Philosophy Professor Wants To Criminalize Scientific Dissent

Lawrence TorcelloRochester Institute of TechnologyIn 2012, in a proceeding straight out of the Inquisition, an Italian court convicted six scientists for providing "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information" in the lead-up to the earthquake. Now, a philosophy professor says that case may provide a worthwhile example for the treatment of scientific dissenters—specifically, "climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus."

Writing for The Conversation, a publication geared to academics, Lawrence Torcello (pictured at right), a professor of philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, says the time for conversation is over.

The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. 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. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

Torcello then tries to parse the details of the earthquake case, saying, it was "actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public."

Even so, Torcello acknowledges the chilling effect of prosecuting scientists for not framing their public statements in a sufficiently prosecutor-friendly matter. Researchers might not try to warn anybody if they could face fines or prison time for being inexact, incomplete, or contradictory after the fact. He ultimately allows that he wouldn't actually criminalize poor scientific communication—just anybody who might support dissenting scientists, or receive such support.

If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism....

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.

If you're trying to figure out how that doesn't threaten the free exercise of speech, Torcello assures us, "We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions."

InquisitionPublic DomainSo...You can voice a dissenting opinion, so long as you don't benefit from it or help dissenters benefit in any way?

By the way, according to RIT, Torcello researches "the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism." Presumably, his job is a paid one. But this is OK, because...the majority of scientists agree with his views on the issue?

Let's allow that they do—and that a majority of scientists agree about man-made climate change and a host of other issues. Just when does the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition meet to decide what is still subject to debate, and what is now holy writ? And is an effort to "undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus" always criminally negligent? Can it ever be simple scientific inquiry? Or even heroic?

Or maybe we just assume underhanded motives on the part of scientific outliers and their supporters once the committee has ruled.

(H/T: Slammer)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Now, a philosophy professor says that case may provide a worthwhile example for the treatment of scientific dissenters—specifically, "climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus."

    What about climate deceivers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to sell the public a fake understanding of scientific consensus?

    I know someone in academia who has been conversationally floating the idea that "climate change deniers should be lined up against a wall and shot." I explain to him that his problem with them is we aren't very good about "lining up" on anything and we have a habit of shooting back.

  • Free Society||

    Academia is a bastion of fascism and state worship. Fuck them and their government funded consensus.

  • cavalier973||

    He who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain.

  • Sevo||

    "Torcello then tries to parse the details of the earthquake case, saying, it was "actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public.""

    No, he tries to justify an opinion which would be an embarrassment to most people.
    I'd suggest he "parse" A-1.

  • Vampire||

    What a douchebag, and some folks will actually fall in line with his "recommendations". The climate scam is so bad they have to resort to "if you don't agree we'll throw your ass in jail".

  • TANSTaaFL||

    The guy looks like Artie from Warehouse 13

  • Number 7||

    I have to stop reading Reason. Seriously, I have to stop. This shit is going to happen whether I know about it or not, I can't do anything about it but if we are reverting to the 14th century, then fuck it, I just don't want to know. I am really going to try to stop reading

  • sarcasmic||

    Who is Number One?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    I am number two.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Stop laughing!

  • Ted S.||

    You are Number Six.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I am not a number! I am a FREE MAN!

  • C. Anacreon||

    Rover, the coercive bouncing balloon-ball, doesn't want to hear about your free man crap.

  • Number 2||

    That would be telling.

  • mr simple||

    Be seeing you.

  • ||

    but if we are reverting to the 14th century, then fuck it, I just don't want to know.

    If we revert to the 14th century libertarians may not win...but it is fun to know people like the above "philosophy professor" is definitely going to lose.

    "So we are all starving. Who should we eat?"

    "How about we eat the asshole who tries to tell everyone what to do, has no useful skills and is totally incapable of defending himself"

    "Good choice we eat him"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Philosophy ain't an exact science. Or science at all.

  • amelia||

    Yeah, it occurred to me a philosopher is no farking scientist. However, both philosophers and climate scientists appear to have a lack of humility in common.

  • Warrren||

    It's only science if you think like me!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Volk must be protected from the corruption of Jewish Physics.

  • ||

    Precisely. And in order to be able to do that, there's a need for an Enabling Act, named "An Act To Remedy the Distress Of The American People and the USA".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's soooo twentieth century.

    In the Obama century all we need is for the media to keep reminding everyone that they are the the president's children and father knows best.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    But Father Knows Best was 20th century!

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    That father was white, so it doesn't count.

  • cavalier973||

    "...the moral implications of...science denialism."

    As I understand it, if a scientist isn't challenging current dogma, he isn't really doing science.

    Even if a scientist comes up with a pretty good theory, the ideal situation seems him trying to destroy his own theory from every possible angle, because he can't "prove" that it's correct, he can only ensure that it hasn't yet been falsified.

  • cavalier973||

    Also, I may have got some incorrect information about this, but weren't most of the computer models predicting substantially higher increases in global temperatures than what has been since observed?

  • chmercier||

    Ah, but that whole empirical evidence thing was Olde Science, invented by racists and imperialists.

    New Science deems that whatever the results you want, you make! Like magic!

  • cavalier973||

    Magic has rules.

    *glares*

  • chmercier||

    Agh! Don't say that! New Science hath deemed that rules are bad@kkoi

  • jamesrk||

    You can only cast sorcery on your main phase, and creatures come into play with summoning sickness?

  • chmercier||

    Ah, snap. Can't believe I missed the Magic ref. And here I've actually played the game...

  • TANSTaaFL||

    CHmercier, your fellow MTG comrades.

    Magic the gathering photobombs

  • Mickey Rat||

    Unless they are hasty.

  • ace_m82||

    Google "Popper" for a person who wants science done exactly like this.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    They failed. They know. Why not let the mask slip if brute force is their only hope?

  • amelia||

    The philosophers haven't yet figured out that they failed. They still believe in the consensus.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Slammer||

    Heh. Also, the woman stabs husband over Nascar article linked from that page was charming.

  • Ted S.||

    Now? It's been trolling H&R for years.

  • BikeRider||

    He clearly doesn't understand science. Scientific progress requires dissent.

    We scoff at the "flat earthers" now, but once upon a time, the best scientific minds believed the earth was flat. The issue was "settled". Eventually, the minority dissenters proved them wrong.

    More recently, the majority of scientist had clear ideas on nutrition and weight loss. However, Adkins and a few like him had a minority dissenting opinion. Though the majority reviled him for years, Adkins kept at it. I don't claim that Adkins has been proven correct, but it's clear the nutritional science is NOT "settled".

    With Torcello's thinking, Adkins and any supporters of his research would have been prosecuted 20+ years ago for "criminal and moral negligence" and all progress in nutritional science would have stopped cold.

  • The Laconic Marc F Cheney||

    You know what kind of person wants to criminalize dissent? The kind of person who's wrong.

  • OneOut||

    Tony posted this about this same article on another site.

    "Tony • 11 minutes ago
    If free speech leads to global catastrophe, then it's worth it to limit free speech.
    The denier propaganda industry is a clear and present danger to global human security because it gets in the way of necessary policy action.

    All this is true.

    Of course I don't believe in jailing people for speech. But let's not destroy the world too, shall we?"

    What are the odds that it's the same Tony that posts here ?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    It's a good thing Tonys side has control of all the guns, no?

  • MJGreen||

    Does sound like him. And earlier today he called us tacit authoritarians.

  • The Laconic Marc F Cheney||

    If these fuckers spent half as much time trying to do better climate science as they do bitching about how nobody believes them, maybe more people would believe them.

  • cavalier973||

    Well, a better example would be geocentrism vs. heliocentrism (Ancient Greeks knew the earth to be spherical, and had done a pretty accurate calculation of the earth's circumference).

    The geocentric model had predictive value. The predictive value of Copernicus's model was somewhat less, as I understand it, even though he was right about the earth orbiting the sun.

    Both models were flawed by the philosophical belief that the planetary orbits were perfectly circular, hence the need to introduce "epicycles" into the mix. The epicycles made the models work, but they were unnecessary, since planetary orbits are elliptical, as Kepler discovered.

    In the same way, in my opinion, even were the models developed by the AGW proponents valuable for prediction (which they have not yet proved to be), the philosophies harbored by the AGW proponents may be shielding them from observing what is really going on with regard to the earth's climate.

  • LDRider||

    Science is never "settled." Ask Galileo. Columbus. Crick.

  • cavalier973||

  • ||

    That's an excellent link; thanks.

  • paranoid android||

    So it's like Crusader Kings II...only real.

    Hmm...very interesting.

  • Sevo||

    I'm gonna have to read that bio of Peter the Great again; I thought the Swedes kicked Russian butt almost to the Crimea at the time.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fucking Germans.

  • ||

    They should just flip a coin.

    Heads the golden horde gets Crimea tails the Ottoman empire gets it.

    If the coin is lost then the descendants of Conan gets it.

  • montana mike||

    That is freaking fascinating.

  • Big Chief||

    Are the posting problems tonight because of NSA surveillance, a drunk intern, or retribution because of the 1000+ post Independents thread on Friday?

  • Warrren||

    No.

  • Big Chief||

    Careful, you may be going against consensus!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I'm guessing tossing Mary into the oubliette repeatedly over the weekend has driven the skwrlz mad.

  • Sevo||

    Some of Mary's posts live on in the Snowden thread.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    If you mean Lyle I think that's one of Tulpa's socks.

  • Sevo||

    No, check posts from "so very tired"; talking to itself and making accusations.
    Scary.

  • ||

    I always assumed svt was somebody else's sock. He or she has been commenting since January, mostly to take pot shots at other people's posts and only very occasionally adding to discussion. I just assumed it was someone who wanted to say negative things to people without their primary account coming across as an ass.

    I don't think it's Mary, although I wouldn't have predicted the Tulpocalypse either.

  • Sevo||

    jesse.in.mb|3.17.14 @ 11:56PM|#
    "I always assumed svt was somebody else's sock. He or she has been commenting since January,"...

    Somehow, I've missed it, but the 'talking to itself' was *really* weird, as if the commenter forgot to change accounts to preserve the illusion of dialogue.
    And especially when svt told itself it was time to 'slink off'.

  • ||

    I think that was after Mary was pulled out. I think he was just attacking Mary. I did like:

    So very tired|3.15.14 @ 2:30PM

    I'm not a sockpuppet using paranoid loser who has been run off more times than I can think up screennames.
  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    With all the deleted posts it was hard to tell if anyone was talking to themselves or it just seemed that way.

  • Snark Plissken||

    The deleted posts from the morning Brickbat were long SugarFree style stories about Episiarch. To spend so much time writing about her H&R bete noirs when it will be quickly deleted--that woman is quite literally crazy.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Bat-shit fucking crazy. She is quite literally emotionally disturbed.

  • William of Purple||

    YUP

  • Snark Plissken||

    People ought to be aware because the term gets thrown around a lot, but it is quite literally true in this case.

  • Big Chief||

    So would Torcello be in favor of punishing philosophical dissent as well? If what he's saying now doesn't have the consensus of the philosophy community, shouldn't he be subject to his own stupid penalties?

  • Rich||

    With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

    Careful what you ask for, Torcello. There are *lots* of "organised campaigns funding misinformation".

  • chmercier||

    Yeah, it's kind of funny how they never consider that their own weapons may be turned on them...

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Looks like I'm going to be winning Super Castlevania tonight.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    That list alone justifies the existence of Buzzfeed and all those other retarded lists.

  • William of Purple||

    I downloaded Wolfenstein 3d on the PS3 when it first came out.
    Playability beats impressive graphics.

  • ||

    DOOM

  • Ted S.||

    In an earlire age, Torcello would have called for the punishment of drapetomania denialists.

  • Sevo||

    And nobody made any comment about his smug-shot?

  • Big Chief||

    Nice.

  • chmercier||

    Perhaps it's just so expected at this point that it doesn't need to be?

    He's so smug looking I bet he's got a belly full of free-range celery, and he'll want to jail for not having the same diet as him.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    OT: Obamacare Enrollment Surges Past 5 Million

    It's not so much the article as it is this fucking gem in the comment thread:

    Grow up. There's more to humanity than your "freedoms". Jeez you people are egocentric.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

  • Big Chief||

    We hold this truth to be self evident.

  • chmercier||

    ...that we surrender our whole being to our new god, our betters, those in whose faith we deem to make decisions for us, on us, in us.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    I harbor a hatred for these people that I have never felt before, even after fighting in OEF and OIF. It's not because their ideology differs from mine; it is because they are willing to deprive me of basic liberties to score a few "morality" points with the collective.

  • Sevo||

    "The Obama administration said 5 million Americans have now signed up for [his disaster]"
    Note, they have 'signed up', not paid up

    "the Congressional Budget Office had projected 6 million Americans would sign up for health care by the end of March, the deadline for open enrollment."
    Uh, pretty sure the projection was for 6M *paid up*. And see qualifications below.

    "The pace for sign-ups has quickened, but that may not be enough to get to the White House's original target of 7 million."
    I seem to detect a rolling goal post; wasn't Sebilius claiming "success" was 8M *paid up*, and that goal was new insureds, not the ones toss off their earlier policies, nor the medicare members.
    I call bullshit one end to the other.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    While you do indeed make some good points, fuckstick over at NPR will have you know that THERE'S MORE TO HUMANITY THAN YOUR "FREEDOMS". JEEZ YOU PEOPLE ARE EGOCENTRIC. CHILRENZ!!111! FARE SHAREZ!!!11!!!! BOOOOOOSH!!!1!1!eleventy1

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    Also note that Tony's conjoined twin put "freedoms" in quotation marks.

  • John Galt||

    Anyone still believe what they're doing is science?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Never really did. The left latched on to a theory they could use to further their agenda. Anything resembling science was overtaken by politics long, long ago.

  • GroundTruth||

    It was at first. There was much hard work that went in to it, and I recall a keynote speaker at a meeting in ~1990 saying "we do not know the magnitude, but we are now fairly certain that the climate is warming" or words to that effect. This was indeed a significant breakthrough given the uncertainties of the science at the time. Now however, it is all just religion and dogma, and if you don't already have tenure and full funding, you would be very unwise to even suggest that the climate situation is not quite as dire as commonly broadcasted. Very sad to see how many good physical scientists have gotten swept up in this frenzy, and even sadder when otherwise cautious scientists start making economic and social engineering statements outside of their own fields.

  • Tony||

    So the greenhouse effect isn't real, or we aren't burning fossil fuels, or burning fossil fuels doesn't have byproducts, or what, exactly?

  • Whahappan?||

    So the Earth is going to explode from global warming in five years, or what exactly?

  • Tony||

    Global warming effects

    So how about you answer my question now?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That the ECS is about 1.5-2C. That the positive feedback from water vapor is in fact negative. That the models which have been trained during a 15 year upswing of a 30(60) year oscillation run a hot bias as a result.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate.....ATE-201309

    Note that the above is a peer-reviewed (democra-SAY) journal article as opposed to your journalism/others studies double major post. IPCC? Oh, you mean the body that accepts gray literature as part of their WG output --remember the Himalayan glacier scare? oops-- and which lets political operatives write the SPM.

    And all of this will be rebutted by you claiming, "Nuh uh!"

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You people can not even agree on the effects.

    here

    “Obama ostentatiously visited drought-stricken California last Friday. Surprise! He blamed climate change. Here even the New York Times gagged, pointing out that far from being supported by the evidence, ‘the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”
  • John C. Randolph||

    Not since Climategate.

    -jcr

  • chmercier||

    Nope, not since...well, their solutions seemed to be moar taxes!

    Then I researched it.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    This cretan is a ruinous scab on the love of wisdom.

  • William of Purple||

  • C. Anacreon||

    Damn you! I actually read the link, which was bad enough, but then ventured into the comments section. I think I'll need to check into a hospital for treatment of "exhaustion" now.

    I'm still waiting for one of these people who say "income inequality is the defining issue of our time" -- just one -- to say exactly how someone else being rich is any problem for me, or that it makes anyone else poor. They really all think that every dollar a wealthy person makes is taken out of the grubby mitten of a poor person.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They really all think that every dollar a wealthy person makes is taken out of the grubby mitten of a poor person.

    This is it. They don't understand that wealth is made all of the time in various ways and that it isn't a zero sum game.

    I'm more interested in how they explain the idea that companies and individuals exchanging goods and services for a pre-determined amount of money in some way constitutes theft and leaves people poor. How is it that when I pay a tree man to cut down trees (or a massive tree cutting corporation) somehow impoverishes the poor?

  • chmercier||

    Nor do they understand their "solutions" inevitably hurt the people they're trying to "save" - the working class and the poor.

    Don't even have to read the article to know it's the typical "tax the rich" "profit is evul" pablum from Salon.

    They seriously do not understand that taxing everything only takes more money away from the people who need it.

    Or - they don't care, they've got theirs, they're better than the benighted masses, and they hope that their political allegiance will increase their own wealth.

    Oh, yeah. They're progressives. Heh.

  • Sevo||

    does it work on this browser?

  • William of Purple||

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    She posted this 3 days ago, which means that she was accidentally incinerated by a rogue JDAM 3 days ago.

  • Asok Asus||

    If Dr. Larry is going to opine on the philosophy of science, he should at least read the seminal work on that matter, namely “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn.

    BTW, Dr. Larry, they locked up Galileo for denying what the 99% “consensus” of existing “scientists” had to say about the fundamental “settled science” of astronomy, but the earth continued to rotate around the sun anyway.

    BTW, a few of the other scientists who correctly bucked the 99% consensus were, Louis Pasteur, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Alfred Wegener, Antoine Lavoisier, and Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall. Fortunately, Dr. Larry wasn’t in charge of jailing scientific heretics during those times, or otherwise we would be living in a far different and a far poorer world than today.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Real science is falsifiable. Get back to me when the CAGW crowd comes up with their criteria for doing so. Until then, this assistant prof can peddle his religion somewhere else.

  • Tony||

    How is climate change not falsifiable? Demonstrate that the earth isn't warming due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases from human sources. There, it's falsifiable.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    There has been no statistically significant warming in over a decade, Tony. So are you claiming now that it's falsified? Instead every action is explained by global warming. Heating is explained by global warming. Cooling is explained by global warming. Less sea ice is explained by global warming. More sea ice is explained by global warming. That's religion and not science which is why you love it so much, because religion lets you tell others how to live their lives.

    You really are an idiot.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The only discernible pattern I see in Carbontology is the inverse relationship between their models being wrong vis-a-vis the shrillness emanating from their Priests and servile acolytes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The only discernible pattern I see in Carbontology is the inverse relationship between their models being wrong vis-a-vis the shrillness emanating from their Priests and servile acolytes.

    This.

    One can only hope that these shrills are death throes.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I prefer Climastrologists.

  • Sevo||

    are the squirrels back at work?

  • Warrren||

    Yes.

  • Tman||

    GODDAMIT IM TOO DRUNK TO RETYPE A GODDAM POST

  • William of Purple||

    I said Ha-ha.

  • Tman||

    I feel as though I failed my lineage that I am able to type such thoughts this coherently.

    A conundrum, if you will.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The squirrels are Irish and are pissed off at the appropriation of their culture.

    So they are retaliating against Welch and his blog, who's Welsh ancestors abetted English tyranny.

  • Warrren||

    This fellow has a punchable face, not Yglesias level but more than Chait.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Is it a surprise to anyone here they would propose force when their machinations fail?

    Hmmmmmm, where have I seen this before?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I missed doing The Independents assembly music tonight. But I would have gone with this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWGXt979yg

  • William of Purple||

    Once upon a time
    I was falling in love
    But now I'm only falling apart
    There's nothing I can do
    A total eclipse of the heart

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit hype the consensus findings of seismology climate science, and for that reason no preparations were made hundreds of billions of dollars stolen in various tax schemes were transferred to political cronies who seek to sell unsellable shit like uber expensive solar panels, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist warmist campaign were criminally responsible for the drastic economic consequences of that campaign.

    FIFY, shithead.

  • William of Purple||

  • Snark Plissken||

    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.

    Skepticism for me but not for thee.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Wow, he made it all the way from the Philosophy department at Buffalo to an Assistant Professor at Rochester. No doubt he hungers to one day see the bright lights of Syracuse. I wonder if his thesis was on the philosophical ramifications of lake effect snow.

  • chmercier||

    He may or may not shoot for Ithaca some day.

    Perhaps his ultimate ambition is Toronto or Windsor. Canadians are so much smarter and European than the heathen, benighted 'Muricans.

  • chmercier||

    Oh, in New Thinking, I believe skepticism means "believe in whatever if it feels right."

  • Snark Plissken||

    And imprison the unbelievers.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Dogmatism is skepticism.

  • Entropy Void||

    Well, Larry "Torquemada" Torcello can kiss my Climate Change denying ass.
    'Til the cows come home or Hell freezes over,
    which ever comes last.

  • ||

    So how many years in prison does one get for pointing out the earth's atmosphere has not warmed in over 17 years?

  • William of Purple||

    What did the Inquisition do to heretics?

  • Doctor Whom||

    We'll have to do something different. Mustn't release carbon, y'know.

  • William of Purple||

    indeed!

  • William of Purple||

    y i can't post reason

  • William of Purple||

  • montana mike||

    Can we take up a collection, er crowdsource to hire a hit man to rid the earth of this POS.

  • ||

    When the Revolution triumphs, he will be in the first group which is sent to the wall.

  • Tejicano||

    Rather than that I would come up with a symbol for "Progressive" - maybe a hammer and sickle? - and tattoo that on the forehead of every high profile progressive that had been actively campaigning to destroy our liberty. Then they get the choice between firing squad, exile for life, or the tattoo.

  • SugarFree||

    Nah. No one deserves the fate he's advocating for billions of people.

    Look at the pic. He'll be fired soon enough for butt touching some naive undergrad who thinks his glasses and Three Stooges haircut are so dreamy.

  • chmercier||

    Has it struck anyone else that most of these climate change people are really just lifestylists - no meat, no cars, no fun, no mass production, etc.?

  • Acosmist||

    Ooo, an ethics professor! The logic requirement at grad school CAN be rather onerous, huh?

  • RishJoMo||

    Sounds like some pretty serious business.

    www.WorldAnon.tk

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign.

    I'm unable to find any links to this guy's going after the vaccine deniers. He must have called for the criminal prosecution of Jenny McCarthy and her ilk, but I can find that info. Any help?

  • PRX||

    ha. Socrates got what he deserved then.

  • Tony||

    Deniers are not like Galileo, Socrates, or any of the other exemplars of the advancement of thought you guys like to hitch yourselves to without any credible justification. "Prevailing thought was wrong at one time" is not evidence of your correctness about anything. That you go against prevailing thought means you are most likely wrong.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Deniers are not like Galileo, Socrates, or any of the other exemplars of the advancement of thought


    Arguing by relying on name-calling is not an aspect of intelligent discourse, Tony. There is plenty of contrary evidence to suggest that the climate models on which so much of the hysteria relied were completely off the mark. There are plenty of alternative explanations for climatic changes on earth, all perfectly scientific and plausible, with evidence to back them up, be it cosmic rays, albedo changes due to cloud formations, etc. Calling those scientists that forward these theories "deniers" is not conducive to any sort of productive or intelligent discussion; the name-calling only demonstrates the ideological bent of the people that espouse a particular theory, especially "anthropogenic global warming" as it justifies wholesale economic plunder for a few elites.

  • Tony||

    So every time you call me a totalitarian among countless other insults, you're not being serious?

    And you're just plain wrong about the level of uncertainty in this field. You just are, and you need to read reliable sources, which are plentiful, to educate yourself. I can't force you to.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So every time you call me a totalitarian among countless other insults, you're not being serious?


    I'm not calling YOU totalitarian. I argue that your preference is for totalitarianism.

    And you're just plain wrong about the level of uncertainty in this field.


    The "We can't explain the lack of warming" indicates to me that there's plenty of uncertainty. The vague language in the latest IPCC report ("it's very likely") indicates a high level of uncertainty. I can also show you plenty of reliable sources that point to errors in the climate models by which the hysteria is being fueled. I can point to those reports placed an IPCC report that came not from reputable scientific journals but from a student's essay and a popular outdoor sports magazine. There's PLENTY of information to support AND to dispute the theory that manmade global warming is real, Tony. THAT shows a great level of uncertainty, if you understand the meaning of the word.

  • Redmanfms||

    "Prevailing thought was wrong at one time" is not evidence of your correctness about anything.

    You see Tony, you've got this one 180 degrees wrong, unsurprisingly.

    It is AGW advocates who trumpet "consensus" as proof of the validity of the position. Those of us who are arguing that it isn't evidentiary support for AGW aren't claiming it is proof of our correctness.

    There is also the correlation between previous instances of "prevailing thought" in naturalism being an argumentative method and odious totalitarianism from entrenched interests.

  • Tony||

    Why is a near-unanimous consensus of relevant experts not compelling? That's how facts are accepted in any field of science. You want to stack yourself with the revolutionary scientists, but you are actually with the flat-earthers. There are still probably a few of them around. The consensus, though, disagrees with them. Are they automatically right? I don't even know what you're saying. You don't have any evidence on your side. You are barely even making a testable claim. What is it? That the greenhouse effect isn't real?

    You're not right, I'm extremely confident, and as a bonus I can follow the money to see that there's a well-funded propaganda effort out there to confuse people about this very field. Not a coincidence.

  • Tony||

    Why is a near-unanimous consensus of relevant experts not compelling? That's how facts are accepted in any field of science. You want to stack yourself with the revolutionary scientists, but you are actually with the flat-earthers. There are still probably a few of them around. The consensus, though, disagrees with them. Are they automatically right? I don't even know what you're saying. You don't have any evidence on your side. You are barely even making a testable claim. What is it? That the greenhouse effect isn't real?

    You're not right, I'm extremely confident, and as a bonus I can follow the money to see that there's a well-funded propaganda effort out there to confuse people about this very field. Not a coincidence.

  • Tony||

    I was waiting for this. It's just sad that you guys are too fucking stupid to have an interesting conversation about it. How do you talk about the limits of free speech with respect to human safety when all of you are victims of the propaganda effort at issue?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It's just sad that you guys are too fucking stupid to have an interesting conversation about it.


    The conversation requests from leftists sound too much like those "let's have a little chat" from a mob boss.

    How do you talk about the limits of free speech with respect to human safety when all of you are victims of the propaganda effort at issue?


    The idea that speech should be subordinated to some subjective aesthetic consideration reeks of totalitarianism, Tony. Nobody should be surprised, though, as you have shown your predilection for totalitarian thought many, many times.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Finally! The ACTUAL Tony chimes in with his trademark asshattery! Yes, tell us, oh wise one, what victims we are...

  • Tony||

    As a good liberal I must see stupidity as a form of victimhood. Just trying to decide whether it's the most pathetic sort, or the sort least deserving of pity, given that you're not even aware of it.

  • kbolino||

    Who can I sue for imposing this false consciousness on me? Surely there's money to be made from this somehow...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement