What Should We Do With Climate Change Deniers? Professor Says ‘Lock Them Up!’

In an essay entitled Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?, Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello argues that not only should climate change deniers be silenced, they should be, wait for it – imprisoned. Calling their condition “global warming denialism,” Torcello maintains that these people are guilty of being “criminally and morally negligent.”

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.

Torcello seems to forget that what is under discussion is the theory of climate change. An idea. The debate is not yet over, as some politicians continue to insist. No one can equate seismology – the study of earthquakes – to climate change. The debate is over – earthquakes exist.

They’re no longer saying, “We are right, just ignore the other side.” They are demanding that the other side be imprisoned. That’s a huge leap. Alien and Sedition Act, anyone?

And on that tricky little snag of free speech? Torcello has an interesting, if condescending view on that one.

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.

Villifying climate change deniers in the way that the Left continues to do is straight out of Rules for Radicals: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Torcello’s end goal is not really to imprison the opposition, but to completely and utterly polarize it. He hopes that dismissing the opposition’s arguments as “criminal” will drive the American public to the other side. Unfortunately for him, Americans are much smarter than he thinks.

Πηγή :  ijreview.com