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.
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…
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.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/agu_thanks_sponsors.png?w=640
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/17/a-side-of-the-agu-fall-meeting-sure-to-cause-some-alarmists-to-go-postal/
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.
“It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.”
Spoken like a true Warmunist aparatchik.
Put his ass in prison for conspiring to violate our civil rights.
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.
Well, what do you know, another Grist reader…
If he’s only the Assistant Professor, how barking do you have to be to get a Full Professorship at this institution? Certifiable?
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.
“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.
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?
Philosophy, A cereal box religion. The guy needs to back away from the joint so he can start to think more clearly.
I nominate him for the Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino Award.
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.
“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.
Respect, diversity, pluralism, dignity, inclusion……
Apparently that does not include diversity of thought or opinion. So much for intellectual freedom from an academic.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.