Someone posted this article in my comments. You should read it. It’s on how the green academy is characterizing skepticism of global warming as a neurological disorder. My evidence is anecdotal, but I do believe that academia has become by and large thin-skinned and insecure. I say it’s anecdotal, because I’m going only on my personal experience and other reports of academics generally dividing the world into “people who agree with me” and “the ignorant hordes.” I have noticed this in several areas.
1. Climatology. Now, the fact is that when you measure by any standard, climate modeling and forecasting is an infant science. The predictive ability of GCM’s (global climate models) is not well-tested or well-established. That would normally mean that there is still lots of room for debate and skepticism. A scientific theory is only “settled” after everyone’s tried their best to poke holes in it and failed. But in the case of global warming, engaging in this basic element of the scientific progress is characterized as a pathology and actually “anti-science.”
The other examples are excellent, and insightful. I suggest you take the time to go read this one – and then reflect on how sad it is that our culture, as a whole, refuses to engage in critical thinking anymore.