Breaking News

Monday, March 30, 2015 - 10:32pm
Neal Barton's POV



POSTED: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 7:52pm

UPDATED: Saturday, April 12, 2014 - 8:01am

I just wish Scott Chesner was here so I could see his head explode.

The Daily Caller reports an assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation.

His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a "campaign funding misinformation." Such a campaign, he argues, "ought to be considered criminally negligent."

Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and "science misinformation" must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times. As such, Torcello wants governments to make "the funding of climate denial" a crime.

Let's see. All the free-thinkers and do-gooders now want no opposition. That man is a college professor.

Don't they foster dialog and open conversation about the world? The answer is yes, as long as it fits into whatever agenda they are in to.

This college needs to take a long look into this guy, but they won't.

That's my point of view, what's yours?

You can email me at or Facebook me at KETK Neal Barton

Comments News Comments

There's a malignant narcissism at the university level. Some professors actually believe their own BS. Search the phrases Paris smog or China smog, there is no doubt man has a detrimental effect on the environment. In the 60's it was duck and cover. In the 70's the experts predicted we'd all be frozen in an ice age. Don't forget Y2K, or the Mayan prophecies. The "experts" have been crying wolf for decades about the looming disaster de jour.

In times of duress the chosen ones have no compunction in whatever actions they feel necessary to fulfill their think tank dreams of a New World Order.

That's the left's way of defending free speech, by denying it to the opposition. They call for the illegalization opposing views and call any opposing views as an attempt to deny them of their free speech.

Excellent post Jp, your comment not only addresses those whom without logic try and defend irrationality, it describes the media's motivations in name calling congress as "do-nothing". Since conservative thought is not reported by media and Conservatives won't adopt the extremist views of the left, they are said to be without voice or, "do-nothing".

“shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. … tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”

So you see, IT WAS ALL FAKE.

Facts are in...

November 17, 2011, Ben Santer and numerous colleagues, including researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), published a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) that..

You describe those legal processes of destroying a nation from within. In ACLU fashion, this class action suit is intended to redefine the usual course of business with the objective goal to render a business unprofitable. This is old hat and nothing more than the same tactics Unions employed to create the "rust-belt".

I wonder how many Idiots like you said the same thing before the Nazi's had them get aboard trains destined to work camps where typhus made it an almost guaranteed death sentence. Free speech doesn't allow for some speech to be drowned out in the roar of a liberal, govt. subsidized institution.

Post new Comment