Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,”

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Oregon itself is a re-education farm.
Just send the denialists to a state that,
last I was there, doesn't even trust you
to pump your own gas.

There is no depth to which a tyrannical government will not descend.

Where will the reeducation camps be?

Where will the reeducation camps be?

Look upthread.

Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor

Comparing skepticism of man-made global warming to racist beliefs, an Oregon-based professor of sociology and environmental studies has labeled doubts about anthropogenic climate change a “sickness” for which individuals need to be “treated”.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing at the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argues that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

To which soviets does she belong?

Dumb.

Being wrong or even being ignorant or even being just pig-headed isn't a sickness.

Absolutely asinine.

She's not alone.

http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news- ... ge-respons

Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good.

So the crazy tart admits she knows nothing of the subject and is totally incapable of judging the science, the hype, the politics, or reason for the ongoing media circus ...
so why isn't she off baking cookies in a back room somewhere?

Alex Jones? Infowars? I smell quote mining.

Kari Norgaard

Associate Professor


Over the past ten years I have published and taught in the areas of environmental sociology, gender and environment, race and environment, climate change, sociology of culture, social movements and sociology of emotions. I currently have two active areas of research 1) work on the social organization of denial (especially regarding climate change), and 2) environmental justice work with Native American Tribes on the Klamath River. Both these areas of scholarship have been nationally recognized through the award of research grants, speaking invitations, and coverage of my research by high profile media outlets including the Washington Post, National Geographic, British Broadcasting System, and National Public Radio. My book Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions and Everyday Life is just out with MIT Press in the Spring of 2011

 

Research Interests

tribal environmental health
race and environment
gender and environment
climate change denial
emotions and social movements
       
Teaching Areas

environmental sociology
environmental justice
climate change

http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/norgaard.php

Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good.

So the crazy tart admits she knows nothing of the subject and is totally incapable of judging the science, the hype, the politics, or reason for the ongoing media circus ...
so why isn't she off baking cookies in a back room somewhere?

Where did she admit that? Provide an exact quote from her.

Kari-ard.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good.

So the crazy tart admits she knows nothing of the subject and is totally incapable of judging the science, the hype, the politics, or reason for the ongoing media circus ...
so why isn't she off baking cookies in a back room somewhere?

Where did she admit that? Provide an exact quote from her.

The paper DOES appear to be pretty useless, though.

Professor Norgaard considers that fuzzy-studies academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists who know some maths in an effort to change society and individuals for their own good.

So the crazy tart admits she knows nothing of the subject and is totally incapable of judging the science, the hype, the politics, or reason for the ongoing media circus ...
so why isn't she off baking cookies in a back room somewhere?

Where did she admit that? Provide an exact quote from her.

The paper DOES appear to be pretty useless, though.

Well yeah, it looks like a big pile of dung. I said so up-thread,
viewtopic.php?p=911629#p911629
I was just wondering where she admitted she knew nothing of the subject and is totally incapable of judging the science. I missed that part.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.

Skepticism isn't necessarily anti-science. Even being wrong isn't anti-science. For that matter religious faith isn't anti-science.

Science is a methodology, but it doesn't apply to all aspects of life -- especially value questions. And logically the existance of a super-natural entity would by definition act outside the laws of science/causality.

As an atheist I could say that anyone who isn't an atheist is anti-science. I think most people would rightly regard that as a load of hooey. I couldn't even say it with a straight face.

A such the label is little more than an insult term with little other significance.

The article is written by a climate change denier. So I am sceptical of what he says about opponents. Not that he is likely to be lying but his interpretation of what was said could be distorted by his ideological filters.

But of course some climate change activists are silly and are supporting action primarily because of their prejudices.

The article is written by a climate change denier. So I am sceptical of what he says about opponents. Not that he is likely to be lying but his interpretation of what was said could be distorted by his ideological filters.

But of course some climate change activists are silly and are supporting action primarily because of their prejudices.

Yeah, looking at the actual piece from the University of Oregon, and the abstract to her paper, it's clear that The Prison Planet really distorted what was being said. She never labelled non-acceptance of AGW as a mental illness needing "pharmacological or psychological treatment", as PP claimed. She was talking about dealing with the cultural and social inertia that can prevent people from accepting the science and taking action.
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news- ... ge-respons

I don't have to accept everything she said (I am highly dubious of most of what passes for sociology) in order to know that PP twisted her position. They've turned lying into an art form.

Kari Norgaard

Associate Professor


...

Research Interests

tribal environmental health
race and environment
gender and environment
climate change denial
emotions and social movements
       
Teaching Areas

environmental sociology
environmental justice
climate change

http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/norgaard.php

Useless as tits on a boar. Academic welfare queen. I have more respect for the kids who work up the street at Sonic.

greenpissing is a sickness, I'm unsure about how treatable.

greenpissing is a sickness, I'm unsure about how treatable.

Professor Ron White has the answer to that question.

Science is a methodology, but it doesn't apply to all aspects of life -- especially value questions. And logically the existance of a super-natural entity would by definition act outside the laws of science/causality.

I think it does apply to all aspects of life - as mere humans, we just don't have the ability or data to do so. Other methods must suffice there for now.

...
so why isn't she off baking cookies in a back room somewhere?

It's possible that's where she was...you can get some serious cookies in, say, Cave City or thereabouts...