It could never happen here (could it?)

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

Advertisements

About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Climate Science, Denial, Environment, Insanity, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to It could never happen here (could it?)

  1. The older I get, the less I understand this world. Did you see the latest George Monbiot essay? Or the preliminary report of the cause of the GermanWings A320 crash?

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Have you a link for the George Monbiot piece? I must say I was really shocked to hear that the A320 was crashed deliberately.

      Like

  2. dumboldguy says:

    It could never happen there? Hasn’t it happened already in Canada, and Australia, where the conservative governments have done similar things? And haven’t there been rumblings in the UK? There is something quite crazy going on in the major English-speaking countries of the world. NZ seems to be the only one that is still immune to the disease that infects the rest of us. Regarding Paul H’s comment, we in the U.S. have a copilot in the form of a Republican Party-dominated Congress that seems bound and determined to fly a plane with over 300 million passengers into a mountain.

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Nice one. Thank you. Republicans in South Carolina have attempted to outlaw sea level rise by telling planning authorities to disregard it in their decision-making. Some might well call that ‘mental illness’ but I think ‘ideological blindness’ is more accurate.

      Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Even if recent and valid, this would not be surprising given the money the fossil fuel industry pours into perpetuating unreasonable doubt in climate science (rather than into securing its own future in a post-carbon World).

      Like

  3. Soundy says:

    The world needs this information spreading! The individuals attempting to suppress the truth are committing a crime tantamount to genocide on a global scale! We want more, Rick! Lift the veil forced over our eyes!

    Like

    • Rick Altman says:

      Thanks, [real name redacted to protect privacy]. By “individuals attempting to supress the truth”, I think you are referring to those whom I recently highlighted as including “…both longstanding disputers of inconvenient science like Fred Singer… and self-confessed non-experts like James Delingpole”. Sadly, most are not seeking to surpress the truth. On the contrary, most are just allowing their ideological prejudices to dictate what science they accept (e.g. predominantly theory-based particle physics) and what science they reject (e.g. predominantly evidence-based atmospheric physics)…. See also: https://anthropocenereality.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/acd-and-agw-spot-the-difference/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s