AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[Furcifer]

But first, your use of the word curriculum is confusing.

Not really. We're talking about the curriculum for a first year Astronomy class. The syllabus is part of the curriculum, and we're talking in general terms, from institution to institution. So curriculum was easier to use in terms the specific course content for Astronomy. You're just playing semantics because you obviously realize this and are just feigning confusion.

I also noticed that you refer to AGW as GW. Interesting. Does this reflect your opinion on this issue?

Very observant. Yes I used GW not because of my opinion thank you very much, but because as it relates to astronomy and planetary atmosphere(zzzzz) it would be GW. AGW on Venus, or any other planet with a high CO2 content would be nonsense. In fact, so is lecturing on AGW, because that would be climatology.

Do you honestly think people take Astronomy to learn about the Earth?

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.

It's a basic fact that Astronomy isn't about the Earth, it's about the planets, the sun, the stars and everything else in the Universe. But yes, the Earth is a planet and it is discussed. Just not in great detail. It's used as a reference.

I wouldn't expect a prof to use Astronomy to lecture on the church's interference in the progress of science and how stem cell research is being stifled the same way today. Not an entire lecture devoted to it. If it came up in class and the students lead the discussion that way perhaps, but not as a lesson unto it's own.

Therefore, he did not engage in “propaganda,” as you claim.

I never claimed he did. Perhaps you should read that line again for comprehension instead of trying to put words in my mouth?

The fact is, AGW is part of the syllabus of ASTR 1101, the class in question.

Which was agreed on. What wasn't agreed on was the politics of it playing an important part in Astronomy.

As has been shown, your knowledge on this subject, both in general and specifically relating to ASTR 1101, is incorrect.

Again you miss the point and the question at hand, "Why all the fuss?"

See if you follow this. The syllabus outlines the lesson is to include how the church interferes with the progress of science.

Copernicus and the church-related to Astronomy
Stem cells and the church- not related to Astronomy

This is why I gave you a specific example, my own, of how GW was discussed in Astronomy. There were no political protests after.

Birth Control, ICE's, Kyoto are not related to Astronomy and hence should not be part of the curriculum. Period.

He didn’t deviate from the lesson plan, see above.

No he took the oppotunity to use the class on the greenhouse effect and made it into a political lecture on AGW. Hence the problem.

He didn’t preach his political view; see the video, his statement, comment of a previous student.

Again, he was playing devil's advocate, but based on the edited video it's clear which way he was leaning.

Stop trying to portray him as being neutral in this, he wasn't and he's admitted to this.

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.”

There's 3 sides to every story; his, there's and the truth.

It was part of the syllabus, proven, end of story.

Again, incorrect. The syllabus is to include the greenhouse effect, global warming and even AGW and how it relates to Astronomy ie; planet atmosphere. the political part of AGW, like Kytoto and caps etc. has nothing to do with Astronomy.

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.”

Nonsense, it's very clear what he was doing and why he was targeted.

He repeatedly said in the video that he couldn’t decide for the students. At ~1:14:

I want you to think about this for a second, and think about how obvious this statement is.

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.

The politics have nothing to do with Astronomy and you've been shown this time and time again. Nothing. I know what the lecture was to be on based on the curriculum, you know, and everyone knows he used his class time to focus on politics instead of Astronomy.

Also, can any group of students all be called “willing participants”?

Yes, very easily, it's not very hard to do and doesn't take a rocket scientist. It's as simple as saying "I want to discuss AGW because I feel strongly about it, it's not part of the exam material and if you wish to leave you're free to go, but I encourage you to stay and participate"

A good old disclaimer.

The slides and tutorials on the class website imply discussion of AGW. The LSU class (ASTR 1101) includes AGW.

Perhaps the science and GW and Venus, yes. The politics no. There's other courses for that at the University.

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.

Of course, and they can lecture on politics if they want. They just can't expect to be free from criticism.

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.

lol, really, what decisions do they have to make about the science? Who makes decisions on science? Come on give me a break.

I don’t understand how you can teach the science without mentioning the impacts and the possible ways to deal with the issue.

Seriously? What science did you take in University? Any? Because I took a bunch and not a single one mentioned the decisions or impact the science would make. This is so nonsensical.

I took stats, didn't once get a lecture on the perils of gambling. I took biology, didn't get a lecture on smoking. I took physics, didn't get a lecture on wearing a seat belt. I took chemistry, never once did they mention not doing drugs. Funny that.

I can't comment anymore, way too long. I doubt if I will. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing AGW is part of the curriculum. It isn't. Not too the extent that you seem to be inferring. You obviously didn't take Astronomy did you?

If you take a look at the syllabus, or several you will probably find mention of radio waves and x-rays. Just because it says that doesn't mean a prof is going to devote an entire lecture to body scanners at the airport and how intrusive they are and how they should be banned, how they cause cancer etc..

Edited for several breaches of rule 0. Remain civil and do not engage in personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Furcifer]

OK a read some more, and I see your basic premise is flawed, that because it references AGW or GW everything and anything is fair game.

Since you don't seem to be grasping the whole idea of what is or isn't part of the curriculum, or the syllabus, or the course outline, and what GW means to Astronomy, how it's actually related, I'll ask you a simple question.

Do you think the material he presented in the lecture is in the text book assigned to the class? Do you think the Astronomy text book reflects the nature of AGW, the importance of making decisions and everything else he lectured on?

On the Chapter marked "Earth" or "planetary atmosphere", do you think any of this material is actually in the text book?

I'm not saying it is or isn't because I don't have the text. I know it isn't in my text book.

Or would you agree this is supplemental material?

Please, don't bother with the "but a good teacher adds to the text book", because I agree. I think he's a good prof from what I saw in the 40 minutes.

I just don't think you realize what is in an Astronomy text book. I know there is mention of the green house effect and GW and even perhaps AGW, but it's discussed comparatively. Not in terms of consequences here on Earth.

It's pretty simple when you think clearly and don't let your emotions get in the way. Astronomy 100 years from now will be the same as Astronomy 100 years ago if the temperature of the Earth rises 20 degrees. It doesn't change the subject of Astronomy because it isn't related.

If you vote for cap and trade, or you buy property on the coast or you drive a 1979 Lincoln for the next 50 years, Astronomy won't be affected. None of the decisions the three groups make, or if they all move to the left side of the class, or all move to the right side of the class, will have any effect on Astronomy.

If the entire planet shut down all the coal plants and builds nuclear reactors and we all drive electric cars and install solar panels on the roof and World Peace breaks out, famine and drought ended, cats laying with dogs, and the lion lays with the lamb, if all that happens not a darned thing changes on the subject of Astronomy.

And that, that's why this lecture isn't related to Astronomy. Sorry.

(I'll try to read more and respond when I have the chance. I've read about 3/4 and scanned the rest. You made some errors interpreting what I wrote, but that doesn't really affect what I've tried to say and clarify in the above.)

 

[Furcifer]

Man this is a long post. It's so long I feel obligated to respond, I mean you took some time here.

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.

Sorry this is incorrect. Again I'll ask you if the text book, which are written by professors to reflect the curriculum, at any University, reflects what he was lecturing on? I know it isn't because this wasn't the science of AGW. He's referring to the science, but not the science applicable to an Astronomy class. Furthermore, he's talking about action and decisions, none of which have any baring on the field of Astronomy. It's politics.

He was lecturing on the science, as well as the ramifications, of AGW.

The ramifications have nothing to do with Astronomy. Again, nothing changes in Astronomy if it warms 10 degrees over the next 10 years, or if the coast line changes.

AGW is part of the Syllabus, that’s been established. He's not lecturing on politics.

You say he's lecturing on decisions, but what do these decisions have to do with science? The science is the same no matter what decisions are made.

Dr. Schaefer didn't "present political material," he discussed a factual problem that may be controversial because of some people's political beliefs.

And what do these factual problems have to do with Astronomy? Nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch.

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.

Again, none of which have anything to do with Astronomy, the study of celestial bodies.

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.

So, all the problems are solved and this changes Astronomy how? Please be specific. Include how the science changes in any way, this is a science class after all. If we all vote conservative or we all vote liberal, how does the science change. What effect does it have, and how does that relate to Astronomy?

It is a fact that people will die because of AGW; it’s already happened in the heat waves in Europe and Russia.

Really? Prove it.

It’s already been shown that current-day Astronomy classes include information on Earth systems, including AGW.

"The green house effect, or the rise in temperature due to increases in CO2 concentration can be observed on Venus. On Earth this is know to most as Global Warming, or AGW. AGW is the increase in CO2 levels due to man made causes. Some dispute this, however, there is a growing body of evidence that supports the theory that the release of CO2 from fossil fuels is causing the global temperature to rise..."

geesh, you'd think he was getting paid by the hour or something.

He’s not alarmist in your belittling sense of the word, he’s pointing out an alarming situation.

No I said he was playing the alarmist. But he was reinforcing alamist rants with examples like Water World.

You have been saying that he is alarmist.

No I said he was playing the alarmist.

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

Because 50 is a round number. I assumed they were 20 and would live to be about 70. This is just nit picking. Add another 0.2 degrees for the extra decade

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.

Which has nothing to do with Astronomy. Your opinions don't count in Astronomy, nor do your decisions.

The Dr. was not platforming if that means promoting a political view.

This is just denial.

And why don’t you get that AGW is now considered relevant to
present-day Astronomy?

Because it is no more relevant today than it was 15 years ago, or 300 years ago, or 300 years in the future. The science doesn't change.

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.

No it isn't related to planetary evolution, it's related to Earth's evolution. There are billions of planets, only this one's got AGW. Astronomy isn't about the Earth, it's about celestial bodies other than Earth. What don't you understand about the very definition of Astronomy?

You wouldn’t be arguing so hard and ignoring evidence so completely if you were not driven by politics instead of critical thinking.

Yes, because I can see how your politics are clouding your mind. Suddenly Astronomy isn't about the Sun and the stars and black holes, no it's about the rise in temperature of Earth. Are you listening to what you are saying? Would you really hire an Astronomer to do research on Global Warming? I'd love to see someone try to BS their way through that interview.

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.

Sorry, you're wrong. He says the scenario, where the icecaps melt is almost certain. The covering of all the land, not so much. Maybe you should watch it again?

He most certainly does not threaten anyone’s life.

He says if you or your children actually survive. He's threatening people will die. again, playing semantics is pretty pointless.

He’s not acting the alarmist. He’s presenting an alarming problem.

Again, playing semantics is pointless.

On that note I'm done for a bit. It's getting stale because, like I said, you think because it says AGW on a syllabus or two, suddenly Global Warming is an hour long class about making decisions that have nothing to do with Astronomy. You're mistaken.

He's supplementing the greenhouse gas, Global Warming and Venus lecture with this political lecture. It leaves him open to criticism because some people feel profs should leave their politics at home and not force them on a class.

 

[Drachasor]

OK a read some more, and I see your basic premise is flawed, that because it references AGW or GW everything and anything is fair game.

Since you don't seem to be grasping the whole idea of what is or isn't part of the curriculum, or the syllabus, or the course outline, and what GW means to Astronomy, how it's actually related, I'll ask you a simple question.

Do you think the material he presented in the lecture is in the text book assigned to the class? Do you think the Astronomy text book reflects the nature of AGW, the importance of making decisions and everything else he lectured on?

I have to wonder if you've ever actually taken a University class. Professors regularly talk about things that aren't in the textbook. Beyond that, AGW was part of the syllabus, curriculum, course outline, and is part of Astrophysics. Basic research on this class or AGW would have revealed all of this.

 

[BenBurch]

I am using the ignore button now...

 

[Furcifer]

I have to wonder if you've ever actually taken a University class. Professors regularly talk about things that aren't in the textbook. Beyond that, AGW was part of the syllabus, curriculum, course outline, and is part of Astrophysics. Basic research on this class or AGW would have revealed all of this.

Just a B.Sc. and a diploma, around 70 classes of post secondary.

Yes, you see you've really nailed it on the head here. You've distinguished between course material and the curriculum, things that are required, and say other superfluous things that get brought up during the course. A natural part of the way a class may progress.

AGW really doesn't have anything to do with Astronomy, because AGW is specific to Earth. Astronomy really isn't about the Earth, it's about everything else. see def. Astronomy

But Global Warming is due to the green house effect, which is happening off this planet. Venus is a prime example, and when discussing Venus or the atmosphere on other planets global warming is brought up.

So you see, Astronomy isn't an invitation to discuss the Kyoto Accord any more than mitosis is to pro or anti-abortion legislation.

It's really that simple.

It's a bad sign when people begin to use any excuse to platform their own personal political views. It's especially bad in science, because politics gets in the way far too often. When people loose sight of this we all suffer.

This time it may be for the greater good, but next time it might not be. But by then it's too late because the precedent has already been set.

 

[TraneWreck]

AGW really doesn't have anything to do with Astronomy, because AGW is specific to Earth. Astronomy really isn't about the Earth, it's about everything else. see def. Astronomy

This will be repeated no matter how many times people explain how wrong it is. Multiple people have offered concrete evidence that it is false. It's been shown to be false with respect to the specific class. There's nothing more that can be done.

The power of denial is astonishing.

 

[Furcifer]

No, GW in PARTICULAR falls under a branch of Astrophysics.

lol, I'm doing a search for Astrophysics and Global Warming, the first Wiki hit

Willie_Soon

I wonder if the entire class was devoted to this Astrophysicists papers and views, including how the Maunder Minimum is the cause of Global Warming, would the reception here be the same.

It is after all actual Astronomy, directly related to Global Warming. Funny how the prof seems to have missed this and instead went with using Water World

Not a single soul brought up this piece of Astrophysics and how it relates to Global Warming. Selective memory I suppose.

So I stand corrected, I guess there is more than just the greenhouse effect when it comes to Astrophysics and Global Warming. I totally forgot about that.

 

[Furcifer]

This will be repeated no matter how many times people explain how wrong it is. Multiple people have offered concrete evidence that it is false. It's been shown to be false with respect to the specific class. There's nothing more that can be done.

The power of denial is astonishing.

It bares repeating because you don't seem to comprehend.

The greenhouse effect on planets is part of Astronomy, on Earth the green house effect has been thrown out of whack due to the additional CO2 from burning fossil fuels. That's why the curriculum refers to AGW.

It has nothing to do with Water World and Kyoto and capping.

It's about the science, not politics. Because Astronomy is a science, Kyoto, carbon credits, cap and trade, they aren't. That part of AGW doesn't belong in an Astronomy class.

It's astonishing how people are so blinded by the issue they can't separate politics from science. It's the alarmists fault though, because they always claim to want to talk science, and sneak in their own personal brand of politics. That's why this prof got so much attention. Because he brought up the alarmist "Oh my god the sky is falling, we have to do something, do anything, I don't know what, but something" in his lecture.

 

[daenku32]

In my math class the teacher explained the concept of a limit using example of two people in a romantic movie running towards each other on the beach. And just when they get close enough to kiss, they realize there is a thin film between the two of them; Their lips never could touch.

Romantic movies weren't on the syllabus.

 

[TraneWreck]

It bares repeating because you don't seem to comprehend.

[...]

It's astonishing how people are so blinded by the issue they can't separate politics from science. It's the alarmists fault though, because they always claim to want to talk science, and sneak in their own personal brand of politics. That's why this prof got so much attention. Because he brought up the alarmist "Oh my god the sky is falling, we have to do something, do anything, I don't know what, but something" in his lecture.

Though it's obviously hopeless, let's try a little thought experiment.

Did you notice the exercise he was having the class perform? Go sit in a place based on your opinion and develop an argument, answer some questions...etc.

Now, try and think about another issue in astronomy, one that could be known by intro-level general ed. students, that they would have opinions about and be able to develop arguments for in that manner.

So let's assume that global warming isn't a topic for an astronomy class to delve into. As an exercise in basic scientific reasoning, something many general ed, low level science classes focus on, it's a perfectly appropriate, and, in fact, one of only a few such topics that could serve that purpose.

Other than AGW, only evolution has a similar "common knowledge" base (and, obviously, most of that is incorrect in both cases).

So despite AGW being on the class syllabus and relevant to astronomy according to, you know, astronomers, we can understand why that class happened like it did without such a reference.

 

[davefoc]

In my math class the teacher explained the concept of a limit using example of two people in a romantic movie running towards each other on the beach. And just when they get close enough to kiss, they realize there is a thin film between the two of them; Their lips never could touch.

Romantic movies weren't on the syllabus.

Well, since we're tripping down memory lane here:

The firing of Angela Davis was a big deal at UCLA when I was going there and the professor in one of my engineering classes allocated a portion of a class session to a discussion of the issue. If only we'd had video so we could have libeled this guy by taking a few of his comments out of context and putting it on the internet (we would have had to invent the internet since it didn't exist in 1969).

 

[BenBurch]

I used to make students in my assembler programming class estimate the number of fish in a lake when we were discussing testing and debugging... Bonus points if you can tell me why that was relevant.

 

[Cleon]

I used to make students in my assembler programming class estimate the number of fish in a lake when we were discussing testing and debugging... Bonus points if you can tell me why that was relevant.

Because coding in assembler is meant to be as painful as possible.

 

[Furcifer]

In my math class the teacher explained the concept of a limit using example of two people in a romantic movie running towards each other on the beach. And just when they get close enough to kiss, they realize there is a thin film between the two of them; Their lips never could touch.

Romantic movies weren't on the syllabus.

Really? The prof planned a whole lesson around people running toward each other in the movies. He also had the class rearrange themselves; cheek kissers, lips kissers, tongue kissers. Told them about herpes and mono. Warned about how kissing can lead to other things, like sex and unwanted pregnancy. Then talked about condoms, the pill and the government ban on RU 482. Talked about adoption vs. abortion. The moral and ethical implications of abortion, anti-abortion rallies. Bottle fed and breast fed babies. Cloth or disposable diapers. When to potty train. Raising the kid the mother's religion or the father's religion. Private or public school, or the chance of home schooling.

Because obviously it's all tangentially related.

 

[Drachasor]

Since 3Bodyproblem doesn't seem to understand that an "Astronomy" class is actually an Astronomy AND Astrophysics class, despite this being pointed out to him a dozen times or so, I see no reason to continue this poor excuse for a debate.

 

[BenBurch]

Because coding in assembler is meant to be as painful as possible.

Not even close!

 

[daenku32]

Really? The prof planned a whole lesson around people running toward each other in the movies. He also had the class rearrange themselves; cheek kissers, lips kissers, tongue kissers. Told them about herpes and mono. Warned about how kissing can lead to other things, like sex and unwanted pregnancy. Then talked about condoms, the pill and the government ban on RU 482. Talked about adoption vs. abortion. The moral and ethical implications of abortion, anti-abortion rallies. Bottle fed and breast fed babies. Cloth or disposable diapers. When to potty train. Raising the kid the mother's religion or the father's religion. Private or public school, or the chance of home schooling.

Because obviously it's all tangentially related.

No. A limit is much more simpler than that. It's not like the topic was science and its implications on society.

 

[Drachasor]

I used to make students in my assembler programming class estimate the number of fish in a lake when we were discussing testing and debugging... Bonus points if you can tell me why that was relevant.

Well, in physics we estimate the rough result of an equation to make sure it makes sense, but I my intuition is telling me your case actually has something to do with random and/or representative sampling. Hmm, can't precisely justify that feeling at the moment though.

I feel like I should too, as I've programmed quite a bit.

 

[BenBurch]

Well, in physics we estimate the rough result of an equation to make sure it makes sense, but I my intuition is telling me your case actually has something to do with random and/or representative sampling. Hmm, can't precisely justify that feeling at the moment though.

I feel like I should too, as I've programmed quite a bit.

Close!

When you estimate the number of fish in a lake you can do it a couple of ways;

1. You can fence off and literally fish out a portion of the lake, and then the estimate is derived by assuming that all like areas of the lake have a similar population.

2. You can tag a number of fish, and then see in what proportion tagged fish are found in the course of fishing the lake, and the number of fish in the lake is easily estimated by that proportion.

When you are testing a system, it is useful to estimate the number of bugs remaining. You can use method 1 by looking at the size of the system compared to similar systems that are fully-tested, and assuming a similar fault-density you can estimate the number of bugs likely to be found in the system.

You can use method 2 by deliberately introducing a number of faults in the system to be tested, or finding a number of faults and deliberately not fixing them for purposes of the metric, and remaining faults are assumed to be in proportion to the number of artificially-induced or found-and-not-fixed errors found in testing.

Method number one is most commonly used.