3bodyproblem, you keep posting without changing what you are saying, in spite of evidence proving you wrong (not to mention that almost every other poster disagrees with your conclusions). Let me lay it out for you from your first post.
But first, your use of the word curriculum is confusing. I’m sorry I didn’t bring it up earlier, but I didn’t want to cloud the main issue so I went along with your usage. Because you have shown no signs of listening, because your posts seem entrenched behind a wall of your own opinions that nothing can breach, I’ve changed my mind. So:
- Curriculum refers to an overall course of study or set of courses, such as required for a degree; it concerns a planned sequence of learning experiences.
- Course Outline is the official agreement on the general content of a specific course; see the catalog. It allows for consistency and transferability. It is not as specific as a Syllabus.
- Syllabus refers to the information about a specific course’s content and policies and can be instructor-specific. Changes to the syllabus should be clearly communicated to the students (and cannot go outside the bounds of the Course Outline).
Syllabus is the more correct term to use in this discussion of a single class.
Another point to bring up before starting is the list of “solutions” Dr. Schaefer used in his seating plan. They were divided into three sections, left, middle, and right. Each section had more than one “solution.” It may make some of the comments clearer if the seating divisions are shown here. They start on the left as you’re watching the video and run through to the right, with the most extreme positions at each end.
Left Side:
- Eliminate All Engines
- Mandatory Birth Control
- Eliminate Deforestation
Middle:
- Heavy Push for Population Control
- Only Hybrid Cars
- Eliminate Tax Deduction for Kids
- Outlaw SUVs
- Heavy Foreign Aid for CO2 Limits
- Heavy Taxes on Greenhouse Gas
- Heavy Investment in Alternate Energy
Right Side:
- Follow Kyoto Accords
- U.S. Should Do Nothing
I also noticed that you refer to AGW as GW. Interesting. Does this reflect your opinion on this issue?
Anyway, starting with your first post, a basic error begins. You assume that your experience in 2 semesters of Astronomy (anecdote) is evidence that no Astronomy class will include AGW.
Although this has been shown to be false by more than one person, you continue to state it as fact.
Really? Because I took 2 semesters of Astronomy (to fill an Arts credit) and it never came up as part of the curriculum. <snip>
Skeptic Ginger gave links to Astronomy classes that included AGW. I proved (i.e., used evidence, not anecdotes or opinions) that AGW was included in the syllabus of not only Dr. Schaefer’s class, but of each of the three examples I gave (for classes in 2002, 2009, and 2010). Furthermore, the example from 2002 shows that this is not a new thing.
He's lecturing outside the curriculum outlined in the course calendar.
Proven wrong. See above.
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".
Dr. Schaefer states, in the
Chronicle of Higher Learning article, that most of the class was on the “science of global warming” and that he gave no opinion on how to deal with it. He goes on the say that “his most provocative statements were meant to reflect what others might say and to challenge students to defend their positions.” These statements are borne out by the comment of a student from his 2007 class. Discussing the science of an issue, showing how others might react to it, and challenging students to defend an opinion do not constitute “propaganda.” Therefore, he did not engage in “propaganda,” as you claim.
It's pretty simple, you teach the curriculum in class and if you want to lecture on something outside of it, for whatever reasons, you dismiss the class early and carry on the lecture for those who wish to stay or invite interested students to a lecture after class hours.
He did teach the syllabus, as previously proven.
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.
It’s irrelevant if a class on AGW is offered, or if other classes mention the subject. The fact is, AGW is part of the syllabus of ASTR 1101, the class in question.
eta: nothing on the LSU Astronomy course listings mentions global warming. ASTR 1101, 1102 are basically the same curriculum as I took.
Course Outlines are a more general description. The Syllabus gives the specifics of the lesson plans. So proven wrong. See above.
lol, excuse me, I have one post explaining why I know this isn't part of the curriculum for astronomy.
As has been shown, your knowledge on this subject, both in general and specifically relating to ASTR 1101, is incorrect.
You have several posts blathering on about nothing meaningful to the actual problem this professor has presented. I be damned if you're going to preach to me about ranting Ms. Kettle.
Discussing the problem of a video edited to prove a point that isn’t shown in the unedited, complete version is not “blathering on about nothing meaningful.” Your posts are the ones that do that by restating the same error over and over.
Yes, I read the link and it's very straightforward, the prof deviated from the lesson plan, preached his political view in a rather impassioned method and caught some flack for it.
He didn’t deviate from the lesson plan, see above. He didn’t preach his political view; see the video, his statement, comment of a previous student. He didn’t “catch some flack for it;” a deliberate attempt was made to imply that he was advocating a political view and harassing students who had a different view. This is usually called “smear tactics.”
It wasn't part of the curriculum end of story.
It was part of the syllabus, proven, end of story.
People didn't pay to hear his views on GW, he wasn't paid to give them, he used his authority to purvey his political views to a captive audience.
He didn’t give his views on GW or on AGW. He didn’t use his authority to “purvey his views to a captive audience.” As shown previously, he gave a class on AGW that talked about how people would deal with it, the science, and the problems resulting from it. It’s not an opinion that AGW exists, it’s a fact. It’s not an opinion that serious problems will result if it proceeds unchecked. How and where the problems manifest (who starves, who’s in a drought, who’s land is submerged, etc.) may not be known with certainty yet, but that these things will happen is a given. The audience was not chained in place and could leave if they were offended (unless, of course, they had to stay for a secret videotaping). Those who left would have to take any consequences, a good lesson in itself.
He repeatedly said in the video that he couldn’t decide for the students. At ~1:14:
Dr. Schaefer said:
The political decision, hey, the politics, the sociology, the ethics of this, uh, there’s no good answer. You guys will have to decide this yourself.
At ~1:50 he says:
Dr. Schaefer said:
So you have to decide. I can’t decide the politics, the sociology, the ethics for you.
I stopped counting after that.
That's wrong. You can't do that.
It would be wrong. He didn’t do it.
If he wished to include it in the curriculum there's ways to do so, and instead he subverted them. Other than that I don't see any problem with it. I don't really care about the political nature of how and why. If ADM wants to give him money to teach a course on GMO's I could care less as long as he outlines it in the curriculum.
He subverted nothing. It was in the syllabus, as shown previously. And even after this has been proven, you continue to argue that he is wrong.
You know it's actually admirable what he was trying to do. I think University is the place for the learned to pass their knowledge onto the willing. But the key word there is "willing". It appears the entire class was not exactly willing participants.
This is a little silly. You are equating “willing” with “those who agree.” Students are there to learn, they are not always happy about that, nor do they always agree with what is said. Also, can any group of students all be called “willing participants”? If they want to, they can leave and take the consequences (the fact that actions have consequences is a good thing to learn, even if you aren’t happy about it).
As a simple analogy you may understand, if I hire a contractor to put a new furnace in my home and he wants the lecture me about the importance of renewable energy that's entirely his prerogative. But he has to tell me up front that is what he wishes to do. If he springs it on me half way through the job we're going to have issues if I decide I don't want to be lectured on renewable energy. Get back to work or your wasting my time and money.
This post has a condescending tone and contains a bad analogy. Dr. Schaefer’s job is to teach, and AGW is one of the things he is supposed to teach in that class.
Try to rationalize as much as you want but the fact remains, he was paid to do a job and he didn't do it. It's not a big deal and it's easily remedied if he simply submits the changes he wishes to make to the curriculum. Easy assuming his peers don't object to him modifying the curriculum. There is the chance that another faculty feels they are better prepared to present the material in a more thorough fashion. Or perhaps someone in his own faculty may feel they are better suited to present the topic. In that case he may be relegated to teaching only astronomy, and not political science, or government policy.
Already proven false, see above. As to the rest, he received the LSU Distinguished Faculty Award in 2010, so I doubt he will be “relegated” to anything. And your last sentence is inaccurate, as well as snarky.
Please don't reply to this unless you have an intelligent response, you're last one was meaningless and a tad bit trollish. 3 questions does not a response make.
Oh yah, yes it was a full year of Astronomy. Total bird course with no lab. That's pretty much the extent of "Astronomy". 1 book 1 year, done. Astrophysics is a whole other study and a degree unto itself.
Rude and irrelevant post.
A tough call. Without taking a poll it's hard to say. I can tell you from participating in the Global Warming threads it's about 80% Gore 20% not so Gore.
<snip>
It's so hard to think of future generations when we can barely take care of the current one.
Irrelevant to OP.
The first year Astronomy course mentions nothing about global warming. The second an advanced level Astrophysics courses, which I would expect to cover planetary atmosphere. The LSU course does mention history and philosophy, so maybe that's what he felt open up the opportunity for him to get political?
The slides and tutorials on the class website imply discussion of AGW. The LSU class (ASTR 1101) includes AGW.
edit: (I missed this link when I first posted, my apologies. I checked the LSU calendar earlier and this wasn't mentioned either. It does change things a bit)
Yet you don’t seem to change your statements.
What don't you understand about this? It's a science professor engaging in politics at a University, and doing so as part of a science program. It's wrong for an Astronomy class. It's not part of the curriculum. There's nothing wrong with him lecturing on the subject, just [/HILITE]not within the confines of the classroom without changing the curriculum.[/HILITE]
Wrong, he's not engaging in politics. He's teaching AGW and it’s on the Syllabus. See above. And, even though it doesn't pertain here, teachers are allowed to make changes to a syllabus.
*sigh
Of course, if that's what this was about. He wasn't lecturing on the science of GW, he was lecturing on the politics.
He was lecturing on the science, as well as the ramifications, of AGW. He talked about and questioned decisions the students would have to make, he didn’t lecture on politics. See video.
The science of Global Warming was discussed in 1 year physics to some extent and in the Astronomy class and Chemistry. At least the effects of carbon dioxide and pollution in the atmosphere.
The politics and the social impacts etc. are political science and philosophy. There are many classes that spend entire semesters discussing the issues. At every school.
I don’t understand how you can teach the science without mentioning the impacts and the possible ways to deal with the issue. These aren’t political science and philosophy. They are everywhere you talk about AGW. I think you are creating a false dichotomy.
*sigh
It doesn't matter how long the video was, and it doesn't matter if the students did or didn't complain.
He said he's being unfairly targeted by some conservative group. So the question is "Is it fair"?
If it's not part of the curriculum and he's lecturing on it, is he an open target to criticism for doing so?
I said yes, he's a target and fairly so. Physics professors don't teach politics. Heck, they don't even teach math if there's a math professor doing so. It's not appropriate for a physics professor to be lecturing on politics in a science course.
AGW is part of the Syllabus, that’s been established. He's not lecturing on politics. Mentioning choices and decisions in solving the problem is not the same as lecturing on politics nor is it teaching politics. Telling students that they will have to make decisions in the future, that they should think about it first, and that they need to look at the evidence is part of teaching how to think, which should be done at the college level, especially in a science class.
The Campus Reform’s video claimed (in caps, with scare music) that Dr. Schaefer practiced indoctrination, that he accused them of having blood on their hands, and that he was mocking them. (“I think this is an opportunity for our teacher to openly mock us.”) They used graphics, music, and editing (repeating certain things, not showing others) to demonize the lecture. They changed the appearance of what Dr. Schaefer did to suit their political ends. So the question is “Is this right?”
AFAIC the physics department should be offering a course, an entire course not just a lecture, in conjunction with the political science and philosophy departments on Global Warming. There's more than enough material, and there really isn't a well rounded program offered at any University on Global Warming. It's more of a hodge podge of mathematicians, physicists, chemists and meteorologists. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's certainly going to be the need in the future of climate scientists.
Off topic, but Stanford University’s School of Earth Sciences has an Environmental Earth System Science Department that sounds as though it has such a program.
That being said, I don't think this guy should be fired, or disciplined for doing so. They should discuss changing the curriculum if they think it's appropriate. If it is, then it is, if it isn't then he should stop doing it during class time and do a separate lecture, or create a class that he can teach where the material is appropriate. It's pretty simple.
In the mean time, if you're going to present political material in an Astronomy class, you're going to get attention.
No need to change the syllabus, AGW is already there. Dr. Schaefer didn't "present political material," he discussed a factual problem that may be controversial because of some people's political beliefs. That's not him bringing in politics, it's someone else applying politics in their thinking.
Attention is different than a directed attack. Have you looked at the Campus Reform
website? Did you read what Skeptic Ginger said about them?
Oh yah, and your hyperbole about McCarthyism is pure nonsense. Every University, in just about every department offers or in some cases requires an ethics course. I happened to take one on Environmental ethics, but there was a specific one for Engineers and Business students. There's plenty of political discussion, and it's encouraged, but it's encouraged within the confines of a specific class. Biology professors do not lecture on abortion or assisted suicide. The idea that they don't or can't because of McCarthyism is ridiculous.
Dr. Schaefer didn’t lecture on politics. His class was on AGW, the ramifications, the choices and decisions in how to deal with it, the results. All on topic. You’re confusing the discussion of how to deal with the problem of AGW with a political discussion, just because the professor confronted various students on their points of view in an effort to make them think.
You want to lend some context to this by giving some examples? I have no idea what classes you are talking about, or what the topic was.
This wasn't a side track either, he says if you'd read the article, it was intentional. Do you see the difference? The difference between sidetracked and intentional?
Dr. Schaefer’s intention was to make the students actually think about how to solve the problem of AGW, not just parrot what they had heard.
No, he's just ranting along in typical alarmist fashion, saying students children will be lucky if they don't die from Global Warming unless the United States does something about it.
That's not Astronomy,
not unless it's changed in the last 15 years.
It is a fact that people will die because of AGW; it’s already happened in the heat waves in Europe and Russia. He was ranting in the sense of talking in an excited manner; I don’t know if speaking the truth is alarmist when the truth is alarming, but you obviously intend the word as a putdown, so I’ll disagree with your use of it. Also, he never said the U.S. was the only one who had to do something about AGW. He did say that the students’ generation would have to. I think you're confusing the position category with the Dr.'s personal opinion.
It’s already been shown that current-day Astronomy classes include information on Earth systems, including AGW.
I watched it also.
Are you sure you watched it?
Yes.
He's ranting like a typical alarmist about people dying, hurricanes, heat waves and being generally provocative. It has absolutely nothing to do with Astronomy.
As has been shown, present-day Astronomy classes include Earth systems, including AGW. He’s not alarmist in your belittling sense of the word, he’s pointing out an alarming situation. The other things you mention are facts. People have already died in heat waves. Hurricane intensity is increasing. He was being “provocative” about various points of view on how to deal with AGW in an effort to make the students think (something university professors do).
I'm not saying he's an alarmist. I'm pretty sure he's playing devil's advocate here. It's hard to tell because he claims temperature rises of up to 10 degrees and sea level increases of 4 feet in these students lives. That's about 50 years. I've got to look at AR4 again, but I don't think that's the actual projection.
You have been saying that he is alarmist. See your previous posts.
Why would you think these students will only live 50 more years? If they’re around 18 now, they’ve probably got another 60 years (average life expectancy in the U.S. is now about 78). Dr. Schaefer said that by around 2100, should the students live so long, there would be an increase in temperature in the range of 4 to 10 degrees F. His graph showed the differing models and what the range was between them. He explained that there was some uncertainty involved, hence the range of temperatures.
He's not being an alarmist about opposing ideas though, I'm not sure where you get that. His rant is at the start of the class, or the filming at least (students are still filtering in)
He’s not expressing his own opinions, as has been pointed out before. He is challenging the students to think about their opinions, showing them what others think, pointing out problems with their reasoning. He doesn’t just address this to one group, although it’s hard to hear when he’s not talking to the right because the people around the video recorder are talking. He begins by addressing the people on the right, then switches to the left, clearly addressing opposing ideas.
I believe his agenda was to teach the students and make them think.
The fact remains the material wasn't appropriate for that particular class.
Wrong again.
You obviously didn't see the video. The notion that "It's a science classroom and it's science so it's OK" is ridiculous. Are you aware of how things are taught in University? it isn't like grade school.
You’re right. University professors are much freer than grade school teachers in how they teach and in the ability to teach how to think, not just facts for the mandated tests. And having attended a university, I am aware of how things are taught.
In calculus you don't get taught chemistry, even though it's science.
In mechanics, you don't get taught organic chemistry, even though it's science. In thermodynamics, you don't get taught genetics, even though it's science.
I don’t know about these specific instances, but I suspect you’re oversimplifying. You need math in chemistry. What kind of mechanics? Are there some that involve chemistry? And it is not relevant to this class, where AGW is part of planetary (i.e., Earth) systems, which are part of Astronomy.
It's very simple. For every class there is a curriculum. The curriculum is set out by the faculty. This lecture was not part of the curriculum, and is in no way related to Astronomy. The professor is platforming, and despite your political leanings is not appropriate material for an Astronomy class.
Again, it’s been shown already that AGW was on the Syllabus for this class and that AGW is related to Astronomy. The Dr. was not platforming if that means promoting a political view. The material was by definition appropriate for the class because it was part of the Syllabus. Also, you are not the judge of the appropriateness of material for a class at a university. That job belongs to the professor and the Department.
If he was teaching evolution, or ID, in an Astronomy class, it isn't appropriate. Your particular set of "beliefs" isn't relevant.
Actually, one class syllabus when I was looking for them (I can’t remember which school) included the evolution of life in their discussion of an evolving earth.
What don't you get about not lecturing on politics and Global Warming in an Astronomy class?
He wasn’t lecturing on politics. And why don’t you get that AGW is now considered relevant to present-day Astronomy? It’s been pointed out more than once by more than one person. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Now he's the John Keating of LSU.
You probably don’t mean the Australian politician, Scottish musician, Irish politician, or U.S. sportscaster, so you must mean one of the lead characters in the film
Dead Poets Society. I’m sure he would like to inspire students to learn and think (which is what I gather the movie is about).
You obviously didn't watch the entire video. While it may have been thought provoking, it wasn't "interconnected" to Astronomy.
I watched it, backed it up and watched more. It’s been shown already that AGW relates to Astronomy. The results of AGW on the Earth are certainly related to planetary evolution. I don’t know if he ties this class into the other terrestrial planets in another session. This session also ties in to a previous class session, as he mentions on the video tape; the Syllabus shows more than one class on the terrestrial planets.
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?
You are the one refusing to admit you are wrong, as has been shown many times.
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.
Based on the (unedited) video, Dr. Schaefer is not a “grandstanding professor;” he is thought-provoking and seems to get on well with most of his students. He is obviously highly regarded (he was named an LSU Distinguished Faculty member in 2010).
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.
You wouldn’t be arguing so hard and ignoring evidence so completely if you were not driven by politics instead of critical thinking. I don’t know what altruistic motivations you mean? The fact that he’s a teacher? And, again, he’s not lecturing outside the Syllabus.
This is the problem with alarmism, it destroys rational thought and critical thinking.
Not alarmism, just pointing out alarming facts. Your statement, using "alarmism" as a putdown, seems to have a political basis. Are you so upset about this because you don’t believe in AGW?
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.
He is playing the devils’s advocate with more than one side. I don’t think he’s “acting the alarmist.” I thing he’s explaining the reality of AGW and it’s results and the consequences of different actions and inactions. I don't know why you equate the truth about AGW with "worst case scenario" unless it's because the reality is so frightening.
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?
Dr. Schaefer doesn’t give his beliefs about the issue except to say, when specifically asked where he would sit, that he wouldn’t choose either of the edge locations. He went on to say, at about 3:50 on the video:
Dr. Schaefer said:
It’s a complex issue. You guys have to decide. Ok...all I’m doing frankly here is forced...to think about the consequences.
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.
It’s part of the Syllabus; AGW is included in Astronomy classes. See above.
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.
No need, it’s already part of the syllabus. He has claimed he’s being unfairly targeted. Many agree with him.
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.
Criticism is one thing, an edited, slanted video with false accusations is another.
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?
He’s not advocating either side. He’s attacking both sides (and some in the middle). The audio becomes worse when he’s not addressing the right side as they start talking (at least those near the video recorder do).
Maybe you don't understand, I said what did you hear on the video that lead you to this conclusion. You know, quotes?
In response to a comment or question (I couldn’t hear it) from the right side at about 2:20 on the video, he responded: “Those other guys are just as bad also.”
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.
You obviously didn’t listen very well when you watched the video. I think you should be careful calling out other people on the subject.
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.
That’s exactly what he’s doing, as Tshaitanaku says. If you need the exact language (or as close as possible) because you didn’t listen well when you watched the video, here are some quotes. At the very beginning he says to those on the left:
Dr. Schaefer said:
You’re realizing that...root of the problem...they’re too many people. And you’re trying to attack that problem. You’re also trying to attack...we’re...back to nature. How many people are gonna die from that? How would you feed the people in the cities?
You can find what he says to the right in the edited, slanted Campus Reform video. At about 2:20 in on the unedited video, he tells those not all the way to the right, “...too little, too late.” At about 4:05 he tells the left:
Dr. Schaefer said:
You guys really are mandating getting rid of the internal combustion engine. How many people are gonna die because you can’t get food to the cities? Do you really think that one child or or one couple one child policy will work. Is that good? You really want that?
At about 5:05 he addresses the right then the left:
Dr. Schaefer said:
You want to sit on your tuffets and screw the kids. The people over there are claiming to be shepherds of ...or whatever. Greatly...population.
It was hard to hear it all, but it’s clear he is challenging all sides in the same way (he is not advocating for any side).
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.
Wrong. He specifically says that the
Waterworld scenario of a totally submerged Earth is a lie and that if the ice caps melted it would only raise the water level about 250 feet. He goes on to say it’s pretty much inevitable, but will take around 1,000 years or more. He says that in the students’ lifetime the rise will only be about 1.5 to 4 feet and that the main cause of the rise in ocean levels is the heating of surface water, not the ice caps melting.
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.
Wrong again. You didn’t listen closely. He does say that coastal land will be a bad investment (what with ocean levels rising and all, duh). He most certainly does not threaten anyone’s life. He asks where people will go when land is submerged, both in Louisiana and in other places. He specifically says he’s not talking about frequency when he says hurricane intensity will increase and reiterates that distinction later. There will be more heat waves (it is called Global
Warming) and he points that out. I didn’t hear him mention tsunamis.
To say he's advocating both sides is a complete lie.
Wrong. The sides being discussed, as presented at the beginning of the class, are for solutions to the problem of AGW. The existence of AGW is a fact, as Dr. Schaefer makes clear at about 8:00 minutes in:
Dr. Schaefer said:
But the overall scientific conclusion is incredibly strong, incredibly universal, we know what’s going on. Global Warming is real; it’s caused by humanity; it’s a large effect; and we know how it’s going. That’s what I’m going to be talking about today.
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.
He explains clearly that there are ranges of uncertainty in the predictions, but the basic facts are there. He gives the context of where we are, where we are going, that decisions need to be made, solutions looked for. What context were you looking for? And please let me know, what positives are associated with AGW?
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.
He’s not acting the alarmist. He’s presenting an alarming problem. The scrutiny is the result of a smear campaign by a group who are out to get teachers they consider a threat to the conservative viewpoint (according to their website).
It's not part of the curriculum in any "Astronomy" class in North America. That's how I defined it.
Your definition is applicable only to you. According to other schools in North America and to other people, and to the class in question, AGW is part of the syllabus of Astronomy classes (specifically this one).
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.
The rise of ocean levels is certainly relevant to a discussion of AGW. How it affects coastal property is relevant; pointing out the effect on property values was obviously an attempt to make people think, also relevant in a classroom.
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.
Wrong again. I’ve seldom seen such a blatant example of denial. AGW was part of the Syllabus of this class. It is part of the syllabus of many other classes in other schools. The fact that it wasn’t in the classes you took (15 years ago?) has nothing to do with anything.
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.
False analogy. AGW is part of the syllabus for this 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...
A conclusion is not flawed just because you disagree with it, especially when backed up with evidence. Your analogy is nonsense.
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.
As stated previously, the curriculum refers to the broader planned sequence of learning experiences; it does not define “the course material suitable for class lectures.” The Course Outline in the catalog says the class is on the “Fundamental principles of the solar system.” The Syllabus gives the course material to be presented, and AGW is in the syllabus; as an element of planetary (i.e, Earth) evolution, it is also part of the fundamental principles of the solar system the same way the evolution of Venus and Mars is.
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.
I’ve already explained how you have been using curriculum incorrectly. I’ve already shown (with evidence) that the rest of your “rant” is wrong, as have other people. AGW is part of this Astronomy class and of many others.
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.
Wrong, as has been shown previously. The censorship would come from trying to discredit Dr. Schaefer. The aims of Campus Reform includes :
- Get more conservative faculty and administrators hired (and tenured).
- Get more conservative courses, texts, lectures, discussions, etc. into the classroom.
- Expose and combat liberal bias and abuse in the classroom and administration.
I think they claim liberal bias is shown by anyone who doesn’t agree with everything they say. Combat seems to mean get them fired.
Exactly.
He's just being targeted because this has nothing to do with Astronomy.
Wrong. See above.
That's the only reason he's being targeted so it's entirely relevant.
Wrong again.
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.
Wrong. It’s not tangentially related, it’s on the Syllabus.
But this is by far the most reasonable argument in defense of this professors actions.
His actions are just fine. The problem is your refusal to accept that you are wrong.
Nonsense, as I mentioned there are numerous classes at LSU that discuss Global Warming and none of them have been "targeted".
Do you have evidence for that statement? And isn’t it possible that Dr. Schaefer is being targeted because his popularity is viewed as a threat to the conservative agenda of Campus Reform? Campus Reform recommends focusing on one objective at a time. Or perhaps they are targeting him because his class on AGW has actually made people think for themselves.
According to
The Daily Texan at the University of Texas, Austin:
The video was recorded, edited and distributed by Campus Reform, a conservative organization with the goal of providing conservative students the tools to “revolutionize the struggle against leftist bias and abuse on college campuses.” Its real goal, apparently, is to use whatever means necessary to promote its agenda and tarnish as many reputations as possible.
Campus Reform’s complete lack of any moral or ethical compass is evident in its handling of this situation. First, a Campus Reform member was secretly recording the professor’s class. While secret recordings are technically legal in several states, including Louisiana, the practice is nonetheless dishonest. If professors are to be scrutinized for classroom content, at least grant them the courtesy of knowing they are being recorded.
What is more, the student who recorded the event was not even enrolled in Schaefer’s course. Apparently nobody actually familiar with the professor and his teaching is offended enough to denounce him.
To recap: A member of Campus Reform entered a class in which he is not enrolled to secretly record a professor engaging students in an intellectual exercise, then Campus Reform edited and distributed the footage to advance its political agenda and tarnish the professor’s reputation.
I don’t know if AGW was the reason he was targeted, but it certainly isn’t dishonest to suggest that as a reason.
Pot, kettle, black.
Nice try, nobody is going to buy that the movie
Water World has more to do with Astronomy than Astrology.
Dr. Schaefer calls the opening sequence of the film “evocative.” The picture of the Earth going around, the ice caps melting, all the land going away. He goes on to say that this picture is a total lie. He’s using the film as an example of the distortions that surround AGW. It’s part of his effort to get the students to think. Again, you didn’t listen when you watched the video.
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.
As shown previously, AGW is part of the Syllabus. There was no deviation.
What lie? I haven't looked at the edited video or this conservative groups nonsense concerning the lecture.
Which leaves you unable to speak to the dishonesty of Campus Reform.
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.
Wrong again. He didn't deviate from the Syllabus. He didn't open himself up for anything. Someone snuck into his class and secretly videotaped it to use in an attempt to discredit him.
No this is in correct. There are plenty of other courses discussing Global Warming, none of them are receiving this attention.
Campus Reform probably goes after professors before they go after classes. Their website recommends going after one thing at a time.
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.
AGW is a big enough problem that it belongs in many areas; it belongs in ASTR 1101, as proven earlier. Also, the separation between Astronomy and Astrophysics doesn't seem to be very distinct anymore.
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?
The Campus Reform propaganda video makes it look like Dr. Schaefer is expressing his personal opinion in saying the right (I’m speaking of their position in the classroom, but that also is where the conservative position is placed) will have blood on their hands. In truth, it is, as has been said, a rhetorical device. They also focus on the class exercise, where Group 1 (the right) has the following question:
Your professed policies have a substantial likelihood of leading to the death of a billion or more people. (A) Estimate the probability that you personally will be killed in an ugly way because of your current decision? (B) What is the probability that any children of yours will die in ugly ways due to your current decision?
The spokesperson for Group 1 wouldn’t read the first sentence; I couldn’t hear exactly what was said, but it sounded as though he didn’t believe it was true. Dr. Schaefer responded with:
Dr. Schaefer said:
Screwing around with the science results is stupid. Making a political decision that’s something else. Screwing with science is wrong. You’re an ostrich putting your head in the sand.
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.
AGW is part of the Syllabus for this class; it’s not loosely related to Astronomy, it's part of it, as has been stated by many people many times in this thread.
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.
He picked on all sides. He’s an equal opportunity picker-oner.
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
Again, AGW is an appropriate topic for ASTR 1101 and is in the Syllabus. Therefore, heat waves and hurricanes (which are affected by AGW) are appropriate topics. If you had listened to the video you claimed to watch, you would have seen he was using
Waterworld’s opening shot as an example of some of the lies and distortions that surround the issue of AGW. There was no discussion of the film and no mention of Kevin Costner. So either you did not watch the video or you are being deliberately obtuse in your prejudice.
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.
Your response to his post is irrelevant.
What part of "
Global Warming isn't part of the curriculum for this course" don't you understand?
You’re still wrong. It’s in the Syllabus.
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 think he or his university need your approval to teach their classes in the manner they deem fit.
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.
People have said that the study of planetary atmospheres includes AGW. Dr. Schaefer divided the class based on possible solutions or remedies for AGW, which is part of studying it. He spent some of the class picking at these solutions (until about the 8-minute mark), then talked about the science of what’s happening.
Waterworld (which really seems to have gotten your goat) was brought up as an example of the wrong impressions people have about AGW and the lies that are told. There wasn’t much time so he hit some high spots, then moved on to the class exercise. Just because he didn’t present the subject in a way you like (or maybe it is the subject itself that is problematic for you) doesn’t mean it was about politics.
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.
A class you took 15 years ago has no relevance to the way other universities and colleges choose to set up their classes. And how is something that has such far-reaching implications for the future of the Earth not part of Astronomy? If Earth turned into another Mars or Venus and we lived somewhere else, we would study what caused the change. I think you are being stubborn about this because the subject is AGW and that with any other subject you wouldn’t be so persistent in denying the evidence.
Popular, liberal; that’s enough to be a target of Campus Reform. They recommend focusing on one target at a time.
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.
He gets good student reviews.
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.
Just because you keep repeating it doesn’t make it so. See previous refutations. I’m getting tired of repeating it.
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.
Your wrongness on this subject keeps mounting up. He wasn't talking politics. He was teaching.
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.
Once again, it is part of the Syllabus here and also at other schools, as shown previously. The professor for ASTR 1101 in 2009 was Dr. Amy Campbell. It’s the same syllabus. You just keep ignoring the facts to present opinions.
Campus Reform has subsites for 2,376 four-year colleges in the U.S. They have 8 Regional Field Coordinators, covering the country. A state university near me has 5 groups under the Campus Reform auspices; LSU has 11. I’d say it’s a safe bet that you’re wrong about this as well. I wish you were right; these people are scary.
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.
They have the right to say it, but not to lie about it, which their edited video did. Also, they don’t have the right to send someone into the class to videotape it secretly, especially when that person isn’t a student.
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.
Wrongness reaches absurd levels.
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.
It’s in the Syllabus. The failure is yours in not admitting you are wrong.
Skeptic Ginger already linked it in this thread.
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.
Skeptic Ginger’s link gives the Syllabus (for 2009, but I found no newer one).
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.
He followed the course material. It’s in the syllabus. The class was related to Astronomy, as you have been shown before.
Yes, the material has nothing to do with Astronomy and leans heavily towards the politics of Global Warming.
Wrong, as shown previously.
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.
Dr. Schaefer does mention something about a previous class at about 5:50 into the video:
Dr. Schaefer said:
Anyway. So...for the past couple classes we’ve been talking about changes...world. We have the classic example of ozone depletion.
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.
He hasn’t deviated from the Syllabus. I don’t see his lecture as political. He took no sides, he challenged the students to think about possible solutions to AGW (or at least actions to lessen the impact) and about some of the results. There obviously is no need to add something to the Syllabus that is already there.
I agree that he is owed an apology, but I’m pretty sure he won’t get one. Campus Reform at LSU are all outraged that he hasn’t been censured:
The university's defense of the professor and his behavior in the media and online should equally outrage people this week.
I think it’s hilarious that they are outraged over his defense against their slanted, distorted video attack.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
If you quit using Curriculum when Syllabus is what’s meant, it makes sense. Changes can be made to a syllabus, although you do have to notify the students.
I’d say that’s up to the professor and his department, not you.
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.
You’re the one who keeps repeating an incorrect statement, despite evidence to the contrary. Are you trying to tire us out? You already drove Cleon away.
Wah?
And it's certainly OK to question the deviation.
It’s ok for the Department to question any deviation, if they feel it is called for. Students don’t determine how a professor teaches his class. That does not apply in this case, however, as there was no deviation from the Syllabus.
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".
The lecture on AGW, as you have been told umpteen times, is relevant to Astronomy. It is part of the course Syllabus, there is no “despite the curriculum.” It was business as usual. He’s taught the course before, including the AGW part, as has been stated previously.
Um...did you read the thread? I already pointed this out.
What do you mean. You have stated, many times, is that AGW is not part of Astronomy.
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.
So why have you repeatedly claimed its not part of Astronomy and that it's not relevant in an Astronomy class?
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.
Different from what? How far back is “back then”? Over time more evidence for AGW has been found. So maybe you mean AGW is now accepted by most scientists as a fact.
What’s changed here is that a conservative group has decided to attack him. I’ve already given my theory, which is that he is a liberal (I’m guessing) and too popular for the comfort of the conservative group.
I have no idea what this means.
(I found essentially the same link, without the black funky looking background on the LSU website, in the Astrophysics department course listings.)
Please provide a link. I found no Astrophysics Department on the LSU website; the only reference to Astrophysics I found was in the Physics and Astronomy Department under their Research heading.
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.
No, we don’t know that isn’t the case. After looking at the Campus Reform website, and some of the local university subsites, I think that is a very good description of what’s going on. And, once again, he didn't bring politics into his lecture on AGW.
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?
Dr. Schaefer gives a timeline of 30 or 40 years for the discussion on global warming, although there were some earlier, discounted findings. He mentions that Cosmos had an episode on AGW. He also said things changed when Exxon decided to spend money undermining work on AGW.
I've watched the entire video, what I haven't watched is the edited one, which apparently was what you saw. Instead maybe you should watch the entire lecture? Just sayin.
TraneWreck is correct when he says Dr. Schaefer was challenging all the students, as is shown in the unedited (they say) video. I’ve pointed out other instances where you didn’t hear things that were said in the video. You’re the last person to suggest that someone else didn’t see what happened. Just sayin.
Wow, that's some strawman.
Nobody is advocating "barring" this guy. But you keep up the fight for society if that's what you think this is about.
Nope. That’s the result Campus Reform and it’s subgroups hope to achieve. They only want what they agree with and believe in to be taught. They want to get rid of “liberal” (i.e., don’t agree with everything conservatives say) professors, administrators, textbooks, classes, etc. They say so.
You're just grand standing here.
Sounds right to me. If you don’t want to learn or to think, why pay to be taught?
What's cruel? When I think of "cruel" I think of kicking puppies. No puppies got kicked.
I don’t know about cruel, but there certainly was vicious manipulation.
It probably is incoherent if you don't know what the word change means. It's probably "incomprehensible" for you as well. Get Google.
I think he’s referring to the fact that your statement implied science itself changed, as opposed to science acquiring new technology and discovering new evidence. When your writing is not clear, you shouldn’t be snarky when someone asks for clarification.
lol, yah "radically". It's like "extreme" climate science these day. Better wear a harness. Are you being serious?
Another unclear statement. What do you mean or are you just being snarky?
As Global Warming relates to Astronomy is hasn't changed. This isn't an Earth sciences class, it's Astronomy. You really don't know the difference between Astronomy and Chemistry? Astronomy and Political Science? Astronomy and Biology? Astronomy and Climatology? Seriously?
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the field of Astronomy has been radically changed by the recent breakthroughs in the field of climate science
More snark.
The alarmists are just as ridiculous as these conservative watch dogs.
You seem to imply that the facts about AGW are not true. Was this your intention?
Um, oh yeah?
This is pointless, you either realize what the difference between Astronomy and politics is or you don't.
You don’t.
Another strawman, nobody is criticizing his teaching methods, it's the content. The class looked pretty engaging to me. It's just not Astronomy.
And again, AGW is part of the Syllabus for this class, and is part of Astronomy. You keep saying it isn’t (except the one time you said it was) in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Are you saying he was emotionally and physically damaged? Even he's not saying that. Way to over empathize
It was an attempt to destroy him professionally. I’m sure he felt some concern about his future and whether the Department would stand behind him. Although I would assume he has tenure.
Through the curriculum, not by trying to bring politics into every subject.
No one but you is bringing politics into every subject.
None.
No, just when you're involved. Because you personalize everything, you obviously can't argue your point any other way. Why would you even bring this up in this thread? Again you fail to address the argument. Unbelievable.
The rest of your post is garbage as usual. Please stop grandstanding, it's pathetic.
The observation that you have adopted a position and refuse to budge from it in spite of evidence to the contrary is a fair one and isn’t “personalizing everything.”
True, and this one became somewhat stagnant at the point where people refused to admit the the lecture was political and not of the scientific nature one would expect in an Astronomy class.
The only stagnation I see is in your inability to look at the evidence and admit you were wrong.
The prof has the right, as a tenured professor, to lecture on what he feels is appropriate for the class. That doesn't mean what he feels is right is going to be free of criticism. The surest way to eliminate that is to have it as an accepted part of the curriculum. In this case the lecture he presented wasn't and he was criticized. What may have been said about him by this group was "unfair" perhaps, and they way the video was edited was improper, but the fact he was targeted wasn't. When a prof starts to veer off from the designated lesson plan to deliver a political message in a "science" class, there needs to be checks and balances.
Once again, he followed the Syllabus. The subject of AGW didn't "veer off" from the Syllabus. He wasn’t delivering a political message. That is your bias speaking. The class was indeed a science class, so no need for your scare quotes. Checks and balances usually do not include slimy, slanted, secretly taped videos that distort what happened.
He wasn’t criticized, he was maligned. The whole process was wrong. A non-student sneaks into a class and surreptitiously videotapes a class without permission, then edits it to promote a “political” agenda (there’s the politics in the class you keep harping on). It is plastered over the internet, blogs are flooded, and an attempt is mad to try to destroy Dr. Schaefer. The basic idea of silencing the voices of those who disagree or are different is wrong.
I don't see how someone can defend his right to lecture how he sees fit, and defend someone right to criticize him. Within reason of course. I really should see how "cruel" they've been to him.
The attack on Dr. Schaefer was not “criticizing” him. It was a smear campaign.
lol. Astronomy:The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.
Where's Global Warming in that? Do you understand the definition of Astornomy? Where does Water World and coastal property values and hurricanes fit into that definition?
You use an exclusive definition; I use an inclusive one. Astronomy: The science that investigates all the matter-energy in the universe, its distribution, composition, physical states, movements, and evolution. I’d put AGW in physical state and evolution. As has been explained before, Waterworld and coastal property values were used to make a point. Hurricanes, on the other hand, are affected by AGW (at least the intensity is).
Oh right, the Earth is floating in outer space, so that makes the Earth and Global Warming good topic for Astronomy. That's stellar logic, literally.
The Earth is part of the universe, which makes it a topic for Astronomy. AGW is changing the Earth, and is a topic in Astronomy.
Do you even read threads? Like ever? I've made myself very clear and yet you still missed this. It really calls into question your comprehension skills when you make comments like this. I'll say it for like the 5th time, I think the guy is a good prof. His class was engaging. it was just off topic and political.
Once again, it was not off topic and was not political.
Just the prof himself.
(but not
in this thread, he's not a member)
He didn’t express displeasure that criticism occurred; he expressed disgust that a misleading smear campaign was launched against him.
You seem confused? Outer space is off this planet. Earth.
And you deliberately chose a definition that used that phrase so you could exclude Earth, which none of the Astronomy classes I looked at did. There are various definitions of Astronomy. According to NASA, it is:
The science that treats of the location, magnitudes, motions, and constitution of celestial bodies and structures. Used for celestial observation.
They include Earth with celestial bodies.
That wasn't the topic he was discussing. Are you really sure you watched the video? It's 40 minutes long and probably recorded on an iPhone.
No substance here, just snark.
How about Venus, that sucker is familiar, celestial, and a prime example of the effect of the sun on a planet with a very high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
No, he chose Water World, a fictious flop of a movie that exaggerates the threat of the ice caps melting. Hey, at least he explained how wrong it was.
If he was actually lecturing the way you are suggesting there would have been no issue. That's actually how it was presented in my class, when I took Astronomy, 15 years ago.
Venus just makes the study of AGW more appropriate for an Astronomy class. Can we turn into a Venus?
As you well know, because it has been pointed out many times, the use of Waterworld was a rhetorical device. The only part of the movie talked about was the opening sequence of the Earth. As you say, he pointed out that the opening incorrectly showed all the land submerged after the ice caps melted. But then, you knew that because you watched the video, right?
There is no issue with the way he lectured. There is only an issue with a conservative group running a smear campaign.
Again incorrect, and had you read the thread you wouldn't be making this mistake yet again. The backlash was a result of him being off topic in the classroom. Had he decided to do this same lecture off of scheduled class time there wouldn't have been an issue. The issue arose from him trying to make Global Warming, and the political side of it, part of Astronomy.
You are again incorrect. Dr. Schaefer was not off topic in his classroom. AGW is part of ASTR 1101 and many other Astronomy classes, as has been pointed out to you before. He was not making the “political side of it” an issue. He was discussing a problem, possible solutions, possible difficulties with those solutions, and the effects of the problem if untreated. You are reading your own politics into this.
There's nothing stopping him from dealing with a controversial subject. If he wants he could lecture on intelligent design, astrology, assisted suicide, child pornography and swearing on TV. All at the same time. It's different however if he uses his class hours to do so.
He is using “his class hours” to teach his class, including the subjects on the Syllabus and in the textbook. For this one class, he used a novel approach to engage the students and to make them think. It has certainly engaged us here at JREF and made us think.
And rightly fully so. As much as there are rules to the classroom there are rules to whistle blowing (or whatever you call what this conservative group was doing). This conservative group appears to have run what amounts to a smear campaign.
I agree he had every right to be upset at the smear campaign. The Campus Reform organization certainly wasn’t engaged in whistle blowing; there was no wrongdoing involved. Just a professor teaching a class he has taught before, on a specific subject he has taught before, probably in a way he has taught before.
