Despicable climate ugliness courtesy of Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology

While the Anti Defamation League turns a blind eye to their own home grown hypocrisy and ugliness, Lawrence Torcello comes up with even more.

From his RIT website: Lawrence Torcello Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy. Lawrence Torcello received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University at Buffalo in 2006. His research interests include ethical theory and applied ethics, social and political philosophy, moral pluralism, and skepticism. His current projects investigate the practical consequences and ethical responsibilities implicit to democratic citizenship in morally diverse societies, particularly in the domains of medicine, education, animal welfare, the environment, public policy, and political discourse. Dr. Torcello’s recent work pursues the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.

Via Delingpole at Breitbart:

Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.

Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”. (H/T Bishop Hill)

What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

More here: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/13/US-Philosophy-Professor-Jail-Denialist-Climate-Scientists-For-Criminal-Negligence

What next, numbers tattoed on our arms because we hold an opinion different from Torcello?

From their Vision and Mission page:

Integrity and Ethics: Does what it takes to deliver on commitments made to the department, college, or division and to constituency groups. Builds personal trust and relationships inside and outside the university by doing what one says he or she will do when it is promised.

Respect, Diversity and Pluralism: Provides a high level of service to fellow members of the RIT community. Treats every person with dignity. Demonstrates inclusion by incorporating diverse perspectives to plan, conduct, and/or evaluate the work of the organization, department, college, or division.

Apparently “treating people with dignity” only applies if you are part of the RIT community.

If you want to complain to the Rochester Institute of Technology about Mr. Torcello, here’s the places to do it:

http://www.rit.edu/fa/humanresources/aboutus

http://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/Torcello.html

If you choose to lodge a complaint, be sure to be courteous and factual, we don’t need to surrender the moral high ground to anger.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Despicable climate ugliness courtesy of Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology

  1. Jeff says:

    Has anyone thought of filing an ethics complaint against this idiot?

  2. TomRude says:

    Another example of banalization of violence toward climate realists… Mind you since the Kiev coup, even totalitarian factions are the EU/Obama’s best friends… so not a surprise here.

  3. Apparently Ethics professors don’t need any …

  4. Truthseeker says:

    Ph.D in Philosophy – of course he would understand the physics of chaotic fluid/energy system that has many known and unknown variables that are unpredictable and have various levels of observational data for varying periods of time … NOT.

    I wonder if he would spell “ethics” as H Y P O C R I S Y.

  5. Bob Diaz says:

    RE: Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison …
    Sure, let’s go back to those happy days where people who thought that the Earth went around the Sun were thrown in prison. The “scientific consensus” back them said the Sun went around the Earth and we all saw that Scientific Consenses is NEVER wrong!!! // Scarasim //

  6. Also oddly, the photo reminds me of Fred Gwynne ,,,

  7. Pingo says:

    You can see the self-hatred so easily.

  8. Dudley Horscroft says:

    Just one thing missing from that photo – the plate with his name and number on it.

  9. Santa Baby says:

    During the Reformation there where counter-reformation movements at work. One of them where the Jesuits. They tried to counter the reformation and renew the Catholic Church from within. They where only responsible to the Pope himself and local priests and bishops had no control over them. Like KGB in USSR or EPA in USA?
    I feel a bit of dejavu? We are up against a Western international ideological movement that are funded by the people nationally but not accountable to the same people?

  10. Santa Baby says:

    They are funded by the people but only accountable to their ideology and it’s movement?

  11. Morph says:

    Might be better to take a look at who funds that site and discuss it with them.

  12. One of my interests is philosophy, my minor as an undergraduate and something that has kept me patiently thinking when others in the queue (waiting line) get riled up and jittery.

    But one thing I believe all students of philosophy will agree: Philosophers as a group do not deal in “exact, complete and consistent information”.

    I make the modest proposal that whatever profession association that Dr. Torcello subscribes to should enquire if he proposes to criminalize philosophical skepticism too? And which of the various kinds of philosophical skepticism would he criminalize?

  13. Admad says:

    I would really, seriously like to see at least one example of these “… well documented corporate funding of global warming denial”. In all honesty does anybody know of a single verifiable documented proof of corporate funding of “denialism”?

  14. charles nelson says:

    The Rochester Institute of Technology…. is that like The “Sheboygan Conservatory of Music” in Some Like it Hot?

  15. Richards in Vancouver says:

    Who does this bozo think he is? David Suzuki?

  16. Keitho says:

    In a week when the “stem cells in lemon juice” peer reviewed paper has been shown to be nonsense what does this gentleman base his hostility to scepticism on? I can recall another of these intolerant people suggesting we should be executed for crimes against humanity. What comes next, the NSA collecting all of our IPs and rounding us up for reeducation.

    All this does,along with Lewandowsky’s absurdities, is indicate just how insecure the AGW world is and how anyone can make a name (and some bucks) out of bashing the skeptics.

    What a world, what a world.

  17. Admad says:

    As a postscript: in his article, Torcello refers to “consensus findings of seismology”. I was under the impression that seismology was a proper grown-up scientific discipline based on observation.

    And presumably Torcello would be quite OK with the suggestion that climateers who have pushed the global warming agenda be prosecuted for criminal fraud when CAGW is finally accepted as bull5417? You know, fair’s fair and all that.

  18. tonyb says:

    Anthony

    Stop holding out on us. The article says;

    ‘I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.’

    Now, I’m not getting any funding. Bob Tisdale isn’t getting any funding. Willis isn’t getting any funding. Nor are Jo Nova,. Bishop Hill et al.

    Come on, time to own up, its all coming to you isn’t it?

    Just bung us $5 million a month from this ‘well documented’ funding and we will say no more about it….

    (I surely don’t need ‘sarc tags’ do I?)

    tonyb

  19. Old Ranga says:

    From a climate realist’s viewpoint, this sort of stuff is a major plus – because it turns the voting public right off. Check out Brendan O’Neill’s observations about the phenomenon: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100262659/public-apathy-on-climate-change-is-a-cause-for-celebration-not-concern/

    Nobody’s listening to these boring old farts any more. The mockery and satire has been slow to appear, but that won’t be long now. Even the inner-urban young and hip are starting to smell a rat.

  20. jdseanjd says:

    Valuable comparison Santa Baby.

  21. Karl Blair says:

    I would like to comment, but really cannot lower myself to address the incoherent ravings of an Assistant Professor.

  22. SanityP says:

    Philosophy, psychology. Why is it that people working in these fringe areas think they are above actual scientists doing real science?

    The likeness of Torcello and Lewandowsky is uncanny. Are they related?

  23. Bill Church says:

    Doesn’t look the sharpest knife in the drawer!

  24. Jon says:

    Its an attempt of some sort of Inquisition and it’s more international.
    The International Watermelon Inquisition?
    But one must remember that the fundamental problem here are the “gatekeepers” in the Media and mostly elsewhere?

  25. Oldseadog says:

    Oh well, I suppose 3 meals a day, a roof over my head and central heating can’t be that bad, not to mention the free medical and dental treatment.
    When my big-oil funding arrives, maybe I can bribe the warders to give me a bigger TV as well.

  26. Terry says:

    Graduated PhD in Philopsophy 2006. Assisatant Proff is essentially a Post Doc. So what is such a lofty intellectual still a only a Post doc 8 years from being awarded PhD. Personally, and call it elitist if you like, but PhD’s in soft subjects like philosophy dont cut it with me compared to physics/chemistry/biology/geology etc.

  27. Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia says:

    The level of communist penetration of your institutions is very concerning.

  28. jauntycyclist says:

    co2=main driver of climate is a cult.
    Six Sociological Characteristics of Cults

    [1] Authoritarian Leadership

    Authoritarianism involves the acceptance of an authority figure who exercises excessive control on cult members. As prophet or founder, this leader’s word is considered ultimate and final. . . .
    [2] Exclusivism

    Cults often believe that they alone have the truth. The cult views itself as the single means of salvation on earth; to leave the group is to endanger one’s soul.
    [3] Isolationism

    The more extreme cults sometimes create fortified boundaries, often precipitating tragic endings .

    [4] Opposition to Independent Thinking

    Some cultic groups discourage members from thinking independently. The “thinking,” as it were, has already been done for them by the cult leadership; the proper response is merely to submit.
    .
    [5] Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”

    It is not uncommon in cults that people are urged to remain faithful to avoid being “disfellowshiped,” or disbarred, from the group.

    [6] Threats of Satanic Attack

    Finally, some cults use fear and intimidation to keep members in line. Members may be told that something awful will happen to them should they choose to leave the group….Such fear tactics are designed to induce submission. Even when people do muster enough courage to leave the group, they may endure psychological consequences and emotional baggage for years to come.

    http://andynaselli.com/sociological-characteristics-of-cults

    basically the co2ers want people to ‘submit’ without question and use different techniques to do that from bribery, to name calling, threats and bearing false witness. ie a modern inquisition.

  29. DirkH says:

    Frederick Colbourne says:
    March 14, 2014 at 12:20 am
    “I make the modest proposal that whatever profession association that Dr. Torcello subscribes to should enquire if he proposes to criminalize philosophical skepticism too? And which of the various kinds of philosophical skepticism would he criminalize?”

    Communism has never been criminialized (Frankfurt School is active to this day, for instance); so what counts is obviously not the body count but the good intention (“Ooops, blowback in Cambodia, no probs, we’ll work out the kinks on the next try”). All that skeptics have to prove in front of a Kantian court of ethics is that they are well meaning. We can point to the positive externalities of rising CO2 (higher food production) and of rising temperatures (higher biodiversity) and of availability of affordable electricity, and turn it around and countersue the warmists; obviously they don’t want the least developed countries to develop; which is a crime against humanity, isn’t it.

    So let’s up the ante; criminal negligence? That’s shoplifting, let’s bring out the big guns here.

  30. daddylonglegs says:

    That gorilla Torcello looks like he fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. In previous times one would assume that soneone like him would be a mid-ranking criminal thug. Nowadays however its not at all surprising that he is a University professor. Those two career paths have converged.

  31. iggi says:

    Assistant professor wants to become professor, drops sound bite.

  32. jauntycyclist says:

    under the soviet days who ended up in the gulags? Was it the brightest scientists, artists and writers or the careerist doormat ones?

    Plato demonstrates in the Republic that tyrants must place any intelligent person in prison or have them silenced in the end surrounding themselves with untrustworthy yes men whose loyalty he has bought so ends up paranoid. Tyrants end up the most unhappy people always trying to find more money to pay the yes men who become increasingly greedy in their demands.

    Without the 4 billion a year spent on grants propping up the co2 cult most of the paid yes men would leave?

  33. AB says:

    Torcello, not a mafia name is it? Prison sounds quite appealing – can’t afford the rent where I live and as long as I don’t have to share a cell with him that’s OK. Now what other thought crimes are punishable in this way?

  34. rtj1211 says:

    The modern day Inquisition is being proposed!!

  35. JeffC says:

    I think this is what he has in mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI

  36. Steve Jones says:

    These people have nothing but contempt for true knowledge. They would happilly, and are actively doing so, drag humanity back to the dark ages.

  37. G. Karst says:

    Gee, you would think global temperatures were screaming up or something? O well, it never hurts to burn a few heretics and witches. You know… just in case. GK

  38. Steve B says:

    Can you sue people who use hate language in the US of A? In Australia you can so if anyone goes around saying a certain group should be killed or imprisoned that is seen as hate language.

  39. Iggy Slanter says:

    I’ve said this here and I have said it over at Deligpole’s blog: This is not about science. This is not about data and argument or debate. It is not about saving the planet or finding the truth. It is all about politics. And using pseudo-science as leverage to push a political agenda.
    That is why they use political tactics like the smear. It’s who they are. It’s what they do. You are bringing facts and arguments to a PTA meeting. Please STOP.
    We won the argument . They know that. That’s why the tactics have become so desperate. But it’s not about the argument. It’s about having government control over the energy sector. Just like they have control over education and health care and everything else.
    It’s about corruption.
    So don’t talk data sets to these people. It’s not what it’s about. Delingpole knows this. Do you?

  40. Jack Savage says:

    Life is too short to pay any heed to this twerp. He will bask in the attention and suffer no harm from it. Best move on.

  41. Peter Miller says:

    Ethics?

    What is ethical about an industry which continually adjusts its historical data in an attempt to ‘prove’ its philosophy?

    What is ethical about an industry which deliberately uses hopelessly inaccurate computer models to ‘prove’ its philosophy?

    What is ethical which continually uses inaccurate, untrue, unfounded scare stories to ‘prove’ its philosophy, such as: a) the demise of the polar bears, b) the end of polar ice, c) dodgy tree ring analysis, d) the prospect of catastrophic flooding from rising seas, e) supposed trends of increasing extreme weather events, f) predictions of biblical catastrophes, and g) a refusal to recognise the significance of the recent ‘pause’?

    Perhaps worst of all, an industry which refuses to look at the lessons of the geological record, which clearly shows CAGW is impossible.

    As regards the term ‘industry,’, what do we see? – a bloated, grant-obsessed, bunch of second rate individuals, who care little about facts (unless suitably manipulated) and only about feeding their egos and feathering their own nests.

  42. Steve C says:

    My own degree in Philosophy may be only an ordinary honours BA, but it has, over the years, happily prevented me from coming out with unmitigated crap like talking about “the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial”, by equipping me with a Grade 1 BS detector. Clearly this person, whatever his paper qualifications, has failed to analyse what he’s talking about to any more than the most superficial “surface” level, an approach which would not have earned me any marks at all had I shown evidence of such shoddy thinking as an undergrad.

    I say the same to him as I say to the “scientific” charlatans who produce the scientific BS which is so routinely shredded here and elsewhere: show us the evidence to back up your claims, or shut up. You are making a fool of yourself and bringing shame upon an ancient and (once) respectable field of study. Start by considering the following proposition: “A newspaper says that p is true” does not imply that “p is true.”

    Now excuse me, I have to go and wash my degree. Suddenly it feels dirty.

  43. bullocky says:

    “Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”.

    If he were judge and jury, they would surely be convicted.

  44. bullocky says:

    ‘Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.’

    And if that doesn’t work, what then?

  45. Damian says:

    Is there any greater hypocrisy than the so called tolerance/diversity on american campuses?

  46. Joe says:

    The thing is, he cannot be unaware that the Gleik “leak” was invented and the “Big Oil links” in it a lie. It was even covered in the same newspaper that he links to!

    So he’s guilty of intentionally spreading misinformation. I say jail him.

  47. SanityP says:

    Where did my previous comment go? Into a rabbit hole?

  48. jauntycyclist says:

    looks like the hypnotism isn’t working anymore. Al Gore is conversant with hypnosis as any public speaker/politician should be.

    “Hold a chicken’s head on the ground. Take a finger or a stick and draw circles around the chicken’s head.
    “He’ll try to follow the stick and, in no time, he’ll go “cluck, cluck’ and he’s out,” Mr. Gore said.

    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/03/24/loc_gore_does_chicken.html

    The United States military when trying to avoid divulging information gives reporters briefings with 25 minutes of intentionally dull PowerPoint presentations and 5 minutes left at the end for questions from anyone who is still awake. The presentations are called hypnotizing chickens.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism

    the public are not “cluck, cluck’ and he’s out,” anymore. So more drastic measures are needed.

  49. george e. smith says:

    Well it is not surprising to see this sort of sentiment.

    I’m currently in Geneva & environs, and I make the round trip on the train/bus from two to 4 times a day, on the #14, or #18 trains (to CERN) and the #5 bus.

    There are lots of #15 buses, which go simply to ” NATIONS ” Well they dropped the United, eons ago, they are now the United Nothings.
    Since the trains all go right by there, I get to see all these omnibus people standing around the “Nations” all yelling and shouting at each other; in at least 21 different languages.

    They have a current program to oppose ” racism ” , and their posters proclaim it loudly, in at least those 21 different languages; maybe 17 on the smaller posters. So while I’ve been here, I have managed to learn the entire Mandarin, and Cantonese alphabets off by heart.

    Well isn’t the tower of Babel, the very essence of racism ?? A united anything would likely have it so everybody could talk quietly to each other in a common language.

    In the USA, we have a different term for “racism”, we call it “multi-culturalism”, but it is pure racism through and through. At SF State University, they actually have a quite famous school of racism; well the don’t call it that of course; they call it “ethnic studies”, but it is just racism.

    So it is not surprising to me, that these “professional” ethicists, would think that not blindly accepting the 0.5% viewpoint accepting ACCCMMGW is cause for incarceration.

    Well why doesn’t the good Prof, just come to Geneva, and take the #15 train to “NATIONS” so he can stand around, an add to the cacophony of 21 different disgruntled languages, yelling and hollering about whatever has got their panties in a bunch. Climate reality, is as good an excuse to complain , as anything else.

    I have also found there is a hole in the French dictionary, where a word is completely missing, it’s in the “F’s”

    The word is ” faux-nuerre-tique “. You won’t find it in there anywhere, or anywhere in town.

  50. SAMURAI says:

    This is absolutely despicable.

    This is just further evidence that science has been co-opted by leftist religious zealots who have abandoned the precepts of the Scientific Method and replaced it with political dogma.

    The comparisons between the religious inquisitions of the 12th~15th centuries is astounding; recant your scientific heresy or face excommunication/imprisonment….

    What are they going to do? Force them to sign their names to the IPCC AR5 “Bible” or throw them in jail???

    Make little Anthony Watt effigies and ask scientists to stomp on it to prove they’re true beliiiiiiiiievers in “The Cause”?

    It all makes me want to puke my guts out…

  51. chinook says:

    With all due respect to real professors, this one is just a piano player in a house of ill-repute. While he professes all night long is anyone actually listening or do they have better things to do?

  52. Steve B says:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    It has been highlighted that an Assistant Professor employed at your Institute has suggested,
    “What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.”

    Are we to understand that your Institute is suggesting that we return to the days of the Inquisition that when a person or group of people who disagree with a supposed majority should be imprisoned. Here I am thinking that we live in an age of enlightenment when people can disagree and truth can be given time to shine forth. If I disagreed with gravity for example, should I be imprisoned? Most people would just give me a funny look and say something like,” Poor fellow has had too much sun”.

    If us skeptics show that it is the scientists promoting Catastrophic Global Warming who are giving “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”, could we put them in prison also? Your Assistant Professor of Philosophy is nothing but a totalitarian monster who thinks only his opinion fits and your Institute endorses this type of behavior if you keep him employed.

    I would suggest you rein him in and insist he apologizes to the climate community or terminate his employment.

    This was my Email to HR department to the said Institute.

  53. Peter Plail says:

    Come on, Torcello, if the funding is so well documented you must have something better than a discredited Grauniad article to show us,

  54. urederra says:

    Mugshot!!!

    It is only fair. :P

    /satire

  55. Jimbo says:

    I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

    Based on a hypothesis?

    So I am supposed to be fossil fuel funded (which I am not) so that I can ‘disregard’ my own human life and that of my offspring and descendants. Does this make sense?

  56. Todd says:

    A degree in Philosophy will certainly leave you the skills to successfully challenge your new boss, with regards to the amount of flair you’re to display on your uniform.

  57. hunter says:

    Think on this: This gentleman wants to put scientists in jail because they do not agree with him about the weather in the distant future. Additionally, he claims that the source of funding controls their work, even as he relies on similar sources of funding for himself and others who agree with him.
    I would ask him why he has no shame or conscience or perspective, yet claims to teach philosophy of anything, much less ethics?

  58. Ceetee says:

    Why bother getting a university education when you can be a moron for a lot less time and effort with no financial outlay?. Discuss.

  59. Heather Brown (aka Dartmoor Resident) says:

    I am not too surprised. In my own university (non-ethics) subject, the member of staff found most guilty of – well, let’s call it stretching the truth -was the one teaching the ethics associated with the subject.

  60. Londo says:

    The insanity taking hold of various branches of academia is growing at unprecedented levels. What next, concentration camps? That can’t be far away. These guys are fighting for the spotlight and it does not matter how many people they hurt as long as they get their 15 minutes. The only thing they have to do is to say something even more outrageous than the last guy. Philosophy professor? Come on. This is really serious stuff. When one starts to walk that road of dehumanization, the result is that people will be hurt or even killed.

  61. Sam The Frist says:

    I suppose nothing these zealots do or say should surprise us any more
    What part of ‘academic freedom of speech’ does he not understand?

    What is deeply shocking to me, even more than the evident malice and stupidity, is that this bear of little brain has been put in a position to teach young people ‘ethics’

  62. George Lawson says:

    What an utter meaningless biography he proudly presents. He missed out ‘Professor of Lunatics’

  63. Akatsukami says:

    Very well. To imprison a skeptic, one must arrest him. I propose that Dr. Torcello be given the honor of being the point man on the arrest team.

  64. Sasha says:

    Anyone thinking of responding to Lawrence Torcello may wish to contact the Rochester Institute of Technology itself and quote its own philosophy back to them. Here are some relevant quotes from their own website: http://www.rit.edu/

    “RIT is committed to mutually enriching relationships with alumni, government, business, and the world community. Teaching, learning, scholarship, research, innovation, and leadership development for promoting student success are our central enterprises.

    Values
    “Integrity and Ethics: Does what it takes to deliver on commitments made to the department, college, or division and to constituency groups. Builds personal trust and relationships inside and outside the university by doing what one says he or she will do when it is promised.

    “Respect, Diversity and Pluralism: Provides a high level of service to fellow members of the RIT community. Treats every person with dignity. Demonstrates inclusion by incorporating diverse perspectives to plan, conduct, and/or evaluate the work of the organization, department, college, or division.

    “Innovation and Flexibility: Provides and/or encourages new ideas that could make the department, college, or division an even better organization. Open to, and adapts well to change.

    “Human diversity is essential to organizational growth and synergy. These differences create points of tension that spark alternative viewpoints and ideas and ignite the kindling forces behind creativity and innovation. To that end, the mission of the Division for Diversity & Inclusion is to foster living, learning, and working environments that support and incorporate principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and community.

    “Accepting the Inclusive Excellence model reflects the understanding that diversity and inclusion are catalysts for institutional and educational excellence, are to be invited and integrated into the very core of the educational enterprise and are not isolated initiatives.The Inclusive Excellence framework provides specific definitions for the terms diversity and inclusion. Throughout this document, we use these terms to mean the following:

    “Diversity – The term diversity is used to describe individual differences (e.g., personality, learning styles, and life experiences) and group/social differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, and ability as well as cultural, political, religious, or other affiliations) that can be engaged in the service of learning and working together.

    “Inclusion – The term inclusion is used to describe the active, intentional, and ongoing engagement with diversity – in people, in the curriculum, in the co-curriculum, and in communities (intellectual, social, cultural, geographical) with which individuals might connect – in ways that increase one’s awareness, content knowledge, cognitive sophistication, and emphatic understanding of the complex ways individuals interact within systems and institutions.” (http://www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/index.cfm)

    NOTE:
    Lawrence Torcello does not appear on the Environmental Science faculty and appears to hold no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

    You can contact R.I.T. for feedback here
    (General Information, Feedback or Questions) http://www.rit.edu/diversity/contact

  65. chinook says:

    Londo- Good points. RIT is actually a pretty good school and it’s a shame the loudmouths and ignorant hog the spotlight and give a black eye to honest one’s and the school. The Torcello’s somehow think their brand of lockstep totalitarianism is new and improved over other hideous versions of the sick, self-loathing scourge. Perhaps in his high-minded arrogance and delusion he fashions himself to be a pied piper for useful idiots.

  66. pat says:

    46 variations of deniers on this single AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC page (incl comments). article is also linked from ANU’s own website:

    13 March: The Conversation: Rod Lamberts: Facts won’t beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will
    (Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University
    Disclosure Statement: Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC linkage program)
    Time for Action
    The fact is that the time for fact-based arguments is over…
    What’s worse: being convinced bad things are happening and resorting to “unscientific” means that inspire real action, or watching things go to hell while taking comfort in the knowledge you were a worthy, well-behaved scientist who didn’t stoop to getting political?
    Ultimately, we can only say “that’s not cricket” for so long. Eventually we have to stop tutting and accept that others aren’t even trying to play cricket – they’re boxing. We can decry climate deniers for their unfair, lowbrow tactics, but their tactics are getting them exactly what they want. Ours are not…
    So, what now?
    There’s no profit in trying to change the position of deniers. Their values and motivations are fundamentally different to those of us who listen to what the weight of scientific evidence tell us. So forget them.
    Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years.
    What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before…

    https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074

    About Rod, from The Conversation:
    Dr Rod Lamberts is deputy director of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science (CPAS) at the ANU, a founding partner of the Ångstrom Group, and a former national president of the Australian Science Communicators. He has been providing science communication consultation and evaluation advice for than 15 years to organisations including UNESCO, the CSIRO, and to ANU science and research bodies. He also has a background in psychology and corporate communication consultancy and facilitation.
    Rod’s professional and research interests include: science in society; science and public policy; perceptions of expertise in science; and risk and crisis perception/ communication.
    He has been developing and delivering science communication courses since 1998, and supervises a large range of postgraduate research projects.

    Contact Rod for:
    Multidisciplinary Research Collaboration
    Contract Research
    Speaking Engagements
    Expertise Requests
    Talking With Students
    Consulting Offers
    Career Opportunities
    Media Interviews

  67. Jean Parisot says:

    Why don’t these guys with this “well-documented evidence” of oil money supporting the “deniers” ever include an accounts-payable address? I’ve got some invoices to submit.

  68. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    The guy is typical of probably most academics these days in that he couldn’t get a proper job doing anything of real value.

  69. anonym says:

    Steady on now. As Steve McIntyre has pointed out, there really is a lot to be said for looking at climate-science ethics in terms of securities law, with its mandatory disclosures and legal penalties for incomplete disclosure. So we should welcome this conversation. Of course, if you take the analogy seriously then the first in line to be placed under the new disclosure rules would be IPCC editors and contributors of papers to the IPCC. Bring it on!

  70. Clovis Marcus says:

    Be careful with your outrage. In particular how you express it.

    I’m waiting for a rebuttal in the form of “It was an obvious polemic to stir debate. Dean Swift didn’t really mean that we should eat the poor’s children in A Modest Proposal…but now we see the evil denialists in their true colours’

    The non-alarmist view is winning the argument with the facts. Let’s not start looking bad by namecalling and anger.

  71. philjourdan says:

    It is not like we have heard this type of rhetoric before. Stalin Russia, Mao China, and of course Nazi Germany. They are playing their roles very well. Maybe instead of philosophy, he should take some history.

  72. Clovis Marcus says:

    Just a thought…Can we get the whole of the met office banged up for forecasting a drier than average winter in the UK?

  73. This resembles the Kari Norgaard and Richard Parncutt brouhahas that came before – all from the humanities and probably without any actual insight into the scientific side of things.

    While their lack of respect for freedom of speech and opinion may characterize them as individuals, these cases do illustrate how extraordinarily successful the AGW brainwashing has been among this group.

  74. steveta_uk says:

    Since it would appear that the set of well funded skeptics consists of zero people, perhaps locking them all up doesn’t matter too much ;)

  75. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    “What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial?”

    Repeating idle speculation that appears in populist newspapers doe not constitute being ‘well documented’.

    The well-funded denialist machine is that group of political activists devoting their time and public money to divert attention away from the temperature, hurricane, tornado, ice cover, rainfall, drought and storminess facts so as to support the falsified claims of erroneous climate ‘models’.

    There is indeed a denialist machine and it receives the enthusiastic support of a larger group of academics who seem to have forgotten how science works. As a result we get examples like the above – the gross misapplication of intelligence to problems that are at present being badly mishandled by those entrusted to guide the larger community.

  76. Berényi Péter says:

    In the fifties of the last century there used to be a widely distributed booklet on communist ethics in Hungary, containing the infamous phrase “A Párt a mi eszünk, becsületünk, lelkiismeretünk, világos jelenünk, ragyogó jövőnk”, which roughly translates to “The Party is our wits, honor and conscience, our bright present and shining future.”

    It was ridiculed, of course, but only in private, otherwise one would not have had lasted for long enough to take another breath. And it was not ridiculed by everyone, some took it seriously, and those who did, had the guns. And they were willing to use their instruments with no wits, honor or conscience whatsoever on anyone they were told to by no one else but the Party. What else were they supposed to do in a bright present, looking forward to a shining future, devoid of all their inherent mental or spiritual capacities?

    That’s how dangerous Assistant Professors like Lawrence Torcello are. They write the booklet, to be used in practice by a mob of faithful gunmen as soon as the opportunity is given. If free speech has limits, Torcello has certainly crossed them.

  77. hunter says:

    If you do write to RIT, write to the President of the school. Respectfully, coherently and pointedly.

  78. Konrad says:

    Despicable climate ugliness?

    Yes, and?

    What did you expect?

    This sorry individual has linked his academic future to “sceptic bashing”. As the “moderate” voices slink away from climate alarmisim, the only people the lame stream media will be able to call on for comment is squealing leftardulent foamers like Torcello. Many in the lame steam media now realise they are going down with the hoax. They are desperate for voices of support to delay the inevitable.

    There will many more Torcello’s given the global stage to vent their intellectual poison in the dying days of this global hoax, you can be sure of that. You have all observed Gleick, Mann, Karoly, Turney and Trenberth crest the madness horizon and madly accelerating. There will be more, and in their panic the lame stream media will give them all voice. It should be no matter but…there is one problem.

    That is you dear WUWT reader. Yes. You. (sorry about this…)

    The global warming inanity has been the greatest economic threat to our civilisation in many years. It has also threatened science, reason, freedom and democracy.

    The lukewarmer path is the path of “real politic”. It will end the economic threat to our civilisation from the AGW inanity.

    As many would already know, I am one of those “crazies” who claim radiative gases cool our planet. I back this with empirical experiment and I never accept support from any who have not built and run empirical experiments themselves. ( readers should consider the the host of this site has conducted empirical experiments on a scale I could never imagined – the surface stations project )

    I am not demanding that WUWT that readers acknowledge or agree with any of my empirical results, rather I am asking you to make maximum effort to “not to be wrong”. If you fold and take the easy answer “warming, but less than we thought”, the economic threat may be eliminated, but the threat to to science, reason, freedom and democracy remains.

    The “lukewarmer” path may be wrong or right. If it is wrong you still eliminate the economic threat. But if you have learnt anything, you should know the threat of Lysenkoism far greater. It’s not about the millions of deaths Lysenkoism caused that cannot be undone no matter how much we wish it, but what would have happened if the Lysenko dial were turned to “near zero” instead of “off”.

    Does Torcello upset you? A soft landing for this hoax ensures that he and his fellow travellers suffer little penalty of their actions, and worse continue in their positions of social and political influence. If adding radiative gases to our atmosphere actually does not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability yet sceptics fold and concede just “less warming than we thought” who will forgive us?

    I consider the host of this site a hero of the internet age. Anthony was instrumental in stopping the global warming nonsense dead in its tracks. I can understand the pressure of unexpectedly becoming a focus of the sceptic discourse in all of global communications. But fear of being wrong in the public eye should not outweigh the desire to be right. (or necessity of being right – sorry, engineering…) In the global warming debate, “less wrong” is not going to cut it with future generations.

    Ultimately the “lukewarmer” line is a political line. For the correct scientific solution other hypotheses must be considered. 99% of these (including my own) may be trash, but if they have not been given voice at the most read science blog on the Internet then the voice of the Torcello’s may continue to be given the microphone.

    Open minds are still required in this debate. (although not so open that brains slide out ;-) )

  79. DaveS says:

    We certainly see an example here of criminal stupidity. Just how dumb do you have to be not to qualify for employment as a university lecturer?

  80. Tim says:

    Desperate people do (and say) desperate things. Watch for more of this as they try one of the last fall-back positions available: threaten those with IQ’s above 100.

  81. Alberta Slim says:

    Steve B says:
    March 14, 2014 at 3:01 am ……………………………

    Excellent.. e-mail to RIT. Thanks

  82. Steve Keohane says:

    urederra says:March 14, 2014 at 3:21 am
    Hope you don’t mind, I had something similar in mind, and amended your image:

    My first inclination was ‘666’ but it seemed over the top.

  83. kenw says:

    Ceetee says:
    March 14, 2014 at 3:53 am
    Why bother getting a university education when you can be a moron for a lot less time and effort with no financial outlay?. Discuss.

    Well, it depends on who’s financial outlay it takes. His is likely all grant funded, so he certainly has no skin in the game.

  84. Gilbert K. Arnold says:

    Wayne Delbeke says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    What an insult to the late Fred Gwynne. Even on his worst days he looked better than this guy.

  85. rogerknights says:

    ” . . . the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial”

    Of ALL of it? If not, of how much–75%? 50%? 25%?

    Does a speaker’s fee at a think tank luncheon, or payment for an article in a think tank magazine, or publication of one’s book by such an organization, imply that the speaker or writer has been bought? By that logic, most warmists–especially such as Hansen, with a large income from such sources–are guilty too

    Does an “affiliation” with a conservative or libertarian think tank (whatever that means–it may just mean being listed in a Heartland sidebar as a skeptical scientist) imply that the affiliatee has been bought? For instance, does Aaron Wildavsky’s affiliation with the Independent Institute imply that everything he wrote, before or since, such as But Is It True?, was mere paid-for–and false–propaganda? I’ve seen that absurd claim made in one of the main articles Torcello is surely relying on (in the Midwestern J. of Sociology, I think). Once again, Tu Quoque!

    Does every dollar that goes to a conservative or libertarian think tank go to denying climate change, because they are a climate-denial organization? I’ve seen that absurd but effective piece of dissimulation used often by Big Green. Philosophers are supposed to specialize in seeing through such fallacies–but I wouldn’t be surprised if Torcello hasn’t.

  86. Bill_W says:

    He is an assistant professor which means untenured. This may come back to bite him in the ass.

  87. chris y says:

    I’ll repeat previous comments made by others that private institution RIT is a very highly regarded (and expensive at $45.6K per year) undergraduate school for Engineering. Their co-op program is excellent.

    I strongly recommend that Prof. Torcello amplify and expand his comments, hopefully into a series of NYT op-eds. This can only reinforce the ‘winning’ efforts of Lewandowski, Cook, Norgaard, Gleick, Mann, Roberts, etc.
    Polls are clearly showing the impact these climate illuminati have had on public sentiment concerning global warming/climate change/climate disruption/tipping points/weather extremes.

  88. David Ball says:

    “at The Conversation”

    “I do not think that word means what they think it means”- paraphrasing Inigo Montoya

  89. CaligulaJones says:

    Sorry, didn’t read past “assistant professor of philosophy”. That’s like “stand-in bass player in a punk band”.

    Seriously, as Drew Carey says, things should be picking up for your economy as “..they just decided to open up that big philosophy factory in Green Bay”.

  90. Resourceguy says:

    Shocking, shocking, shocking……….that he is not a full professor.

  91. jayhd says:

    You would think that anyone from that part of New York state who had any common sense at all would welcome some global warming.

  92. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    Perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about toads when adulated by the likes of Chloe Sumner who reacts at the conversation:

    “Professor Torcello is absolutely correct. Our lamentable industrial “civilisation” is heading off a cliff – small loss if it is destroyed but it threatens to do great damage to the biosphere.”

    A bit clueless about what keeps her alive and reasonably safe.

  93. PaulH says:

    Meh. The headline, “Some irrelevant, tenured PhD parrots his party’s line” isn’t exactly earth-shattering news.

  94. chinook says:

    chris y says:
    ———
    RIT’s technical and engineering has been good for Rochester in many ways over the years, from it’s humble beginning as a storefront college. Years ago I had a custom comp built in Roch. After I ordered what I wanted the gentleman said it was nearly identical to the one’s the engineering people at RIT ordered often. Was a fine computer for years.

    My daughter graduated from there and does some part-time teaching there presently. Have to send her this article link. Fortunately, she definitely wasn’t brainwashed by her schooling there, so will be interested to see her reaction.

  95. John says:

    As I have been saying for years… this global lie called global warming has become a religion for these nutters. They should be put away in a rubber room and toss the key.

  96. Jimbo says:

    If time and observations show the IPCC scientists to be grossly in error (which looks like it has started happening) would it be right to prosecute and imprison them? Be careful what you wish for.

    [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]
    June 12, 2012
    U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest, Exceeding Mandate, Among Others…..
    –possible conflicts of interest in their duties,

    –breaches of confidentiality in their work,

    violations of the due process rights of those affected by UNFCCC actions,

    making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries…..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/unfccc-wants-immunity-from-prosecution-prior-to-rio20/

  97. KRJ Pietersen says:

    What makes presumably intelligent and educated people like Torcello say these hysterical things? Well, acute fear and desperation, obviously. If their case for CAGW was as settled and reliable as they claim, there would be none of this.

    The increasing levels of hysteria and multiple nefarious lines of attack to attempt to shut people up (looking at you, Nature Trick Mike) are surefire evidence that their case is basically lost and they know it.

  98. David Wells says:

    All of the above maybe true but unfortunately the politicians are not listening and unless all of the above can find a way to persuade politicians that what they believe is happening just is not happening then everything is just pointless hot air, no one is listening!!

  99. Matt in Dallas says:

    Perhaps, he can go to one of these fine prisons he wishes to send the rest of us. Better yet a philosophical one- like a deep hole where no one will see or hear him and then we can muse philosophically whether or not he is even in prison since no one will be able to see or hear him…
    I always find it ironic that the thing liberals (aka elitist tyrants) want and accuse everyone else of are the very things they are guilty of and deserve. LOL

  100. Harry Passfield says:

    As I pointed out at BH, RIT is funded by (among others) two major plastics companies and Toyota. So no conflict with BIG OIL there then…..

  101. Physics Major says:

    well documented corporate funding of global warming denial

    Has anyone ever seen those documents?

  102. Mark Bofill says:

    It’s a sad commentary on the state of philosophy when PhD’s in it demonstrate that all of their learning has imparted no more wisdom to them than that of a common thug.

  103. Gary Pearse says:

    Now why do we never see a climate scientist of the global warming persuasion ever speak up against these types of totalitarian ideas? Shame, shame. Is it because you guys need all the help you can get and where it comes from doesn’t matter?

  104. mpainter says:

    Thanks to Anthony for this exposure. I am all in favor of publicizing these types and showing the world what they are all about.

  105. JPS says:

    I’m glad this guy has a nice job in academia where he can’t do any real harm. (Full disclosure: I am an academic type as well.)

    I mean, really – where else would you put someone like this? He may have no skills or education connected to a job in the private sector, so it’s academia or government for him.

    Have some faith in the kids. In my experience, students roll their eyes when this type of prof tries to indoctrinate them. So please don’t write the President of RIT. Leave the Ass. Prof. where he is, and hope he gets tenure. He’ll turn more young minds against him than he’ll win over.

  106. CW says:

    This so-called Prof of Philosophy teaches at the “Rochester Institute of Technology”—-and after a quick look at the curriculum at this institute, one can see there are NO hard science courses, nor any mathematical courses that is generally considered to be necessary for any evaluation of scientific evidence. Well, it does have the necessary curriculum for liberal arts students—sociologists, psychologists, and so on….the people that study “feel good” type of science.

  107. Box of Rocks says:

    chris y says:
    March 14, 2014 at 6:31 am
    I’ll repeat previous comments made by others that private institution RIT is a very highly regarded (and expensive at $45.6K per year) undergraduate school for Engineering. Their co-op program is excellent.
    *********

    IS highly regarded? You need to make that past tense.

    Was is more like it. It has fallen like MIT, Stanford, Harvard amoungst others who were elite universities…

  108. RACookPE1978 says:

    Are various writers thinking Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, rather than this Rochester school? Rensselaer IS a engineering school long famous in civil and structural work, with graduates going all the way back to the 1860’s and 1870’s such as Roebling.

  109. Craig Loehle says:

    Just change the name of his department to The Ministry of Truth and we would all know where he is coming from…

  110. Col Mosby says:

    What’s the Rochester Institute of Technology? First time I’ve ever heard that name, and the initial impression is not good. Is it an educational organization?

  111. Harry Passfield says:

    Ed Zuiderwijk says:
    March 14, 2014 at 6:47 am
    “Perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about toads when adulated by the likes of Chloe Sumner who reacts at the conversation.”

    Ed, that will likely be the barking mad Chloe Sumner who left this comment over at the Daily Telegraph today:

    “Humans are on a collision course with global climate change – collectively, we should be reducing our impact until we are back in line with all other species. What the planet needs is a binding legal climate agreement to make sure so-called industrial countries like the UK keep fossil fuels in the ground, where they belong.”

    There really is no hope of getting through to some people and you wonder at the waste of the tax-payers’ money in paying teachers to teach these people. sheesh! Like I said, barking!

  112. arthur4563 says:

    Assistent professors of philosophy are always the go-to guys when there are questions concerning climate. Right?

  113. troe says:

    Probably just me but this guy looks like the poster boy for stranger danger day.

  114. Guido Travaglini says:

    Happy to be behind bars for telling the proven truth. Inquisition back on its fours?

  115. urederra says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    March 14, 2014 at 6:01 am

    urederra says:March 14, 2014 at 3:21 am
    Hope you don’t mind, I had something similar in mind, and amended your image:

    My first inclination was ’666′ but it seemed over the top.

    That is an ppropriate amendment.

    More seriously, I guess if you are a philosophy student at RIT and you happen to say that, given the harsh winter they have suffered, you wouldn’t mind a little more warming, or that CO2 is what plants use for making wood, then you can kiss your degree goodbye.

  116. Gilbert K. Arnold says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    March 14, 2014 at 8:05 am

    Rochester Institute of Technology is a very fine, well regarded institution. It usually ranks in the top 15 of engineering and science schools. Founded in 1829, it is also home to National Technical Institute for the Deaf. It also has a strong curricula in Imaging Science.(PhD). Being as how Rochester, NY is also the home of Eastman Kodak this is not surprising. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is also another fine institution. The two schools are not related.

  117. Bob Diaz says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:41 pm
    RE: Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison …
    Sure, let’s go back to those happy days where people who thought that the Earth went around the Sun were thrown in prison. The “scientific consensus” back them said the Sun went around the Earth and we all saw that Scientific Consenses is NEVER wrong!!!
    ——————————-
    While I like your sentiment, your basis is untrue. Who was thrown in prison for theorizing that the earth went around the sun? Not Galileo. Not Kepler. Not Copernicus. Not Newton. The “Church persecuted science” line of thought is a myth. Do some googling of real science historians, rather than popular anti-religion zealots.
    (Note: Galileo was put under house arrest for using heliocentricism to question the authroity of the Bible. No prison, and not for science.)

  118. jauntycyclist says:

    the conversation says

    “We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy. We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article.”

    https://theconversation.com/uk/who_we_are

    what is his expertise?Looks like he is promoting co2=main driver of climate as a certainty?

    he says “an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent”

    yes and given the climategate emails who might be doing that?.

  119. TomB says:

    …the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial

    Could you point me to this documentation please? The only “documentation” I’ve ever seen was from Peter Gleick – and that was falsified. Wait a minute, wasn’t he in charge of “Ethics” too?

  120. David Jay says:

    george e. smith says:
    March 14, 2014 at 2:54 am
    …I have managed to learn the entire Mandarin, and Cantonese alphabets off by heart…

    Hilarious, George

  121. David Jay says:

    For those of you who don’t understand the background, the Chinese written language is pictographic, not alphabetic. Additionally, the written language is not pronunciation dependent (i.e. all dialects can be written with the same character set).

  122. Resourceguy says:

    Maybe the long winter got to him, among other things.

  123. David Schofield says:

    I don’t know why we waste our breath on an ‘assistant professor’ at some no mark US university.

  124. David Ross says:

    What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

    Lawrence Torcello

    We’ve heard this kind of language before.

    Those who would deny this to-day are either simpletons with feeble memories or else deliberate falsehood-mongers.
    [...]
    Probably there are many who honestly believe in this absurd explanation but there are many more in whose mouths it is a deliberate and conscious falsehood.
    [...]
    Those who try to propagate such a notion are deliberate liars.
    [...]
    The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his newspapers, the …[denier]… is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells the truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some greater deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate falsehood. The …[denier]… is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and duplicity are the weapons with which he fights.

    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf [with two word substitutions]

  125. Tim Obrien says:

    Sounds like another member of the mobs who tried to shout down Pasteur, Gallileo, Darwin, Wright brothers, etc. And this professors name won’t be remembered either…

  126. DD More says:

    What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.

    I do not see where he is separating whether alarmist or skeptic, just “those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial?”

    If so, all you AGU members out there, he is talking about you. Our host, Anthony Watts, has in fact ” well documented corporate funding” at your last convention.

    “Big Oil” truly funds AGU

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/a-side-of-the-agu-fall-meeting-sure-to-cause-some-alarmists-to-go-postal/

  127. George Daddis says:

    Despite their idiot Philosophy prof, RIT is an elite university with several schools ranked at or near the top nationally. The given is that it has a good engineering college. But in addition to that:
    – The National Institute for the Deaf is the best and largest technical school in the world for the hearing impaired (and ranks well with Galludett University for overall education)
    – The School for American Craftsmen (fine woodworking, pottery, etc) is unique in the US.
    – The Packaging Science program is ranked among the top in the US
    – The graphics art college was the site for Gannett Newspapers development of printing technology (speed, low cost color printing etc) that made USA today possible.

  128. Bruce Cobb says:

    “It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.”
    Spoken like a true Warmunist aparatchik.

  129. Chad Wozniak says:

    Put his ass in prison for conspiring to violate our civil rights.

  130. C.Takacs says:

    I would ask for people who are upset by this Dr. Lawrence Torcello to remember that even Socrates knew the difference between philosophy and political rhetoric. Torcello’s remarks are based in rhetorical language with a political objective of exertion of absolute control over another’s viewpoint. There is no equivalent for this position in philosophy, as there is no argument being made to be considered, quite the opposite in fact. Torcello’s position is that any opposing view to his political viewpoint should be silenced by the state without further consideration due to his provided reasons which are also to taken as fact without further consideration. I am frightened and a bit curious to know if Dr. Torcello even knows what the logical fallacy of Argumentum ab auctoritate is.
    Perhaps a more accurate description of what Dr. Torcello is doing is called called Groupthink. As defined by a quick scan on Wikipedia as:
    “Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.”
    This description would far better describe Torcello’s rhetoric and intent than sullying the meaning of philosophy any further. Philosophy is all about encouraging a discussion, not trying to prevent one.

  131. Mickey Reno says:

    Well, what do you know, another Grist reader…

  132. Latimer Alder says:

    If he’s only the Assistant Professor, how barking do you have to be to get a Full Professorship at this institution? Certifiable?

  133. Boba Fat says:

    Mathematics is the second cheapest science, you only need a paper, pencil and an eraser. The cheapest is philosophy where you don’t need the eraser.

  134. jauntycyclist says:

    “Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.”

    in the light of that maybe he should watch this? if he is aware of this tendency in science for orthodoxy to deceive and deny then he was unethical to write it. If not then here’s an education for him. The vid shows the problems in climate science are not unique and how jobs in academia are tied to towing the line even if the evidence shows the opposite.

  135. Jon says:

    To Me this looks more like an desperate cry to inform the world that he is available and can be “bought” for promoting a political agenda?

  136. grayman says:

    Philosophy, A cereal box religion. The guy needs to back away from the joint so he can start to think more clearly.

  137. policycritic says:

    I nominate him for the Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino Award.

  138. If the Climate Alarmists want to convince us that they are not the new Lysenkoism, Professor Torcello’s call to criminalize scientists who find no anthropogenic cause for climate alarm is breathtakingly counter-productive.

  139. Chuck says:

    What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial?

    This is all I need to hear to know anyone saying this is not is not to be taken seriously.

  140. Cold in Wisconsin says:

    Respect, diversity, pluralism, dignity, inclusion……

    Apparently that does not include diversity of thought or opinion. So much for intellectual freedom from an academic.

  141. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Old Ranga said: “Nobody’s listening to these boring old farts any more.”

    Unfortunately, the CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK, ABC in Australia, PRI/NPR in the USA, plus any number of print media still push the AGW story and hold back anything against the AGW tale. We have not won the battle yet by any means.

    Ian M

  142. Doug Proctor says:

    Where is the well-documented evidence of corporate funding?

    Climate Depot, the Heartland, CFACT: okay, funding is there, BUT so it is with Greenpeace etc. and to a larger extent.

    Perhaps the problem is that the eco-green are socialists and fully integrated into a community of organizers (and fundraisers) so they cannot imagine grass-roots individuals determining their own thoughts WITHOUT a community. Lone wolves don’t exist in the liberal eco-green mind, so any disagreement must, ipso facto, come from an organization. And if you can’t see it, it must be clandestine, secret and carefully hidden.

    We keep seeing the same things from the eco-green: a fixed set of parameters in which they come to decisions, based on socially approved “experts” to whom one defers analyses and interpretations.

    The eco-green liberal is the historical equivalent of the educated Catholic who got behind the witchcraft craze of Europe. Only when their own people became targets did they question the decisions of their Lords.

    We need carbon taxes that apply only to the upper income earners, those who have private jets etc at their disposal (not possessing them, at their use) AND taxes that do not have loopholes or offsetting credits. An income-based, non-deferable consumption tax: that would let them know what the cost of all this nonsense is about.

  143. Cold in Wisconsin says:

    And what of the “well documented corporate funding of global warming denial”? Where is that documented please? I have heard accusations and assumptions, but I have yet to see a single piece of hard evidence to back up such a charge. Apparently the rules of ethics do not require evidence for conviction and a prison term.

  144. DirkH says:

    Ian L. McQueen says:
    March 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm
    “Unfortunately, the CBC in Canada, BBC in the UK, ABC in Australia, PRI/NPR in the USA, plus any number of print media still push the AGW story and hold back anything against the AGW tale. We have not won the battle yet by any means.”

    Well add to that the media in the colonies (Germany et al). All of these media are state controlled. It is therefore a fight against the empire itself; and could only be won if the empire perished, for which there is some chance, but at that point survival would become a bigger priority than winning.

    So, “winning” is not the objective. Cognizance is the objective, and has been achieved.

  145. Robert Landreth says:

    Obviously us deniers should be sacrificed to the demi gods of global warming or “Climate Change,”
    because we anger those gods, including Al Gore. We can thereby help decrease the surplus population, and make it easier to persuade the rest of mankind that Global warming is happing and dangerous to all humans. Geology teaches us that “The present is the key to the past.” but logic also teaches the reverse is true, if our planet did not burn up when CO2 was 750 ppm at the beginning of the Oligocene, during a major glaciation period in the southern hemisphere. It also shows that within a few thousand years CO2 rose to 1150 ppm, and we were still in the depths of a cold period. The Eocene period before that had CO2 levels of 1250 and higher, and we know from fossil data that alligators lived in the Spitzbergen area.

    I was taught by some excellent professors we needed to evaluate all the data. Models and hypothesis are simply expressions of theories and they need proof to support them. The assumptions used in them are swag numbers (scientific wild ass guesses.) Models and modelers are attempting to make a hypothesis believable, but are significantly biased by their beliefs. Observations and imperical data are the only proof I accept. Effects of warming are not proof of a man caused connection, they simply prove warming, not causation.

  146. DirkH says:

    David Schofield says:
    March 14, 2014 at 10:07 am
    “I don’t know why we waste our breath on an ‘assistant professor’ at some no mark US university.”

    Because he’s a crazy lunatic; therefore useful to the state.

  147. cohenite says:

    Naturally, left-wing or progressive sites have picked up this oppressive nonsense and are running with it:

    https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111#comment_333276

    Recently Andrew Bolt, a leading sceptic was abused horribly on the publically funded ABC in Australia; he has refused to sue in defamation despite, in this lawyer’s opinion, having a lay down Misère basis for doing so.

    I can understand Bolt’s objection to the legal process but unless sceptics adopt a zero tolerance approach to these fools they will continue to get away with the most outrageous claims and accusations.

  148. Chad Wozniak says:

    As I think about it, I am mystified that someone who would have flunked any freshman philosophy course I ever heard of, i.e., not knowing the difference between science and political ideology, could ever get a Ph.D. in philosophy, let alone become a professor of philosophy? Where was this guy’s doctoral committee? How could he have passed his orals? As far as that goes, where were his undergraduate professors? What a sad picture this paints of academic ignorance, irrelevance and incompetence.

  149. Scarsdale Skeptic says:

    You don’t need to be “funded” by anybody to notice that the models have been consistently wrong. You just need to be paying attention. Actually, I’ve said to people for years now that the climate scientists who cook the books may well be treated like CEOs who cook the books – they might be found guilty of fraud and sentenced to prison. We watched the financial community run unchecked with credit default swaps and when enough people said, “the emperor has no clothes” the whole game collapsed. I suspect that is why the AGW crowd is making it criminal to point to their nakedness. Great tactic, actually. But the truth always wins in the end.

  150. Eamon Butler says:

    Another Wannabe out of his depth. Strong contender for the Nobel Prize. Especially if he has some information to prove the CAGW hypothesis, since nobody else can.

  151. bushbunny says:

    Philosophy, isn’t it dependent on your world view? And personal observations and political view points, not science? In the dark ages or even earlier in human evolutionary stages, information was restricted to the elite or the warrior classes who had their own personal shamans or priests. It wasn’t until the mini ice age when wine presses were converted into printing presses, that books became more available, but still very elusive and expensive. (Mainly because the masses could not read or write, and subject to manipulation of course). I remember one philosophy question was…. “Is the universe infinite or finite” Go to the edge of the universe and look back in? Doesn’t that suggest it is finite? My answer would have been,’ I can’t see that far nor can telescopes, and our galaxy is expanding, so wouldn’t have put up a reasonable philosophical argument. Anyway, I never picked philosophy as one of my subjects, people I knew did and were invariably getting distinctions, and in real life were to me idiots with poor rational/realistic personalities. Doesn’t mean that all philosophy students are like this, so I don’t want to offend Johanna again.

  152. bushbunny says:

    PS. Since the internet, we are expanding our resources for information. Unfortunately, sometimes the information is very politically motivated, and I believe what information we do receive is not the whole truth, especially from governments with national security their chief objectives.

  153. Philosophers may live but they don’t work in the real world. They deal in ideas and ways of looking at things, more in thoughts than in facts. They rely entirely on scientists for their view of the real world, yet they confuse their profession with natural philosophy, their world view with reality and the self importance of their ramblings with learned authority.
    The good ones recognise these limitations and the boundaries of their profession.

    The novices and aspirants sometimes get to open their mouths and embarrass the profession though.

    [Dupe entry. Delete? Mod]

  154. Philosophers may live but they don’t work in the real world. They deal in ideas and ways of looking at things, more in thoughts than in facts. They rely entirely on scientists for their view of the real world, yet they confuse their profession with natural philosophy, their world view with reality and the self importance of their ramblings with learned authority.
    The good ones recognise these limitations and the boundaries of their profession.

    The novices and aspirants sometimes get to open their mouths and embarrass the profession though.

  155. Bob Diaz says:

    RE Jeff in Calgary says:
    March 14, 2014 at 9:19 am
    ——————————-
    While I like your sentiment, your basis is untrue. Who was thrown in prison for theorizing that the earth went around the sun? Not Galileo. Not Kepler. Not Copernicus. Not Newton. The “Church persecuted science” line of thought is a myth. Do some googling of real science historians, rather than popular anti-religion zealots.
    (Note: Galileo was put under house arrest for using heliocentricism to question the authroity of the Bible. No prison, and not for science.)
    ————————————
    Please look up Giordano Bruno, not only was he thrown in prison, but they executed him for his belief that the Earth goes around the sun.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

    Bob Diaz

  156. Chip Javert says:

    John says:
    March 14, 2014 at 7:14 am
    As I have been saying for years… this global lie called global warming has become a religion for these nutters. They should be put away in a rubber room and toss the key.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I strongly disagree. Your position is indistinguishable from Torcello’s – you just believe you’re right, and it’s ok to say essentially what Torcello said.

    We’re wining the scientific argument against CAGW because of Mother Nature’s data. The correct response to Torcello and his ilk is to shame them because they are unqualified (ie: absolutely no scientific credentials) and in gross violation of the scientific method.

    Whatever fetid academic backwater Torcello normally occupies, he needs to understand that what may be acceptable academic behavior in his world is laughably unacceptable in the scientific arena.

  157. Chip Javert says:

    Jeff in Calgary says:
    March 14, 2014 at 9:19 am
    Bob Diaz says:
    March 13, 2014 at 11:41 pm
    Who was thrown in prison for theorizing that the earth went around the sun? Not Galileo. Not Kepler. Not Copernicus. Not Newton. The “Church persecuted science” line of thought is a myth. Do some googling of real science historians, rather than popular anti-religion zealots.
    (Note: Galileo was put under house arrest for using heliocentricism to question the authroity of the Bible. No prison, and not for science.)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I disagree: Heliocentrism (which Galileo advocated) vs crystal spheres is certainly science. In 1633, the Catholic church’s inquisition found Galileo guilty of heresy and sentenced him to prison even though he explicitly stated heliocentrism DID NOT contradict the Bible. Due to his relationship with the pope, this was changed to house arrest, under which Galileo lived for the remainder of his life.

    The church did indeed persecute scientific lines of thought (and is still not too keen on evolution or stem cell research).

  158. Frankly, I think that Torcello and his opinions are more to be laughed at than to be concerned about.

    My view is that – not unlike Lewandowsky and others of his ilk – he’s a third-rate, if not fourth-rate and unforthright, “thinker” trying to make a name for himself by parrotting that which he’s heard from others (e.g. Suzuki, who has voiced a similar opinion, and/or Microsoft’s big hiring mistake, Stephen Emmott – See Geoff Chambers blog).

    Others whom Torcello might be relying on for his “views” might include the U.K.Guardian‘s George Monbiot, whose ardent adherence to ill-informed advocacy is legendary, along with that of so many others in the Guardian‘s green advocacy stable.

    So, in the pantheon of ignorant partisan parrots, I’d be more inclined to position Torcello in the ranks of the lesser lights (as opposed to the acolytes).

    Considering the extent to which the various and sundry tentacles of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) have succeeded in foisting their “philosophy” (for want of a better word) in so many aspects of our lives, over the last twenty years, I am far more concerned about official and/or entrenched declarations such as that of the UN’s Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. One of whose “mandated priority areas” is:

    Promoting the role of criminal law in protecting the environment

    [For source of the above, pls see: http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/introducing-the-uns-jolly-green-sustainable-hockey-stick/ ]

    The mileage of others may certainly vary, but it seems to me that this “mandated priority area” may well have led to a fairly recent (albeit largely unheralded and unreported – if not unheard of) UNEP joining of forces with INTERPOL:

    [T]he 1st Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Committee (ECEC) meeting [...] which will bring together executive leaders from around the world to design and develop strategies to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of national and international responses to environmental compliance and enforcement. [Source]

    Reading between those particular UN-speak lines, there may well be a new – and more insidious and harmful – playbook in the works about which, IMHO, we really should be concerned.

  159. Asok Asus says:

    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 worse world than today.

  160. asokasus says:

    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.

  161. Gail Combs says:

    I briefly took courses at RIT. A friend who also went to RIT told me this week while he was down for a visit that the president of RIT was a CIA agent…. (President M. Richard Rose )

    …It was in this context of disinformation and misrepresentation that the surface was peeled back layer by layer to reveal a long, complex, and pervasive relationship between RIT and the CIA….

    http://www.namebase.org/campus/rit.html

    I can not believe that RIT would have someone this useless on campus. I had a much higher opinion of the school, their instructors were excellent with industrial experience required, but that was more than thirty years ago.

  162. bushbunny says:

    I have met some ivory tower merchants at University. Maybe because I was much older than the majority of students and teachers and had seen a bit of the world and life. I like archaeology and palaeoanthropology because it is based on forensic examination not just some unqualified to speak on the discipline, they have to pursue a line of argument that has significant data to prove their hypothesis. Of course some do corrupt the data to prove their point, nothing is new about this. The bottom line is data compiled can be biased, and as new evidence becomes available this can alter the archaeological record and perceived accuracy. Such as Mike Morwood’s find on Flores that created a lot of critical response from other universities, one Indonesia professor even changed the shape of the skull. Luckily the original was taken prior to transporting to him. Even archaeologists/antropologist don’t like their previous research looking out dated or wrong.
    This can be academic suicide for them.

    Years ago I put in a filler unit to complete my BA. “Earth in Crisis?” The senior lecturer did say the build up of Greenhouse gases is flawed. Yet pollution was a dire problem to water courses air and sanitation. (Smogs etc) But he did mention that sun spots do affect our climate. Increased solar activity generally creates lower rain falls and droughts. What is prevalent in Australia are floods and drought. We were posed with a question about spreading urban areas from the main cities to coastal areas. My argument presentation was to approve this strategy and address population problems, like transport, energy supplies and water supplies. I said we could beat the water crisis, by creating anti-saline water plants. Recycled water plants, etc. And nuclear energy generators. (Not that I believe in nuclear stations, but Hansen recommended that we should use nuclear as we had such a large coastline and sea water could be used to cool the plant) I passed. In Sydney they built a huge plant run by 76 wind turbines. It’s closed now. The wind turbines were so noisy people complained.

  163. Tom Becks says:

    After thinking about Prof. Torcello’s position for a bit, I’ve concluded that he’s not offering a serious opinion. He’s merely grandstanding in pursuit of professional advancement. Torcello is an Assistant Prof., barely a step up from a post-doc. He’s not on a tenure track. He’s now made national news by publishing an outrageous statement, which he must know stands not a chance in hell of ever being adopted legislatively. He has roiled the waters, though, and garnered the attention of his intended audience, the radical left Chairmen and Chairwomen of Philosophy Departments across the country. He’s made a stab in the dark, hoping that somebody at, say, Evergreen College or San Francisco State will think, “Hmmm…this guy belongs with us! Let’s get him out of the frigid climes of Rochester.” Torcello’s a clown, jumping through hoops for the hermetically-sealed-from-the-real-world clownmasters who “teach” at American universities.

  164. David Morris says:

    First, I DO NOT CARE what a philosophy professor has to say about a topic trying to be considered a hard science.

    In fact it is people like him that are causing the problem. SCIENCE IS NOT A consensus/majority rule process.

    The only time you really have any type of formal gathering is for a peer review which is intending to attack the proposed scientific theory until it accepted by the community at large. There is SIGNIFICANT disagreement regards climate “change”, climate “chaos” and their predecessor global warming. Worse yet the very predictions offered up as part of global warming have not happened. Next, the outright fraud and misinformation put out by the political community under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a disgrace. The IPCC is a board created by the UN and staffed by political nominees from UN member nations. The actual number of scientists, let alone climatologists associated with the IPCC is very small and many of those that were members resigned and demanded that their names NOT be associated with anything the IPCC publishes.

    Now then, let’s look on the positive side…. The climate is changing… duh… that is basically the definition of the word weather. Temperatures have risen. Temperatures have fallen. Both of these have occurred on a regional and global basis. As to the narrow-minded individuals and those with agendas that use the suspect information being distributed, I have just a few questions…. What is the normal temperature of the earth both regionally and globally? How did they set the baseline temperatures and ranges? Since there have been literally hundreds of volcanic eruptions that individually have put more ash, toxins, and CO2 in the atmosphere than has been caused by the entire existence of man, how can you quantify man’s impacts? Lastly, even you revert human civilization back to a totally agrarian society… with no cars, power plants, cell phones, trains, jets,… nothing how can you account for the volcanic eruptions or solar flares?

  165. rocky dixon says:

    Why does an Institute of Technology have a Philosophy Department. Philosophy is not a science, its a pseudo-intellectual dodge.

  166. Truth Disciple says:

    USEFUL IDIOT.

  167. Nicholas says:

    Can I file a complaint against the writer of this article, who clearly only skimmed Torcello’s actual paper? It says right in his quote that he thinks spreading misinformation is bad and should have legal consequences! Y’know, like how there’s laws against false advertising or unlabled hazards? Why _not_ have rules about unscientific propaganda?!

    REPLY: Sure, since you are using the Rochester Institute of Technology network, why not complain to the school itself so they can send a sternly worded letter. While you are at it. You can sign up for the “frog march” – Anthony

  168. bushbunny says:

    I don’t care for so called philosophers, they tend to be relate to religious dogma or political agendas. Anyway, just warm yourselves and eat plenty of carbohydrate.

  169. bushbunny says:

    This guy is not exactly writing in a typical philosophical talk is he? He’s taking sides, and I believe a true philosopher explains themselves with logical non partisan language, i.e. logic?

Comments are closed.