By Michael Schaus
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute
of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming.
Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in
line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence,
and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a
little intellectual Fascism. Right?
When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on.
Well, Larry (can we call him Larry?), it might surprise
you – an assistant professor of philosophy – to learn that science is not a
democratic study. Skepticism, opposition, and deviation from the adopted
narrative are more responsible for scientific discovery than blind allegiance
to any prevailing theory. And, quite frankly, the theory of anthropogenic
global warming has been delegitimized by some of its greatest proponents… Most
scientists would agree that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe in a
theory that has routinely failed to produce any moderately accurate models or
predictions. But, of course it gets better:
With such high stakes, an organized campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.
Laughably, Larry is not talking about East Anglia, Al
Gore, or the UN Climate Change Scandal (where a number of scientists were
quoted out of context to give the impression of a consensus view on climate
change). In fact, while Larry alleges that “deniers” (apparently the word
“skeptic” doesn’t have the right amount of stigma attached to it) are engaged
in a misinformation campaign, he never once defends the propagandistic efforts
of the global-warming-faithful.
Governments, activist groups, well connected CEOs, and
elite billionaire Liberals have pushed trillions of dollars into the
propagation of global warming fears. And yet, strangely, this assistant
philosophy professor seems incapable unwilling to see the irony of his
allegations. But, wait… He soon goes for the jugular:
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. 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.
Ah… So scientists who dare to question the provably wrong
predictions of melted ice caps, winterless years, and raising sea levels should
be charged with negligence for “undermining the public’s understanding of
scientific consensus”? Well, here’s some scientific consensus for you, Larry:
The world has not seen a measurable increase in
temperatures for over 15 years. Arctic ice has increased in mass since 2013.
The “Polar Vortex” is part of a broader, and predictable, weather shift that
has been happening for thousands of years. “Climate Change” has been occurring,
without man-made forces, for every single one of the billions of years this
rock has been spinning around the sun.
But, let’s be honest: Larry isn’t really worried about
the science (even though I’m sure his studies in philosophy have yielded him
great insights into climatology, atmospheric science, and meteorological
changes throughout history). He’s worried about opposition to his beliefs. He
even acknowledges some of the pushback that his idea might receive:
My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech.
Misguided? The Left’s intolerance, it seems, has no
bounds. A student from Harvard recently argued against academic freedom. Not
wanting to be outdone, this assistant professor is now suggesting that
political opponents (or for that matter, scientists who don’t tow his
ideological ideals) be criminally charged. It is almost stunning how easily the
Left will adopt the notion of censorship and intellectual fascism to limit
their opposition.
For being an assistant professor of philosophy, Torcello
seems stunningly married to an egocentric world view. People who disagree with
him, in his mind, are not merely “wrong”… They’re crossing the threshold into
criminality. This is a point of view that is growing among the Left. Opponents
to the President are racist. Opponents of Nancy Pelosi are sexist. Advocates
for traditional marriage are bigots. And, apparently, opponents to the theory
of anthropogenic global warming are worthy of a little jail time. This doesn’t
seem like positions that lend themselves to any degree of philosophical
integrity.
If Larry really wants to help fight global warming, he
should keep his totalitarian mouth shut… Currently, he’s spewing too much hot
air into the atmosphere.
No comments:
Post a Comment