While the Anti Defamation League turns a blind eye to their own home grown hypocrisy and ugliness, Lawrence Torcello comes up with even more.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
The level of communist penetration of your institutions is very concerning.
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.
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.
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.
Assistant professor wants to become professor, drops sound bite.
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?
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?
The modern day Inquisition is being proposed!!
These people have nothing but contempt for true knowledge. They would happilly, and are actively doing so, drag humanity back to the dark ages.
I think this is what he has in mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI
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
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.
He’s so bad, someone invented him.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/en-passant-moves-of-a-minor-imp-of-satan/
Pointman
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
‘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?
Is there any greater hypocrisy than the so called tolerance/diversity on american campuses?
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.
Where did my previous comment go? Into a rabbit hole?
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.
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.