Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scientific American thinks we are all so worried about climate change, our minds have snapped – that we’ve all turned to “climate denial” as a coping mechanism.
Are We Feeling Collective Grief Over Climate Change?
The idea is highly controversial, but at least one psychiatrist is convinced that we are, whether we know it or not.
In 1977, I was in middle school in Michigan, and a science teacher shared a tidbit off-curriculum. Some scientists had postulated that as a result of “pollution,” heat-trapping gasses might one day lead to a warming planet. Dubbed “the greenhouse effect,” the image was clear in my 12-year old mind: people enclosed in a glass structure, heating up like tomatoes coaxed to ripen. It was an interesting concept, but something in the very, very distant future.
Fast-forward ~ 30 years later. The year was 2006, my daughter was three, and my dreams of a White Christmas were going to hell in a hand basket. There wasn’t a snowflake to be seen in Brooklyn and it was DECEMBER—a far cry from childhood memories of jumping off the roof into fluffy mounds after a blizzard. Something was awry. An Inconvenient Truth had just been released, and those graphs and slides were suspiciously coinciding with what we were beginning to see in the form of extreme weather, à la Hurricane Katrina. Any number of idioms might well have marked the juncture: “canaries in the coal mine” comes to mind.
So why weren’t we coming together to nip this in the bud? Why were we failing to embrace what appeared to be so obvious?
The deterioration of our planet—the only home we have ever known and an assurance we used to take for granted—is bound to elicit a wide range of emotions in different individuals. Mourning is personal, but as a species, could it be that we are making our way through the stages of grief as outlined by the late Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross?
Psychiatrist and climate activist Lise Van Susteren, M.D. doesn’t necessarily think so. She points out that the Kübler-Ross framework was a response to people who hear devastating news and feel personally very involved, extremely vulnerable and know that the diagnosis is essentially inescapable.
“That’s not where most people are with climate,” Dr. Van Susteren states. “It takes a long time for some people to lay down the sense within that something is true.”
…
[James] Hansen believes people are moving in the direction of accepting that climate is changing and that humans are at least a factor if not the dominant factor.
But there is also the matter of our wiring.
“Denial is something that allows us sometimes to get through the day,” says Dr. Van Susteren. “And in some cases that’s really good, that’s adaptive, but in other cases it’s going to kill you . . . and this one’s going to kill you.”
…
Read more: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/are-we-feeling-collective-grief-over-climate-change/
If I’m feeling any grief, it is grief that an allegedly scientific magazine which I once respected could publish such mush. Few credible skeptics ever claimed humans have absolutely no influence on climate, but there is a huge gulf between predicting a mild, almost undetectable climatic nudge, and predicting an immininent planetary emergency.
If there is any “climate denial” occurring, it is a refusal by some parties to face the fact that climate models which predict global catastrophe have failed. There is no surge in sea levels, there is no accelerated rise in temperature, other than the gentle warming which started well before anthropogenic CO2 became a factor, and there is no increase in storm activity.
Claims that previously unanticipated “inertia” is preventing the manifestation of all these apocalyptic events, in my opinion is a frantic last ditch effort to defend broken theories from falsification.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

‘“Denial is something that allows us sometimes to get through the day,” says Dr. Van Susteren. “And in some cases that’s really good, that’s adaptive, but in other cases it’s going to kill you . . . and this one’s going to kill you.”’
Physician, heal thyself. 🙂
” . . . and this one’s going to kill you.”’
What nonsense! Climate “scientists” are attempting to tease out an imaginary warming signal of ~0.00003°F per day from data with a natural fluctuation from 7°F (littoral) to 102°F (inland). On top of that diurnal fluctuation, we have huge seasonal, ENSO, NAO, and PDO variations, all with zero anthropogenic cause. The Herculean task these pseudoscientists have set for themselves has the stench of hubris, if not of the Augean stables themselves.
It should not surprise us that the methods to used to pretend to accomplish this have been nothing short of latter-day Lysenkoism. To maintain this farrago has required inflating it with literally billions of dollars of falsehoods, twisted statistical methodology, data destruction, and banal dishonesty. It is farce.
Yeah, right. never mind that facts, just stick with the insults. Now it is not a scientific debate it just that anyone who can’t see the “truth” is mentally ill.
Perhaps in a follow up paper Dr. Van Susteren could tell us all about projection. Attaching the your own faults which you are blind to on others.
Those who have been shouting “deenyerz!” for years are the ones in psychological denial. They can not come to terms with the unacceptable reality that the climate is not falling apart as they had ( bizarrely ) hoped it would.
Climate modellers will happily tweak any number of poorly constrained variables in their models or”correct” the data to fit their belief system but they seem unable to correct their models to fit the data. They will come up with a thousand and one excuses for why the warming has “temporarily ” paused.
When one supposed catastrophe after another fails to materialise they desperately scour the world for an odd “climate” weather event to report on as though this bolsters their crumbling hypothesis.
They then accuse others of being in denial.
Obviously, as the good doctor points out, they are probably still totally unaware of this behaviour pattern themselves.
There’s meat for a good psychology paper: why do those who claim to be the most concerned about the future of the planet always seem to cheer and applaud when some new record is “smashed” and go surprisingly quiet when there is some good news, like the 50% increase in Arctic sea-ice volume that oddly missed the headlines after years of wailing OMG! each time there was a little less ice.
It’s pretty clear they do not want any “good” about climate.
Good point, Greg. When I read the blog item about Malcolm Roberts being waylaid by Brian Cox, I was amazed (but not really surprised) that when Cox produced his global warming chart the audience cheered, as if they welcomed the tregedy that Cox and his ilk believe will befall us all. It’s as if an audience of worried asteroid watchers had been told that a maverick asteroid was about to strike Earth – and they all cheered. If anything demands the attention of a psychologist this behaviour does.
The Armageddonist Environmentalists. They pray for Doomsday to wash away the evil that is mankind! Their anti-humanism is so blatant.
It is all personal now and they just want a cudgel to beat back skeptics. No matter the climate, they themselves feel that they will be personally unaffected, they just want others to act while they sit back and demand others sacrifice luxuries.
Now that skeptics are being labeled as mentally ill, Sen. Whitehouse and his friends can begin shipping us off to mental institutions like they did (do?) in the USSR (Russia). They’re already pushing to put us in jail.
Greg,
“and go surprisingly quiet when there is some good news, like the 50% increase in Arctic sea-ice volume”
I disagree about that being good news, except in the sense that it makes them go surprisingly quiet 😀
Yes…there is that. Not only are the warmistas wrong, and wrong about skeptics being wrong, and have ” solutions that are wrong to solve a problem that does not exist…but even if they were right, the implication that more CO2 and a warmer climate regime is bad, is itself wrong!
Maddening.
There are several climate trolls that follow me on twitter. All they have is personal attacks. Not one link to any type of science (not even bad science). Name calling, personal attacks and ad homs is all they have, and for some reason, they can’t understand why they’re not changing any minds.
‘Obviously… they are probably still totally unaware of this behaviour pattern themselves.’
That’s one of the most amazing things about this entire movement from a sociological perspective – the absolute one-way blindness to exactly that – and it IS absolute, because they can’t seem to see it, even when you point it out to them.
I’d say the Global Warmers are in stage 2: Anger…
Me? I’m not worried at all about global warming, and have zero “guilt”.
I do get a bit peeved at folks educated beyond their ability getting large paychecks to lie to me (and maybe themselves) and destroy both science and freedom for their own gain… but in 20 years they will be just another historical laughingstock.
Wait till the cyclical cold starts sitting in, then we will see real denial from the grant abusers and other climate hoaxers.
Nice trick: their magic psych wand makes opponents into closeted believers.
☺
Well, why not?…they lie about everything else related to climate.
With NO sea level rise [not just no acceleration] in geodetically stable areas and measured warming at the rate of half natural variability, ACO2 could be cooling us.
But either way I refuse to insure the house at a premium that is twice its value.
Per year.
Nah, it’s pretty constant at ~2 mm/yr. We are still recovering from the last ice age, remember. Don’t make claims that are easily disproven by anyone with an internet connection.
Ben, it might be ~ 2mm/yr in your geodetically mobile neck of the woods but I have been involved in sea front infrastructure all my life and I know families who, for generations, have run little ship maintenance businesses with slipways who would kill for some SLR.
It simply ain’t happening and over the last 70 years, highest astronomical tides have actually fallen.
Your assertions are very interesting, do you have any facts to point to ?
geodetically where for example.
Greg, this is in Moreton Bay on the east coast of Australia. Highest tides at the pile light over 70 years ago were measured at 9 feet and a little bit. Today they rarely make 9 feet [2.743 metres]. AFAIK they use the same place of measurement but the official tide gauge there has been moved and lacks continuous data. But see my comment below. HATs are definitely lower here than 70 years ago.
Here is a bit more detail. The photo shows the jetty and wall [both the same height which we built in 1946] with a bit of wave splash on the lawn but that HAT was 200mm below the lawn. Photo taken at the top of the tide.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/01/king-tides-at-cleveland-point-and-sea-level-change-over-the-holocene/
You don’t need questions to find my location. Texas is quite geologically stable, thank you very much. The Galveston gives one of the best, unimpeded displays of straight near-constant rise.
That being said. Going based off the Sydney gauge (I’m not certain of the location of the rest and its at least on the same coast), you’re right. There hasn’t been any meaningful rise in your area since 1914.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/ntc/monthly/
Given how far south you are, I would not be surprised if you have some isotactic rebound from the removal of your ice age glaciers.
Besides, 100 mm of average rise isn’t visible to the naked eye over 50 years. That quarter-foot would be swamped by the tides.
Houston Ben. I’m not sure that Galveston makes for a good argument here. Geological subsidence plays a huge role in this region. The bottom line for us is that the Gulf coastal plain is sinking. A lot! Much has been written on the subject and the arguments over the reasons for this subsidence have been ongoing for years – sedimentary deposition (Mississippi river primarily), tectonic causes, or even the extraction of groundwater, oil, or gas.
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/geo-evo/research/la-subsidence.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf
http://www.c4g.lsu.edu/downloads/RK_Dokka-Modern-day_Tectonic_Subsidence_in_Coastal_Louisiana_Geology.pdf (Dokka at LSU generated a lot of controversy with his findings)
Such trash! — Eugene WR Gallun
Seriously, what kind of a moron do have to be to open your door, go out, walk down your street, look up and think “This is going to kill me”?
….. and they wonder why people know they’re full of sh!t.
What or who should you believe, the highly paid experts who would be fired if they said not to worry, or your own lying eyes?
When I was twelve, growing up in the North of England, I used to hang out in both my Dad’s greenhouse and the school greenhouse, along with all the tomato plants we grew. It wasn’t an image, it was reality, and it was great – warmth, yummy tomatoes, cutting English language classes and the like. Poor lady seems to have had a sh!t childhood and wants to inflict it on any moron that will listen.
Talking to myself here but PS, How is it even remotely possible that a writer for Scientific American doesn’t know how a greenhouse works ??
The abject stupidity of these people is mindboggling.
One of my favorite questions to any member of the Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW is to have them explain how a greenhouse works. I have yet to find any of them that have the foggiest idea. They always come up with the “well, the glass is keeping the infrared radiation in” answer. Wrong of course. I then ask them why a car is hotter when you leave it in the sun with the windows closed than when you leave it in the sun with the windows cracked. The car is equally opaque to IR in both cases.
“I have yet to find any of them that have the foggiest idea.”
Case in point:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/23/great-moments-in-activist-climate-science-dr-laurie-johnson-co2-makes-my-car-hot/
I wonder if Bill Nye knows how a greenhouse works – seriously ?
I wonder if Bill Nye knows … anything.
Dr. Laurie Johnson’s PhD is in Economics.
For much of my life it was my favorite magazine.
I won’t even read it now unless something really catches my eye. I’ve read maybe 3 articles in the last 5 years and even those turned out more oriented toward politics than science.
Ditto.
Not scientific and not American, but otherwise it has big words and pretty pictures.
Scientific American very much lost credibility when they went on a tear under the Reagan Administration, with a series on anti-SDI “Star Wars” and nuclear disarmament in general. My favorite was an article outlining how the Soviets could cause even more dreadful results by ground-bursts against nuclear power plants.
Same here; I was an SA subscriber for more than a couple decades, but then SA became more political than scientific, and that was the death knell for me. Nat Geo went the same way, as did Discover magazine. I used to read all these but they all slipped into advocacy, unproven science and pseudoscience. They all lost a long time subscriber, and to me are now irrelevant.
Actually, SciAm has, since October 1945, never had a positive article on military warfighting hardware, spending, or policy. Its economics articles were always in praise of economic planning, aid to ‘developing nations’, and bemoaning the distress caused by “chaotic markets”. The editor set the tone, and he was a straightforwards member of the academic socialist camp follower societies. Yes, I remember the Costas Tsipis articles on BMD in the 1980s, where his *arithmetic* errors always favored the anti-BMD opinion, sometimes by orders of magnitude!
Kinda like Popular Mechanics for the psuedo scientist wanna-be.
I am with you. I won’t even watch NatGeo. I almost get sick about it.
How I wish Dr. Feynman were alive to weigh in on those three rags, and all of the warmista “scientists”!
Same here. I used to subscribe and it was one of my favorite magazines. Then they became political and they dumbed down the science. Now I read maybe one or two of their articles a year. I don’t trust them to report honestly.
The point of this is that nobody accepted eugenics until some minor psychiatrist “proved”it. That was the death warrant for many people. Eugenics took about 25 to 40 years to be disproved, although prominent eugenicists did move into the IPCC and UN. Can’t remember their names at the moment.
So these warmists are following that pattern, trying to use the embarrassing Lewandowsky and now these numpty to prove skeptics are crazy. Why? Because their wild science is in claim has proved invalid.
Only this is the internet age where google can summon up crazy ideas in 0.2 of a second. Skeptic voices can be heard in the same 0.2 seconds and the absurd warmist claims disproved at about the same rate.
People only have to look out the window while driving to work to see that these disasters have not happened.
“People only have to look out the window while driving to work to see that these disasters have not happened.”
Not happening to them, but the news is chocked full of weather disasters that get blamed on Climate Change. We all agree that the climate changes, but the “climate change = fossil fuel usage” linkage has been cast by the MSM. Notice they’ve even dropped the A from AGW? Most that believe, believe ALL change is caused by us. (And believe our government would never lie either).
It is difficult to assess a proper level of risk with degenerate, inflammatory, exaggerated, and highly unlikely events being thrown into our faces constantly in terms of climate scenarios pretending to be likely events. This leads us to filter out this rhetoric as a form a political noise, instead of looking at it as something factual. Sea level, for example, is not a thing you can measured to 1 mm. That is a statistical derivation over long periods looking from gross instrument dampening of very noisy sea surfaces, and dividing by elapsed time. You cannot even take two tides gauges of differing design and say they record the same thing. These gauges are not cross-calibrated, so the data equivalency of multiple type sources is unknown. In manufacturing, everything traces to reference standards, yet when we get to climatology, there are often no standards and others ignore the fact there are no standards. Why does the Jason-3 lead say it will take 25 means to see sea level with this instrument? Because it has an accuracy to 25 mm. So to see the sea level “rise” of this noisy and unknown and uncalibrated 10 sq km average at two points 25 years apart, is going to give us “sea level rise” to someone purporting to be a scientist. No one has ever gone out and measured sea level to 1 mm, or define what that is supposed to mean with tides, and then check the next year and say there was a 1 mm rise. We have no direct observation of this rise. We take a lot of very noisy, filtered, and smoothed data as factual things, a denial of accuracy that is non-existent. This confusion of statistics and approximation with observations leads to false conclusions enforced with rhetoric, while causing the generators of this derivative data to deny errors with it, yet demand our obedience without understanding the problems with that data. This to them is then, denial of modeled data results. Well, yeah, and rightfully so.
“Why does Jason-2 lead say it will take 25 years…”
Well said, DK. Satellite measurement of sea levels is a bad joke. Back in 1946 and a few years following, the well at our seafront house used to have the highest astronomical tides cover the lawn and trickle into that well if we didn’t rake a small levy around it. That same well is still there and current HATs for the last 5 years don’t even cover the lawn. It is close to the main shipping channel and changes in sea hydraulics are not an issue. It is a tectonically stable area and I am talking about good weather king tides at ~ normal BP, not storm surges or cyclones which, though occasionally considerably higher, were worse in the 1930s.
Excellent comment. Also, how accurate were measurement devices from 100 years ago, how many were there and where were/are they located? Statistical games are being played and used as justification for the spending of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars (not to mention all the other nonsense going on).
Measuring devices from 100 years ago were pretty darn accurate.
The problem comes with the site maintenance and lack of records over the intervening 100 years.
We know it has not risen much from old photographs, and seaside properties which have been in the same place for a very long time.
Whether it is a few inches in a hundred years or a foot, it is not much.
I have seen enough evidence to make me think it cannot be much.
And every tide gage chart I have ever seen proves yet again it is not accelerating.
And I have look at a lot of them…maybe every one.
Anyone new here, have a gander for yourself:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm
Psychological projection: from wiki…
is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
I think the psychosis lies within the author at Scientific American.
Yup. Before you take the speck out of another’s eye, take the log out of yours.
I too, am going through the stages of denial over the loss of Scientific American as a credible source of information. As for anthropogenic effects on the Earth’s climate, denial is what most warmists scream when I post this link in warming threads:
Then I’m feeling too much schadenfreude for anything else. And occasionally when someone sends me a thank-you instead of profanity, I feel something else.
Thank you
Thank you and please keep posting it wherever you can…
Thank you!
I actually follow Patrick Moore on Twitter. Thank you for posting the video.
An update of sorts-
Yesterday, IFLS reposted their speculation piece asking what species would become dominant on earth if humans weren’t around. The article’s author concluded there is no way to tell. It was a typical eco-porn piece implying humans are evil. Since the time-frame of the article was 50 million years, I posted this comment:
“Without humans to restore sequestered CO2 to the biosphere, the natural sequestration process continues. When atmospheric CO2 drops below 150 ppm in about 2 million years, terrestrial plants begin to die. All terrestrial life soon follows. Later, as oceanic CO2 is sequestered in seafloor sediments, first plants, then algae dies, causing the food chain to collapse. Eventually only anaerobic bacteria are left around volcanic seafloor vents:” along with the link to Dr. Moore’s video above.
I posted my comment (in the comments section) several dozen times, as the comments scrolled up the page and my previous was no longer visible, as well as in reply to appropriate comments, ie; “the world would be better off without us”, etc, until late when I went to bed. Today the article is gone.
I have no idea whether my humble efforts had any effect on the decision to remove the article from the site (for all I know it’s still there and I’ve been blocked from seeing it) but I like to think so.
Cheers
Part of the grief is the failure to have kooky CAGW ideas accepted by the general population even after what can only be considered massive support by a compliant and alarmist media. No one could have asked for more media support, so consistently and so unswervingly biased in favour of one interpretation of the available facts. The coverage and advantage has been as great as the pro-war propaganda during recent major wars. Perhaps people forget there were active pacifist campaigns with breathing space throughout the wars. Where are the pages of print devoted to common sense and factual presentations? I leave further analysis to the social historians.
And after all that agit-prop, and even given the appalling lack of scientific education received by the ordinary citizen, the idea that the world is about to roast because of the combustion of fuel is just not believable to the ordinary citizen.
Finding something unbelievable is not the same as ‘denial of a truth’. When something is not true to begin with like the C part of CAGW, failing to believe it does not constitute denial. In order for something to be proven true, it is axiomatic that one has to prove it is not ‘something else’. In the case of climate, the requirement is to prove it is not natural variability that provides the vague correlations underwriting the ‘human CO2’ claims. Geological history provides a power case against the alarmist narrative.
As anyone with hearing knows, the ‘melting of Arctic ice’ has the most caché these days. There is so little else that resembles the bogeymen of yesteryear the AGW enthusiasts have been reduced to crying, ‘look at that Arctic Ice retreat’. That’s it! No one can find the hidden heat, no one can find the higher temperatures that are supposed to be cruising up, no one can mention the Sahara Desert any more because it is shrinking rapidly, no one can point to anything that carries enough weight with general public to overturn their common sense and considerable experience. Once the Arctic ice starts expanding again, even that straw will slip from their alarming grasp.
The surprise for the ‘climate scientist community’ is that the masses of half-educated people supposedly as dumb as a bag of hammers compared with their ‘titled and knowing’ credentials can see through the hype like a wet T-shirt on a Florida beach. The only thing unusual about Tropical Storm Sandy was the position of the moon during the surge. The only thing unusual about Hurricane Katrina was the reaction (or lack of it) by Cheney’s minions who want to run a social experiment to see what happens during a city-wide disaster if you wall them off and don’t lift a finger to help. Not much, it turns out.
The general population is smarter and more resilient, more perspicacious and more level-headed than the average CAGW alarmist. That is bound to result in a lot of grief for the true GW believers. The climate faithful are simply in denial that so many people can be so clever as to see through their cries of “Wolf! Wolf!” The public is beginning to notice that a lot of the sheep are gone, and it is the climate shepherds that are stealing them. There is no denying that.
Zeroing in on a small part:
” In order for something to be proven true, it is axiomatic that one has to prove it is not ‘something else’.”
This small piece reminded me of a cousin of what you say. It may have been said before but here it is:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!” — Carl Sagan, Astronomer
I don’t agree with the latter. It is a clever turn of phrase but a well designed test to establish an effect or the absence thereof, yields sufficient proof in both instances.
Like a Newfoundland fellow said to me: “I looked behind the door for my hat and there it was, gone.”
…..or as an old friend of mine used to say “It’s turned up missing”.
Paul writes: “I don’t agree with the latter. It is a clever turn of phrase but a well designed test to establish an effect or the absence thereof, yields sufficient proof in both instances.”
And of course you’re right; it is a clever turn of phrase, but it doesn’t yield sufficient proof in both instances. The hat was not there, proving only the hat was not there. There’s no proof given where the hat is.
“massive support by a compliant and alarmist media”
It’s as if many (if not most) “news” outlets have signed an agreement to “be a good, environmental corporate citizen” and are roped-in to advance the alarmists’ agenda because of that commitment (or face the consequences). It could have started out innocently enough (“pollution”) and then slowly the goalposts are moved and what constitutes being a “good, environmental corporate citizen” eventually morphs into being a propaganda arm of the Church of Global Warming / Climate Change. Or they really ARE that dumb.
I agree with all of that, but feel compelled to point out that the sight of hat not being apparent behind the door sure seems to be evidence of it’s absence from the location behind the door.
:p)
Menicholas,
I’ve looked for many things that I couldn’t find, then surprisingly they were always in the last place that I looked!
Funny how that works.
But it sounds like you keep looking in different places until you find what you are looking for.
Warmistas have not figured out that strategy…they just keep trotting out their usual collection of old chestnuts.
And although they have found nothing, that does not stop them from proclaiming that the hat is bound to appear behind that door someday soon.
Ah 1977, I remember it well. Steely Dan, Farrah Fawcett, and Son of Sam. And also, a terrifying article by Isaac Asimov in Readers Digest about what planet Earth would be like in 1997!! Ofcourse the whole thing was one great big disaster scenario. No oil for cars, no electricity for trains, massive pollution, disease, war. The only things missing were the plagues of frogs and locusts. By 1997, I was teaching HS science, and as a cautionary tale to my students, I read them the article from 20 years previous to simply illustrate just how easy it is to predict that the sky is going to fall, either tomorrow or the day after. Is there anything new under the sun?
Could you have been thinking about the latter part of Asomov’s article at https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/lifetimes/asi-v-fair.html? Or the one at http://my.fit.edu/~rosiene/asimov65a.pdf?
I couldn’t find anything from Reader’s Digest.
No, it wasn’t either of those. The Readers Digest normally just republishes, and sometimes edits, articles from the main stream press. I think I still have the 1977 RD edition at home somewhere.
Ralph Dave Westfall, thanks for the links. Very amusing.
Don’t forget star wars… (☺)
I was a psych major nearly 40 years ago, and went nowhere with the field as this sort of BS was all too common. Then, psych was behaviorists against the retreating Freudians, with the medical model lurking in the wings. It hasn’t gotten any better since then.
What is more relevant is the history of mass movements, like Communism or Fascism, and the mind-set associated with such movements. So far, such movements eventually lose or change so much they are not recognizable, but “eventually” can mean a lifetime and victims numbered to the nearest ten million.
Behavioural psychology.
Isn’t that just pulling habits out of rats ?
:>) :>) :>) :>)
In 1972, I was an 18 year old Freshman at the University of Illinois at Chicago on my first day of class. It was an Introduction to Psycholgy class with about 200 kids. The dopey professor started his lecture saying that human children are born a blank slate and that all of human behavior could be explained by the simple application of classical conditioning. And he wasn’t trying to make a joke – he was serious. I immediately realized (1) having a PhD does not make you wise, (2) this professor of psychology obviously knew less about human nature than I did, and (3) be extremely skeptical of psychology.
He must have had either zero or at most one child to observe from birth ever in his life.
They start out as different as peas and carrots.
My local paper just published another preposterous AP report that claimed Democrats and climate scientists correctly believed that human-caused climate change was a serious problem that required a fast switch to renewable energy while Republicans were ignorant climate skeptics who ignored the scientific evidence. This of course is the same media that distorts every comment made by Donald Trump while ignoring the evidence of the perjury committed by Hillary Clinton in her sworn testimony during a congressional hearing and her illegal destruction of public records when she was Secretary of State. Our Government, media, and about half the population is hopelessly corrupt.
Well said. Keep spreading the message.
Katrina. And nothing since.
Even then, katrina was note worthy only because of the failure of improperly designed out flow canals. Yes, it was a man made disaster, but of a different kind…
[Failure of the maintenance of the flood control canals. By the local politicians, who used the money for more popular local projects. .mod]
Mod, yes and no… Truth be told there has been such a glut of information in the times-picayune as well as on local talk radio that i can’t always tell folks what really happened. For instanced, the levee board was once thought to be a dysfunctional player in all this and at one point was exonerated. (are they in the doghouse again? i don’t know…) Keep in mind, also, that the levee board is self funding. So they can spend their money any way they damn well please. State funds were alocated when the state needed something done in which the levee board was asked to do. The state was eating out of the levee board’s hand and not the other way around. NOW (enough digressing on my part), the number one design flaw of the outflow canals was the placement of pumps at the wrong end of the canals. If the pumps are placed at the back end, the walls are not protected from storm surge. As well, if the surge causes a breech, the lake enters into the city so that we get the catastrophic flooding. With the pumps now placed on the front end (that is, the lake), not only are the walls protected from surge, but any breech of the canal walls will only drain the water which is in the canal. (hence no catastrophy) The core of engineers has been implicated in other aspects of the construction of the out flow canals as well, but the placement of the pumps was THE main flaw. And concerns about that well predate katrina…
I remember reading that the wall panels weren’t deep enough, which caused them to be under cut and collapse once the walls were over topped.
One little footnote on the levee board. They were rolling in dough will 50+ million in assets. (they owned and operated lake front airport as well as floating casinos) The rap on the levee board was not so much misappropriation of funds, but that they were so involved in their enterprises that they lost focus on their number one priority; that is to say, flood control…
Yes, Mark, and in the case of the main breech at the 17th street canal, the walls weren’t even overtopped. And that’s on the core of engineers who constructed the out flow canals. They only turn the project over to local authorities (in this case the orleans levee board) for maintenance once they are done the project…
There have been numerous other attributions over the years, every one that comes to mind was done to cover up local incompetence and lack of preparation.
Ben, not much you can do about a flawed design and construction of the out flow canals (which had nothing to do with “local incompetence”). The highly successful evacuation went off without a hitch, this due to years of tweeking the plan. The superdome was also well staffed, well stocked and everything went exceedingly well. (i know, i was there…) Media reporting so demonized the dome experience that they won’t use it in the future. Evacuation by bus now, sure, but nobody can be forced to evacuate by bus and many won’t. (same with cars, not everybody who could evacuate did) Search and rescue was also considered to be very effective, much of it “grass roots”, credited with saving thousands of lives. Perhaps that could have been better at the government level. (after trying to understand exacty what happened between bush, blanco and nagin i finally gave up…) Blanco did make a great call in evacuating people stranded on overpasses first and leaving the dome evacuation last. What more would you have local authorities do?
Mike, denihilize it all you want but the science of Katrina was spot-on: it was the storm to end all storms.
The name of that publication should be changed to Scientific Alarmistan! Never heard of such baloney, now I can’t believe I’m actually reading worse, in an alleged ‘scientific’ journal!
They are the ones in denial. Of reality. The reality that climate change and CAGW is a complete fabrication, with less credibility than any of Aesop’s Fables and the biggest HOAX ever unleashed on humanity since the beginning of civilisation. They are now trying to deny that more and more of the former sheeple are waking up to it and they’re not happy.
I’ve noticed a rampant surge in CAGW propaganda over the past few months and that little Socialist driven and very RUDE interruption of the Olympic Games opening ceremony is pure testament to how desperate they are now, to effectively get the sheeple back on the path of stupidity… The Alarmists are really sh…..g themselves now. LOL!
“So why weren’t we coming together to nip this in the bud? Why were we failing to embrace what appeared to be so obvious?”
. . Just because I’m easy . . You must at least generate the appearance that the politicos and celebrities pushing such a supposed crisis are making significant sacrifices themselves. (Only hypocritical posers/fakers would even need to be told something so blatantly obvious to normal folks, you dorky shill.)
Yer welcome.
“… Are We Feeling Collective Grief Over Climate Change? …”.
No Margaret, you are.
“… one psychiatrist is convinced that we are, whether we know it or not …”.
“… what we were beginning to see in the form of extreme weather, à la Hurricane Katrina …”.
“… why weren’t we coming together to nip this in the bud …”.
“… why were we failing to embrace what appeared to be so obvious? …”.
“… the only home we have ever known and an assurance we used to take for granted …”.
“… could it be that we are making our way through the stages of grief …”.
Either poor Margaret thinks she is the Queen or is suffering an attack of Nosism: ‘Nosism from the Latin nos, “we”, is the practice of using the pronoun “we” to refer to oneself when expressing a personal opinion’ (Wiki).
Margaret just stop filling the car with gas, stop using the electric appliance at home, the air conditioning heating etc., stop taking those air trips to exotic destinations … just stop it.
We are not amused.
No, wait, we are.
When I was 12, workers unloading a truck at an AFB near where I lived dropped a crate of nitroglycerin near a bunker to where it was to be moved. The crate blew a huge hole in the ground as well as blowing out windows of large buildings 20 miles away. Early each morning for years afterward large spider-like trucks carried large metal crates with radioactive warning emblems away from what had been revealed as a nuclear weapons storage facility. It was a reminder that those drills we endured just four years before, during which we sat under our desk or marched to the chapel, were an exercise in futility; I lived at ground zero and there was nowhere to hide if the bombs dropped from the sky. Fortunately, none every did.
About five years later, the OPEC shut off our oil supply and the price of gasoline at the pump rose from about $0.30/gal to about a buck. Meanwhile, scientists were telling us that the world’s oil supply was limited and that the last drop of oil would be pumped out in about 30 years.
If that news wasn’t bad enough, scientists were telling us that we were overdue for an ice age.
Not long after that, though, we discovered there was a hole in the ozone layer caused by releasing CFCs into the atmosphere. If acid rain didn’t kills us first, a wicked sunburn and skin cancer would. And we’d run out of food to feed the exploding population. We’re going to starve if drugs, alcohol and tobacco doesn’t kill us first.
Now the climate is changing. Extreme weather is going to kills us all.
After a lifetime of being told scary stories, it’s hard to be scared anymore. Because
It’s 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for,
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,
Next stop is VietNam.
And it’s 5, 6, 7, open up the pealy gates,
Ain’t got time to wonder why,
Whoopee we’re all gonna die.
Yup, ‘Duck and Cover’, and kiss your a$$ goodbye.
Actually it was a little more detailed than that.
” Upon seeing a bright flash and mushroom cloud you should remove all sharp objects from your pockets, remove anything with metal, i.e. rings, belts, jewelry. Get under any hard object, bend over with your head between your knees then kiss your ass goodbye,”
McCoy AFB?
Once psychiatrists enter the melee, even warmists can’t win. According to the increasingly-absurd Dr Darrell Harb, insisting that you believe in the orthodox view of climate change is just a way of “denying you’re in denial,” which is itself “a form of denial”!
https://theconversation.com/what-is-extremist-belief-an-answer-from-medieval-islamic-philosophy-63224#comment_1056518
The inmates are truly running the asylum.
“…in my opinion is a frantic last ditch effort to defend broken theories from falsification.”. The ‘denial’ is that these ‘theories’ are only conjecture (hypotheses), not theories, and that they have already been falsified.
WELL… in ’04 i DID have a white christmas. IN NEW ORLEANS !!!
Attempting to explain skepticism as a coping mechanism, is a coping mechanism for alarmists who are troubled that people don’t believe them
Psychobabble, lol