Posted on 03/16/2014 9:49:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming. Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence, and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a little intellectual Fascism. Right?
When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on.
Well, Larry (can we call him Larry?), it might surprise you – an assistant professor of philosophy – to learn that science is not a democratic study. Skepticism, opposition, and deviation from the adopted narrative are more responsible for scientific discovery than blind allegiance to any prevailing theory. And, quite frankly, the theory of anthropogenic global warming has been delegitimized by some of its greatest proponents… Most scientists would agree that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe in a theory that has routinely failed to produce any moderately accurate models or predictions. But, of course it gets better:
With such high stakes, an organized campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.
Laughably, Larry is not talking about East Anglia, Al Gore, or the UN Climate Change Scandal (where a number of scientists were quoted out of context to give the impression of a consensus view on climate change). In fact, while Larry alleges that “deniers” (apparently the word “skeptic” doesn’t have the right amount of stigma attached to it) are engaged in a misinformation campaign, he never once defends the propagandistic efforts of the global-warming-faithful.
Governments, activist groups, well connected CEOs, and elite billionaire Liberals have pushed trillions of dollars into the propagation of global warming fears. And yet, strangely, this assistant philosophy professor seems incapable unwilling to see the irony of his allegations. But, wait… He soon goes for the jugular:
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
Ah… So scientists who dare to question the provably wrong predictions of melted ice caps, winterless years, and raising sea levels should be charged with negligence for “undermining the public’s understanding of scientific consensus”? Well, here’s some scientific consensus for you, Larry:
The world has not seen a measurable increase in temperatures for over 15 years. Arctic ice has increased in mass since 2013. The “Polar Vortex” is part of a broader, and predictable, weather shift that has been happening for thousands of years. “Climate Change” has been occurring, without man-made forces, for every single one of the billions of years this rock has been spinning around the sun.
But, let’s be honest: Larry isn’t really worried about the science (even though I’m sure his studies in philosophy have yielded him great insights into climatology, atmospheric science, and meteorological changes throughout history). He’s worried about opposition to his beliefs. He even acknowledges some of the pushback that his idea might receive:
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech.
Misguided? The Left’s intolerance, it seems, has no bounds. A student from Harvard recently argued against academic freedom. Not wanting to be outdone, this assistant professor is now suggesting that political opponents (or for that matter, scientists who don’t tow his ideological ideals) be criminally charged. It is almost stunning how easily the Left will adopt the notion of censorship and intellectual fascism to limit their opposition.
For being an assistant professor of philosophy, Torcello seems stunningly married to an egocentric world view. People who disagree with him, in his mind, are not merely “wrong”… They’re crossing the threshold into criminality. This is a point of view that is growing among the Left. Opponents to the President are racist. Opponents of Nancy Pelosi are sexist. Advocates for traditional marriage are bigots. And, apparently, opponents to the theory of anthropogenic global warming are worthy of a little jail time. This doesn’t seem like positions that lend themselves to any degree of philosophical integrity.
If Larry really wants to help fight global warming, he should keep his totalitarian mouth shut… Currently, he’s spewing too much hot air into the atmosphere.
What I find both funny and scary is how quickly the gloves come off with Democrats. In a pitched political battle, they always get offended when compared to “socialists” or “communists”. I’ve had multiple lefties telling me I don’t know what those terms mean.
Then, they win a presidential election or two, get a majority in the Senate, start feeling their oats. Scratch the veneer and there’s a totalitarian underneath gladly telling you in which gulag they want to put you.
Mr. Peel says: Just declare the Democratic Party a religion, then, because it's a religion, ban it from participating in Government.
climate scientists :”Global warming is destroying the Earth”
News media reporters: “See you little people scientists say Global warming will kill you! allow democrats to grow government and take away your freedom, now!”
Me a Republican: “I know you reporters are liars and i can fact check you and your stupid government funded scientists on the Internet. I can see global warming is a hoax to advance socialism”
climate scientists and democrats:” why you evil racists Republicans won’t submit to our lies. you are climate deniers.imprison all deniers”
is an “assistant professor of philosophy” considered to be a scientist? A climate scientist?
I want to see his peer-reviewed climate research
***so democrats/communists have to create fake threats to scare the people into begging for government to protect them***
The purpose of a politician is to keep the public frightened of an imaginary booger man that only the politician can protect them from.
Yes that's the purpose of a politician, AND of the news media reporters, and government bureaucrats, AND of ALL democrats
ethical responsibilities implicit to democratic citizenship in morally diverse societies.
This guy claims to be a student of philosophy?
"Ethical Responsibilities" ?
According to who ?
"Morally diverse"?
There is, in philosophy, an effort for the expression of logic. Those logical statements may be based on false assumptions, but they should not be circular or self refuting.
We are witnessing a complete breakdown, of what was a well established protocol for both science and philosophy.
Logic is now relative.
Science is now subjective.
Morals are no longer Objective.
This guy and these people are promoting the acceptance and their "Embrace of Uncertainty"
Is it "unethical" to say someone is "Unethical"?
This is what they are trying to advance.
Excellent article, but Schaus makes the mistake of saying “tow” the line. It’s not “tow” the line, it’s “toe” the line. I tried to send him an e-mail about it, but for some reason it wouldn’t send. Oh well, maybe he reads FR.
Sounds like the left is ready for another inquisition. The irony of this is so thick that you couldn’t cut through it with a chain saw. The ‘defenders of science’ on the left are pushing the modern version of what happened to Giordano Bruno.
I say to them..."you first". Ok, Larry, give up your car, your heated home, your latte's and your computer, and razor blades, and soap, and hot water, and your grocery store (Wegmans), your electricity (which is produced by either coal or nuclear in this locale), and a great many things you presently take for granted. You give them up....lead the way Larry. Lead by example, not by diktat.
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial?
Well documented? First, prove that! You cannot.
You know what? He can't. Who is funded by corporations? About EVERYONE. Even the Rochester Institute of Technology is funded by corporations. So where's the PROOF that the corporations are funding scientists to DENY global warming?
Is this what passes for logic in his mind?
Scientist A is a geologist. Exxon, an oil company, needs the expertise of geologists to find oil. Scientist A gets money form Exxon. Scientist A denies global warming by showing FACTS that dispute pro-warming CO2 conclusions. Therefore, Scientist A is completely on the take for Exxon to cause people's death when they die from the extreme weather and rising seas caused by global warming. That's some TWISTED logic!!!!
Torcello doesn't NEED proof. You know, he has a PhD in Philosophy, where anything and EVERYTHING can be argued. But no, let's criminalize arguing.
Why all the hullaballoo — the clown is only an assistant philosophy professor.
Since when is philosophy considered a science that he should comment on global warming?
Lawrence Torcello - Mussolini’s cousin?
Climate change I can believe in. Nobody denies that climate change does happen, has happened in the past and shall continue to change over time going into the future.
Where the disagreement comes in is believing that the only climate change that is going on right now is global warming, and the trend will continue until the seas are all vaporized and life on earth is extinguished. Isn’t happening, and can’t happen under the limits posed by the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
You can’t win.
You can’t come out with as much as you started the game with.
You can’t even get out the game.
Heat (energy) is always leaking away from the system. Even with the most efficient possible means of reclaiming the energy losses, and fullest possible utilization of that reclaimed energy, the levels sink lower and lower, through something called entropy. And by the time things have stopped leaking away, the result is moot anyway, there will be nothing moving.
And also that man has anything to do with it.
Find ways to save personally on home energy costs. There are many ways. Talk the goofy talk of the big constituents behind the politicians of the political/regular class: “sustainable,” “carbon emissions,” etc. Most self-described conservatives are doing talking that stuff in their local government meetings anyway while oinking at the trough, spewing exhaust all over the world and looking for more ways to rob their honest, hard working neighbors.
Anyway, put your savings into becoming more self-sufficient. The more self-sufficient you become, the more you can save. The proceeds go to you instead of your local socialists (who support socialists up the chain). Many of the more wise technically inclined folks are understanding that, while the bipartisan political class continues to connive ways to force everyone to pay increased fees from recirculating debts, higher energy prices, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.