "Why is biology important?" That is not a biology question. But somehow I wasn't outraged. I had a cognitive psychology professor who gave a lecture on physics in order to compare and contrast the two fields afterward. That was my favorite lecture of the class.

It is certainly not remarkable for a teacher to deviate from directly teaching the science described by the title of a course for a period of time.

I'll say it again, him being targeted at this point doesn't seem unfair . It appears from all the evidence he's deviated from the curriculum and presented a rather political lecture on Global Warming that has left himself open to these accusations. It's easily remedied by adding the lecture to the curriculum. If it already has been formally added to the curriculum then this conservative group doesn't have a leg to stand on and should probably release a formal apology.

You mean the syllabus? The syllabus would be all that matters as far as something like deviating from the curriculum is concerned, legally speaking. A syllabus is actually considered a legal contract. But most teachers will throw on disclaimers. I've never heard of a teacher being sued for teaching something that was not mentioned on the syllabus. If he gave a graded pop quiz during the class with no mention of pop quizzes on the syllabus? Something like that might actually leave him open to being sued.

 

[FattyCatty]

Yes, see this is exactly what you would expect. It's clearly outlined in the syllabus, there's a project and it's included in the grading through the project, in assignments and exams. This prof failed to do so and opened himself up to criticism.

Skeptic Ginger already linked it in this thread.

I had found that link earlier; I didn't think it was applicable because it was for 2009 and the instructor was different.

It's not included in any of the calendars or course outlines. I searched for a syllabus but was unable to find one. If it's part of the curriculum there's absolutely no reason for the criticism, and in fact "unfair".

He does indeed sound like a good teacher.

It's about opening yourself up to accusations by not following the course material and presenting a lecture that isn't related to Astronomy. Any accusations beyond that are garbage, inflammatory and possibly slanderous. Before watching the video I thought he was a poor instructor, after watching the video I know that's far from true. I think that is what is unfair.

Yes, the material has nothing to do with Astronomy and leans heavily towards the politics of Global Warming.
There's a valid scientific part related to Astronomy that seems to be overlooked in this lecture. Perhaps it preceded this one? I'm not sure.

A better measure would be a comparison between say the class you listed from U Mass Amherst and this one.

I'll say it again, him being targeted at this point doesn't seem unfair . It appears from all the evidence he's deviated from the curriculum and presented a rather political lecture on Global Warming that has left himself open to these accusations. It's easily remedied by adding the lecture to the curriculum. If it already has been formally added to the curriculum then this conservative group doesn't have a leg to stand on and should probably release a formal apology.

If we assume that nothing changed from that 2009 class, then global warming was included in the curriculum. According to the Grades section of the 2009 class website:

10/19 - 10/23 9,10,11 Terrestrial Planets Test 2 (ch 5,7,8) Quiz 11, Survey Thurs
10/26 - 10/30 9,10,11 Terrestrial Planets Quiz 10 Thurs
11/02 - 11/06 12,13,14 Jovian Planets and Satellites Test 3 (ch 9,10,11) Quiz 11, Survey Thurs

From the Student Supplement to the course book, Universe:

The Living Earth: Chapter Objectives
Chapter 9 Learning Goals

By reading the sections of this chapter, you will learn

9-1 What powers the motions of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and land surfaces
9-2 How scientists have deduced the layered structure of our planet’s interior
9-3 The evidence that the continents are being continuously moved and reshaped
9-4 How life on Earth is protected from subatomic particles emitted by the Sun
9-5 How the evolution of life has transformed the Earth’s atmosphere
9-6 What causes the patterns of weather in our atmosphere
9-7 How human civilization is causing dramatic and adverse changes to our planetary habitat

They specifically mention the Greenhouse Effect under "Animation and Videos," which I can't access. It does prove, however, that they disagree with you about whether or not global warming is a relevant subject in an astronomy class. It also shows that the discussion on global warming was appropriate, related to astronomy, and in the curriculum. I think you're right, and the conservative group should issue an apology.

 

[Furcifer]

He includes it in the class, therefore it's part of the curriculum.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

If you include something in your class, then it is course material.

No it isn't.

It wasn't all astronomy in a direct sense, but it was certainly all related to astronomy.

Riiiiiiiight. Repeating it won't make it correct. Let's say if it doesn't make it under "Astronomy" on Jeopardy it isn't related.

I had a biology class once where we were made to answer the question "Why is biology important?" That is not a biology question. But somehow I wasn't outraged. I had a cognitive psychology professor who gave a lecture on physics in order to compare and contrast the two fields afterward. That was my favorite lecture of the class.

Wah?

It is certainly not remarkable for a teacher to deviate from directly teaching the science described by the title of a course for a period of time.

And it's certainly OK to question the deviation.

You mean the syllabus? The syllabus would be all that matters as far as something like deviating from the curriculum is concerned, legally speaking. A syllabus is actually considered a legal contract. But most teachers will throw on disclaimers. I've never heard of a teacher being sued for teaching something that was not mentioned on the syllabus. If he gave a graded pop quiz during the class with no mention of pop quizzes on the syllabus? Something like that might actually leave him open to being sued.

And I've never heard of a teacher not being criticized for throwing a pop quiz

Please stop with the lame attempts at trying to connect this lecture on Global Warming to Astronomy. It's completely laughable. Give this guy some credit, he feels passionately about the subject and he took a lecture to discuss it with his students. It says a lot more about a professor willing to do this despite the curriculum, than saying it was just "business as usual".

 

[Furcifer]

They specifically mention the Greenhouse Effect under "Animation and Videos," which I can't access. It does prove, however, that they disagree with you about whether or not global warming is a relevant subject in an astronomy class.

Um...did you read the thread? I already pointed this out.

I'm not sure, but are you aware Global Warming isn't new? It's a relevant discussion is it relates to planetary atmospheres. "atomospheres", not just Earth. It's been discussed in Astronomy classes for decades.

Can you figure out why this lecture now, is different from back then, and why now he's getting the attention he wouldn't have back then? Or is this a complete mystery to you? It's pretty obvious to me at least, what element has changed since then that has lead him to be the focus of attention by this conservative group.

I'll leave that to you.

(I found essentially the same link, without the black funky looking background on the LSU website, in the Astrophysics department course listings.)

 

[BenBurch]

Exactly.

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

No, he is being targeted because mendacious asses who can't keep their political noses out of other people's business manipulated a video to try to lose this man his job for spiteful and ideologically brittle reasons. Such people should be composted.

 

[Furcifer]

No, he is being targeted because mendacious asses who can't keep their political noses out of other people's business manipulated a video to try to lose this man his job for spiteful and ideologically brittle reasons. Such people should be composted.

Unfortunately you know that isn't the case. There's really nothing to be said about the lecture if it was about science and not politics. By bringing that aspect of GW into the discussion he invited this political backlash.

It's really the politics of it that's the problem, the science is rather mundane and rather well established. The science hasn't changed in what, 80 years since the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere was first discovered?

 

[TraneWreck]

Unfortunately you know that isn't the case. There's really nothing to be said about the lecture if it was about science and not politics. By bringing that aspect of GW into the discussion he invited this political backlash.

I sincerely hope you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, here.

He invited nothing. Universities are the place for dealing with controversy and thinking through problems. Watch the entire video. The professor was challenging the students, ALL of the students, and his words were manipulated by dishonest political hacks.

If universities are now barred from touching on controversial subjects for fear of enraging the ignorant, our society will be far worse off than it already is. If people want to maintain their uneducated stances, keeping their head in the sand so as not to be bothered by information and knowledge, they probably shouldn't go to a university.

No one "invites" cruel manipulations of their words.

It's really the politics of it that's the problem, the science is rather mundane and rather well established. The science hasn't changed in what, 80 years since the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere was first discovered?

That's an incoherent statement. It means nothing. What do you mean by "change?" The entire field of climate science (and related branches) is radically different from what it was 80 years ago. Some fundamental, base principles remain, but that's like saying "nothing has changed in genetic science" since the discovery of DNA.

 

[tsig]

So you think Global Warming isn't being taught at the University and that's why this is related???

I took a University class 15 years ago dedicated to Global Warming, so your above point is irrelevant.




What part of "Global Warming isn't part of the curriculum for this course" don't you understand?

Looks like you just really object to GW being mentioned and all this stuff about the curriculum is a red herring.