Bishop Hill The open society and its enemies
Apr 1, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Lawrence Torcello, the academic who called for criminal negligence charges to be levelled at some climate sceptics, has been on the receiving end of some rude emails. One apparently invited him to "die you maggot".
Not nice.
On the other hand, he can hardly have expected those he wanted jailed to send him bouquets can he? Torcello's defence seems to be that he was not calling for sceptic scientists to be jailed but only those who fund them, although the distinction is somewhat unclear in his article. And despite US law contradicting him, he seems to think that funding the causes one believes in doesn't amount to an exercise of free speech rights.
If I understand the Torcello argument correctly, a sceptic scientist is free to state their views, but if you buy them a cup of coffee you are to be flung into the darkest dungeon in town. The open society and its enemies, eh?
In standing up for Torcello's academic freedom and those who "support open and respectful discussion", his employer, the Rochester Institute of Technology, has said that universities should be forums for the discussion of controversial issues. Although presumably nobody on their staff would actually be able to hold dissenting views on climate because then the Institute would be guilty of "criminal negligence" in funding such badness.
Reader Comments (54)
having been at the receiving end of hate, I wonder who hasn't, and if any email threat can be seen as representative of anything apart from the fact that Torcello has an email account
As for his brain being able to function, there is little evidence for that.
What about the Greenies who funded getting DDT banned causing the deaths of millions from malaria!
We know (and did then) that DDT was not the dangerous pesticide that they claimed!
Academic freedom - freedom to attack anyone's beliefs that you do not like with impunity!
"Although presumably nobody on their staff would actually be able to hold dissenting views on climate because then the Institute would be guilty of "criminal negligence" in funding such badness."
Well quite. That is really all that needs to be pointed out to expose the idiocy of the Maggorcello.
This is one of those bizarre manifestations of what I would call the "Academic Cake Walk".
Try not to look at them. It only encourages them.
I've had AGW True Believers attack me through cartoons and Extremely ugly fake 'interviews.' If he can't handle 'die maggot,' than perhaps he should crawl back under his rock?
Or is that an insult to creatures which live under rocks....
It you are outside of the 'group' rules don't count..
I'm still shocked that a VC of a major university was dumb enough to write this down...
(echoes of Jones to Warwick Hughs)
From: Paul Johnson
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 8:08 AM
To: Barry Woods
Cc: Murray Maybery ; Kimberley Heitman
Subject: request for access to data
Mr B. Woods
Dear Mr Woods,
I refer to your emails of the 11th and 25th March directed to Professor Maybery, which repeat a request you made by email dated the 5th September 2013 to Professor Lewandowsky (copied to numerous recipients) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data for the purpose of submitting a comment to the Journal of Psychological Science.
It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
I have never interacted with Torcello. What struck me when I read his comments was the total intolerance and certainty it represented. This is what I experience on many blogs and across the internet - though less frequently face to face. It goes without saying that total certainty is at odds with an open mind and total intolerance an open society. It is frequently the hallmark of utopian thinking - both on the left and the right. With such a mindset, how could Torcello possibly conduct a meaningful class discussion? What would be the fate of a student who held a contrary viewpoint?
The goading, stick-poking first article, followed by the feigned shock that people don't like being told they are all criminals in the second article, is Lewandowskyesque.
I've always admired the logic of narcissistic psychopaths, I wish I could speak like them.
But no, I'm too feeble.
This kind of abuse is all too common from the self-appointed saviors...
"Their entire mantra is that scientists don't understand science, but that non-scientists, wackadoodles, and fossil fuel lobbyists do understand science. That being able to "think for themselves" and create their own surreality is all that is needed to understand better something better than the people who actually study it...Meanwhile, the planet is warming and we are the main cause. Honest people are taking responsibility and working to find solutions. Luckily for the buffoons, actions by responsible people will end up protecting everyone, even those who deny reality."
This was too funny!
Lewandowsky Safety Update | Climate Nuremberg
Posted by Brad Keyes on March 31, 2014
Ten days ago, UWA Professor Carmen Lawrence confirmed the fears of many in the climate community: psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky was still being hounded. He’d relocated his family from Australia to England; he’d agreed to take down a paper that characterised his critics as paranoid conspiracists, although he knew it was true; but they weren’t giving up.
The situation hasn’t got any better, according to an email I received today. Steve “is still being pursued by climate deniers.”
He hasn’t been able to get a good look at his pursuers, who switch cars every day.
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/03/31/lewandowsky-safety-update/
"Torcello's defence seems to be that he was not calling for sceptic scientists to be jailed but only those who fund them..."
So, if government funds scientists whose research leads to 'sceptical' conclusions, and taxpayers fund governments, then taxpayers should be jailed?
A test a person's commitment to the principle of freedom of speech, is their support for clear unambiguous standards, applicable to all. A test a person's commitment to freedom of speech in a practical level is their defence of those who opinions who they passionately disagree with, and/or threaten their beliefs.
|
Yours faithfully?
Vice Chancellors are not what they used to be.
"Meanwhile, the planet is warming and we are the main cause. "
The planet hasn't warmed since 1998. The rate of warming goes up and down but that rate hasn't increased since pre industrial times. These are just simple observations of reality which directly contradict that statement.
The distinction always is unclear in the original article. When Anthony Watts and others rightly lead a fightback it slyly emerges. As if it matters. To imprison those that provide funding will quickly lead to all of us being in the same Gulag. Didn't I buy Omnologos a beer at the recent London pub meet in honour of Donna Laframboise? Actually I'm not sure I did - I just remember being at the bar together and Maurizio saying I didn't look at all like he imagined! But you get the point. Hit the tip-jar on CA, BH or WUWT or simply give a cup of cold water to one of your needy brethren and it's the clink for you too.
From the Conversation:
"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."
Andrew - better get a good lawyer!
E
I have to admit it is hard to feel sorry for Torcello. Having read the reaction to the IPCC Working Group Report yesterday, some of the comments read:
Turn deniers in to soylent green.
Sterilise the lot of them.
Forced re-education is the only way forward
Nuke them
etc etc etc
Whilst the people who sent e-mails to Torcello are beyond contempt, I find it very hard to feel any sympathy for him.
Scientific certainty inhabits scientists the farthest away they talk from their scientific expertise.
It's as if some are enamoured of science and believe it all, apart from their own field where they know how the sausage is made and that makes them wiser and more cautious.
I had once a surreal Twitter exchange with a well known and intelligent astronomer who refused to entertain any doubt about CAGW even when Tamsin (!) explained otherwise.
Those are the Soldiers of Science, purveyors of obscurantist antiscience apart from their own specific field.
Some great writing on the Climate Nuremberg website - have a look around at the recent posts.
Love this bit:
h/t Paul in sweden
Honestly, what's your problem? He hates people who deserve to be hated. You disguise your hatred with a subterfuge of sounding reasonable.
It's OK to hate the haters.
Er - the people who 'fund' sceptics..?
I'm still waiting..... hoping.....
Die is a bit harsh, but I'll go along with maggot.
Climate Nuremberg is wonderful. Almost as good as the late lamented ICE Age Now, or Minnesotans for Global Warming with that great theme song!
Nothing will really ever equal IceAgeNow. That was a tour de force of the highest order. You kept reading it wondering whether the guy was the most brilliant of satirists or sincere and completely insane, and he balanced on the edge so neatly that you were always kept wondering. And laughing hysterically.
Torcello is just another blowhard fascist wannabe hiding behind the Academy, like a bully boy hiding behind his mommy's skirts when someone finally stands up to him.
"the late lamented ICE Age Now"?
Has it gone? Or is it this one?
http://iceagenow.info
It seems to have metamorphosed into a blog. The old site was wonderful. It predicted that what happened to the mammoths would happen to us - 20 feet or so of snow in a day, and we would all be buried.
And every time there was a cold snap or a glacier got a bit bigger, there it was, a huge headline. Someone slipped on some ice in Norway and sprained an ankle, there it was: global cooling in action. And it said global warming, what there was, was caused by undersea volcanoes. Wonderful stuff.
It would appear that the main supporters, purveyors, and perchance Inquisitors, of AGW are those with "psych" in their qualifications, and who have no hard science qualifications.
Any that do not agree with them are likened to those responsible for the death camps in Nazi Germany. They call for the incarceration, forced re-education (aka "brainwashing") and execution (in some cases) of those who are not susceptible to their "truth" (religion).
This strikes me as a repeat of history (many have probably come to this conclusion already) with the incarceration, execution and re-education of those deemed opponents of the regime in Russia (under Stalin), China (under Mao Tse tung) and Cambodia (under Pol Pot).
Their interest is not in truth, rather it is control.
Lawrence Torcello (The Conversation, 13th March, 2014):
That’s exactly what Chicken Little did; isn’t there a moral in that story?Does this guy keep up to date with the “science” or not?Hmmm… back to Chicken Little (a story I cared little for, when I first read it, aged about 7); so, who is running around, screaming, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”?Now we have the measure of the man, I suggest that we can quite safely ignore him.
As an aside, I do notice that he has – perhaps quite deliberately – avoided saying that sceptics be imprisoned (which trap Delingpole dutifully fell into), but, once proven to be “criminally negligent” in their scepticism, what punishment does he think would be most befitting? A few dozen lines, perhaps?
They're terrified.
They know what's coming, an awful lot of people have got mums, grannies or kids etc who are, or who will be, or who have been, affected by their murderous policies, and the breaking point is near.
<sarc> Hang on, different cars follow me everyday.....aaaaaarrgghhh! </sarc>
Torcello seeks to get out from under
What Torcello's personal beliefs are isn't of any real concern to me but his advocacy of the standard "Mannian" position crosses the bounds between commenting as a qualified practitioner of a specialty about things he has professional cogniscance of and expounding a belief system based on faith, using his exalted academic status as a prop...
It rather looks as if the institution where he's employed (at public expense I assume) have told him to button his lip and not let this get out of hand.
As Eugene Conlin says, it's not truth, but control is what these goons want - and this is just another demo of that.
Where's Natalie Bennett when you need her eh?
Problems are however, opportunities in disguise
"but, once proven to be “criminally negligent” in their scepticism, what punishment does he think would be most befitting? A few dozen lines, perhaps?" Apr 1, 2014 at 3:20 PM Radical Rodent
As the joke goes -
PRISONER 1
How long did you get?
PRISONER 2
Five days
PRISONER 1
Five days? That's not so bad.
PRISONER 2
Yeah but they're hanging me Monday.
"<I>This strikes me as a repeat of history</I>"
But this time it's different. It's such a serious problem we can't play by the normal rules. We're putting the whole world at risk if we do.
At least, that's always the argument when someone wants to take away someone else's right to speak. And their freedom. Because, always, "this time it's different". And who determines that it's different this time? Why, they do, of course. Because they're superomniscient and know these things. The arrogance, especially looking at the result of this same attitude throughout history, is breathtaking. You'd think college educated people would be more intelligent and wiser, but as is proven every day, you'd be wrong.
The US taxpayers fund Roy Spencer, John Christy, etc. That's a lot of criminal activity.
My University supports my academic freedom by muzzling me. Gawd, aren't they the best?
===================
I have several times run across the arrogance that seems to come with the PhD award. And the ignorance, also.
An example. Years ago, the VP in charge of a very large development program brought me a memo written by one of his PhDs. The memo examined a proposal for a new device, and concluded that it simply could not work due to the laws of physics. He then added that he recommended hiring the proponent to look into developing the device. Good science, lousy business judgment.
Ooh, 'ello!
What have we woken?
Go back to sleep, dearie, this is too grown-up for you.
Given the amount of funding received by "skeptic scientists", isn't "those who fund them" about equal to the empty set?
w.
Why aren't we talking about jailing the people responsible for pensioners dying in the winter from fuel poverty?
Why aren't we talking about jailing the people responsible for disfiguring our landscapes with wind turbines and their associated pylons?
Why aren't we talking about jailing the people responsible for the waste of billions of pounds of taxpayers money on policies inspired by computer models that have repeatedly proved of little use in predicting changes in global temperatures and utterly useless in forecasting the weather more than a couple of weeks ahead?
Why aren't we talking about jailing "climate scientists" who refuse to provide the data and algorithms on which their papers are based for analysis by others?
Why aren't we talking about jailing those BBC bosses who knowing conspire to ensure that the BBC's coverage of climate change is biased despite its charter requiring it to be impartial?
In my comment about 15 minutes ago I should have included one more question:
Why aren't we talking about jailing those leading Green campaigners who deliberately tell lies about "the controversial process known as tracking?"
Anybody hear any April Fools Day Climate Change Stories today.
All of those that propagate the idea that free speech, or the laws allowing the liberty of people to express themselves must be restricted should have their pathetic little lives terminated.
I think that liberty must be fought for, and all those against it must die.
Doublethink rules!
The likelihood that the "rude emails" are fabricated is very high. I would check the IP for Lew's.
Brute: Gleick would be another faker to check. But with examples of bad behaviour rewarded like that, it could be anyone wanting to squirm their way up the greasy pole that is CAGW dirty tricks.
I wonder what we do with people that alter historic data?
"Anybody hear any April Fools Day Climate Change Stories today.
Apr 1, 2014 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid"
Yeah, it came out early it was called AR5. I haven't gotten to the part about zombies & werewolves but it has been a hoot so far...
Cheap LeBron 11
LeBron 11 Shoes
Nike Free Run 3
Nike Free 4.0 v2
Air Max 2013
cheap air max 2014
The distinction Torcello makes between saying unpopular words and materially supporting those who do is essentially saying freedom of speech is only allowed when nobody is listening.
Torcello has apparently never read or understood the 1st amendment in its entirety:
People tend to forget the last two activities which the Congress may not abridge: "peaceably to assemble", and "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
In other words, you not only can say what you like, but you can gather together with as many people as will listen to you and speak your opinions. And you can work in concert with others to attempt by any lawful means to change the laws, government policy, and the government itself.
It is completely vitiates these rights, and indeed any rights, to say that while the activities are protected, providing material means to engage in them is not. Speech is free but printing presses cost money.
Torcello is arguing a meaningless distinction, rather than admit that he and his buddies just want to be able to brand someone saying the "wrong" things as an "enemy of the people".
Free speech has been endemic in Britain for centuries, in fact freedom has existed here for so long it has become, as T.E. Lawrence said, “…like water to our tastes…” (The Seven Pillars of Wisdom) Only when it has gone, and it is too late, will we realise how sweet it truly is.
I trust the Bishop is deeply shocked by those who lawyered up to force the redaction of “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”
One reviewer adresses the retraction thus :
"Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence. Satisfied that the paper was a solid work of scholarship that could advance our understanding of science denial and improve the effectiveness of science communication, I recommended publication. Two other independent reviewers agreed.
. . . the lawyer raised concerns about two sentences in the paper that had been the subject of threats of litigation. By the end of the 20-minute conference call, we had all agreed that, if the authors made minor modifications to these sentences, the content would remain intact and the paper could be re-published without fear of successful legal action.
Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed."