Lawrence Torcello: Is this academic polluting philosophy, ethics, and your freedom of speech?
I was taken aback when Lawrence Torcello, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, suggested that perhaps we should criminalize those organized activities that do not comport with our current understanding of science. A concept that deeply offended me as it violates the philosophical tenet of free and open discussion; and the right to dissent from consensus viewpoints. My blog post, Lawrence Torcello: A demonstration of academic ignorance and malfeasance on behalf of global warming?, was forwarded to both the professor and the administration of his institution. I have yet to receive a reply.
Basically, what the professor wrote …
“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.”
“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.”
“My argument probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. 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. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.”
“What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.”
Read the entire article in context at: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
It appears that Professor Torcello is attempting to subvert the free and open discussion of global climate change, but criminalizing those organizations who have made a concerted effort to present facts to the public that run counter to the consensus opinion of the governing regime and their advocates and activists. Much in the same manner we see the Internal Revenue Service being politicized and used by the current Administration to curtail the funding of organized outreach activities that educate the public on a contrarian viewpoint. Without, I may add, impacting the public employee unions who promulgate the very same information political information on behalf of the administration without restriction.
I certainly would not deny Professor Torcello his right to put forth his viewpoint, just as I would not interfere with the public process of highlighting the errors of his assertions on global climate change and the ethics and morality of his position.
Turnabout is fair play and anyone can ask thought-provoking questions …
What are we to make of those behind the well documented government funding of global warming in order to bring about corrupt public policies denial that benefit the politicians and their special interest contributors, while simultaneously bleeding the consumer/taxpayers of the fruits of their labor and reducing their liberty and freedom of choice?
In addition, what are we to make of the incestuous government funding of educational institutions and academic activities to the point that incentivizes research, publications, and public pronouncements that appear to disregard science, both mainstream and contrarian, in order to bring about a political solution to a non-existent problem? Making a mockery of academic freedoms, intellectual honesty, and most of all, personal integrity?
Do I stand alone in my opinion of Professor Torcello’s disregard for academic freedom and intellectual honesty?
It appears that the esteemed Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a well-credentialed global climate change science expert has also taken the time to comment on Professor Torcello’s position. In a letter to the The Provost and Senior Vice-President for Academic Affairs of the Rochester Institute of Technology, Lord Monckton, writes:
“Mr Torcello offends against the requirement of accuracy stated in the principles of academic freedom in that his posting falsely said “the majority of scientists clearly agree on a set of facts” about “global warming” on which they do not in fact agree. Mr Torcello links his cited statement to a reference to three papers each claiming a “97% consensus” to the effect that most of the global warming observed since 1950 was manmade. However, as Legates et al. (2013) have demonstrated, a review of 11,944 papers on climate published in the 21 years 1991-2011, the largest such review ever published in the scientific literature, had marked only 64 papers, or 0.5% of the sample, as explicitly endorsing that proposition. Though it may well be that 100% of scientists publishing in relevant fields accept that – all other things being equal – our returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it once came will be likely to cause some global warming (though the record amounts of CO2 we have emitted recently have not caused any warming at all for up to 17 years 6 months[3]), legitimate scientific doubt remains about the quantum of future global warming that may be expected, with an increasing body of peer-reviewed papers moving towards a climate sensitivity of only 1-2 Celsius degrees per CO2 doubling, and the IPCC itself drastically reducing its predictions of global warming over the next 30 years.”
“Mr. Torcello offends not only against the Institute’s requirement to treat every person with dignity, including those persons with whose views he disagrees, but also against the Constitution’s assertion of the right of free speech, which includes the right to fund those who wish to exercise it in opposition to what he falsely regards as the prevailing scientific opinion, when he says: “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 all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus” – a “consensus” which, as the three papers on the subject that Mr Torcello has linked to his posting define it, does not in fact exist.”
“Mr Torcello shows no respect for Constitutional freedom of speech, or for the principles of academic freedom for those with whom he disagrees, when falsely alleges that all who fund those who dare to question what we are (inaccurately) told is the “consensus” position on global warming are “corrupt”, “deceitful”, and “criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life”.
To read Monckton’s letter in full context: Monckton’s letter to the Rochester Institute of Technology regarding Assistant Professor Lawrence Torcello
And, it appears that my disgust with Professor Torcello is also mirrored in the comments that I am receiving that reference my post … [My additions in blue italic]
[Posted with Permission]
From: Frank Shelp
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 6:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: TorcelloI applaud your response to Torcello but I think the details and arguments you put forth, though worthy, give Torcello more regard than he is due.
I would rather compare Torcello to Torquemada. Regardless of the subject, Torcello demonstrates much more than sheer ignorance and stupidity. He demonstrates the fundamental intolerance of many on the political Left who like the Grand Inquisitors of the Inquisition, cloaked themselves in academic robes and defended a flat earth with Auto de Fe [Ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates]. I wish that Torcello was only an idiot. But I fear he is much worse. He is a zealot of the modern secular Sancta Sedes [The Holy See ]. It is not science that he fails to understand. It is philosophy and his own moral arrogance.
Frank E. Shelp, M.D., M.P.H.
[About Dr. Shelp: Psychiatrist, public administrator, and mental health policy expert, Dr. Frank Shelp most recently served as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD). Through August of 2012, Dr. Frank Shelp, the first commissioner of this new department, helped bring a more comprehensive level of care to the state. Dr. Shelp is a member of the American College of Psychiatrists and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. <Source>]
In this well-reasoned, well-written comment, Dr. Shelp refers to my original post when I pointed out that Galileo was persecuted by his scientific peers and prosecuted by the church for his heretical thoughts that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Something we know now to be true.
Science is not performed by consensus, and what is generally believed today might not be accepted in the future, given an advanced understanding of the physical phenomena under study. We now know that the Sun does not rotate around the Earth and the Earth is not flat; consensus viewpoints in an age when you could be charged with heresy and put to death.
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.
Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point. He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. <Source>
Bottom line …
There are a number of us, scientists, educators, researchers, and ordinary citizens that abhor any person who would deny the free and unimpeded flow of information; scientific, political, or otherwise, based on the prevailing consensus opinion of scientists, politicians, the current political regime or others.
Those who stifle free and open conversation appear to be afraid that their facts and presentation is not enough to convince a majority of voters to allow them to create and implement self-serving public policies that run counter to our God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.
I thank Viscount Christopher Monckton and Dr. Frank Shelp for standing up to the soft tyranny of a radical political faction that brooks no discussion of their facts, intentions, or misstatements.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS