Rewriting history: "treatment" of climate sceptics disappears from University of Oregon press statement

jbird pointed to the abstract of her dissertation here:
http://disccrs.org/dissertation_abstract?abs_id=1425
She is getting a lot of press because she uses the ‘denier’ word. She must know what it means to everyone, yet what she describes as denial most of us would just call apathy if the denied problem was minor. She believes that CAGW is very serious and is frustrated that others do not wish to drop everything and fight for the cause. At worst, this state of denial would be similar to that of Jews living in Germany as Hitler is coming to power. Leave now and lose everything or hope that all will work out in the end? Did those people deny there was a problem? Not at all in the same way as someone would deny the holocaust existed.
In her own words:

The term denial is sometimes used to describe the phenomenon of
outright rejection of the notion that certain information is true — which,
in this case, is the reaction of global warming skeptics mentioned earlier.
But by now it should be clear that this use of the term is very different
and more literal than my use in this book. In his recent work on denial,
British sociologist Stanley Cohen (2001) describes three varieties of
denial: literal, interpretive, and implicatory. His framework is useful in
explaining this book’s particular focus. Literal denial is “the assertion
that something did not happen or is not true” (the global warming skeptics).
In interpretive denial, the facts themselves are not denied but are
instead given a different interpretation. Euphemisms, technical jargon,
and word changing are used to dispute the meaning of events — for
example, military offi cials speak of “collateral damage” rather than the
killing of citizens. It is Cohen’s third category, implicatory denial, that
is at the center of this book. In the case of implicatory denial, what is
minimized is not information, but “the psychological, political or moral
implications that conventionally follow” (2001, 8). What I observed in
Bygdaby — indeed, what we all can observe in the public silence on
climate change in United States and around the world — is not in most
cases a rejection of information per se, but the failure to integrate this
knowledge into everyday life or to transform it into social action. As
Cohen puts it, “The facts of children starving to death in Somalia, mass
rape of women in Bosnia, a massacre in East Timor, homeless people in
our streets are recognized, but are not seen as psychologically disturbing
or as carrying a moral imperative to act. . . . Unlike literal or interpretive
denial, knowledge itself is not at issue, but doing the ‘right’ thing with
the knowledge” (2001, 9).

p.10 of Living in Denial
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12538&mode=toc
(The table of contents and the sample PDFs are available here)
You can also sample this on Google Books:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=385svSj1JKkC
For those interested in exploring further, see her chapter (21, “People Want to Protect Themselves a Little Bit: Emotions, Denial, and Social Movement Nonparticipation”) in
“Environmental sociology: from analysis to action” by Leslie King, Deborah McCarthy
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ol2b0nmgGwEC

Who is Kari’s dad?
Richard Norgaard:
“Professor Norgaard is an eclectic scholar with one solely authored book; several additional co-authored and co-edited books, and over 200 other publications in environmental and ecological economics, environmental sociology, environmental epistemology, and other fields. He is recognized within the field of economics (Who’s Who in Economics, Millennium Edition, and The Changing Face of Economics: Conversations with Cutting Edge Economists 2004) and the field of ecological economics (Kenneth E. Boulding Award, 2006) for both his critiques of and contributions to economics even while he spends most of his time working across disciplinary ways of understanding. The American Association for the Advancement of Science elected Norgaard to the status of “Fellow” in 2007. His research emphasizes how the resolution
of complex socio-environmental problems challenges modern beliefs about science and policy and explores development as a process of coevolution between social and environmental systems. His writing is informed through work on energy, environment, and development issues around the globe with different periods of his efforts emphasizing Alaska, Brazil, and California.
Internationally, Professor Norgaard serves on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and on the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management of the United Nations Environment Programme.emphasis added
He was actively engaged with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and other assessment
efforts including UNEP’s The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and UNEP’s Global Environmental Outlooks. Domestically, he chairs the Independent Science Board of the Delta Stewardship Council (formerly the CALFED Independent Science Board on which he also served), State of California, and previously served on the Science Advisory Board of the U.S. EPA (2000-2004), as a member of the U.S. committee of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), and on numerous panels of the National Research Council and the former Office of Technology Assessment. Richard Norgaard serves on the Board of Directors of the New Economics Institute, on scientific advisory boards to Tsinhua and Beijing Normal University, and on the Board of EcoEquity. He served on the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (2000-2009), in the position of Treasurer (2003-2009. He served as President of the International Society for Ecological Economics (1998-2001). He served as the founding Chair of the Board of Redefining Progress (1994-97) and as a member of its board (until 2007). Professor Norgaard was a Project Specialist with the Ford Foundation in Brazil (1978 and 1979), a visiting research fellow at the World Bank (1992).