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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

USEFUL IDIOT.

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.