Professor wants "climate deniers" arrested and imprisoned

Seriously.

Link

I mean, that's just way overboard. I mean, I think people who believe in young earth creationism are deluded at best. But I'd never ever support them being arrested, especially not for their beliefs. People believe in all sorts of weird crap, from flat earth to shape shifting reptilian overlords running the show. That's part of their right.

For the record, I'd be labeled as a "climate denier". I do believe there is climate change. However, I'm not convinced that it is necessarily doom, nor that it is man-made. I also tend to believe that governments are exploiting the climate change scare to levy more taxes and exert more control in more areas.

My point is, is that, regardless of how bizarre your belief is, or how controversial it is, you should never be jailed.

Nor should you be jailed for attempting to spread your belief. It's up to the individual to decide for themselves, which side holds more weight. If man made global warming is airtight, settled science, like gravity or thermodynamics, then only the insane would reject it. As is their right. We don't need anyone filtering the truth for us, thank you very much.

Yeah. Well. Who cares?
What're gonna do about nuts?
Why is this of any import at all?

I thought science was the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (according to google) and not crushing other people's observation for the money.

Phage
Yeah. Well. Who cares?
What're gonna do about nuts?
Why is this of any import at all?

Because there is a growing militancy and aggressiveness in the pro-man made global warming supporters against those who disagree. Behaving more like religious fanatics than scholars.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Because there is a growing militancy and aggressiveness in the pro-man made global warming supporters against those who disagree.

Not really.
But maybe since those who disagree are in such a minority (a seemingly shrinking one at that) that they feel somewhat put upon. That's understandable.

Arresting them is pretty silly though.

Creationists and climate deniers are not one and the same, arresting them is just silly anyways, especially when we have a war on drugs to arrest people for smoking marijuana.

In general ALL climate change is bad, man-made or not. Of course there is a human contributary factor, we are part of the earth along with everything else. Meaning that we as humans share our role in it, how much is whats debatable, but either way its a bad thing, and wasting time talking about it and not doing something is just a waste of energy. Some people talk, others do, Id rather listen to people that do, than just people who blah, blah, blah......

Did you actually read what he wrote OP? Do you think it wrong to call someone criminally negligent if it's apparent they are changing facts in order to keep receiving funds when something as important as this is on the line?

I think it's criminal to lie to the people of the world about how disasterous climate change is if you're getting financed by groups that have a vested interest in denying climate change.

Say a major drug company wants a new drug passed. It forces people to say the drug is OK. The drug is NOT OK. Are those that lied about it being OK to secure a paycheck not complicit? The whole thing is pointed at people who are intentionally lying to benefit the businesses that want them to lie. He's not talking about going after dumbasses on a conspiracy site and jailing them.

I love climate change.....
spring, summer, autumn, winter.......it's natures way...

every spring is different...every summer is different...every winter is different...every autumn is different...

every professor is different except for the fact that they have soft hands.....apparently they get payed for their brains....it just shows you that some are defrauding their employers....

reply to post by Domo1


That kinda gets into a sketchy territory when you discuss grant and research funding, because the whole point is to explore possibilities and ideas. Picking and choosing what ideas well that is up to the actual grant being given, their gonna give the money to who they want anyways, so it doesnt matter at the end of the day whose side their on.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


In the "Church-of-Global-Climate-Change-Warming/Cooling-Weather-Difference-From-Yesterday" all hearsay will be punished!

Anything said against the Church will be considered as lies against the Church.

If you are not FOR the Church, you are AGAINST the Church!

Now shut up and pay more taxes for the Church to send it's holy message of shame against everyone who breathes. Because breathing is a sin against the Church as it emits CO2 and CO2 is thyne enemy against the Church!

Re-use toilet paper!
Ride a bike!
Don't bathe!
Don't breathe!

(Just ignore the Holy Priests as they fly around in their jets and live in their palaces, for they are doing the work of the Church!)

reply to post by Phage


You mean those that recognize that manmade warming is bull#? Because thats getting clearer by the day. Was a bit ambiguous, clarify?

reply to post by Phage


I think time and more data will show which side is most correct. I swear, I just don't see why anyone thinks they can figure out a 4.6 billion year old rock as complex as the earth in a few years. I think it may be a bit more complex than we assume. And if it's really simple, and a few climate models have it all figured out, then time will show that too.

I just wonder why we still burn gas. Oh well, that's not really as important as who's right.

Just build a wall around the country.

beezzer
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

In the "Church-of-Global-Climate-Change-Warming/Cooling-Weather-Difference-From-Yesterday" all hearsay will be punished!

Anything said against the Church will be considered as lies against the Church.

If you are not FOR the Church, you are AGAINST the Church!

Now shut up and pay more taxes for the Church to send it's holy message of shame against everyone who breathes. Because breathing is a sin against the Church as it emits CO2 and CO2 is thyne enemy against the Church!

Re-use toilet paper!
Ride a bike!
Don't bathe!
Don't breathe!

(Just ignore the Holy Priests as they fly around in their jets and live in their palaces, for they are doing the work of the Church!)

Amen brother!!!!!!!!!

Wait..why does all that sound familiar, like it has all been said before in the past?

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Well I would like everyone who has taken public office in this country over the last twenty years to be shot for treason against the people of my country, but that is not going to happen.

Frankly, my angle is far more justified by observable, testable truths, than the position taken by this professor. Neither is going to happen any time soon however, so no worries!

I'm with him in spirit if not in reality. In the end, it all boils down to three things.

If the climate deniers are people in politics, vote them out.

If the climate deniers are corporations adding to the problem, don't give them business (or let the government do it).

And if the climate deniers are just plain folk, well a "professor" of all people should know the value of education both about climate change and what we can do about it (starting with the above two points).

But overall, it seems to me this assistant professor of philosophy probably needs to visit his fellow professors of Constitutional law and economics and even environmental science for a bit more of and education himself.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

There was a post from the 14th on WUWT on this subject you might like to check out .There is over 200 comments as well . wattsupwiththat.com... I don't know weather to laugh or cry .There were a few people that did wright to the university pointing out the mans position as being not consistent to the Universities laws and statements.

[Breaches of Principles of Academic Freedom (Policy E2.0) and of the mission statement of the Institute by Assistant Professor Lawrence Torcello

Principle of public law relied upon

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all. It says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Principles of private law relied upon

The Institute’s policy on academic freedom applies to all faculty members, including Assistant Professor Torcello. The Institute declares that its policy is “guided” by the principles of academic freedom promulgated by the Association of University Professors in 1940, and, in particular, by the third such principle:

“3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.” ]

From the OPs link -

Daily Caller - US College Professor Demands Imprisonment for Climate Change Deniers

An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.

His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”

Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.

He's with Rochester Institute of Technology, eh? Last year our daughter had to pick a school and RIT was trying to recruit her. I'm glad she turned them down. If this yutz is an example of the thought process there then .. YIKES! Oh, and he got a PhD from the University of Buffalo? I hope he's not an example of the kind of crap that school pumps out. Hopefully he's an anomaly and not what the average student comes out as.

reply to post by beezzer


Actually, I heard the climate deniers were worshiping Balphomet and spitting on the cross. They must be destroyed.

network dude
reply to post by beezzer

 

Actually, I heard the climate deniers were worshiping Balphomet and spitting on the cross. They must be destroyed.

Climate deniers are being burned at the stake of public opinion.