progressive ideas lead to a fascist state

 

Wouldn't suppressing conflicting views weaken the argument.......

Oh wait, common sense doesn't apply to the religon of AGW....sorry, my bad.

 

It's a damn shame this guy believes this. Unreal even but not surprising.

 

What an idiot.

 

I'm supposed to believe that an assistant philosophy professor knows about global warming/climate change??? He should stick to philosophy

 

I don't think any of you read more than the headline.

 

Yeah, I'm sure more than just a few of us have read it. This clown's positions are ludicrous, and he's putting a lot of effort, apparently, into proving what a moron he is.

...Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

Anyone with more than ten firing neurons should be able to figure out what a goof this guy is.

Really? Did you even read the article? Nothing about the article is denying freedom of speech. Agenda? What agenda?

The ignorance is frightening.

Yes it is. Maybe you just want to stop right there, before your own words come back to bite you on the butt.

 

Next they will have the Art department commenting on world politics lol.

 

You laugh, but I actually had a theater teacher tell me that gun owners should be taken out to the street and shot. In front of students. After that I had little doubt of the true nature of my progressive colleagues.

 

I completely accept the idea of climate change. And I completely reject the idea that anyone who doesn't should go to jail.

 

Really? Did you even read the article? Nothing about the article is denying freedom of speech. Agenda? What agenda?

The ignorance is frightening.

 

So you believe that people who believe that global warming is a scam should go to prison?

Your liberalism is showing.

 

Deport him

A professor not even smart enough to realize it was all a scam and it has been admitted shouldn't be teaching anyone. Also does he not realize that he is in American? People can act all they want like America has changed but this IS STILL A FREE COUNTRY, and the laws and constitution support that.

This clown should be fired, stripped of his citizenship and deported.

 

I disagree with the author of the The Conversation article, but not for the silly reasons listed above.

The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of [those] who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.

That's not quite enough. You really need to prove intent to mislead. If they're doing it because they believe they're right, it's just a regular disagreement. Disagreement is good, it makes everyone more closely examine the issue in order to argue about it.

 

The climate change scam has nearly been exposed, so surely it's time to move on to the next alarmist scam?

 

I am a climate change denier who fears prison because they can get really cold. Seriously, would you not like to see this *******, resume in hand, trying to get a real job?

 

When dealing with a system with variables that are not understood (volcanoes, earthquakes, climate, etc) how can someone be intentionally, criminally negligent? At the current state of the art, the only honest answer ANYONE can truly give is "not enough data".

 

If you collect the data they want, you get funding for your research. Even if you skew the results. If you come to the conclusions they don't want your funding goes away. This administration, the academic system, the education system, the media all want a certain kind of data. Data that supports their agenda. There is big money and great control behind carbon credits and alternative (green) energy.

Folks like Soros, Gore and others have a lot of investments awaiting passage of legislation. Bureaucrats are funded, campaigns are funded. The EPA and other agencies gain even more power and control with such legislation. It's all a game with really big stakes. Fundamentally changing America begins with tearing down the previous version. If you believe in this shell game, you probably also had great faith in keeping your HC plan and Dr. You probably had great faith the Stimulus would make the economy boom and help pay off the debt. The agenda is based solely on lies. How many lies do some of you have to witness before you question the fairy tales they tell you?

 

Whatever standpoint he's writing from, it's not from the ethos and mores of the philosopher.
Philosophy and the Greek inheritance are entirely NOT what he is or believes.
What a shameful disgrace.

 

@Bushmaster I did say the only HONEST answer. You're describing politics which, lately at _least_ is inherently dishonest.

 

Politics IS involved so you'll never get honest answers. That's the entire point. Climate change is 100% political agenda driven. Honesty is the last thing they ever want coming out. Truth doesn't have an agenda. They're not funding truth. They don't fund truth on gun control, climate, healthcare, economics, employment, foreign policy, NSA spying, IRS targeting, Fast and Furious, Benghazi...should I go on? Truth is not something they deal in. Fear, lies, control and theft through taxation and regulation are their only goals. If you're hoping for some truth to come out you'll be waiting a very long time.

 

Everyone has stories about looney left professors. USF had a Hispanic prof who preached the gospel of Che in the classroom. Che was he hero. Asked about it he said that as a Hispanic his only role model had been Frito Bandito.

 

Lawrence Torcello teaches Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology. He is neither a scientist, nor a lawyer. Yet, he wants to advise legislators on new oppressive laws, based on only his beliefs and opinions. That is kind of like Obama trying to fix healthcare or the economy. The libtards bio below:


Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor

Email: lgtghs@rit.edu
Mail: Department of Philosophy
Rochester Institute of Technology
92 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5604

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.

Voted for Al Gore and still bitter about the hanging chads.

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

 

I've always maintained that liberals/progressives/socialists are the most likely to put people in camps.

Why?

Well first, they already have. See FDR and Japanese interment.

They follow the same worship of government common to shallow thinking people. See the German people and their embrace of Nazism.

Their belief in the "common good" masks a desire for power; they wish to crush anyone who dares to think outside the collective mindset.

This professor clown is just one of a long line of these ugly people...

 

.

the same worship of government common to shallow thinking people...

Isn't that a perfect description

 

climate change has long since passed from the realm of science to religion.

and the true believers are always ready to burn the heretics at the stake.

 

If you read the article, he is arguing that Scientists who take payment from corporate interests to spread misinformation which is harmful are committing criminal negligence. A perfect example would be Andrew Wakefield.

It is not climate denial that the professor wants criminalized, but "misinformation for hire" that causes harm.

I don't think climate change denial does create the harm necessary to motivate the charge of criminal negligent, but I will say he is entirely correct about one thing. There is no debate on climate change in the scientific community. The debate is over, there is consensus.

 

Whenever I hear leftists talk about "scientific consensus" I always chuckle and think about Galileo and how the astronomers of his day believed the universe revolved around the Earth.

And then it became a religious issue, and the Inquisition of the day ruled that the other astronomers, or the scientific consensus at the time, was correct and Galileo was a heretic.

Today's liberals/progressives/socialists, who treat the global warming myth as a religion, are just like the fools of Galileo's time, and our grandchildren will laugh at their foolish religious zeal...

 

As libs preach tolerance out of one side of their mouths....

 

Ha! What a loon! I think the saddest part is that nobody is actually denying that our climate is changing. The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling due to the sun cycle and the slow wobble of its axis. The debate here is about what actually causes it. I personally dont believe in a greenhouse effect. I thi k our planet will cycle as it has been for millions of years. Its not getting hotter because I drive an old Bronco. I would even venture to say that a single volcanic eruption emits more harmful gasses than all of mankind has throughout our entire industrial revolution.
Lets get to the real argument here. Pollution! Theres NO debate about this subject. Clean air = good. Dirty air = bad and unhealthy. We should all due our part to try and keep our air, and the rest of our ecosystem clean. But using scare tactics about carbon emmisions bringing forth teotwawki in order to guilt someone into buying a Prius is just plain stupidity.
If you want to have people jailed for destroying the environment, go harshly after those that dump their trash in the woods, senselessly pour dangerous chemicals into the ground and water systems, or burn tires, etc..
Refusing to listen to opposing points of view like this guy, because they arent congruent with your own is ignorance. Would this man have me jailed because of this post? Am I missing something? I cant be that far off with this?

 

Ha! What a loon! I think the saddest part is that nobody is actually denying that our climate is changing. , go harshly after those that dump their trash in the woods, senselessly /QUOTE]


Excellent points you make.

How much of our problems are manmade? For sure. We can deal with those in a calm and sensible manner. we quit using Freon to save the ozone layer. Don't know if third world countries are doing their part which is key.

No excuse for dumping waste in waterways or into the ground. All for recycling. Get rid of Styrofoam? Fine with me.

But when you contemplate replacing oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear with "green energy," you are a hopeless daydreamer. An idiot. And if you are in government you are a danger to the economy. The minute a pol talks about "green energy," I know everything there is to no about him. What he thinks about everything. Because if he drinks the green koolade, he swallows every ounce of leftist sewage there is to swallow.

When wind farms and solar can be sold without taxpayer subsidies, I will support it.

 

You claim all the other factors are consistently observable and measurable and have been accounted for, leaving human activity as the only possible remaining variable. And yet, we can't even get consistently accurate 5-day weather forecasts.

What does future prediction have to do with past explanation of phenomena? These are completely different methods of science.

Clearly there are mechanisms at work in the atmosphere that are -not- fully understood and -cannot- be fully accounted for at our present level of atmospheric science.

For accurate prediction of the future? No. Again, this is irrelevant.

And why have all the global warming computer models been consistently wrong in predicting the degree of future temperature changes? The only time they've been "right" is in the last couple years when the modeling output has been given such a wide margin that it can be claimed absolutely anything which does of does not happen falls within the "predicted range."

Again, prediction is not the same thing as explanation. It is MUCH harder to predict future change than it is to explain past phenomena.

 

What does future prediction have to do with past explanation of phenomena? These are completely different methods of science.

For accurate prediction of the future? No. Again, this is irrelevant.


Again, prediction is not the same thing as explanation. It is MUCH harder to predict future change than it is to explain past phenomena.

Seriously? The entire AGW movement is based on dire predictions of disappearing ice caps, coastal flooding and inability to grow food.

And yes, future prediction IS linked to past explanation. If the mechanism being studied is -fully- understood and -all- the variables known then it should be possible to accurately predict the future behavior of the mechanism by applying present variables to their past relationships. In fact, attempting to do exactly that has been a major part of AGW studies over the last 3 plus decades, and all their models have consistently failed to correlate with actual events. Bottom line is that science doesn't know nearly as much as it acts like it knows. Any real scientist (as opposed to academics pursuing that next grant) will readily admit this. That's the whole point of science, is to continue studying to grow in knowledge and understanding, not to decide that we have all the answers and anything which contradicts them must be wrong.

 

I could write my own 300 page report. It could be an essay that the declares the importance of installing a massive smog pump and a catalytic converter on every active volcano on the planet! This idea would undoubtedly slow the effects of climate change. Hell if I got enough people to support it, I could even receive government funding to research such a venture. I would just have to pander to the right wealthy leftist organisations. In my opinion is just as plausible as trying to stop all carbon emissions made during the burning of fossil fuel. We have dug ourselves into a hole that will take more than a few generations to climb out of. Instead of focusing on where the effect is coming from, we should look at the cause, and the variables we can control. There is no denying that the sky over L.A. is rusty brown, not blue like it should be. Its not going to destroy us all. It just makes it a ****ty place to live.
In the meantime, these same scientists (the ones trying to blame all the worlds problems on my truck) should be coming up with solutions to hasten the process of creating an infrastructure that uses less fossil fuel to accomplish the same goals.
Show me a fully electric semi truck that can transport goods without its operational costs running us all into bankruptcy, and I will be 100% on board with it. The world economy in general is bad enough without people trying to make sure it gets even worse by taking away our resources. In the meantime, fill it with super! I will be tilling my garden with gas powered equipment this week. Why? Because it works!
I dont have/cant afford a better alternative because its not available yet.

 

(Virtually) Nobody denies that solutions must be sensible and contingent on modern technology. But that's not the argument. The argument is not against people who think that certain efforts are unwarranted or cost too much. The argument is against those who deny what is plainly evident- human pollution is adversely altering the global climate. You can't deny the data just because you want to save your truck, but you can certainly argue that banning trucks will be ineffective.