The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism ~ professor Kari Norgaard - Neo-Stalinism

Guest Post: The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau.../picture-5.jpg
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/06/2012 13:36 -0400

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism

http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.c...x306.jpg?w=600

From the Daily Mail:

An Oregon University professor has controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism.

Sociology and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard wrote a paper criticising non-believers, suggesting that doubters 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.

Really? Doubters have an illness? Isn’t pathologising dissidents a hallmark of authoritarianism? Weren’t dissidents under the Soviet Union often sent to psychiatric hospitals to be “treated” for their behaviour? Hasn’t Norgaard read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago?

And really “doubters” could mean a lot of things. Does it solely mean those who believe climate change is not happening? What about climate agnostics? Does it mean those who believe that climate change is happening but that it is not man-made? Does it mean those who believe that it is happening, but who disagree with Norgaard’s proposed solutions?:

Norgaard last week attended the annual four-day ‘Planet Under Pressure’ international conference in London, where she presented her controversial paper to delegates on Wednesday.

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.

And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

And does it include those (including me) who believe that man-made climate change is happening — and has been happening for thousands of years — but that it seems to broadly be a good thing?

From the BBC:

Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.

The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.

Researchers used data on the Earth’s orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.

In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years – but emissions have been so high that it will not.

Certainly, if human emissions keep the Earth warmer than the pre-human cycle (i.e. widespread cyclical glaciation), that would appear to be a good thing in the long run for human civilisation.

And what about my position that a ultra-complex (and arguably stochastic) system like the climate is not meaningfully modellable, and therefore that climate certainty is impossible? While it seems to make sense that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will produce higher temperatures, and while there are a myriad of simplified models out there that seem to suggest the same thing, there is no substitute for long-term empirical evidence, of which we have very little. In a system as complex as the Earth’s climate, there could be a whole swathe of effects that we have not yet identified that could drastically change the outcome (for better, or for worse). For Norgaard, does an understanding of the limitations of probabilistic modelling constitute a mental illness? Should I be committed to treatment to “cure” me of my beliefs?

Because that is what Norgaard’s words lead me to believe. And that sounds worryingly like Neo-Stalinism.

Guest Post: The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism | ZeroHedge

Lib Logic: Global Warming Skeptics are Crazy Racists

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...danmitchel.jpg
Daniel J. Mitchell

I’ve written about the government’s war on light bulbs, its rule against working toilets, and its prohibition of washing machines that actually clean, so I sometimes cover environmental issues.

But I usually limit myself to examples of silly radicalism, such as the crazy claim that climate change causes AIDS, a reprehensible example of EPA thuggery, and a column about pointless recycling mandates.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, environmental protection is a legitimate role of government. Simply stated, we don’t want polluters to violate our property rights.

The challenge, of course, is how to conduct sensible cost-benefit analysis.

Where do we draw the line, for instance, on how much pollution cars should be allowed to emit? Or what are the best rules to ensure landfills don’t pollute groundwater?

These are important issues, but I will admit a bias. I am instinctively skeptical whenever self-proclaimed environmentalists start pontificating.

In part, this is because everyone has an incentive to exaggerate. The business community will always say that a new regulation imposes astronomically high costs, while environmentalists will claim minimal costs and say that thousands of premature deaths will be averted.

Since exaggeration is omnipresent in Washington, that’s not what really bothers me. My main problem with environmentalists is that they want to use so-called green issues to give government more power. And if you oppose them, you’re an evil person.

Consider the example of Professor Kari Norgaard of the University of Oregon. She thinks you’re mentally ill if you don’t agree with her.

Just in case you think I’m being unfair, here are some blurbs from a report in the UK-based Daily Mail.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...70_468x306.jpg
Prof. Kari Norgaard

Professor Norgaard wasn’t the only oddball at the conference. The article also mentions that the attendees included a bunch of control freaks who want to force people to live in densely-populated cities.

An Oregon University professor has controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism. …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. …Norgaard last week attended the annual four-day ‘Planet Under Pressure’ international conference in London, where she presented her controversial paper to delegates on Wednesday.

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

The folks at the Commentator sent a camera to the conference. Here’s a five-minute sample of what they saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NL3K...layer_embedded

Remarkable.

But the folks at the conference weren’t even the crazies, or at least the really bizarre environmentalists weren’t part of the video. For instance, I didn’t see the folks who don’t believe in bathing, the ones who sterilize themselves to avoid carbon-producing children, or the ones who produce (or use) hand-cranked environmentally-friendly vibrators.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...sts/page/full/

Fear of Tyranny Is Now Treated As A Psychiatric Disorder In The West

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
April 8, 2012

The modern totalitarian state is the psychotherapist for the whole of society. It acts on the elitist principle that it knows everything and the people deserve to be mind controlled and brainwashed for their own good.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6...406b5389_z.jpg

Defenders of the totalitarian system demonize their democratic critics as insane, and suppress political speech with the mind control techniques that have grown out of modern psychological and mental health research. If you point out their contradictions, lies, and inconsistencies in their narratives, they call you a conspiracy theorist and chew you out with psycho-babble. And if you acknowledge that you fear their despotic vision for Western society and the world, they call you paranoid and say you have a psychiatric disorder.

It does not matter what twisted and perverted ideology that the totalitarian power-seekers hide behind. It could be Communism, Nazism, Islamism, Neoconservativism, or Environmentalism. Every “ism” is a thought-control prison. Citizens are suppressed in the same manner under every totalitarian hellhole by their mental overlords.

Anti-democratic elites in all totalitarian prisons use the language of mental health to dismiss dissenters and enforce their dogmatic beliefs and totalitarian policies on an unwilling public. In 2009, Brendan O’Neill of Spiked.com wrote a powerful essay called, “The Psychologisation of Dissent: The Global Warming Skepticism Mental Disorder,” about how the West is following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union. O’Neil wrote:

“The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, willful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics. And nothing better sums up the elitism and authoritarianism of the environmentalist lobby than its psychologisation of dissent. The labeling of any criticism of the politics of global warming, first as ‘denial’, and now as evidence of mass psychological instability, is an attempt to write off all critics and sceptics as deranged, and to lay the ground for inevitable authoritarian solutions to the problem of climate change. Historically, only the most illiberal and misanthropic regimes have treated disagreement and debate as signs of mental ill-health.”

In the West, the mislabeling of dissent as “paranoia” and “crazy” has been taken to an extreme. People who believe there should be government transparency and media accountability have been exiled out of the mainstream political community.

It is a cruel joke on the public that the very same people who speak for the totalitarian system in America and accuse their democratic critics of mental illness and mental retardation are half-retarded themselves. Examples include former President George W. Bush, and Secretary of the Department of Human Slavery Janet Napolitano. To be accused of being retarded for not believing official government propaganda by these retards is so funny. I think it is better to laugh than to get mad at these half-baked clowns.

But it gets more serious when we learn that the power-mongers who are throwing around terms such as “mentally ill,” “conspiracy theorist,” and “retarded,” to describe their political opponents are secretly devising government programs to exterminate not only their critics, but also the general population. They want to get rid of the “mentally unfit,” in society like Hitler wanted to do. And who is defined as mentally unfit? People who question the pseudo-science of climate change and the official fairy tale about the 9/11 attacks that has been used to destroy civil liberties and the rule of law.

The voices in the academic community, media, and politics who defend the pseudo-science of climate change and the magical 9/11 fairy tale view themselves as the leaders of human evolution. But most often than not, they appear to be the most mentally backward, psychologically screwed-up, and retarded-looking individuals.
Paul Joseph Watson wrote an article called, “Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor,” about one professor’s insane and despicable idea to shut-down critics of global warming hysteria by accusing them that they suffer from mental sickness, psychological devolution, and social regression. Watson:

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.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate change alarmists – whose data is continually proven to be politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, noting that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.”

John Aziz also criticized Professor Norgaard’s deranged, anti-human, and totalitarian beliefs in his insightful article, “The Face of Authoritarian Environmentalism.” Here is an excerpt:

Isn’t pathologising dissidents a hallmark of authoritarianism? Weren’t dissidents under the Soviet Union often sent to psychiatric hospitals to be “treated” for their behaviour? Hasn’t Norgaard read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago?

And really “doubters” could mean a lot of things. Does it solely mean those who believe climate change is not happening? What about climate agnostics? Does it mean those who believe that climate change is happening but that it is not man-made? Does it mean those who believe that it is happening, but who disagree with Norgaard’s proposed solutions?

If we use Norgaard’s logic, then people who doubt the science that 9/11 was an act of state terrorism by the United States and Israel are mentally sick and racist.

The labeling of a different opinion as “mentally ill,” and “anti-rational” is very dangerous, for obvious reasons. Abuses of power occur when a society accepts mental health labels to set the limits on discussion on any given subject, but especially those that have lethal social and political consequences.

In a collectivized, politically engineered, and totalitarian society such as America’s, the maniacs in government can get away with the mass murder of innocent people, horrific atrocities, and crimes against their own population by painting their critics as insane and marking the line that separates legitimate political speech from illegitimate and crazy political speech.

Those in power who want the people to think that questioning the official 9/11 story and criticizing climate change propagandists are signs of mental sickness are obviously hiding an evil agenda. They do not want people to be informed and educated, but brainwashed and stupid so they can shove whatever they want down their throats.

I’m surprised they haven’t accused 9/11 truth-tellers of being witches so they can go ahead and burn us at the stake. The crazy psychotherapists in the government and media might decide one day to put the hammer down and crush brains with the old-fashioned method: brute force.

The situation has gotten so bad that black slaves in 1776 were more free than all Americans and all humans are today. At least they knew they were slaves.

If George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were alive today, they would be accused of being mentally ill conspiracy theorists and dangerous extremists with psychiatric disorders. Thomas Jefferson would get mad and pen a global declaration of mental independence from totalitarian tyranny. And George Washington would get high and fight to make all drugs legal in America. And they would tell their compatriots: join us or die as slaves.


Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator Blog

» Fear of Tyranny Is Now Treated As A Psychiatric Disorder In The West Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

Fear Of Radiation Treated as “Psychiatric Disorder” In Fukushima
Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor
Fear of radiation from Fukushima accident led to psychiatric disorder hospitalizations
Climate ‘denial’ is now a mental disorder
Professor Norgaard Urged Obama To Ignore Democracy, Public Opinion
Nobel Laureate Resigns From Society Because Of Its Global Warming Fear-Mongering
Held In A Psychiatric Ward, Called “Delusional” For Saying 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Green Fascism: The Growing Threat of Eco-Tyranny
CONFIRMED: Psychiatric Manual DSM-IV-TR Labels free Thinkers, non conformers as Mentally Ill
Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder
Government Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness
You Tube Now Banning Videos Critical of Global Warming Alarmism