If you are an individual who doesn't accept all the scientific information that supports global warming, now dubbed "climate change" by its proponents, assistant philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello of Rochester Institute of Technology believes that you should be sent to jail, according to his essay, "Is Misinformation about the Climate Criminally Negligent" and reported by the Daily Caller.

In his essay, Torcello expresses his belief that the majority of the public remains in denial about global warming because of "an organized campaign funding misinformation" despite a "set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on." His solution is to make those scientists who have data in opposition to global warming and those skeptics who speak out against global warming be considered criminally negligent. The basis for his opinion relies on the 2009 L'Aquila Italy earthquake that killed more than 300 people with almost 66,000 left homeless.

L'Aquila had experienced an episode of ongoing tremors. Scientists there did not rule out the possibility of a devastating earthquake; however, when the local defense minister communicated there was no danger in a press conference, the scientists involved made no attempt to correct him. Subsequently, the local defense minister and six Italian scientists were sentenced to six years in prison.

Torcello's underlying argument stems from the moral and ethical obligation scientists have to communicate clear, accurate information regarding their data and findings to the public "when such findings are relevant to public policy" and to correct any public misinformation. He ascertains that criminal negligence should be considered when scientific communication is "intentionally undermined for political and financial gain."

Doesn't that work both ways? Wouldn't those who have manipulated data to support climate change in order to advance a political agenda rooted in further financial gain be guilty of criminal negligence since the communication is "intentionally undermined?" And, by following Torcello's own conclusions, would not scientists who have data in opposition to global warming be exercising their moral and ethical obligation to communicate their research findings since their findings are "relevant to public policy?"

Interestingly enough, Torcello sites NASA data supporting global warming and data provided by the World Health Organization claiming more deaths can be attributed to global warming (climate change) than the L'Aquila earthquake. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that NASA is a US government run agency and the World Health Organization falls under the United Nations. Their findings should be considered anything other than "unbiased." But, Torcello accepts these findings as "exact fact" stating the denial of global warming is "a serious deterrent against meaningful political action in the very countries most responsible for the crisis." In other words, it's a "we talk, you listen, then make policy based on what we think" type stance. One can assume he means America when citing "the very countries most responsible for this crisis" even though none are mentioned.

Torcello doesn't want to be misunderstood in his zeal to criminalize those opposing the global warming agenda. He claims that poor scientific communication should not be criminalized as that would discourage scientists from engaging in public debate. Rather, charges of criminal and moral negligence should apply to those deniers of global warming when the activities of these deniers receive funding to undermine the "public's understanding of scientific consensus." Of course, Torcello makes sure to defend his argument that some might bring up about an infringement of free speech.

According to Torcello, "We must make the critical distinction between the projected voicing of one's unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organized 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."

This is a good example of someone who refuses to look at all the information in order to draw their own conclusion. Each and every point that Torcello brings up can be turned around to apply to those advocates of global warming, who receive funding to push that agenda down the throats of individuals who soak up every ruse perpetrated by governments and the UN and to try to silence those who refute their stance. Discussing his stance on free speech is moot as anyone can deduce suppression of opposing views regardless of funding sources is a violation of free speech – political party campaigns anyone. One can conclude Torcello's position is at best a straw man argument.

Global warming has been identified by this administration as the "Big Bad Wolf" or the "Boogeyman." It is so dire that something must be done now or we will all perish. Interesting that the something to be done involves more taxes based on a carbon footprint, destruction of jobs by declaring a war on the dreaded fossil fuel such as coal, increasing the cost of power by mandating unproven carbon capture technology, and throwing money toward unproven "green" energy sources through financing these companies that eventually go bankrupt.

Yeah, I can see how paying money to occupy space on this earth is going to stem the tide of global warming. Not only would we be paying for ourselves, but our minor children, pets, livestock and any creature daring to reside on our property – it would never end. Now, someone needs to tell China and Russia to cough up the green. Good luck with that.

How is increasing money paid to the government going to save us all from the terror that is "global warming?" Since no country exists in a bubble, how is America going to save the world from the Boogeyman when China exceeds the US in greenhouse gas emissions? What about the scientific evidence negating the global warming agenda? After all, it has been reported that the computer models being used by those scientists in support of global warming have not been able to account for all the variables thereby making their data inaccurate. Public policy made in light of inaccurate information reported by the government scientific community and funded by the government through taxpayer funds, without considering opposing scientific information, constitutes what Torcello would classify as "criminal and moral negligence." But, those like Torcello cannot see their argument turned in the reverse. So, the global warming debate continues.

While the fierce debate over global warming has taken this government by storm, the nuclear disaster that occurred three years ago in Fukushima continues to spiral out of control. Nothing is mentioned about the effect Fukushima could have on the world or is having on the world. Funny, it seems that disaster has a bigger potential to wipe out life on earth than the threat that is global warming. The powers that be and the media are eerily silent on that particular "global" issue.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.