AGW indoctrination of LSU students

[InfidelSavant]

Actually GW is planetary science.

 

[Furcifer]

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(emphasis mine)

ASTR 555 Planetary Atmospheres (3)

Astronomy 1101, LSU

Earth is included in planetary science in modern astronomy classes.

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?

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)

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 not within the confines of the classroom without changing the curriculum.

 

[Furcifer]

Actually GW is planetary science.

*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.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

*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.

Were you in the class? Because the cherry picked video is 10 minutes of an hour long class according to the news. You do know the news report said no one in the class complained to the university admin, right?

AP news report:

The dean of LSU's College of Science, Kevin Carman, said no student has complained about the lecture and no action will be taken against Schaefer, who Carman called a "spirited professor" with consistently positive student reviews.

Can an astronomy class cover the politics of funding a manned vs unmanned trip to Mars?

In the case of GW, one cannot easily separate the politics.

You seem to be on the side of McCarthyism here. You care that a university professor has a political point of view and discusses it in class. Should we start observing university professors and require they keep their political views out of the classroom?

 

[Furcifer]

Were you in the class? Because the cherry picked video is 10 minutes of an hour long class according to the news. You do know the news report said no one in the class complained to the university admin, right?

AP news report:

Can an astronomy class cover the politics of funding a manned vs unmanned trip to Mars?

In the case of GW, one cannot easily separate the politics.

You seem to be on the side of McCarthyism here. You care that a university professor has a political point of view and discusses it in class. Should we start observing university professors and require they keep their political views out of the classroom?

*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.

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.

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.

 

[InfidelSavant]

When I was at university, often lectures would get sidetracked and discussions would occur about things that weren't necessarily the explicitly defined topic of the paper.

Should my lecturers have been villified in the media too?

 

[Furcifer]

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.

 

[Furcifer]

When I was at university, often lectures would get sidetracked and discussions would occur about things that weren't necessarily the explicitly defined topic of the paper.

Should my lecturers have been villified in the media too?

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?

 

[332nd]

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?

But did he tie it to the curriculum? (Serious question.) For example using his rant as an example of people not doing proper research.

 

[Furcifer]

But did he tie it to the curriculum? (Serious question.) For example using his rant as an example of people not doing proper research.

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

 

[InfidelSavant]

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

You haven't watched the unedited video at all, have you?

 

[Furcifer]

You haven't watched the unedited video at all, have you?

Yes, the 40 minute one.

 

[InfidelSavant]

If you'd actually watched it like you claim, you'd see he's being an "alarmist" against contradictory and opposing ideas.

 

[Furcifer]

If you'd actually watched it like you claim, you'd see he's being an "alarmist" against contradictory and opposing ideas.

Are you sure you watched it?

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.

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.

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)

 

[kmortis]

A batch of posts have been moved off to AAH. As jhunter said earlier, keep it civil, on topic and don't personalize or drag in arguments from other threads.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh yah, and your hyperbole about McCarthyism is pure nonsense. .....

It's not nonsense when there is an organized source that is attempting to prevent professors from presenting certain politically liberal material in their classes.

David Horowitz was a one man show but he was also actively trying to stop professors Horowitz did not like the political views of.

The organization responsible for this attack on this particular political message that some rich and powerful corporations do not like is now acting nationally. They embraced the sleazy actions of James O'Keefe whose videos were shown to be totally edited and dishonest.


It's not hyperbole. How far this group will get is another story.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not nonsense when there is an organized source that is attempting to prevent professors from presenting certain politically liberal material in their classes.

David Horowitz was a one man show but he was also actively trying to stop professors Horowitz did not like the political views of.

The organization responsible for this attack on this particular political message that some rich and powerful corporations do not like is now acting nationally. They embraced the sleazy actions of James O'Keefe whose videos were shown to be totally edited and dishonest.


It's not hyperbole. How far this group will get is another story.

Everyone has an agenda.

The fact remains the material wasn't appropriate for that particular class.

 

[lomiller]

Everyone has an agenda.

The fact remains the material wasn't appropriate for that particular class.

It's a science classroom. they were being taught science. Yes it belongs.


That said, on what do you base your insistence that science that isn't in accordance with your particular set of political beliefs shouldn't be taught?

 

[Furcifer]

It's a science classroom. they were being taught science. Yes it belongs.


That said, on what do you base your insistence that science that isn't in accordance with your particular set of political beliefs shouldn't be taught?

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.

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.

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.

If he was teaching evolution, or ID, in an Astronomy class, it isn't appropriate. Your particular set of "beliefs" isn't relevant.

What don't you get about not lecturing on politics and Global Warming in an Astronomy class?

 

[lomiller]

First, Are you sure you understand how a university education works? Good professors go the great lengths no to silo their material and instead show how things are interconnected.

Second, your contention that th9is material isn't suitable for an astronomy course is simply wrong. Understanding why planets are the way they are is a big part of what astronomers do. Giving that relevance to the students day to day lives is a big part of what teaching is about.

In any case, you clearly have trouble with the material itself rather then the teaching style and no one is fooled by your occasional suggestion you are really trying to argue the latter.