AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[lomiller]

Tell that to Venus.



While it will take a while, AGW may increase the greenhouse effect past the tipping point.

A Venus style runaway greenhouse warming probably can’t occur while there are still oceans. The tipping point for that type of CO2 warming is the release of all the carbon in carbonate rock, which probably can’t occur at temperatures where there are still liquid oceans.

There is not enough carbon outside carbonate rock to raise temperatures high enough to boil away the oceans so we are probably safe from this type of runaway for a billion years or so. The Sun is getting hotter by a couple percent every 100 million years so this may be a future fate for the earth.

 

[Trakar]

... If you take a minute and a half clip from a forty minute video and present it out of context, that's editing. Those conservative students must to have gone to the Andrew Breitbart school of video "journalism."

Thanks for the context link, and for those curious, here is a copy of the complete 40 minute lecture.

http://vimeo.com/16649140

 

[TraneWreck]

The short (1min 34sec) You Tube video that started this "outrage."



The full story.



That last quote is an idiotic evasion. If you take a minute and a half clip from a forty minute video and present it out of context, that's editing. Those conservative students must to have gone to the Andrew Breitbart school of video "journalism."

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

 

[tsig]

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

They don't think they're manipulating them because they're sure the edited version is what the professor really thinks.

ETA: see msg #19

 

[bit_pattern]

What a surprise! Deniers selectively editing and taking things out of context, who woulda thunk!

 

[OMGturt1es]

A Venus style runaway greenhouse warming probably can’t occur while there are still oceans. The tipping point for that type of CO2 warming is the release of all the carbon in carbonate rock, which probably can’t occur at temperatures where there are still liquid oceans.

There is not enough carbon outside carbonate rock to raise temperatures high enough to boil away the oceans so we are probably safe from this type of runaway for a billion years or so. The Sun is getting hotter by a couple percent every 100 million years so this may be a future fate for the earth.

Hansen argues in "Storms of my Grandchildren" that the runaway greenhouse effect is back on the table, at least in his mind. He writes that if we manage to go after all the oil sands and shales, it's a dead certainty. Hansen's position is based mostly on the speed at which CO2 is increasing, the size of existing methane hydrate accumulations, and the fact that the sun is brighter now than it was in the geological past when Earth last saw CO2 concentrations somewhere around 1,000 ppm. Hansen believes that we have significant risk of warming the system to the point that vast methane hydrates are released, bringing us well above 1,000 ppm. He believes that while the Earth has seen these concentrations in the past without experiencing a runaway greenhouse, the Earth will not be so lucky this time, because the increase in the sun's luminosity is significant.

 

[BenBurch]

Hansen argues in "Storms of my Grandchildren" that the runaway greenhouse effect is back on the table, at least in his mind. He writes that if we manage to go after all the oil sands and shales, it's a dead certainty. Hansen's position is based mostly on the speed at which CO2 is increasing, the size of existing methane hydrate accumulations, and the fact that the sun is brighter now than it was in the geological past when Earth last saw CO2 concentrations somewhere around 1,000 ppm. Hansen believes that we have significant risk of warming the system to the point that vast methane hydrates are released, bringing us well above 1,000 ppm. He believes that while the Earth has seen these concentrations in the past without experiencing a runaway greenhouse, the Earth will not be so lucky this time, because the increase in the sun's luminosity is significant.

It might be hard to get enough CO2 out of the ground to replicate end-permian levels, though. Some of it is deeply buried.

 

[Cain]

The professor was being provocative, going after both sides, yet conservative political activists edited the video to tell a story that conforms to their narrative of academia.

What's so astonishing about the global warming debate as that you have political commentators and activists largely squaring off against scientists, and it's the former accusing the latter of scientific malpractice.

 

[shadron]

Astronomy professor indoctrinates students to the dangers of AGW.
(eta) I'm not sure how AGW politics and science relate to astronomy. Perhaps someone could enlighten me (us).

"Blood will be on your hands"

Is this appropriate?
Thoughts?

Well, A.A.Alfie, was it appropriate, presuming you are interested enough to watch the 40 minute version? Were his arguments against AGW as good as those against? What do you think his true message was in the class taken as a whole? How good a job was he doing keeping the class engaged, do you think?

Or have you and mhaze given it up as a bad job?

 

[Ysidro]

I think the OP is lying. There's no way they teach science at LSU.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I go to Texas A&M and AGW has been part of the curriculum in astronomy, oceanography, and biology.

A lot of universities are doing it now... its alarming really.

It's pretty obvious how the climate would be included in an oceanography and biology curriculum.

For those who haven't seen a university astronomy class in a while, planetary science includes the Earth.

Astrobiology is a whole department now at the U of WA.

David Catling, University of Washington (UW), Seattle. [A faculty member in the Astrobiology department]
I am jointly appointed to UW's Astrobiology Program and the Department of Earth and Space Sciences. I am also an adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Notice that this professor's area of expertise includes atmospheric sciences and Earth and Space science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Despite the fact the OP thinks this class content was "propaganda" and wrongly claims the class content was not appropriate for astronomy (I show above that is not true), there's a clue to where the real propaganda problem lies in the HuffPo article in the second post daenku32 shared with us.

A Louisiana professor says he is being wrongly targeted by conservative activists who released video excerpts of a lecture on climate change.

CampusReform.org, a student group launched by the conservative Leadership Institute in Arlington, Va., has circulated video online of the professor telling students who don't believe in taking steps to end global warming that "blood will be your hands."

The video shows less than two minutes of excerpts from the lecture at Louisiana State University.

Astronomy professor Bradley Schaefer said Wednesday the lecture was nearly an hour long.

Schaefer said the clips misrepresent his point.

Here's what SourceWatch has on The Leadership Institute responsible for the James O'Keefe edit style video.

They haven't posted funding for the organization but Phillip Morris donated $500,000 to the Free Congress Foundation which the founder of the LI, Morton Blackwell, is currently the Treasurer of. I would be surprised if Exxon wasn't a staunch supported of the Leadership Institute. There is no question the LI has at least some corporate sponsorship.

Exxon, for those of you who are not aware, admitted to spending millions of dollars on a campaign to discredit global warming science.

 

[Furcifer]

Despite the fact the OP thinks this class content was "propaganda" and wrongly claims the class content was not appropriate for astronomy (I show above that is not true),

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

It was however discussed in depth in an environmental ethics class I took. If you check the calendar today the curriculum at my University hasn't changed.

While I understand the professor's passion, it isn't any more appropriate than lecturing about the evils of pornography in an English writing or Photography course. Likewise I wouldn't expect a lecture on abortion in a biology class.

He's lecturing outside the curriculum outlined in the course calendar. If he was teaching a course in biology and started lecturing about the merits of intelligent design he'd be subject to the same criticism of "propaganda".

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.

edit: it's discussed in a new class offered by the physics department: 64-203. Physics and Society-The Present. An Arts and Science course: 56-421. Science, Ethics and Social Policy and a Political Science course: 5-212. Environmental Policy and Politics, not in Astronomy.


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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Did you even bother to look at the links before posting this rant?

Care to look at try again?

You took two "semesters" of astronomy. Was that two classes, one in each semester? Or one full year of astronomy?

 

[jakesteele]

I know this will sound obvious to you people, but I can't figure out if the majority of this forum believes or disbelieves is real or not real to the alarming degrees that Al Gore's A Inconvenient Truth or thinks it's a bunch of hogwash.

I know very little about this subject so I can't take a firm stand either way and I tapped into an ongoing debate late in the party and can't pick up on the specifics of the philosophical stances taken by the parties involved.

Can you tell me if the majority of this forum believes strongly one way or another, or is it a 'divided opinions' situation?

 

[Furcifer]

Did you even bother to look at the links before posting this rant?

Care to look at try again?

You took two "semesters" of astronomy. Was that two classes, one in each semester? Or one full year of astronomy?

lol, excuse me, I have one post explaining why I know this isn't part of the cirriculum for astronomy. 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.

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.

It wasn't part of the curriculum 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. That's wrong. You can't do that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Furcifer]

I know this will sound obvious to you people, but I can't figure out if the majority of this forum believes or disbelieves is real or not real to the alarming degrees that Al Gore's A Inconvenient Truth or thinks it's a bunch of hogwash.

I know very little about this subject so I can't take a firm stand either way and I tapped into an ongoing debate late in the party and can't pick up on the specifics of the philosophical stances taken by the parties involved.

Can you tell me if the majority of this forum believes strongly one way or another, or is it a 'divided opinions' situation?

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.

I think a lot of people don't let it worry them to the extent they need to express themselves. I was a Global Warming fanatic 15 years ago and then I just moved on from preaching it to people. I think a majority of people know fossil fuels are bad and we need to eliminate them from use but that will happen in due time. We do our part to reduce electricity and buy more fuel efficient cars but beyond that we've got people looking into it for us while we deal with the bigger issues of losing our jobs, raising our kids, taking care our parents, making the mortgage payments and not dying of cancer. There's an immediacy in those things that just never manifested in the looming threat of Global Warming. If the price of gas and electricity quadrupled tomorrow the environment may or may not be saved, but for absolute certain there would be more people living on the streets and eating cat food to survive. It's so hard to think of future generations when we can barely take care of the current one.

 

[jhunter1163]

Keep your comments civil and on-topic, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

lol, excuse me, I have one post explaining why I know this isn't part of the cirriculum for astronomy. 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.

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.

I was talking about the links I posted, not the OP link.

That suggests you didn't really read my post.

You don't know what was part of the curriculum in the class in question. We have the professor's rebuttal that the heavily cherry picked parts of the video were 10 minutes of a one hour class.

We have a right wing organization likely funded by industry that has been engaged in a campaign to discredit global warming science which is responsible for the video.

And I posted links to university programs of astronomy that included planetary science which includes atmosphere and climate. Perhaps you think astronomy is merely looking at stars and other space phenomena. But modern astronomy includes all manner of planetary geology and climate.

Please look again at these courses included in the astronomy department at the U of WA:

Astronomy 150 - The Planets

Course syllabus...For liberal arts and beginning science students. Survey of the planets of the solar system, with emphases on recent space exploration of the planets and on the comparative evolution of the Earth and the other planets.

(emphasis mine)

ASTR 555 Planetary Atmospheres (3)

Problems of origin, evolution, and structure of planetary atmospheres, emphasizing elements common to all; roles of radiation, chemistry, and dynamical processes; new results on the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and other solar system objects in the context of comparative planetology.

Astronomy 1101, LSU

Energy in the Earth system, the origin and evolution of the universe and the Earth system....

...demonstrate knowledge of a broad survey of solar system astronomy including properties of the planets and our Sun, the origins of both planets and our Sun, and their ultimate fates.
demonstrate the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to understand scientific phenomena as demonstrated by an ability to solve problems in solar system astronomy.
demonstrate an ability to relate the concepts and knowledge of solar system astronomy to geology, physics, history, and philosophy.

Earth is included in planetary science in modern astronomy classes.

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.

A year of astronomy to "fill an Arts credit"? I'll take your word for it. Did they not include the planetary atmosphere and climate chapter?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I looked further into CampusReform.org and they have some very disturbing activities going on. They have a goal of intimidating liberal professors.

David Horowitz in the recent past did the same thing harassing a number of professors claiming they were commies and/or anti-American supporters of radical Islam.

From Wiki on David Horowitz^WP:

In two books, Horowitz accused Dana L. Cloud, associate professor of communication studies at the University of Texas at Austin, as an “anti-American radical” who “routinely repeats the propaganda of the Saddam regime” and, along with all of the 99 other professors in his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, Horowitz accuses her of the “explicit introduction of political agendas into the classroom.” (pp. 93, 377)

The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built
Dana Cloud who wrote the article in the link was one of the targeted professors.


CampusReform.org, responsible for this attack needs a thread of its own.