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.
And just like way back then, The Church worked to enrich itself, and keep the people "in darkness." In this case, they really DO want to turn out the lights (and electricity).
One of the reasons that Gore has become so unhinged was that he was slated to become the world's first "Global Warming" billionaire with the passage of cap and trade.
Mark
The one good thing about liberalism... it is ALWAYS wrong.
So if you want to know what to do, or what will happen. Just find out what liberal want you to do or think will happen and do the opposite or plan for the opposite.
For instance I became 100% convinced that we were heading into a new ice age the minute liberals started pushing global warming.
Well Larry,if CW2 starts-I’ll look for you on the field.
What a doofus,too lazy to even shave properly.
If Dr. Larry is going to opine on the philosophy of science, he should at least read the seminal work on that matter, namely “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.
BTW, Dr. Larry, they locked up Galileo for denying what the 99% “consensus” of existing “scientists” had to say about the fundamental “settled science” of astronomy, but the earth continued to rotate around the sun anyway.
BTW, a few of the other scientists who correctly bucked the 99% consensus were, Louis Pasteur, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Alfred Wegener, Antoine Lavoisier, and Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. Fortunately, Dr. Larry wasn’t in charge of jailing scientific heretics during those times, or otherwise we would be living in a far different and a far poorer world than today.
Just Leftists being their normal fascist selves. Politics trumps science like everything else
:-) snicker
Stealthy and very low cost without requiring much wood.
rocket stove mass heater
http://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp
Some techs. are working on developing related, low cost stoves with mass and masonry heaters for those who need to pass inspections.
There are many modifications for the above and many more kinds of projects in the works. Sometimes, we should acknowledge a negative and ongoing political and economic reality and choose to adapt and overcome.
Look at this oven (dowload the manual).
On "cooling off," one Freeper painted his house with a special reflective paint, superinsulated the house and continued with other related projects. Sorry I haven't had time to do more study and experimentation for hot climates. It very seldom gets above 65 degrees here (but often lower than 30 below).
The more influential political folks want to start playing the "carbon" game. Make them pay us, instead (see Linux, open source legal successes).
We don't play with camping toys. We're not Walter Mitty. We don't mess around. Sanctions first.
Michael Crichton on “science” and “consensus”:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
(hint: he said they don’t play well together)
Ah, on Walter Mitty... For those who haven’t read it, it’s an enjoyable and very short short story.
Fiction
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
by James Thurber
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1939/03/18/390318fi_fiction_thurber?currentPage=all
“The left would LOVE to be able to imprison anyone who disagreed with them.”
That’s where it always leads. Demonize then criminalize the opposition. Then come the re-education camps, then the death camps.
“is an “assistant professor of philosophy” considered to be a scientist? A climate scientist?”
It must be nice to be an Ass. Prof of Philosophy. Everything is just a matter of opinion. No right or wrong, no need to prove your point. Just run your mouth all day, write your BS opinions and get paid. Its like being a journalist, use your “freedom of speech” to say whatever BS you want while advocating the elimination of free speech for others.
Larry Torella
My research interests include ethical theory, and applied ethics, social and political philosophy, and scientific skepticism. Current projects investigate the practical consequences and ethical responsibilities implicit to democratic citizenship in morally pluralistic societies, particularly in the domains of medicine and education, the environment and animal welfare, public policy and political discourse. My recent work pursues the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.
It is said that mathematicians require pencil, paper and a trashcan. Philosophers dispense with the trash can.
“denialism”. Learn a new word each day. You must have also noted that among this clown’s research interests is “scientific skepticism”, something that he himself does not appear to practice.
On 13 March 2014, Assistant Professor Lawrence Torcello published a blog posting[1] entitled Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? at a tendentious propaganda website, “The Conversation”. In that posting, he committed the following breaches of the Institute’s policies:
1. Mr Torcello describes himself as “Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology” and makes no effort to comply with the explicit requirement of the principles on academic freedom by indicating that he writes neither on behalf of the Institute nor in his capacity as an assistant professor there but as a private citizen.
2. Mr Torcello offends against the requirement of accuracy stated in the principles of academic freedom in that his posting falsely said “the majority of scientists clearly agree on a set of facts” about “global warming” on which they do not in fact agree. Mr Torcello links his cited statement to a reference to three papers each claiming a “97% consensus” to the effect that most of the global warming observed since 1950 was manmade. However, as Legates et al. (2013)[2] have demonstrated, a review of 11,944 papers on climate published in the 21 years 1991-2011, the largest such review ever published in the scientific literature, had marked only 64 papers, or 0.5% of the sample, as explicitly endorsing that proposition. Though it may well be that 100% of scientists publishing in relevant fields accept that – all other things being equal – our returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it once came will be likely to cause some global warming (though the record amounts of CO2 we have emitted recently have not caused any warming at all for up to 17 years 6 months[3]), legitimate scientific doubt remains about the quantum of future global warming that may be expected, with an increasing body of peer-reviewed papers moving towards a climate sensitivity of only 1-2 Celisus degrees per CO2 doubling[4], and the IPCC itself drastically reducing its predictions of global warming over the next 30 years.
There should be a nice stay in the artic for him...a vacation of sorts.
He fits right in with the draconian pre-enlightenment approach to science. At the time it was settled that the earth was flat and anyone daring to say differently were punished by the Noble class.....
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.