 |
| El professori : Kari Marie Norgaard. The Lunatic's Lunatic.. |
Occasional a story pops up and one has to wonder what the hell is wrong with some people. I was always of the opinion that a professor was an elderly sage, an intelligent thinker, having had years of experience in life and spent one's time pondering the more important issues that one faces or asked the questions in order to broadens one's mind. One gentle soul with a querying mind and content to pass that wealth of knowledge onto the next generation in all honesty and stayed with the facts without impugning it with one's political leanings or thoughts..
Oh yes, the good old days. Now we have rampant lunatics running the asylum, as we once again witness another child, labeled as a "Professor", which ofcourse in this day and age would mostly be a female, a black female or a lesbian. Preferably all three, that prerequisite fitted very nicely with the asylum keepers as it played very nicely into their PC reality..
What better than to promote one of the privileged sex and grant her a title that she obviously did not deserve. She is one who has demonstrated that it is and was, incapable of even remotely behaving like anyone who had that title in the past. Still of the opinion that the privileged sex is not overly privileged ?
The only review of her book on Amazon is interesting (and not flattering).
It appears that her work is some how associated with the world bank.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1407958##
Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change
Kari Marie Norgaard
Whitman College
May 1, 2009
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4940
This rampant lunatic is just a prime example of what we can expect to see at today's universities, just how ludicrous and backwards they have really become. They are no longer places of learning but of indoctrination. The slut-feminists are ofcourse totally responsible as well as their enablers and supporters, but try and get a confession out of them and your time limit on this planet would kick in first. The slut-feminists total interference in all things educational, is right there for all to see. Not only have they interfered with the learning processes and changed it to ensure that the female learning methodology is followed with strict precision but they have also ensured that any female with an IQ level above her breast size, should and does pass any degree and throw in a professorship for good measure. Good old tenure, once your in, they can never boot you out..
So what did this cretin do, you may well ask. Well.......
And that ain't all folks. Here is an example of the cognitive dissonance it possesses and what it indulges in with public and private funding..
The root of the problem is revealed by the “Focus Areas” on the U 0f O – Sociology faculty list at http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/index.php:-
power structure research; economic and political elites; right-wing movements; politics of the middle classes; social networks;- corporate political action and US trade policy; nonviolence and social movements; network analysis of collective action- social inequality; urban; community change; economic sociology.- gender; violence against women; the social construction of race, class, gender, and sexuality; language and discourse- gender; intersections of gender, race, class, and sexuality; poverty and welfare reform; feminist organizations and social movements; qualitative methods- tribal environmental health, race and environment, gender and environment,climate change denial, emotions and social movements
But ofcourse it's a feminist. One has to be in order to demonstrate such lunatic delusional and totally irrelevant drivel that is disguised as "Learning" material. Here we have an academic indulging in the exact behaviour that George Orwell mentioned in his well known book "1984". A tome that supposedly written to ridicule communism and demonstrate what level of lunacy they indulge in and promote. But here we have an actual live, almost functioning human, promoting exactly what that book warns against.
For more information check the link on the heading and have a good laugh as it just does not get any worse or any more ridiculous than that. Frighteningly so..
UPDATE..
Who the heck is she impressing?????
Left wing, “progressive” NGOs probably. I find her articles in the BBC going all the way back to 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081882.stmShe was featured in adbusters, the people who brought you the Occupy movement
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/planetary_endgame.htmlShe’s a communist it would appear. Her game seems to be a mission to “gaslight” the public. Gaslighting is a process where you are made to doubt your own sanity. Her thrust is to get across the notion that if you don’t agree with them, that it is YOU who are in denial. That YOU have some psychological abnormality.
Everything about the methods these people use speaks to abuse. They use the same methods that an abuser uses on their victims. First is devaluation: “I am an important person (and you aren’t) and I am busy with important things (of which talking to you is not one)” or “I have a PhD, do you?” or “Have you produced a peer reviewed paper?”. If that doesn’t make you go away, they try insults. When that fails, they might attempt direct sabotage of your reputation or career. And then finally, when all else fails, you are crazy.
Try
this search. It spans several years.
For most of her career she has been preaching to the choir trying to keep them in the fold by telling them that anyone who doesn’t believe them is crazy. It is much like a cult. Apparently they are getting desperate and now they are going right out there to the general public telling them they are crazy but I am not sure of the context in which this information came to light. She might have still been in the process of indoctrinating their cult members that anyone who doesn’t share their world view is crazy. This gives validation to the “believers” and acts as a barrier to their changing their minds.
Update 2..
The ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference presently taking place in London and at which our esteemed Professor is appearing, is sponsored, in part, by NASA.
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/commercial_supporters.aspUS tax dollars at work!
Update 3..
Ofcourse there has to be some sage words against this lunatics behaviour and an explanation of what it is they are really trying to achieve..
It would be both interesting and frightening , I generally refer to them as neo-puritans because the behaviour is entirely consistent with the “everything is sinful” early extremist puritans who`s self-loathing was only exceeded by their loathing of others . The similarities were striking enough that , several years ago , before I was aware of sites like WUWT and Jo Nova etc. I put ” Global warming religion ” into a search engine and found this by Prof. John Brignell
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htmI know it`s not exactly the study You were looking for but it is a superbly worded essay that hits on all the points of comparison .
Update 4..
I’ll be darned, Monckton already responded.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2012/04/advance-warning-nature-magazine-have.html=====================================================
Lord Monckton was one of those who piled on the pressure
He wrote to Ms Norgaard as follows
“My attention has been drawn to what is said to be a press statement by the University of Oregon saying that you have prepared a paper saying, inter alia, that what you describe as “cultural resistance” at “individual level” to the notion of spending large sums on attempting to prevent global warming is something that “must be recognized and treated”.
Yet I invite you to understand that those of us who are doubters have good scientific and economic reason for our doubts.
First, there is good evidence that the principal conclusions of all four IPCC assessment reports are erroneous, and that two of these conclusions may be fraudulent.
Secondly, the IPCC’s predictions first made a generation ago have proven to be considerable exaggerations. What you have described as a “massive threat” appears to be non-existent. What was predicted is not happening at anything like the predicted rate.
Thirdly, the IPCC’s very high climate sensitivity estimates depend upon the assumption that temperature feedbacks that cannot be either measured or distinguished from direct forcings will triple those forcings, whereas the remarkable homeostasis of temperatures over at least the last 64 million years suggests either that feedbacks are net-negative or that the feedback-amplification equation (taken from electronic circuitry) is inapplicable to the climate, in which event equilibrium warming at CO2 doubling will be 1 Celsius degree, which is harmless and beneficial, and 21st-century warming from this cause will be little more than half the equilibrium warming.
Fourthly, the peer-reviewed economic journals are near-unanimous in finding that the cost of attempting to prevent global warming will greatly exceed the cost of doing nothing now and instead adapting in a focused way to any climate-related damage that may occur as a result of future global warming. My own calculations indicate that the cost of action now is likely to exceed the cost of focused adaptation later by one or two orders of magnitude.
I am uneasy that you should have recommended what the University of Oregon’s press notice is said to describe as “treatment” for those with whom you disagree. In Europe, within living memory, there were two totalitarian regimes that subjected legitimate scientific dissenters to “treatment”. You will forgive me for saying that humanity should surely not sink to those cruel and fatal depths of government-mandated unreason ever again.
I hope you will be able either to assure me either that the report I have read is inaccurate or that you are withdrawing or at least amending the paper”
Monckton has not of course received a reply. Featherbrain Norgaard probably did not even understand most of it
==========================================
Update 5..
Sociology and intelligence seem to be a contradiction in terms. In an essay called The Psychologisation of Dissent: The Global Warming Skepticism Mental Disorder, by Brendan O’Neill in 2009 is the following:
“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.”
“The labeling of those who question certain scientific ideas or green ways of life as ‘deniers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘reptiles’ with a ‘baffling’ inability to understand the science and act accordingly has a deeply censorious bent. If ‘climate change denial’ is a form of mass denial and self-deception, a fundamentally psychological disorder, then there is no need to engage in a meaningful public debate; instead people just need to be TREATED.”
“Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements – their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently – is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
“In the Soviet Union, outspoken critics of the ruling party were frequently tagged as mentally disordered and faced, as one Soviet dissident described it, ‘political exile to mental institutions’ (11). There they would be TREATED …”
Its about a gathering in 2009 at the University of West England’s Centre for Psycho-Social (B*****t) Studies. “It will be a gathering of those from the “top of society” – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope.”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/179393-The-Psychologisation-of-Dissent-The-Global-Warming-Skepticism-Mental-Disorder 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081882.stm
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/planetary_endgame.html
She’s a communist it would appear. Her game seems to be a mission to “gaslight” the public. Gaslighting is a process where you are made to doubt your own sanity. Her thrust is to get across the notion that if you don’t agree with them, that it is YOU who are in denial. That YOU have some psychological abnormality.
Everything about the methods these people use speaks to abuse. They use the same methods that an abuser uses on their victims. First is devaluation: “I am an important person (and you aren’t) and I am busy with important things (of which talking to you is not one)” or “I have a PhD, do you?” or “Have you produced a peer reviewed paper?”. If that doesn’t make you go away, they try insults. When that fails, they might attempt direct sabotage of your reputation or career. And then finally, when all else fails, you are crazy.
Try this search. It spans several years.
For most of her career she has been preaching to the choir trying to keep them in the fold by telling them that anyone who doesn’t believe them is crazy. It is much like a cult. Apparently they are getting desperate and now they are going right out there to the general public telling them they are crazy but I am not sure of the context in which this information came to light. She might have still been in the process of indoctrinating their cult members that anyone who doesn’t share their world view is crazy. This gives validation to the “believers” and acts as a barrier to their changing their minds.
Update 2..
The ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference presently taking place in London and at which our esteemed Professor is appearing, is sponsored, in part, by NASA.
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/commercial_supporters.asp
US tax dollars at work!
Update 3..
Ofcourse there has to be some sage words against this lunatics behaviour and an explanation of what it is they are really trying to achieve..
It would be both interesting and frightening , I generally refer to them as neo-puritans because the behaviour is entirely consistent with the “everything is sinful” early extremist puritans who`s self-loathing was only exceeded by their loathing of others . The similarities were striking enough that , several years ago , before I was aware of sites like WUWT and Jo Nova etc. I put ” Global warming religion ” into a search engine and found this by Prof. John Brignell
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
I know it`s not exactly the study You were looking for but it is a superbly worded essay that hits on all the points of comparison .
Update 4..
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2012/04/advance-warning-nature-magazine-have.html
=====================================================
Lord Monckton was one of those who piled on the pressure
He wrote to Ms Norgaard as follows
“My attention has been drawn to what is said to be a press statement by the University of Oregon saying that you have prepared a paper saying, inter alia, that what you describe as “cultural resistance” at “individual level” to the notion of spending large sums on attempting to prevent global warming is something that “must be recognized and treated”.
Yet I invite you to understand that those of us who are doubters have good scientific and economic reason for our doubts.
First, there is good evidence that the principal conclusions of all four IPCC assessment reports are erroneous, and that two of these conclusions may be fraudulent.
Secondly, the IPCC’s predictions first made a generation ago have proven to be considerable exaggerations. What you have described as a “massive threat” appears to be non-existent. What was predicted is not happening at anything like the predicted rate.
Thirdly, the IPCC’s very high climate sensitivity estimates depend upon the assumption that temperature feedbacks that cannot be either measured or distinguished from direct forcings will triple those forcings, whereas the remarkable homeostasis of temperatures over at least the last 64 million years suggests either that feedbacks are net-negative or that the feedback-amplification equation (taken from electronic circuitry) is inapplicable to the climate, in which event equilibrium warming at CO2 doubling will be 1 Celsius degree, which is harmless and beneficial, and 21st-century warming from this cause will be little more than half the equilibrium warming.
Fourthly, the peer-reviewed economic journals are near-unanimous in finding that the cost of attempting to prevent global warming will greatly exceed the cost of doing nothing now and instead adapting in a focused way to any climate-related damage that may occur as a result of future global warming. My own calculations indicate that the cost of action now is likely to exceed the cost of focused adaptation later by one or two orders of magnitude.
I am uneasy that you should have recommended what the University of Oregon’s press notice is said to describe as “treatment” for those with whom you disagree. In Europe, within living memory, there were two totalitarian regimes that subjected legitimate scientific dissenters to “treatment”. You will forgive me for saying that humanity should surely not sink to those cruel and fatal depths of government-mandated unreason ever again.
I hope you will be able either to assure me either that the report I have read is inaccurate or that you are withdrawing or at least amending the paper”
Monckton has not of course received a reply. Featherbrain Norgaard probably did not even understand most of it
==========================================
Update 5..
“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.”
“The labeling of those who question certain scientific ideas or green ways of life as ‘deniers’, ‘addicts’ and ‘reptiles’ with a ‘baffling’ inability to understand the science and act accordingly has a deeply censorious bent. If ‘climate change denial’ is a form of mass denial and self-deception, a fundamentally psychological disorder, then there is no need to engage in a meaningful public debate; instead people just need to be TREATED.”
“Psychologising dissent, and refusing to recognise, much less engage with, the substance of people’s disagreements – their political objections, their rational criticisms, their desire to do things differently – is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.
“In the Soviet Union, outspoken critics of the ruling party were frequently tagged as mentally disordered and faced, as one Soviet dissident described it, ‘political exile to mental institutions’ (11). There they would be TREATED …”
Its about a gathering in 2009 at the University of West England’s Centre for Psycho-Social (B*****t) Studies. “It will be a gathering of those from the “top of society” – ‘psychotherapists, social researchers, climate change activists, eco-psychologists’ – who will analyse those at the bottom of society, as if we were so many flitting, irrational amoeba under an eco-microscope.”
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/179393-The-Psychologisation-of-Dissent-The-Global-Warming-Skepticism-Mental-Disorder