LSU Professor: Pakistan and India might nuke us in 50 years if we ignore global warming

posted at 10:55 am on November 17, 2010 by The Right Scoop

via Campus Reform. Dr. Schaefer from Louisiana State University says that if our attitude is to just “sit on our tuffets and screw the kids” and do nothing to solve the critical problem of global warming, then in 50 years Pakistan and India might decide to send a couple of nukes our way for being one of the leading contributors to global warming. Wow.

Schaefer was so hyperbolic in this clip that I wasn’t sure which of his fear mongering statements to use for the title. From telling his skeptical students that ‘blood will be on their hands’, to creating a worksheet that asks those same students to estimate the probability that their children would die in ‘ugly ways’ if they ignore global warming, you have to wonder if Schaefer was one of the masterminds behind this. Yeah I’m pretty sure he wasn’t, though maybe he was profoundly inspired by it.

Cross posted at www.therightscoop.com

UPDATE: Added credit to Campus Reform who posted the video on their website today.

Tags:

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What is with that horrible picture of Jindal on the main blog page?

I know it is still early, but put me on the Jindal train for 2016. I’m sure there will be other people I will also like, though.

bluegill on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Which is why rich northeastern liberals who send their kids to private schools with names like Fordham, Regis, Loyola, Sacred Heart vote republican, right?

ernesto on December 3, 2012 at 3:56 PM

You must not be from the Northeast. No, Northeastern liberals do NOT send their kids to Fordham, Loyola, Sacred Heart, etc. Liberals send their kids to Groton, Milton, Kent, Dalton, Horace Mann……

Maddie on December 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Another junk justice Judge Benedict “Egomania” Roberts wannabe who knows what’s best for the peons, or else. Surprise!

Ya gotta problem wit’ judicial tyranny? Shaddup, little people, or I’m gonna hold ya in contempt!

viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 10:54 PM

You’re an ass. MOST school voucher programs are directed at low-income kids. People with more means are better able to afford to send their kids to private schools/better schools.
Btw: Jindal is NOT a dem lite-he IS a conservative.
Did I mention that you’re an ass?

annoyinglittletwerp on December 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

A voucher program specifically for low-income parents is redistributing wealth to those already not paying taxes. The kind of thing that Dem Lites like Jindal would support. A conservative would support a voucher program for everybody.

sauldalinsky on December 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Wrong. Most voucher programs are directed at bad schools. These are the kind of schools that don’t educate, but by God government you will send your children there to be uneducated, unless you can pay all your taxes and still afford to send your children to a private or Christian school, or home school.

Yes, these are mostly lower income families. Higher income families typically move to whatever neighborhood has a good school, so their children can go there.

So technically, both upper income and lower income children are treated exactly the same: they both go to whatever public school is in their school district. But the end result is totally different.

Vouchers are not a giveaway. They divert some of the funding used for public schools to send children who were not learning at those schools to a school where they can actually learn. So the public school still gets a portion — maybe half — of the taxes raised to educate the child, while the charter school gets the other portion. Usually, the voucher completely covers the cost of the charter school tuition, because public schools waste so much money.

So why do public schools hate them: Because their funding is derived from how many students they have, and if even 100 children are home-schooled or private-schooled, they figure they’re losing that much funding.

And make no mistake: that is at the core of the issue. If vouchers were just a government giveaway, they wouldn’t care. But because it affects their own funding, they act like the money is being stolen from them. In spite of the fact that they are not entitled to funding to educate a student if that student is actually being educated elsewhere.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Only an NEA-thug Obama voter would oppose the opportunity to move their kid to a competent private school where the teachers can actually speak English, inculcate hard science, understand addition, subtraction and the, er, higher math of multiplication and division and convey such knowledge to civilized students not cowering in fear for being shaken down for lunch money or molested (and worse) in the bathrooms.

viking01 on December 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Of course. People who are taught how to think don’t vote democrat.

Slowburn on December 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Here’s an explanation of the LA funding formula

http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SPELA-2011-2.pdf

It appears to me that Jindal could pull some money out of the funding and apply that to the voucher program, or given how severely underfunded LA’s schools are, seek a new source of funding for the vouchers.

Charter schools are included in the funding formula, but are under hte control of local school boards – that might be an avenue to explore as well.

Daisy_WI on December 4, 2012 at 8:48 AM

What is with that horrible picture of Jindal on the main blog page?

I know it is still early, but put me on the Jindal train for 2016. I’m sure there will be other people I will also like, though.

bluegill on December 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

.
SARAH PALIN ? … : )

listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

If these kids are forced back into the public schools I fear their grades will suffer from retaliation by the teacher their parents rejected.

agmartin on December 4, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Liberals DO NOT LIKE children being educated PROPERLY! They have been fighting that for over 50 years now. With the large number of minority students involved, IT IS RACIST for liberals—and liberal Judges—to decide that such large numbers of minority students DO NOT DESERVE a better education! LIBERALS ARE RACISTS!!!!!!!

DixT on December 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM

So technically, both upper income and lower income children are treated exactly the same: they both go to whatever public school is in their school district. But the end result is totally different.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 3, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Everyone is treated the same now (equality of opportunity) but voucher proponents want giveaways only to “lower income families” to reach the same end results for all (equality of outcome). Muddleheaded liberalism (no matter how well-intentioned) that is spending money we don’t have and destroying our country.

sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

If annoyinglittletwerp is still reading, here’s the key difference between Jindal (liberal) and Milton Friedman (conservative)

Reason: What would the biggest benefits be if vouchers were implemented in the way you originally discussed them in 1955?

Friedman: Let’s be clear. There are many kinds of possible vouchers, but there are two basic varieties, which I label charity vouchers and educational vouchers. Charity vouchers are unfortunately what we’ve gotten mostly so far. They are intended for low-income people who are unquestionably the worst victims of our deficient school system. Charity vouchers help the poor but they will not produce any real reform of the educational system. And what we need is a real reform.

I want vouchers to be universal, to be available to everyone. They should contain few or no restrictions on how they can be used.

sauldalinsky on December 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2