Sunday, April 1, 2012

Climate Denial a Sickness According to Oregon Professor

Sociology and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard wrote a paper criticising non-believers, suggesting that doubters need to be [sic] have a ‘sickness’.

The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour.

Resolving skepticism about climate change alarmists, she added, is a challenge equitable [sic] to overcoming ‘racism or slavery in the U.S. South’.

In the last 30 years, Norgaard said, climate change has been seen as either a hoax or fixable with minimal political or economic intervention.

‘This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat’, she said.
Sort of like in the Soviet Union that if you didn't support communism, you must be mentally ill. There is a certain irony here, as well, considering that racism was largely justified by "science."

Dr. Norgaard seems willing to engage in a climate inquisition for her faith. But while Dr. Norgaard may be willing to place unquestioning faith in the words of someone with the "right" credentials and holding the "right" position, a lot of people no longer have blind faith in academia, and for good reasons:

1. Hypocrisy. The key supporters of the global warming hypothesis are hypocrites, demanding austerity from the masses, while still living in their huge mansions, maintaining fleets of gas-guzzling cars, flying around in private jets, and attending climate conferences in exotic locales which conferences have greater carbon footprints than a small country.

2. It looks like a scam. Green energy companies receiving subsidized government loans, then going bankrupt leaving taxpayers holding the bag; carbon trading markets that make millions for key global warming supporters; another excuse for higher taxes (a larger bureaucracies) in the West, and subsidies to the the Third World.

3. Dishonest Science. If the science was so settled, the evidence so overwhelming, why the suppression of dissent in scientific journals, the faking of data to support a continued increase in temperatures (the famous hockey stick graph) and melting of glaciers, the selective use of data from some climate measuring stations but not others, "tweeking" data to make it fit the hypothesis, the failure to release raw data to other scientists or the public, the absurd (and disproven) attempts to show that there was no Medieval Warming Period or that it was limited only to Europe?

4. Refusal to Consider Other Factors. Not even a very big one sitting about 93 million miles away, or that the largest constituent green house gas is water vapor, or that the increase is a part of natural cycles of climate change.

5. Treating Dissenters Like Heretics. The resort to ad hominem attacks and dissenting opinions being characterized as a sickness make global warming seem more like a fanatical cult than science.

Maybe it is Dr. Norgaard who needs to be questioning her faith.

No comments:

Post a Comment