US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2wHkfl1ke


[h=1]US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers[/h] 8:16 AM 03/17/2014



Eric Owens




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.
Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.
“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.
“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign” “funded an organised [sic] campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made.”
“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.
Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”
As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.
“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”
Torcello, the Ph.D.-holding philosophy professor, then manages to conflate the standard of criminal negligence with the much lower standard of garden-variety negligence under civil law.
Torcello also tries to preemptively rebut criticism that his attempt to silence climate change skeptics with the threat of criminal penalties is unconstitutional due to the First Amendment.
“We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised [sic] campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions,” he argues.
“It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems.”
On March 13, 2014 (the day Torcello’s screed was published), the high temperature was 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Rochester, N.Y., the city for which Rochester Institute of Technology is named.
In the latest U.S. News rankings, Rochester Institute of Technology (annual cost of attendance: $45,602) comes in as the seventh-ranked university in the North region, two spots ahead of the University of Scranton. The Upstate New York school is notable for its focus on engineering and business as well as an unsightly, windswept campus.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2wHxx1300
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
nice shock headline, but you're missing the distinction between "voicing one's unpopular opinion" and "strategically organized campaigns to disseminate misinformation".
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2wHkfl1ke


[h=1]US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers[/h] 8:16 AM 03/17/2014



Eric Owens




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.
Throughout the piece, he refers to the bizarre political aftermath of an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, which saw six scientists imprisoned for six years each because they failed to “clearly communicate risks to the public” about living in an earthquake zone.
“Consider cases in which science communication is intentionally undermined for political and financial gain,” the assistant professor urges.
“Imagine if in L’Aquila, scientists themselves had made every effort to communicate the risks of living in an earthquake zone,” Torcello argues, but evil “financiers” of a “denialist campaign” “funded an organised [sic] campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made.”
“I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism,” Torcello asserts.
Torcello says that people are already dying because of global warming. “Nonetheless, climate denial remains a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis.”
As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.
“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”
Torcello, the Ph.D.-holding philosophy professor, then manages to conflate the standard of criminal negligence with the much lower standard of garden-variety negligence under civil law.
Torcello also tries to preemptively rebut criticism that his attempt to silence climate change skeptics with the threat of criminal penalties is unconstitutional due to the First Amendment.
“We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised [sic] campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions,” he argues.
“It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems.”
On March 13, 2014 (the day Torcello’s screed was published), the high temperature was 18 degrees Fahrenheit in Rochester, N.Y., the city for which Rochester Institute of Technology is named.
In the latest U.S. News rankings, Rochester Institute of Technology (annual cost of attendance: $45,602) comes in as the seventh-ranked university in the North region, two spots ahead of the University of Scranton. The Upstate New York school is notable for its focus on engineering and business as well as an unsightly, windswept campus.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz2wHxx1300
I don't agree with his beliefs. Although, I do think he was firing back at the folks who imprisoned scientists for not predicting an earthquake.
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
I don't agree with the guy, but he's pointing out the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it. However unintentional that point may be.
There was a local politician demanding Verizon give up their IP records so she could prosecute the person for flaming her in a public forum.
LOL crazy shit.
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
Except for the fact that people have been imprisoned for failing to predict an earthquake. Your example fails.
It would be stupid to imprison scientists for not predicting the future.
It happened but it's bs.

Why don't we ban California? It's going to tumble into the sea. Fail

Why didn't the people leave New Orleans when hurricane katrina was coming? Fail

They try to warn us but we reject the advice.

And others are just crazy.
Remember that meteorite 10 years ago?
Some cult leader says Die Now! and people follow.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
IWhy don't we ban California? It's going to tumble into the sea. Fail
what would you think if some group formed to deny the scientific consensus about earthquake likelihood in california and duped people into moving onto known faultlines?

good practice? should it be legal? caveat emptor?
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
what would you think if some group formed to deny the scientific consensus about earthquake likelihood in california and duped people into moving onto known faultlines?

good practice? should it be legal? caveat emptor?
They already have formed and live in fault zones.

I wouldnt wanna live there.
Thank You
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
They already have formed and live in fault zones.

I wouldnt wanna live there.
Thank You
i bet they had to sign something acknowledging that they knew of the risks associated with living in an earthquake prone area.

i bet that the contractors probably have to build houses to certain standards in earthquake prone areas.

what would you say if some company that stood to profit by denying the scientific consensus on fault lines duped people into buying these houses unknowingly after building them in an inadequate fashion to be safe in an earthquake prone area?

good practice? legal? harmless? caveat emptor? free market? apple pie? baseball? white picket fences?
 

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
i bet they had to sign something acknowledging that they knew of the risks associated with living in an earthquake prone area.

i bet that the contractors probably have to build houses to certain standards in earthquake prone areas.

what would you say if some company that stood to profit by denying the scientific consensus on fault lines duped people into buying these houses unknowingly after building them in an inadequate fashion to be safe in an earthquake prone area?

good practice? legal? harmless? caveat emptor? free market? apple pie? baseball? white picket fences?
You don't sign anything. You just move there.
Reefer to the original post.
Data is available but how true is it?

What day will California tumble into the sea?
Place your bets.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
nice shock headline, but you're missing the distinction between "voicing one's unpopular opinion" and "strategically organized campaigns to disseminate misinformation".
Not as much of a difference as you would have us believe. Organizing based on ones beliefs is expressly permitted in the constitution.

So you're saying it's ok to believe or think something, you just can't tell anyone about it?
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
what would you think if some group formed to deny the scientific consensus about earthquake likelihood in california and duped people into moving onto known faultlines?

good practice? should it be legal? caveat emptor?
I have a much better example. What would you think if a group of Eco-Loons formed to concoct a fraudulent scientific consensus about the timber industry affecting the survival of a small subset of owls for the purpose of crippling said industry? They would have countless brain dead doofuses bleating their talking points for them and trying to create a public outcry.

And after calling deniers "rednecks" and "flat-earthers", forcing the closure of numerous timber companies, destroying the livelihoods of THOUSANDS of families, passing their wish list of legislation and forcing an entire industry abroad, the entire debacle is exposed as an environmentalist scam.

Do they unwind the legislation passed based on lies? No. Do they beg the industry to return? No. Are they forced to compensate the THOUSANDS of families that were financially devastated by their campaign of deceit? No.

The ends justify the means for these jackasses, always has, always will. They will say anything and do anything to further their "environmental calamity of the month" agenda. Fuck them and the halfwit stooges regurgitating their drivel.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Not as much of a difference as you would have us believe. Organizing based on ones beliefs is expressly permitted in the constitution.

So you're saying it's ok to believe or think something, you just can't tell anyone about it?

So.... you don't believe that there is a strategicly organized campaign of disinformation regarding global warming? Or do you think that is just a lot of wacked out nonsense?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
So.... you don't believe that there is a strategicly organized campaign of disinformation regarding global warming? Or do you think that is just a lot of wacked out nonsense?
There was once consensus that Earth was the centre of the universe and that all the celestial bodies orbited it.

Consensus =/= Fact
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top