Global Warming Skeptics Are “Racists”? Obama Supporter Say So

19
1188
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, April 5, 2012

The climate change professor at the center of the scandal over her assertion that global warming skeptics were akin to racists and should be “treated” for having a psychiatric disorder wrote a letter in which she praised Barack Obama for hiring eugenicist John P. Holdren as his chief science advisor, while also urging Obama to ignore public opinion and disregard democracy in favor of enforcing draconian climate change mandates.

Following University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard’s presentation of a discussion document at the recent Planet Under Pressure conference, in which she called for global warming skeptics to be viewed as racists who need to be “treated” for mental disorders, every academic establishment associated with her has attempted to memory hole information concerning Norgaard’s biography and her previous work.

As the Watts Up With That blog documents, the University of Oregon has attempted to re-write history Soviet-style by amending the controversial terms used in Norgaard’s paper without so much as an editor’s note.

However, a damning letter written by Norgaard which appears on the Whitman College Magazine website has not yet been erased. In the letter, Norgaard praises Barack Obama for making an “excellent choice” in hiring John P. Holdren, whom she inaccurately describes as a “Nobel Peace Prize winner”.

As we have exhaustively documented, Holdren is an avowed eugenicist who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

“Please listen to Holdren and Hansen,” writes Norgaard, referring to prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen, the man who endorsed a book by fellow alarmist Keith Farnish which advocated acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age.

Norgaard then openly urges Obama to virtually suspend democracy, ignore public sentiment, and enforce climate change mandates by executive fiat.

“Policymakers should not wait for public opinion to take necessary action,” she writes, adding, “Public opinion does matter in a democracy, but this is a time when following it would be a serious mistake.”

Norgaard’s plea to Obama to act like a dictator in enforcing the climate agenda bears resemblance to ‘Gaia hypothesis’ creator James Lovelock’s 2010 assertion that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

Norgaard concludes the letter by calling on Obama to completely eliminate the coal power industry with an “immediate phaseout of coal,” rhetoric which echoes Obama’s 2008 promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry.

The letter confirms Norgaard to be a dangerous environmental extremist with a total contempt for freedom, both advocating that Obama disregard the will of the people he is supposed to represent, while also endorsing the likes of Holdren and Hansen who have advocated the most obscenely tyrannical measures in the name of saving the planet.

The fact that there is a blatant effort on behalf of the academic establishment to distance itself from Norgaard, with information about her being deleted from University websites, illustrates how the climate change alarmist movement is none too keen on having Norgaard’s ideas receive too much public attention. Indeed, You Tube is now deleting videos that contain criticism of Norgaard in response to frivolous complaints.

This whole episode again underscores the fact that if you scratch beneath the surface of the rhetoric coming from global warming alarmists, you encounter some of the most offensive, despotic and downright dangerous ideology from people in positions of power that society has faced for decades.

Share Button

19 COMMENTS

  1. Environmentalretardists are murdering runt psychopaths. They are just human-hating terrorists that want to exterminate humans.

    • Notice that such Clovers are usually physically defective or unappealing in some obvious way?

      It’s interesting to speculate on the psychology of that….

      • C’mon guys, you know “Professor Kari” is kind of cute…in a “Hey look at me, I just escaped from the asylum!” sort of way. Of course, she’d look even better in an “I-Love-Me” jacket along with a good dose of Thorazine, drooling on herself in the corner of the day room at “the home”. If anyone needs “treatment” for a mental illness, it’s “watermelons” like this dingbat. I’m an outdoorsman and love nature, so I’m genuinely concerned about protecting our environment. But I also have enough love for my fellow humans that I certainly don’t want to a mass die off for the supposed benefit of “Mother Earth.” What it comes down to is elitists like Algore and Princess Pelosi don’t want their ocean horizon lines despoiled by drilling rigs and their mountain vistas contaminated with strip mines. The use their lap dog media and academia to evoke emotional responses from the sheeple, rather than reasoned discourse based on facts. Many folks now appear to be convinced that humanity is nothing more than “a bunch of hungry rats gnawing on the planet” to quote one of my green on the outside / red on the inside coworkers (whose livelihood depends on a coal fired power plant no less).

        If it weren’t for a desire by the elite to limit inexpensive energy for the masses, we’d already be like France; 80% nuclear / 20% fossil. Instead we have the inverse along with a smattering of so-called “sustainable”, but not economically viable “alternative energy” sources. Worse yet, the Uranium lobby will probably do everything it can to stop commercial development of Thorium reactors so they can keep on selling the shit that has contaminated altogether too much of Iraq and Afghanistan (and God knows where else) in its “depleted” form. But you’ll never convince the likes of Kari Norgaard that increased atmospheric CO2 levels show up about 800 years after global temperatures increase, the Antarctic ice record notwithstanding. Then there is the matter of the enormous fusion reactor we see up in the sky on clear days and it’s energy cycle the enviro-wackos seem to ignore, unless they want to shove more solar energy down our throats.

        You’d think that these dumb-asses could at least put two and two together and realize what any competent pot grower has known since the 70’s; CO2 is plant food. It’s a “greenhouse gas” in the sense that professional horticulturalists introduce CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yield. Experiments with junipers have proven that increaseed carbon dioxide levels actually help compensate for drought conditions. There is a reason why it is the U.N. has the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, not an “Inter-scientific” panel; the facts might get out, the East Anglia climate-gate emails being a case in point. Anyone who genuinely believes that what currently passes for “environmentalism” is anything other than a extinction protocol for the “weed people” to benefit the uber-wealthy had better wake up. It will be too late when the “sustainable energy” that heats their little concrete cubicles goes off when it’s 5 below outside.

  2. If the government gave a shit about global warming they’d greenlight enough (modern) nuclear plants to replace all the coal plants. It would only take a few dozen sites and about 15 years to completely stop using coal.

    At that point our CO2 output per capita would be about the same as any third world country.

    If we allow the government to attempt to fix the CO2/global warming problem we’ll end up with no change or even more CO2. The first thing everyone will try to do is get an exception for themselves (the government and military being first in line of course).

    Nuclear works. It works for energy production, it works for ocean-going vessels (just ask the Navy), and it is clean and safe if there are enough safeguards and lawyers involved.

    • “Nuclear works.”

      Then we’d have to threaten ourselves with embargo like Iran.

      Wait! We *could* decide to use a thorium fuel cycle! What if we did THAT! Almost no waste products? Can’t build weapons from the waste? Huge quantities of thorium pretty much all over the world?

      Of course, they’re right. Who’d want to do that?

    • Beyond those that profit from it only useful idiots and those who have been conditioned and manipulated believe in CO2 driven global warming.

      Science always has been political. They don’t teach people that in school. It has to be learned by seeking out the info or working in science and engineering. The concept of peer review often functions to protect established careers from new developments that threaten the status quo.

      The big mistake was allowing government to start funding science. This created a feedback loop. Many people working in science started only doing work and having conclusions that would please government. Government would only finance science that would help it. Things that turn out not to help it, get buried.

      What got me really questioning the process is driving. When I found government hid, edited, lied, etc with papers on mundane things like speed limits I stopped trusting anything on bigger topics. Turns out that was well founded.

      Anyway not even Al Gore believes in it. Nobody who believes in catastrophic sea level rise buys beach front property. But the public doesn’t look at actions like that.

      If energy pulled from the ether like some Tesla myth became commercial, there would be an environmental reason to oppose it within hours. It’s about political power, not electrical power.

      • I was one of those kids who (probably like you) always wanted to know why. If something could be backed up with a good reason, then, ok, I’d accept it. But if it was one of those “just because” deals, then forget it. As I got older, I applied this manner of thinking to things like speed limits. Why should I drive no faster than 55? (Especially when I knew that it was “ok” to drive 70 on the same road just a few years previously.) And so on.

        Clovers are people who don’t like people who ask why….

        • It goes beyond their lack of initiative and curiosity. It’s the belief that maturity and responsibility comes from obeying authority’s rules. It’s this upside down 1984ish thought pattern that goes through everything.

          Maturity is being led around like a child.
          Responsibility is having other people tell you what to do.

          How did things get this backwards?

  3. “And what is good Phaedrus, and what is not good — need we ask anyone to tell us these things?”

    — Robert M. Pirsig

  4. Having been in academia for some time in my previous career, I can say with certainty that the mindset of this woman is very widespread within nearly all universities. Control freaks looking to expand their worldview over the rest of us Mundanes. But they work for the state so ya get what ya pay for.

LEAVE A REPLY