Sigh, for some reason some people seem to think climate skeptics hate their children and grandchildren. I wonder if they’ve ever polled to compare with concerns for that other “pass on to the next generation” issue, our soaring national debt that our children and grandchildren have to pay for?
Climate Change, Narcissism, Denial, Apocalypse. The science is critical, but understanding why so many people are still in denial requires further explanation. Here’s an except from an Op Ed by Dr. Robert D. Stolorow at Psychology Today:
“On October 5, 2012, on the front page of the Huffington Post, appeared a terrifying image of melting arctic ice, accompanied by the chilling headline, “Arctic Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise May Be ‘Decades Ahead Of Schedule’” Why have the majority of Americans and American politicians been largely oblivious to this extreme threat? I believe there are two principal reasons.
The first is unbridled narcissism. Psychoanalytic developmental theorist Erik Erikson famously characterized an essential aim of adulthood as generativity—the caring for the well being of future generations. Climate change most likely will not be a threat for most of us, but it will leave our children, grandchildren, and future descendents with catastrophes of unimaginable proportions. In the deplorable obliviousness and indifference to the problem of climate change, any concern for the well being of future generations is being blatantly trumped by narrow self-interest and greed.”
The second is denial. What, precisely, is being denied? More than three decades ago I took my young son to a planetarium show at the New York Museum of Natural History. During that show it was predicted that a million years from now the sun will become a “red giant” that will engulf and destroy our entire solar system. This prospect filled me with intense horror. Why would a catastrophe predicted to occur in a million years evoke horror in me? Let me explain.
================================================================
A couple of points:
Here is the “terrifying” photo:
The good doctor probably does not get to see the other view of sea ice, when it is at maximum in March:
Perhaps he doesn’t realize that the ice regenerates every year, and maybe he thinks that it becomes a permanent condition? Maybe he never looks at the Antarctic either, where the majority of the ice is, and setting new records for the most ice this year.
And since he’s arguing from a position of authority, I should at least point out that he hasn’t even got his basic facts straight.
During that show it was predicted that a million years from now the sun will become a “red giant” that will engulf and destroy our entire solar system. This prospect filled me with intense horror. Why would a catastrophe predicted to occur in a million years evoke horror in me?
Maybe it will be less horrifying when you learn your horror timeline is off by 4.999 billion years? From NASA “Ask an Astrophysicist“:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Question
(Submitted June 04, 2004) How long until the Sun becomes a red giant?
The Answer
The Sun will become a red giant in about 5 billion years, which is slightly more time than it has already been a star. There’s a lot of nice information about the Sun at
http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html
Hope that helps.
-Kevin and Dirk,
for “Ask an Astrophysicist”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is difficult for me to take somebody like this seriously, especially one with a “PhD” attached to his name that can’t even get such basic facts they base their argument on right.
As for his diagnosis, perhaps the good doctor would benefit from reading this article in Reason magazine:
The Medicalization of RebellionThe long, shameful history of using science to stigmatize dissenthttp://reason.com/archives/2012/04/21/the-medicalization-of-rebellion
Or this one, about his cohort in slime, Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky which talks about the same topic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/toodle-lew/
Its just more Political Abuse of Psychiatry, such as was practiced in the Soviet Union:
In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place. Soviet psychiatric hospitals known as “psikhushkas” were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured. Formerly highly classified extant documents from “Special file” of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union published after the dissolution of the Soviet Union demonstrate that the authorities of the country quite consciously used psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent.
Sound familiar when looking at what is being written about climate skeptics today?
I wonder who will be the first to propose that Gitmo have a section added for “climate deniers”?
I’m so pleased to see all these bien pensant intellectuals putting themselves on record for everyone to see. This will make it easier once this is all over to set up a proper Hall of Shame. In addition to edifying exhibits showing the history of the hysteria and its many facets, this could include a ‘roll of honor’, perhaps in the style of the Vietnam Memorial.
From another angle, it’s almost as if someone had invented an extraordinary aerosol that causes all these creatures now ensconsed within the sinews of society to pause from gnawing at the foundations and connections and to crawl out into the sunlight and reveal their presence.
I categorize The eco-sustainable-socialist-left essentially as compulsive liars and this Op Ed is a glaring example: he quotes “an essential aim of adulthood as generativity—the caring for the well being of future generations.”
If that were true and if the eco-sustainable-socialist-left really cared about the future generations of humanity they wouldn’t be driving up the national debt of the USA to a point that will be lethal to civilized life. The greens have committed our progeny to a national debtors prison and are the cause of future democide. To feign that the future progeny is the basis for the actions of the left is an outrageous lie. They do care about a future, a future devoid of people and devoid of industry, devoid of religion, devoid of human supremacy. Heck, eco-sustainable-socialist-leftists don’t even reproduce themselves with a birthrate of 1.1 per couple.
I don’t subscribe to the eco-sustainable-socialist-left way of thinking. I do care about the future and refuse to spend our national riches on hype and phony science to advance a political theory that will hurt our children and grand children.
So I think I am in good company amongst the skeptics who care for our REAL future, who care about our kids who believe that REAL science is the method to understanding the material world.
Based on our collective empathy for our children, the desire for truth as an end itself we reject eco-sustainable-socialist-leftism and therefore we reject AGW populism
D Böehm says:
Great quote!!! Hope they made it a law. In enegineering school the easiest electives were psychology classes, so I took several, welcome respite from calc, statistics, physics, chemistry, eng drawing, etc. Not only were these professors idiots (except for one) they were personally emotionally and psychologically deficient. When I asked the one clinical psychologist professor I had (who was an MD as well) about this, he pointed out that this was quite common in that field as screwed up people were attracted to psychology as a field of learning perhaps trying to figure out why they were so screwed up. This has proven out almost always to be true in my dealings with these folks over the years.
I am constantly baffled by the near hysterical alarm that sea ice is melting when everyone should realize that ice melting by itself is not horrific wherever it occurs let alone in the ocean where it makes no difference at all. There must be something that the melting ice represents that frightens some people. So why is that not the headline? “Polar bears dying by the thousands : reason melting sea ice”. Well because polar bears are not dying at all. That canard fell a while ago that even alarmists know its not true. “Massive heat explosion in the north causing 70 degree days in middle of winter in Alaska north destroys vegetation and plankton. Loss of arctic sea ice to blame scientists say”. Well there is no evidence of any damaging effect of warmth in the arctic or sea ice melting. So I am constantly baffled. What is the “fear of?” What is the thing that makes them worry? Ice melts in my drinks every day. Melting ice by itself is a nonevent. Is it the loss of natural beauty of the ice? Fear that man will then exploit the exposed terrain for profit and the benefit of man? Frequently I get the feeling that these alarmists are scared we will benefit and if they don’t create a feeling of horror we will all think the warming is actually a benefit. They want us to feel bad so we restrain ourselves from benefitting ourselves. Greenland is becoming richer because of melting ice. Any farmer would realize warmer temps mean more arable land, longer growing seasons. Do they mean to make us fail to exploit the benefits or ignore the benefits?
Anyone stupid enough to not know the difference between a billion years and a million years, yet is allowed to hold positions of authority and high social status like “PhD” and make a living off the claim that they understand how the mind works fills me with laughter.
Of ridicule.
This writer, like his colleague Lewandowsky, offers nothing that is rationally useful.
There’s little to understand about Psychology and Psychiatry. Within Sociology we carry about the notion of the in-group and the out-group. Psychology is about utilizing persuasion to move people from the out-group to the in-group; it is simply Applied Sociology. Psychiatry is no more than the use of psychoactive substances to ensure that the subjects are suggestive enough to be swayed by Applied Psychology.
Anyone that is level-headed and competent at Psychiatry will not remain in the field unless they are, in some sense, evil. Or if you like: antisocial or narcissistic. And those that are either not level-headed or not competent should not be allowed access to psychoactive substances far stronger — and with more severe side effects — than those common ‘street drugs’ that are routinely outlawed and used as justification to kick in doors at midnight and meddle about in Central American countries. All due the harm they cause.
Any are free to disagree as they like. Simply refute Sociology’s idea that there is no ‘objective’ morality, norm, or more. As if there is not, then we can hardly justify any objective legitimacy — or handing police powers to — those individuals that make their trade plying drugs on the basis that there is.
Well, the good Doctor, assuming he really is a good doctor in his field, is obviously not a “climate scientist” so the warmist will ignore anything he says about the climate. (Isn’t that the mantra?)
And he is obviously not a PhD in any field that has anything to with astronomy so I don’t think there’s any real threat of “Solar System Warming” anytime soon.
(He does seem to a bit excitable. So if you meet him on the street, be kind. Don’t tell him that every breath he takes is exhaling CO2 and dooming his grandchildren to advancing beachfront property.)
logiclogiclogic,
The alarmist crowd clings to the Arctic ice scare because that is the only one of their numerous predictions that they believe is coming true. But is it really?
No. The IPCC predicted that both the Northern and Southern hemispheres would begin rapidly losing ice. That is not what happened: Antarctica has just set a record for total ice volume.
The Arctic ice scare is simple cherry-picking. You cannot make a prediction and then claim that because one-half of it was correct, your prediction is validated. In reality, it is falsified.
Maybe it is a fear man will succeed. I have a brother who is environmental extremist and he does say things like man is evil. We deserve to perish for our sins to the earth, The fact man is so far as we know the most uniquely aware creature in the universe. We have no direct evidence there is anything but lifeless rocks anywhere else in the universe. Probabilistically that is ridiculous. There must be other life but until we can see or hear it I’m going that benefiting humankind is a good thing and that as a cheerleader for mankind I want us to figure this all out. Therefore of we can benefit from exposed minerals in Greenland we should utilize them prudently. We shouldn’t be scared of mans success. We should absolutely be striving to make our stand on the earth sustainable. I just can’t see the connection between that and leaving money on the floor unless someone can show how having more routes for access for trade and more minerals is bad for us longer term I feel that this fearmongering is subterfuge. There is no obvious reason why I should shake at the prospect of melting sea ice anywhere and for slow moderate increases in sea level that has been going on since the end of the last ice age. It feels like a reaction that people have to discovering the world wasn’t flat that we weren’tthe center of the universe. Climate has changed, sea levels have changed. It hasn’t been the same and suddenly it’s changing in some horrific unseen way. Most of the living species on this planet evolved over millions of years during periods far warmer and cooler than today during catastrophes and they all survived and even evolved. So what is to fear?
“The horror that I felt was an extreme form of existential anxiety—the anxiety that accompanies our recognition that, as finite human beings, we are constantly threatened by impending possibilities of harm, disease, death, and loss, which can occur at any time. ”
And would we not call people that obsess over the constant possible danger mentally ill?
“But what I felt at the planetarium show was more than that, because the sun’s becoming an engulfing red giant represents not just the destruction of individual human beings but of human civilization itself, a possibility vividly portrayed in the recent movie, “Melancholia.” ”
A possibility, a very very very distant possibility that is almost certainly never going to happen. Either humanity will have destroyed itself, will have been destroyed by other alien species, will have been destroyed by a newly evolved earth species (whether hyperintelligent apes or a supervirus that kills us all), or humanity will have become so advanced that we can live on our own artificial worlds/ships with an infinite supply of energy.
It’s preposterous to think that we’ll be at the mercy of the sun if/when it hits that point in its lifecycle.
“The destruction of human civilization would also terminate the historical process—the sense of human history stretching along from the distant past to an open future—through which we make sense out of our individual existences. I want to call the horror that announces such a possibility apocalyptic anxiety. Apocalyptic anxiety anticipates the collapse of all meaningfulness. And it is from apocalyptic anxiety that we turn away when we deny the extreme perils of climate change.”
Or perhaps it’s turning away from an imagined but non-existant phantom, which is causing some people to experiance Apocolyptic Anxiety. If it’s not AGW, it’s global cooling, or running out of oil, or civilization ending because computers don’t understand the year 2000, or an infinite number of other things which cause otherwise rational people to behave irrationally.
One word: Irrational.
In contra a comment above, the Huff Puff Post is a wonderful resource for keeping up with the latest in AGW consequences. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/arctic-methane-leaks_n_1947762.html?utm_hp_ref=green for instance and Oso’s sarcastic comments.
Not willingly delivering future generations into the hands of ecolunatic tin-pot dictators is more concern than I’ve ever seen from organized green.
[My] jaw dropped in utter shock and amazement after reading the good doctors piece. How the hell does somebody that uninformed get to write an op-ed piece about so-called global warming/climate change? If he is a good a psychiatrist as he is climatologist/astronomer, God help his patients.
Any reasonably educated person should know the difference between a million, and a billion, and a trillion.
If PhD’s do not understand the difference, no wonder the public isn’t very worried about our $14 trillion federal debt. But that debt, which is still escalating, has the potential to destroy the economy.
“On October 5, 2012, on the front page of the Huffington Post, appeared a terrifying image of melting arctic ice, accompanied by the chilling headline, “Arctic Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise May Be ‘Decades Ahead Of Schedule’” Why have the majority of Americans and American politicians been largely oblivious to this extreme threat? I believe there are two principal reasons.”
I would simply dismiss this as another guy on the gravy train science game, getting money from the govt or Goldman Sachs’ charities or wherever. But this guy is a believer. Who quotes a headline as proof of anything?
Arctic ice melt & sea level rise. Arguably if the Arctic ice melts and then warms a few degrees to 4C, then the melt water will actually be shrinking (water is most dense at around 4C) causing a fall in sea level.
“What, precisely, is being denied? More than three decades ago I took my young son to a planetarium show at the New York Museum of Natural History. During that show it was predicted that a million years from now the sun will become a “red giant” that will engulf and destroy our entire solar system. This prospect filled me with intense horror. ”
Two things spring to mind
1. Sol will become a red giant in around 5 billion years, not one million – I’d want my money back, was it a creationist planetarium?
2. Does he expect to be here in a million years time to be ‘filled with intense horror’?
These psychobabble types really do need help.
Op Ed by Dr. Robert D. Stolorow at Psychology Today:
During that show it was predicted that a million years from now the sun will become a “red giant” that will engulf and destroy our entire solar system. This prospect filled me with intense horror. Why would a catastrophe predicted to occur in a million years evoke horror in me?
Hystrionic personality disorder?
Just a guess on my part. But I’ll wager I am a better at psychiatry than you are a climatology.
Ting tang, walla walla bing bang.
The line about being horrified at learning the sun will become a red giant in a million years has taken the early lead in Stupidest statements of the week. Forget about his being totally off on the timeline. Even at a million years, Dr. Stolorow provides a classic example of panties in a twist (as well as plain old fashioned stupidity). Who could possibly get worked up about something a million years away? Particularly when it involves the workings of a star. Perhaps the good doctor believes that if he just reasons with old Sol, he can make a difference.
Maybe this is more relevant to the topic:
1 million seconds = 12 days
1 billion seconds = 32 years
1 trillion seconds = 32,000 years
(If you want to use hours instead, one trillion hours is ≈114,077,116 years.)
This stuff is the future of popular science magazines… pandering to their readers political ideologies and backing it up with popular science anecdotes to reaffirm the reader’s desire to view those who disagree with them as contra-science and mentally deranged. At the same time it delivers that hit of superiority that they need to continue maintaining their holier then thou worldview.
Is that what science has come down to?
This psychiatrist does not practice with mainstream beliefs. http://www.psychologyoftheself.com/newsletter/2003/buirski.htm is a good summary. He does not really believe in the individual mind. Intersubjectivity argues that who we are does not derive from anything intrinsic but from our interactions with our physical environment, cultural tolls, and social interactions.
That rejection of Descartes is a classic rejection of the abstract individual rational mind. Very popular in education now but these are political theories. Many were imported from the Soviet Union. He cites Heidegger. Not known for his promotion of individualism in a free society. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/so-now-common-core-rejects-individual-thinking-to-embrace-soviet-psychology-ecology/ is where I explain socio-cultural theory. I have also explained Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory and that is the perspective he writes from.
It is not a factual theory. It is designed to be implemented to change people from the inside-out and how they relate to others. So that they see themselves less as an independent individual and more as a part of the collective.
I think one personal link per post is enough but I detailed the political, scientific, economic and social Transformation in Nine very graphic dimensions by futurist Bela Banathy. This is all a part of in a post on September 23 called “Who Granted Permission to Spearhead Societal Evolution to a Global Cooperative Consciousness?” His analysis of the mind fits in with the belief in a collective consciousness. It is an aspiration for the future though and not one where freedom and independence reside.
It’s not about temps. It is about power and control over individual behavior. The historic norm where there was no prosperity for the masses.
timg56 says:
October 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Perhaps the good doctor believes that if he just reasons with old Sol, he can make a difference.
========================================================================
Maybe he’s on to something. We’ve been concerned about the wrong gas. We shouldn’t be concerned about CO2 but H2!
Dr. Robert D. Stolorow? So, this time we have an actual psychologist, rather than a fictional one, who’s usefulness to us ends at the next Heartland Institute bar night “Hi Bob” competition.