I think it it would be true to say that, whether she realised it or not:
(a) writing that
working paper for the World Bank, and
(b) having at least one
published "interview" about it and which thus publicly advertised the paper and her views for climate activism, and
(c)
publishing an open letter on her college's website, to president Obama, advocating her climate activism beliefs,
- would arguably on their own be sufficient to place Kari Norgaard squarely into the gaze of the public eye and thus make of her a legitimate target for public comment/criticism.
She was apparently making public statements as though she was a qualified academic (professor?) on the subjects being discussed.
(Though I am unsure whether she is qualified to do so, or is a professor, or what she might be a professor of, as her university have apparently taken down their bio webpage on her.)
Therefore, removing the YouTube video - which was legitimately critical and poked fun/ridicule at her
because of her documented and publicised views/statements - could seem to be "censorship". And it would probably not be incorrect to call it that.
So, yes, it apparently
was YouTube censorship by Google (QED). But then, we should remember that AGW seems to be a potentially significant political football (Read "huge new taxation revenues"), and that Google is now apparently a major supplier to the US Government State Department - refer
Secretary Clinton Announces State Department Use of Chrome-IainB
As to whether she is right/wrong in her views, well, she clearly
believes in the AGW that she speaks of, but sincerity of conviction is no proof.
And we know (e.g.,
from a relatively rational and separate discussion thread in the DC forum) that:
- AGW is the stated "Cause" for at least some of those "scientists" who are proponents of the absolutism of AGW (QED).
- AGW is an unsubstantiated theory, about which some of the "scientists" involved - by their own statements - have been irrationally fabricating untruths (e.g., stochastic fraud) intending to substantiate the AGW theory, and subsequently trying to hide their misdemeanours from discovery, and trying to gag/silence/censor/blacklist any argument or any person that may be against "The Cause" (QED).
- The fixing and corruption of otherwise valid climate data by these "scientists" continues (QED).
- At least of one of said "scientists" (Gleick) has admitted to fraud in obtaining material under false pretences and promulgating a false/faked document - which he may have faked himself - and committing this fraud as an effort to substantiate or strengthen AGW by the faked evidence hopefully throwing the AGW critics into disrepute (which effort was ironically failed by committing the fraud) (QED).
So, if you add to the above nonsense Kari Norgaard's proposition that
non-believers in AGW are actually suffering from a form of psychological illness, and thus, by extension, those poor people need
treatment my dear, then it rather makes a kind of wonky sense in that it is entirely consistent
with that nonsense.
It seems to be right up there with faith healing; saving your soul; Islamic martyrs being given 72 virgins in Paradise; the Heaven's Gate believers suiciding en masse and thus climbing aboard the spaceship flying in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet; Scientologists believing that you need to provide relief from the past problems caused us by the spirits of space aliens, so that you can realise Operating Thetan, etc.
Some people might say - not me, you understand - that anyone who actually fervently believed in or held great conviction of the truth of such an insubstantial theory as AGW - and under such circumstances as above - was arguably
already themselves suffering from a form of psychological illness, though I couldn't possibly comment.
Recent Posts
