UPDATE: University of Oregon responds, see Update #3 below.
I’ve been purposely ignoring this ugly pronouncement related to “Planet Under Pressure“, because well, it was just so beyond ugly and it brought up visions of the Soviet politburo defining political opposition as a mental illness. As Andrew Bolt put it, Something is sick, and it’s not the sceptics.
But now there’s been a cover up, and I have the goods.
Apparently, the maelstrom of embarrassment and public ridicule created by Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon was too much for the University to bear. So, in the best Soviet style, they rewrote history, as if nobody would notice, without so much as an apology or update. I find it amazing in this day an age that University types still don’t understand the Internet and that disappearing things like this only makes it worse for you.
Now you see it:
Source: Google Cache which says: This is Google’s cache of http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Mar 29, 2012 21:42:11 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime
Now you don’t:
The words “and treated” have now been sanitized from the University’s press statement, which is located here:
I hope that the University of Oregon Alumni are made aware of this.
h/t to Christopher Monckton
==============================================================
UPDATE: It seems Norgaard herself has been “disappeared” from the University of Oregon web server. In the ORIGINAL press statement that I got from Google Cache, there’s a link to Norgaard’s faculty page, a portion of which I used in my third paragraph above.
Here’s the screencap, I put yellow highlight either side of the link to her page:
That link goes to: http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/norgaard.php but that gives a 500 Internal Server error now:
Although she still appears of the sociology faculty page listing at:
http://sociology.uoregon.edu/faculty/index.php
…that link is dead as well, but other faculty members on the same page have working links.
And, further, the link from the original press release has also been removed in the revised one, note the missing link underline between the yellow highlights on Norgaard’s name:
Curiouser and curiouser.
Again, Google Cache is your friend:
What a bunch of rank amateurs. Maybe they’ll soon go from being called The Mighty Ducks to “The Mighty Schmucks”.
===============================================================
UPDATE#2 – It gets worse. As pointed out in comments, apparently her official uoregon.edu email address has been replaced on the Sociology Faculty page. On the Google Cache for that page, as it appeared on Mar 28, 2012 19:55:22 GMT, the “send email” link for Norgaard goes to a uoregon.edu email address. On the current page, it goes to a yahoo.com email address. If they were trying to shield her from hateful email, why shift it to a private email account?
Something is going on behind the scenes that we aren’t privy to yet.
UPDATE#3 4/3/12 2PM PST
UO responds:
I asked Jim Barlow, director of science and research communications, University of Oregon when and why the sentence was changed. Here’s his response:
“I intended the original first sentence of the news release to function as a play-on-words on our researcher’s message about recognizing and addressing cultural inertia. Unfortunately, the word “treated” became the focus of the story, leading to inaccurate portrayals. In an effort to shift the focus back to the actual topic of the conference presentation, I chose at midday Monday to remove the word from the version of the news release that appears on our website.”
Source:
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/call-climate-skeptics-be-treated-removed-universitys-press-statement (h/t David L. Hagen)
No mention of why her faculty page disappeared.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Guys, it’s EUGENE Oregon!
Not a soul there disagrees with her, but the rest of the country…
This is the type of know-it-all just aching to control you and yours. They themselves would be the controller. They themselves would be the camp guards.
@wfrumkin
I am personally offended…. I am in the process of searching for a college to send one of my children to.
I too am offended. I have put in more than 10 years studying climate change, applying the same criteria I taught to my graduate students on how to evaluate research. In the end, I found nothing definitive in the pro CAGW literature that warrants any kind of government action at this time. Accordingly, I wondered how a “scholar” like Professor Norgaard could arrive at the conclusions she has. Consequently, I WAS, at least, able to find out a bit more about Norgaard. See below:
Kari Norgaard’s dissertation has the following title: “Community, Place and Privilege: Double Realities, Denial and Climate Change in Norway.” It was submitted in 2003 at the University of Oregon.
You can find an abstract of her dissertation at the following web address:http://disccrs.org/dissertation_abstract?abs_id=1425
The dissertation was basically a descriptive, survey-style study of people in “Bygdaby, a rural Norwegian community.” It begins with the premise that “despite the fact that people were clearly aware of global warming as a phenomenon, everyday life went on as though global warming, and its associated risks – did not exist.”
Hmmm. Assuming that the people accepted the idea of global warming as an imminent threat in Bygdaby, what else were they to do? Stay in bed and cover their head? Carry signs on the street proclaiming that the end is near? Speaking as someone who has worked in the fields of psychology and social work professionally for 30+ years, I can say definitively that maintaining daily routines in the face of worries and anxieties is a therapeutic and adaptive response. So, what is the point of such a study? What does it contribute to the field of social work?
I have not read her dissertation, itself, but the premise was based upon IPCC data from 2001 that climate change was real and was resulting in “potential outcomes” for the country of Norway. The fact that a study with a premise of this kind was approved by her dissertation committee at the University of Oregon tells you all you need to know about its objectivity, the university, its department of sociology and the academic standards they have for PhD candidates.
A recent paper (2010) by Professor Norgaard is entitled “Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change.” The paper is described as a “Policy Research Working Paper” and was written as a background paper to the 2010 World Development Report issued by the “The World Bank, Development Economics, World Development Report Team.” It is one of the first things that comes up when you google “Norgaard.” I’ll assume that the World Bank paid for Norgaard’s background paper although I don’t know for sure.
At the end of the 2010 report’s abstract, the following disclaimer is posted:
“This paper—prepared as a background paper to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2010: Development in a Changing Climate—is a product of the Development Economics Vice Presidency. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the World Bank or its affiliated organizations. Policy Research Working Papers are posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The author may be contacted at jmeadowc@connect.carleton.ca.”
In the paper, Norgaard discusses the various “barriers” to people behaving differently in the face of what she perceives to be an imminent climate disaster. Not surprisingly, she lists “the generation of climate skeptic campaigns funded by fossil fuel interest groups” as one of the barriers. She identifies “The oil company Exxon Mobile” as a prime example of “this phenomenon in which fossil fuel interests systematically manipulate government documents and carry out campaigns of misinformation regarding the state of climate science.”
Has Exxon Mobile actually been manipulating government documents to foist misinformation upon us? If this is, in fact, true, I’d like to know more about it and see some proof.
Also not surprisingly, Norgaard lists ignorance of the problem (i.e. “Americans know far less about climate change than their counterparts in the developed world.”) and affluence (i.e. “Concern is widespread around the world, but it may also be inversely correlated with the wealth and carbon footprint of a nation.”) as barriers. Its not hard to see where all of that leads.
I suspect that she is sincere, although obviously biased, quite naive, and misguided. She has, unfortunately, allowed herself to be used as someone else’s political tool, and her conclusions (that people who are skeptical of CAGW are in need of therapy) are extraordinarily DANGEROUS, IMHO. If the University of Oregon and its sociology department wish to retain any credibility, they will issue a statement disavowing her conclusions that people need therapy for their skepticism.
hannahmdejong @ur momisugly April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am says:
“Just someone trying to express what she believes in and instead becoming the subject of an unprecedented tirade.
When did respect and understanding lose it’s place in the value of freedom of speech? Not impressed.”
I was not impressed by the original official University of Oregon statement that skeptics need to be “treated” for their skepticism. I am sure you are right that the links were disabled because of a backlash aimed at Prof. Norgaard and the U of O, but can you blame anyone for being upset by such a Kafkaesque statement? There is no respect and understanding on the U of O’s part in their belief that skeptics require treatment.
*heh*
Just had to post about that.
Anyone watching Climate Ethics professor Donald Brown at Penn State. His rants about ethics and putting people on trial for crimes against humanity, a farce given the misery this anti-human agenda is causing real live people, needs to be looked at just as hard. I dont mind a debate on the actual matter, but when someone who is oblivious to things because he wont look starts questioning ethics and morals, and doing it on PSU letterhead, funded by taxpayers, then its the same thing
Craig Bannister reports:
Seems like a good thread for one of my favorite quotes:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis
Hannah” “Since when is being good to the earth a bad thing?”
DDT Ban. Rachel Carson.
“A pandemic is slaughtering millions, mostly children and pregnant women — one child every 15 seconds; 3 million people annually; and over 100 million people since 1972 –but there are no protestors clogging the streets or media stories about this tragedy. These deaths can be laid at the doorstep of author Rachel’s Carson. Her 1962 bestselling book Silent Spring detailed the alleged “dangers” of the pesticide DDT, which had practically eliminated malaria. Within ten years, the environmentalist movement had convinced the powers that be to outlaw DDT. Denied the use of this cheap, safe and effective pesticide, millions of people — mostly poor Africans — have died due to the environmentalist dogma propounded by Carson’s book. Her coterie of admirers at the U.N. and environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and the Environmental Defense Fund have managed to bring malaria and typhus back to sub-Saharan Africa with a vengeance.”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16987
I bet she is a fast woman.
The big difference between this episode of “treatment” and “no pressure” was that “no pressure” was alleged to be an attempt at humor. The “treatment” was intended to be serious. In both cases I felt that they had unintentionally told us more about themselves than their cause. They would control us if they could. They would do terrible things.
As for her photograph, I’m grateful that people have not made fun of her condition. I have a severe curvature of the spine which makes a rather obvious hump when I bend over and so I can relate. I am deeply appreciative that the people around me don’t make fun of it. Science is about the way to evaluate data and learn something, and one’s physical condition doesn’t have anything to do do with it. An argument or hypothesis should stand or fall on its own merits.
I am now very curious to see how this story plays out. They know they did a boo boo. They tried/are trying to memory hole it unsuccessfully, drawing even more attention. I think I need more popcorn 🙂
I’m terribly sorry to have to report but since the work of the proto-communist Leonard Euler in the 18th Century, it appears that mathematics and engineering have both real and imaginary parts.
I should get some nerd points for that joke, who knows?
Is Ms Norgaard funded by the worldbank?
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/05/19/000158349_20090519142931/Rendered/PDF/WPS4940.pdf
OOPS. Replace “Exxon Mobile” with “ExxonMobil” above. Seems like “mobile” should be the more appropriate spelling for a company that keeps us all moving.
If you want to have a few more laughs with this come see us at The Two Minute Conservative at: http://adrianvance.blogspot.com
These people seriously intend to live in a “Brave New World” and/or “1984.”
She’s actually got a Doctorate in Climate Change Denial:
Ph.D. 2003 Sociology, University of Oregon (Dissertation: Community, Place and
Privilege: Double Realities, Denial and Climate Change in Norway Chair:
Dr. Sandra Morgen)
I want one! I want one too! Pleeeease!
…right out of the 1930’s… yep
Talk about down the memory hole – hannahmdejong (see her comment above) has deleted her own blog!
Hannah, Your definition of good to the earth is not my definition of good to the earth. You and the unperson Kari need to learn how to deal with this in a sociological acceptible way. By which I mean left alone and “untreated”. What Kari espouses is ridiculous and probably illegal. Just deal with it.
hannahmdejong says:
April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
“…Because feedback has been so hostile and hateful, the pages hosting her article and staff information have been removed.”
Maybe Prof. Norgaard Is unable to Answer the blatantly obvious questions;
Why does she believe that ‘inquiry’ and or scientific difference is a problem that needs to be treated?
What is her recommended treatment for this?
And how would she suggest society go about treating It?
People are hostile because those who bear the brunt of such ‘ideologically fascist’ statements are having none of it, and rightly so.
And as Anthony say’s; “Apparently, the maelstrom of embarrassment and public ridicule created by Kari Marie Norgaard, professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon was too much for the University to bear.”.
So, hannahmdejong, Please do remind us all again who you think are the bad guy’s are!! [ffs]
Andrew Bolt quotes her: “People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level — how we think the world works and how we think it should work.”
We cannot deny her point that many of us have become habituated to private property, the profitable use of our own private property, wealth, energy, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, plus that other freedom, to peacably assemble at excellent blogsites. She has a firm grasp on the basic concept of habituation – very good!
Now that she has finished her paper on a fictitiously named town in Northern Europe, her next assignment is to study the recent response of the citizens to a systematic impoverishment scheme by their government in Queensland, Au. It turns out, they agree with her – politicians certainly do need to be de-habituated from positions of power when they implement socially and economically destructive green scams which raise prices on water and electricity and destroy productivity and employment.
As has been said by many people about conservatives and liberals. At this stage Alarmists want Skeptics to shut up but Skeptice want Alarmists to keep talking. The more BS and socialist totalitarian ideas they come up with the more they are exposed for what they really are.
Her C.V. lists “teaching areas” that includes “climate chage (sic);” does that mean she uses Unix password commands for her simulations?
Norgard really just wants to be able to concentrate on helping people, and if people don’t like that, she wants to be able to commit them to psychiatric hospitals. Or prisons. Or kill them.
That said, [SNIP: sorry, but comments like that are a bit inappropriate. -REP].
Re hannahmdejong @ur momisugly April 3, 2012 at 9:46 am:
Hannah, let us suppose you lived in a land of cattle herders where all of the people in power were convinced by seers and prophets that in order to reverse the decline of your people under foreign oppression, it was necessary to destroy all the cattle, and all the other implements of living: cooking pots, etc. Suppose, however, you and a few others were rational enough to realize that, not only would the solution be ineffective, but idea that the gods required such an enormous sacrifice was false, and you were being misled.
Now imagine that when you spoke up, you were accused of being cruelly insensitive to the needs of your people, and probably insane, in need of treatment. Would you not take umbrage?
This is not an imaginary example. A people called the Xhosa effectively committed suicide by following those seers and prophets. See the reprint of chilling article by David Deming on this very site: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/
The current situation is analogous. A quasi-religious cult has seized upon a wild and unproven speculation that mankind is heating up the Earth’s climate by burning fossil fuel, convincing rent-seeking academics, greedy politicians, and a gullible media that we need to stop progress in its tracks, abandon the sources of energy that have led to the vast improvements in the human condition over the past two centuries, and return to some imaginary bucolic and innocent life, free from the sins of the modern world.
Now we have your colleague at the University of Oregon suggesting that a few unfunded and unaffiliated scientists, who maintain that the speculation of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is empirically baseless, are in need of ‘treatment’.
Now do you see why the reaction is so strong?
If you don’t see how close the CAGW and its broader ‘environmental’ movement are to an unscientific theocratic orthodoxy, read this: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Then decide if you really want to be part of it.
/Mr Lynn