Climate-Catastrophe Skeptics - If You Can't Beat 'Em, Shrink 'Em!
The National Wildlife Federation's new publication "The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States" gives wildlife a new meaning. Citing evidence that many in the climate alarmist community are "frustrated and burned out," it quotes one member as trying to keep on persuading mankind that a climate apocalypse is at hand so "I will not be able to feel the angst or despair" of failure.
For nearly three decades, certain U.S., U.K., and U.N. activists, like NASA's James Hanson, have tried to sell governments on draconian centralized economic policies supposedly to save the planet. Anyone disagreeing -- regardless of credentials and reasoning -- becomes the target of rhetorical terrorism. But the skeptical resistance is so strong and growing so rapidly -- not just in the public, but also among scientists -- that the alarmists increasingly show signs of both despair and loss of self-control.
In his recent Forbes article, alarmist Steve Zwick, apparently inspired by Hanson's tirades, wants the scientifically unpersuaded to be hunted down and their homes burned. Daniel Souweine of the Soros-funded Citizen Engagement Lab demands that TV weathercasters who disagree that man is the prime cause of climate change to be persecuted until they repent.
A rational person would think a call for psychological intervention would be directed against such behavior. Not so. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) now calls upon government to bankroll massive intervention by the mental health community to deal with up to 200 million cases of stress from projected "climate related events and incidents."
Then, in language reminiscent of Mao Tse-tung's education camps for the non-compliant, the NWF eagerly anticipates how government-funded psychological experts will break down denial and bring "rational thinking into decision making." Such experts will merely extend the present authority for reporting child abuse to reporting climate skepticism! Oregon professor Kari Norgaard already argues that scientific disagreement on the cause of climate change is an aberrant sociological behavior that must be treated.