As reported on the DeSmog blog, in Florida, acceptance of climate science has been equated with mental illness…
Barton Bibler is a long-time DEP employee who now serves as Land Management Plan Coordinator in its Division of State Lands. He attended a Florida Coastal Managers Forum on February 27, 2015 at which climate change and sea-level rise were discussed among a mix of public attendees. Mr. Bibler’s official notes on this meeting reflected all of that discussion. He was directed to remove any hot button issues, especially explicit references to climate change, and then was given a letter of reprimand for supposedly misrepresenting that the “official meeting agenda included climate change.” As he was given the reprimand on March 9th, Mr. Bibler was told to not return to work for two days which would be charged against his personal leave time. Two days later he received a “Medical Release Form” requiring that his doctor supply the DEP with an evaluation of unspecified “medical condition and behavior” issues before being allowed to return to work.
Read the whole story at DeSmog blog. Addendum (1800 GMT, 27 March 2015): Having compiled it, I think my response to Catweazle (below) is worth adding here. This is because it includes references to useful sources that validate acceptance of climate science as objective and its denial as ideological, as follows:
I accept that hydrocarbons are essential to modern life (as demonstrated by the way the oil price affects the price of almost every commodity money can buy). However, the IEA, IMF and OECD all accept that those who have a genuine choice to divest from fossil fuels should do so wherever possible. http://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/reports-to-g20-fossil-fuel-subsidies.htm Sadly, even this agreement is based on a significant underestimate of the costs of futher delay in taking effective action to mitigate and/or adapt to anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD). http://www.iied.org/costs-adapting-climate-change-significantly-under-estimated If the disputation of ACD were based on truly objective and scientific scepticism it would not have such a clear ideological and political bias (Painter, 2011). http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/poles-apart