Tribal environmental health expert gets treated by her university. I guess one could say she got her environment scrubbed. Gee, I wonder why?
Yep, Ms Norgaard seems to have been pushed down a memory hole. With the publishing of this piece maybe she’ll be resurrected, that wacky Lord Monckton will be waiting:
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
More on Monckton in Schenectady. It looks like Norgaard is being treated.
