RIT Professor: Climate change deniers… are “criminally negligent”

Seems that Rochester [NY] Institute of Technology Assistant Professor of… Philosophy Lawrence Torcello has a problem with people who disagree with (as he states) “about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on“. In his blog post he calls them part of a “criminally negligent” group that should be treated accordingly.Oh, and for good measure, he’s got this line:
“More deaths can already be attributed to climate change than the L’Aquila earthquake”
So much for free speech, make that free _unpopular_ speech, in this country. More details at his blog:

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

About these ads

15 responses to “RIT Professor: Climate change deniers… are “criminally negligent”

  1. Well, it’s obvious to me (and most of you reading this, I would guess), that this Torcello guy is part of a “criminally ignorant” group that should be treated accordingly. LOL.

  2. Climate Fear Mongers are a neurotic, irresponsible group of useful idiots pushing the “Climate change” agenda, for their own financial and political gain. Even after seeing hard evidence of the 17 year cessation of warming, they struggle to make excuses, that will fit the square peg, into the round hole. Ludicrous! These fools have cost society billions of wasted dollars, that could have been spent on doing something truly beneficial. If anyone deserves prison time, it is the climate alarmist scammers!

  3. Gilbert Delgado

    Would a physician be criminally negligent if he or she knowingly misinformed a patient of a life threatening condition and its possible treatment because of vested interest?   Of course he or she would!    In fact, even an honest mistake could be considered negligent if the physician’s standard of care was below a level commonly accepted by the profession.   This standard also protects the public from unscrupulous, careless, or incompetent engineers, architects and other professionals.   This moral framework could logically be extended to scientists who’s positions have an impact to affect the public’s well being.

    Scientists using their credentials to confuse the public for a paycheck from bogus “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute deserve to be prosecuted.

    • I would say the oposite is true. I have analytically looked at the data, and I see that the harm caused by carbon dioxide reductions is several orders of magnitude greater than any benefit. Worst of this is the attempt to deny fossil fired electricity to the developing world, but active diversion of funds away from real conservation and humanitarian measures is measurably damaging.

      Conversely, the benefits that CO2 reductions yield, even when implemented on planetwide scales, are so vanishingly small that they simply do not exist in measurable form. These trivial reductions waste immense resources for no benefit whatsoever.

    • ‘Scientists using their credentials to confuse the public for a paycheck from bogus “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute deserve to be prosecuted.’

      Selective prosecution is a hallmark of totalitarians. When Michael Mann, et al, get 20 to life, we can talk.

  4. I’m just loving how the question of whether “misinformation about the climate is criminally negligent” is being asked by one actually perpetuating such misinformation.

    Preemptive accusation is a debating tool the Left has used unconsciously, reflexively, and to great effect over a very long period of time. It is long past time we learned to counter the tactic.

  5. Just ignore the idiot and with any luck he will disappear from view as he is swallowed up in the tide of BS he and his mates are producing.

  6. Assistant Professor,

    I cannot adequately express my heartfelt thanks for you having provided the ultimate example of the muddy-minded philosophical gibberish posing as intellectual discourse within the liberal educational community. My heart aches for the students whose minds are subject to your corrupt propaganda.

    Clearly, those in your cadre of superior intellectuals deem it your right and responsibility to stifle and incarcerate those of us who regard scientific proofs subsidiary to so-called consensus.

    Like your esteemed false prophet Algore, you hide behind your mantle of assumed intellectual superiority, calling those of us who deign to challenge conventional “wisdom” deniers, cleverly provoking an association with Holocaust deniers in the minds of the casual observer. You refuse, as does Algore, to debate the issue of climate change with responsible and informed members of the “denier” community. That sir, is cowardice. Perhaps you have a newly-minted freshman who could school you on the quaint notion of free speech.

    John A. “Jack” Parkin

  7. The models referenced by the IPCC, claiming rapid increases in global temperature, are criminally negligent. Lock up the BA$TARD$!!!

    Italy locked up some vulcanologists for failing to warn people of a volcano.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/world/europe/italy-quake-scientists-guilty/index.html

    Climate Scientists made fraudulent claims, that people reacted to, at great expense.

  8. Consider that famous graphic that was publicized last year which illustrates the deviation of modeled temperature projections with actual temperature measurements. Can you think of any scientific or engineering analysis in which such a discrepancy between modeled and actual phenomena would be taken credibly? If a metabolic or toxicity model showed the same relationship with actual test subjects would the FDA permit a drug to be approved? Of course not. Climate scientists are somewhat unique in that they are accountable to no market mechanism by which their results can be tested. As a result, they can go on endlessly generating mountains of data with little credibility. That’s not to say a scientist must generate something immediately profitable. Rather, it just goes to show that as a field of study that is almost exclusively government funded and one whose results are use to promote a particular political ideology it is ripe with the potential for corruption. Philosophy departments are in much the same situation.

  9. Einstein must be rolling in his grave. He fought the consensus dummies for years! Every scientific breakthrough is the result of someone believing the consensus experts were ignorant. I believe Feynman said that.

  10. According to this professor, posting or commenting on this blog should be a criminal offense.
    The scary part is there are many in power who agree with him and will do their best to make it a reality.

  11. The Old Grouch

    Must be friends with Suzuki who wants throw us in jail.

  12. he is right that massive suffering is caused by “climate change”. But not in the way he alludes. It’s caused by his ilk whose gross fraud causes billions to suffer the consequences of not having access to clean drinking water, plentiful and affordable electricity, and ready access to transportation and healthcare.

  13. Torcello’s stupidity is obvious. How is one “negligent” for an intentional act. He can’t even get legal concepts straight, let alone science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s