'If you don't believe in climate change you must be sick': Oregon professor likens skepticism to racism
Racism, check. Backhanded reference to the South, check. Superiority of urban-living to rural lifestyles, check. Call for awareness, check... Man, she was this close to getting that moonbat bingo-card filled out, too.
Worse yet, they want to live closer to you (somewhere near Innsmouth, judging from her photograph). Until you're shipped off for re-education, that is... It's for the greater good.
Tired clichés aside, I'll let John Aziz field this one(via ZeroHedge):
... [W]hat 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?As Vox is also fond of pointing out, bedecking politics with the trappings of Science! doesn't make the politics scientific, it makes the science* political (much in the same way that a gallon of ice cream and a gallon of sewage doesn't make two gallons of ice cream).
Because that is what Norgaard’s words lead me to believe. And that sounds worryingly like Neo-Stalinism.
Care for an ice cream cone?
*Actual scientific content may vary