UPDATE: New video added. See below.
Dr. Bradley Schaefer really knows how to reach young college students: spouting hyperbolic proclamations of death and nuclear obliteration. The Louisiana State University astronomy professor is filmed saying some pretty ugly things, even for the typical unhinged liberal professor. But we should give him the benefit of the doubt since the YouTube clip is heavily edited. We must consider the context in which these statements were made lest it be mistaken for anything more than bravado or how high brow academics talk amongst themselves. Yet bringing up the death toll on 9/11 is usually a loser argument in any debate.
Video after the break:
From an LSU campus reform outfit:
Dr. Schaefer’s views on the subject were well-known. At one point in class, the professor compares deaths from European heat waves to American deaths in the September 11 terrorist attacks: “Now remember, how many people got killed on 9/11? What was it? One thousand? Two thousand? Something like that. Three thousand, whatever. It’s dwarfed by this. Why aren’t people reacting?”
Students who chose a limited government response to global warming were given this question to answer: “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?”
UPDATE: The professor refutes critics in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education and says he harangued both sides of the political spectrum and that the video above was edited, and show him in an unflattering light.
Here’s the unedited video http://vimeo.com/16649140
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ben Santer is now obfuscating in Congress
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3.aspx
Bradley Schaefer seems to be the kind of individual who, when put into a room with another person with a well-supported opposing view, would say, “I don’t want to talk about it.” And leave.
As an side, the good professor apparently didn’t do all that well in English classes in school. “Me and my parents . . .” Shouldn’t it be, ” May parents and I . . .” He needs some remediation on several levels.
Dr Shaefer’s speciality is apparently the study of gamma ray bursts. I think maybe one has happened in his brain. Idiot.
Are profs now the modern soothsayers?
Since Y2K I have been threatened on the average of 1-2 absolute final catastrophies a year. What Bird flu? I do think a Professor can find himself on youtube making a silly mistake and see his employment security evaporate faster than ever imagined.
With expensive budgets, Universities can’t afford childish claims that tarnish their reputation.
More non-scienctific right wing crap being posted, Wattsupwiththat loses cred with each of these posts.
Stick to the science guys!
His indoctrination techniques are not dissimilar to those used by religious extremists, to incite holy wars, suicide bombers etc.
I would suggest his students stop attending his lectures, for their own protection.
Brad, Brad, Brad…
Look in the mirror. It is the CAGW contingent that refuses to follow the scientific method. The day they ‘stick to the science’ is the day their scam implodes.
500 years ago this guy would have been telling his class that they deserved the plague because they hadn’t burned enough Catholics/Protestants/unbelievers (pick one, depending on location, and pick carefully lest you be burned…)
What better way to get agreement from students on your personal philosophy than the threat of a low grade for disagreement with your “professor”. I suppose identifying you by seating arrangement is marginally more civil than making dissenting students wear a yellow SUV on their arm.
Only a lowlife would sink to that sort of intimidation.
I would not subject my children to the sort of University that would tolerate such abuse of free thought.
Smokey says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:41 am
Well said. I think these posts are informative, as it gives a peek into the frangible brains of these ecotards, and explains why their “science” is so convoluted as well. I think “scientists” such as these are disqualifying themselves…let them speak and raise their petard even higher!
The Canadian Senate just killed the greenhouse gas act passed in the House of Commons last year.
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/feeltheheat/archive/2010/11/17/tory-senators-mount-sneak-attack-on-climate-change-bill.aspx
Great News!
Wow.. What a shocking video..
Distortions, lies and threats..
Fear-mongering at its worst.
I would like to watch the whole thing to be fair though..
And whats with the ‘right wing’ crap.. Brad?
Left wing.. right wing.. same bird.
That’s all just a label game to control us..
In Australia the right wing party is apparantly the Liberal party..
And this site is not right wing..
WUWT is all about the truth..
I hope so anyway.. thats is what I am here for.
Smokey-
The CAGW community does not follow the scientific method, but to lower ourselves to their standard on every board that discusses AGW from the right debases the scientific meritorious argument that can be made against AGW. Lots of boards spew crap like this, go see the GatewayPundit and listen to Hannity – some board needs to do this from a science perspective if we are to get out the message.
This post speaks only to the converted and does nothing to change minds or increase the level of discourse.
[ryanm: why are you so offended by the post — and not what the professor is saying?]
Any idea what the catalog says the curriculum was supposed to be for this course ?
Paul Westhaver says:
November 17, 2010 at 10:06 am
“The Canadian Senate just killed the greenhouse gas act passed in the House of Commons last year.”
Within the Act that the Senate rejected are the penalties for not submitting to the CAGW religion. Pardon my French.
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
INFRACTIONS ET PEINES
Offences
12. (1) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under this Act is guilty of an offence punishable by indictment or on summary conviction, as prescribed by the regulations, and liable to a fine or to imprisonment as prescribed by the regulations.
12. (1) Quiconque contrevient à un règlement d’application de la présente loi commet une infraction et encourt, sur déclaration de culpabilité, soit par mise en accusation, soit par procédure sommaire, selon ce qui est prévu au règlement, l’amende ou l’emprisonnement prévu par règlement.
Infractions
Subsequent offence
(2) If a person is convicted of an offence a subsequent time, the amount of the fine for the subsequent offence may be double the amount set out in the regulations.
(2) Le montant de l’amende visée au paragraphe (1) peut être doublé en cas de récidive.
Récidive
Continuing offence
(3) A person who commits or continues an offence on more than one day is liable to be convicted for a separate offence for each day on which the offence is committed or continued.
(3) Il est compté une infraction distincte pour chacun des jours au cours desquels se commet ou se continue l’infraction.
Infraction continue
Additional fine
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence and the court is satisfied that monetary benefits accrued to the person as a result of the commission of the offence, the court may order the person to pay an additional fine in an amount equal to the court’s estimation of the amount of the monetary benefits, which additional fine may exceed the maximum amount of any fine that may otherwise be imposed under the regulations.
(4) Le tribunal peut, s’il constate que le contrevenant a tiré des avantages financiers de la perpétration de l’infraction, lui infliger, en sus de l’amende maximale prévue par les règlements, une amende supplémentaire correspondant à son évaluation de ces avantages.
Amende supplémentaire
Officers, etc., of corporations
(5) If a corporation commits an offence, any officer, director, agent or mandatory of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, or acquiesced or participated in, the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence, whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.
(5) En cas de perpétration d’une infraction par une personne morale, ceux de ses dirigeants, administrateurs, agents ou mandataires qui l’ont ordonnée ou autorisée, ou qui y ont consenti ou participé, sont considérés comme des coauteurs de l’infraction et encourent, sur déclaration de culpabilité, la peine prévue, que la personne morale ait été ou non poursuivie ou déclarée coupable.
Dirigeants d’une personne morale
Offences by employees or agents
(6) In any prosecution for an offence, the accused may be convicted of the offence if it is established that it was committed by an employee, agent or mandatory of the accused, whether or not the employee, agent or mandatory has been prosecuted for the offence.
Just imagine if this were a professor ranting about evolution — the mainstream media would be cuing it up nonstop.
At one point in class, the professor compares deaths from European heat waves to American deaths in the September 11 terrorist attacks:…
something like 2300 people died many years ago in a particularly hot year in the UK … according to age concern 23,000 die each and every year due to cold and the number was double that last winter.
The simple fact is that cold weather kills and order of magnitude more EVERY year than a once in a blue moon warm year.
DR says:
November 17, 2010 at 9:17 am
Ben Santer is now obfuscating in Congress
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3.aspx
One of the testifying clucks claimed that if atmospheric CO2 hit 450 ppm the world’s oceans would be 7.7 Ph from top to bottom. No one even attempted to challenge this assertion. Unflippingbelievable!
“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?”
Could I get a side of pestilence with that?
Do i see any warmist attacking the Professor because he speaks about Global Warming even though he is not a climatologist? Anyone? Hello?
Perhaps the good professor missed the global warming snowfall at LSU while he was away protesting coal mining, or something equally relevant to astronomy.
Oh, I forgot, global warming causes colder temperatures and more snow, so this video actually makes his lecture a sane one. Not!
The guy is a mad demagogue and a disgrace to the science community. Period
Is this for real or some interactive artsy fartsy installation?
If it is for real, then I would suggest we are seeing a mental chrisis in someone who needs proffessional help. And one should cinsider if it is alright to use his unfortunate collapse for entertainment purpouses.
Maybe it was a mistake to embedd the video, the professor is obviously not himself and even seems to have regressed somewhat, perhaps in an attempt to solve a cognitive dissonance problem.
Are we seeing dr Jekyll or mr Hyde, we dont know him so we cant tell.
I kept waiting for the people on the “US should do nothing” side to suddenly blow up.
No pressure, after all.
This guy does not sound like a college professor. Very ill-prepared, lacks the facts he needs to back up his position, etc. Like you said, the video is edited heavily, but I can’t imagine what sort of questions would illicit those answers as correct. I thought it was hilarious that he uses the ‘save the kids’ tactic, but advocates population control.