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
@Brad
‘More non-scienctific right wing crap being posted, Wattsupwiththat loses cred with each of these posts.
Stick to the science guys!’
Actually Science is defined as knowledge through study and/or practice. And it is very practical to study your opposition, so it’s very scientific.
Of course I understand that the whole group consisting of hippies are at odds with one another concerning the definition of science, some say only “hard science” is science the others want to include even the “soft science” as science as well. The “hard science” hippies say that “soft science” ain’t science because it’s soft and doesn’t make sense to include because you can’t quantify it per se. I say hippies will always be hippies and will always be the insane people who argue a moot point like arguing that a defined word doesn’t mean what it means per its own given definition or arguing the imminent end of the world without either proof nor a rational solution.
Just wait for this patch of global warming about to come down from Canada: yes, those are 60F degrees below normal:
Seeing as this chap likes comparisons let’s take a tiny England and Wales only. During the winter of 2008/09 there was an estimated 36,700 excess winter deaths in England and Wales, , compared with the average for the non-winter period. Cold is the bigger killer.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574
The distribution of the seating chart seems just a bit skewed towards the CAGW profile methinks.
@ur momisugly Ryan Maue:
60 below normal is entirely consistent with AGW projections, as northern latitudes are projected to get colder. In fact, this just proves that it is progressing faster than we had imagined and is clearly worse than anyone thought.
[ryanm: i agree completely. before i got my phd in meteorology, i had to recite verbatim the script to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, as well as Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals]
Send him to Afghanistan/Pakistan border to alienate Al-Qaedans !! 🙂
RyanM-
I am not offended by the post, I just don’t understand posting it on a blog that claims to be science driven. Is Wattsupwiththat about the science, or is it a political blog driving a belief, no matter what the science says? (I think the science says that, or is very far from proving that, carbon dioxide is involved in warming…)
The professor is clearly unhinged…but lots of people are extreme, it like showing Palin as an average Repub or Barney Frank as an average dem. Both sides have extreme people, lets not give them a forum…
[ryanm: I guess we just disagree. This blog is clearly science driven…but climate change is clearly political, no matter that Al Gore says it is just a moral issue. This simply video highlights the misinformation and scaremongering techniques of a tenured University professor who is by default granted expert status by the unknowing public and political establishment. Anthony’s highlighting of the 10:10 gore video was a very important blog posting that drove a million clicks to this website — and helped shut that garbage down. This blog is also entertainment, as all should be. To keep it flowing, you need new stuff, opinions, and conversation.]
When I was in school professors typically presented questions to students as opposed to giving answers with which students were required to agree. But then it was an engineering school and it was 40 years ago so it seems as if our entire society has been politicized, probably by some of my own classmates. No doubt this was by those smoking dope and going to peace rallies instead of attending class. The real danger is that these shenanigans are going on in the lower levels of the educational system where the students have not yet determined that all that is presented to them by teachers is not gospel.
That’s CLIMATE BULLYING !!
Why didn’t one student say – “Dude, where would you be if we were not here?” or “Turn the lights off and save the world.”. Wimps – another class of mindless kids… Not good folks…..
Seriously, this guy obviously has a mental problem and needs medical help. He should be under medication at the very least. If he is not responsible for his actions then mocking him is not really an appropriate response. I have been in the same situation, with a bad biochemical imbalance — I’m just glad someone recognised it in time and was able to provide assistance.
Brad says:
November 17, 2010 at 11:33 am
RyanM-
“I am not offended by the post, I just don’t understand posting it on a blog that claims to be science driven. Is Wattsupwiththat about the science, or is it a political blog driving a belief,……”
=======================================================
Brad, as a conservative, I’d like to thank you for observing that this nutty professor is likely to be a left-wing lunatic and the conservatives of this world would like a more sane approach to teaching our children in the academic arena.
However, many here may not be able to make the political and rational connection between showing a raving lunatic professor and conservative advocacy. Perhaps if you spelled it out for the readers, here, exactly how exposing indoctrination and ridicule of our children in the educational environment is specifically a conservative issue, then they may be more receptive to your message.
I’m curious how does the main post “drives” a belief that encourages the readers to disregard science?
Your reaction is quite interesting. The topic is a SCIENCE pofessor teaching FALSE SCIENCE to his captive student audience using what can reasonably be interpreted as potential intimidation of the student grades. Happened to me once. The professor assigned a political topic for a speech. After the class was dismissed and there could be no witnesses to the conversation, he informed me that he was going to fail me for the class because I didn’t adopt his anti-war theme for my speech like everyone else. He went further. He also said not to bother complaining to the department chairman about it, he would just deny we ever had the conversation.
The sad fact is that there are some completely corrupt and untrustworthy professors in the colleges and universities. Their dishonesty, incompetence, and greed has an impacct upon the state of today’s science. This is not in anyway a new circumstance. Scientists have always had to cope with academic politics and governmental politics. Whenever these problems have an impact on science, you cannot make progress on the science without also making progress on removing the non-scientific distortions and obstructions to that science. Free speech has been and still is the single best remedy for the problem of defending and advancing honest science in full public view.
Your suggestion that only those people whom you judge are qualified to speak is the antithesis of free speech and the free practice of science. Democratic free speech tends to be vulgar at times, irrelevant at other times, and downright chaotic to the point of becoming a din of noise. Funny thing though, it tends to bring forth the new ideas and the new scientific solutions the vetted and well funded scientists were just too incapable of discovering. It is a pity that Congressman Baird, a Democrat, just got through disparaging the blogosphere and its rough and tumble free speech. He looked at the climate blogs, saw them, and was too blind to recognize the inherently democratic and scientific nature. Perhaps you can do better than Congressman Baird, if you truly care to try.
Brad,
Have you not noticed the “masthead” of WUWT?
It says: Commentary on puzzling things in life, . . .
If you wish to stick only with science, try this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html
The students shown in the clip should get a solid round of applause. I didn’t see any of them rolling on the floor laughing.
RyanM-
LOL! Maybe if you thought about what the goal of WattsUpWithThat was could make a value judgment as readers if it added to the discourse. Is the goal of WUWT to post all crazy things from one side of the political spectrum to drive thought, of a select few who come here, in one direction? Is the goal of WUWT to raise the level of discourse and show the AGW meme for the sham it is via real science (the goal I think Anthony has…)?
How either of these has anything to do with a professor screaming insanities is beyond me. Shall we talk Fred Phelps as the rep for the right? How about Tom Tancredo? How about the crazed Kucinich repping the left? Come on, every side has nuts…
[ryanm: this screaming professor was talking about climate change, which is why it is relevant. The other folks you cite are not talking about climate change. You are constructing straw man arguments with both extremes and then putting yourself in the so-called middle as the moderate arbitrator. Enough blog policing, moving on…]
The next Gate, for sure, it will be the “ASTRO-GATE”
Waiting to see your emails Doc.!
In 1965, a university physics professor invited guests and his classes to attend a question and answer seminar on the topic of interstellar space travel. Some of us had to bear the cost of traveling 100 miles to attend this event. The professor began by asking the question of whether or not humans from the Earth would ever be able to travel to the planets in other nearby star systems? The Centauri, system, Barnard’s Star, and other possible destinations were briefly raised. Then he launched into a diatribe saying why it was absolutely ridiculous for any of us in the audience to even consider the possibility of interstellar travel by humans.
He then briefly asked for questions. Rather than listen to the full question, he interrupted the audience member’s question and held the person up to ridicule while seeking his students’ approval of his superior knowledge and wisdom. The questions from the audience about interstellar space travel ended aft the first few questions, because they could see asking the questions was going to be unproductive.
It didn’t take more than about 15 minutes for all of this to occur. The professor then proceeded to change the subject to a topic his students had been covering in his classes about certain chemistries such as boron compounds, carbon tetrachloride, and so forth. he went on and on until his 120 minutes of seminar were finished.
Our host, a professor and World War Two veteran B-29 navigator, apologized for subjecting us to this profoundly rude and ignorant professor.
The obvious solution to the “too many people problem” is for people like Schaefer who believe it is a problem to eliminate themselves from the population and the gene pool. If he isn’t willing to do that he is a hypocrit as well as an idiot.
I can’t bring myself to give him the benefit of the doubt unless the editing is done in such a way as to make it seem that he holds beliefs he is making fun of. Because all of his statements here are profoundly biased and rather childish.
Mandatory birth control. For us, not for him, I presume.
Garrett Hardin, the original American ecofascist, had five kids and waited until he was nearly ninety to off his Nazi ass. For the good of the planet, one supposes.
The good news here that students who are not already cowed and brainwashed by the “righteous” Gaian pseudo-religion will listen to this assclown and see him for what he is: a miserable ranting wannabe Stalin.
Most definitely, a science blog should report about university professors abusing their authority like this. Anyone who calls this “right wing” is clearly only trying to spread confusion; as it is not a political theme at all – no matter where the AGW movement stands politically.
BTW, i love the “Eliminate All Engines” option. Where’s the “Go Full Khmer Rouge” option?
You’re all making a big mistake. This isn’t the professor. The real professor was knocked on the head and bundled into a broom closet, and his place taken by an escapee from the neighbourhood lunatic asylum.
I wonder if his doctoral dissertation is available?
We should post a link to it here for peer review.
RyanM-
Good point about the 10:10 video (which you added after I responded?).
[ryanm: my responses are essentially threaded comments, i don’t edit my own comments after I write them, since that is just too much power 😉 ]