This sure smacks of religious intolerance. Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor
In the article that your infowars piece references, there is no reference to the word "sickness", so that's Strike One. They compare her thesis to eugenics, which is Strike Two. It's not that hard to understand. Even this right-winger and former skeptic confirms her core thesis. http://www.skepticnorth.com/2009/12/the-real-reasons-why-people-dont-accept-global-warming/
Well there you go. You assume a journalist is an expert. Anything to bolster your true belief. Journalist: A professional whose job it is to explain to others what it personally does not understand. Lord Northcliffe
quote from the article... science of communicating science what they're talking about is ending the religion of ignorance(deniers) with that that frightening painful cure, education...
You haven't yet gone back to your OP to correct he misinformation contained it it. According to the University of Oregon press release - she does not label doubts about anthropogenic climate change a sickness for which individuals need to be treated. Your OP contains a lie. What her paper does actually say is: "We find a profound misfit between dire scientific predictions of ongoing and future climate changes and scientific assessments of needed emissions reductions on the one hand, and weak political, social or policy response on the other," Norgaard said. Serious discussions about solutions, she added, are mired in cultural inertia "that exists across spheres of the individual, social interaction, culture and institutions." Your post, and your readiness to spread misinformation from dubious sources is an excellent example of this "cultural inertia" that is trying to prevent serious discussions about solutions.
In sharp contrast to Hoosier8, who also assumed a journalist was an expert when he started this thread. The difference is, the journalist Hoosier8 linked to was in fact lying about the paper Norgaard presented. But Hoosier8 doesn't care, he likes to be lied to, as long as the lie confirms his pre-existing beliefs.
While I agree with others that the OP was a bit misleading and not really what this journalist said, I'm not sure it even matters. Yes there are likely people on both sides who will either exaggerate to make their point, or worse maybe get too personal. But that really does not change the fact that in my opinion it seems very hard for the rest of us - who do not want to exaggerate or get personal - to rationally debate those who are skeptical using facts and data. (Except a few well-known hand-picked talking points on the right, which once you get beyond there is little else).
it's amusing for the rest of us when you don't comprehend your own links...luckily for you you don't realize it and avoid feeling embarrassed by it...
Right, just because the words you want to see are not there, you do not understand the implication of the link yourself.
