Climate change prof wants to put me in jail

As I’ve said before, I’ll believe in global warming — now going under the euphemism “climate change” — when ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Secretary of State John Kerry give up their lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous. That mean Arnold dumping up his Mercedes and Bentley gas-guzzlers and his Pacific Palisades Compound for a 600-square-foot apartment. And it means Kerry giveing up his five homes for a single room at the Watergate Hotel.

But my position on the issue means Lawrence Torcello, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, whats to put me in jail. His article is titled, “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” He answers in the affirmative, writing:

“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.”

Thank God for the First Amendment! Or the Prof. Dr. would throw me in the klink right now. The First Amendment beautifully reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

‘Climate change’/global warming

In California, this has special application because of our AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which the state continues rigorously to enforce. AB 32 was imposed by Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature just before “global warming” became “climate change” in the parlance of its partisans.

Indeed, in his article, the Prof. Dr. does not refer to “global warming,” instead using “climate change,” which as I have demonstrated is a meaningless tautology.

However, his biography on the same site as his article still uses “global warming”:

“My research interests include ethical theory, and applied ethics, social and political philosophy, and scientific skepticism. Current projects investigate the practical consequences and ethical responsibilities implicit to democratic citizenship in morally pluralistic societies, particularly in the domains of medicine and education, the environment and animal welfare, public policy and political discourse. My recent work pursues the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.”

Apparently he or the webmasters neglected to jam “global warming” down Orwell’s Memory Hole.

Like Trofim Lysenko in the old Soviet Union, Torcello seeks to shut down scientific controversy, debate and discovery by jailing those with opposing views. For now, skeptics are protected by the First Amendment. But who knows, perhaps his demand “for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly” will be accomplished, the First Amendment shredded and people like me thrown into prison.

To get prepared, I’m dusting off my old Solzhenitsyn books on “The Gulag Archipelago.”