Scientific American: "Denial" Helps Us Cope with Our Collective Climate Grief


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:

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Hladik
August 16, 2016 9:35 pm

‘“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. 🙂

Reply to  Gary Hladik
August 16, 2016 11:19 pm

” . . . 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.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
August 17, 2016 1:20 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 1:25 am

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.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 1:48 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 4:45 am

The Armageddonist Environmentalists. They pray for Doomsday to wash away the evil that is mankind! Their anti-humanism is so blatant.

John Boles
Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 6:23 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 6:45 am

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 7:05 am

“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 😀

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 7:22 am

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!

Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 8:40 am

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Greg
August 17, 2016 11:10 am

‘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.

Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2016 5:10 pm

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.

Reply to  Gary Hladik
August 17, 2016 6:38 am

Wait till the cyclical cold starts sitting in, then we will see real denial from the grant abusers and other climate hoaxers.

Ann in L.A.
August 16, 2016 9:38 pm

Nice trick: their magic psych wand makes opponents into closeted believers.

Reply to  Ann in L.A.
August 16, 2016 11:54 pm

Reply to  Ann in L.A.
August 17, 2016 9:06 am

Well, why not?…they lie about everything else related to climate.

spangled drongo
August 16, 2016 9:52 pm

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.

Reply to  spangled drongo
August 16, 2016 10:16 pm

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.

spangled drongo
Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 1:02 am

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.

Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 1:27 am

Your assertions are very interesting, do you have any facts to point to ?

Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 1:28 am

geodetically where for example.

spangled drongo
Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 2:21 am

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.

spangled drongo
Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 2:48 am

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.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 5:55 am

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.
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.

Chuck in Houston
Reply to  benofhouston
August 17, 2016 8:11 am

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. (Dokka at LSU generated a lot of controversy with his findings)

Eugene WR Gallun
August 16, 2016 9:53 pm

Such trash! — Eugene WR Gallun

August 16, 2016 9:58 pm

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.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 7:32 am

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?

August 16, 2016 10:05 pm

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.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 16, 2016 10:25 pm

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.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 5:56 am

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.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 8:46 am

“I have yet to find any of them that have the foggiest idea.”
Case in point:

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 8:52 am

I wonder if Bill Nye knows how a greenhouse works – seriously ?

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 10:16 am

I wonder if Bill Nye knows … anything.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 17, 2016 10:25 am

Dr. Laurie Johnson’s PhD is in Economics.

Anne Ominous
August 16, 2016 10:05 pm

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.

Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 17, 2016 5:59 am


Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 17, 2016 7:58 am

Not scientific and not American, but otherwise it has big words and pretty pictures.

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnWho
August 17, 2016 11:10 am

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.

Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 17, 2016 9:25 am

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.

Tom Billings
Reply to  jmichna
August 17, 2016 4:01 pm

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!

NW sage
Reply to  jmichna
August 17, 2016 4:09 pm

Kinda like Popular Mechanics for the psuedo scientist wanna-be.

Reply to  jmichna
August 17, 2016 10:38 pm

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”!

Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 17, 2016 11:11 am

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.

August 16, 2016 10:11 pm

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.

Reply to  Jack
August 17, 2016 4:57 am

“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).

Donald Kasper
August 16, 2016 10:12 pm

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.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 16, 2016 10:13 pm

“Why does Jason-2 lead say it will take 25 years…”

spangled drongo
Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 17, 2016 2:03 am

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.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 17, 2016 8:29 am

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).

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 17, 2016 10:18 am

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.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 17, 2016 2:25 pm

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:

Paul Westhaver
August 16, 2016 10:15 pm

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.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
August 17, 2016 5:05 am

Yup. Before you take the speck out of another’s eye, take the log out of yours.

Jeff Hayes
August 16, 2016 10:17 pm

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.

Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 16, 2016 10:30 pm

Thank you

Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 16, 2016 10:45 pm

Thank you and please keep posting it wherever you can…

Rick K
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 17, 2016 5:34 am

Thank you!

Kevin Schurig
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 17, 2016 6:04 am

I actually follow Patrick Moore on Twitter. Thank you for posting the video.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 21, 2016 10:28 am

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.

Crispin in Waterloo
August 16, 2016 10:18 pm

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.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 16, 2016 10:42 pm

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.”

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
August 17, 2016 1:01 am

…..or as an old friend of mine used to say “It’s turned up missing”.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
August 17, 2016 1:13 pm

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.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 17, 2016 10:24 am

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.

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 17, 2016 2:30 pm

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.

Phil R
Reply to  PiperPaul
August 17, 2016 7:49 pm

I’ve looked for many things that I couldn’t find, then surprisingly they were always in the last place that I looked!

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 17, 2016 9:25 pm

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.

August 16, 2016 10:18 pm

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?

Reply to  Tim
August 16, 2016 11:09 pm

Could you have been thinking about the latter part of Asomov’s article at Or the one at
I couldn’t find anything from Reader’s Digest.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 17, 2016 12:10 am

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.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 17, 2016 9:05 am

Ralph Dave Westfall, thanks for the links. Very amusing.

Reply to  Tim
August 17, 2016 12:26 am

Don’t forget star wars… (☺)

Tom Halla
August 16, 2016 10:18 pm

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 17, 2016 7:26 am

Behavioural psychology.
Isn’t that just pulling habits out of rats ?

Phil R
Reply to  richardbriscoe
August 17, 2016 7:56 pm

:>) :>) :>) :>)

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 17, 2016 11:43 am

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.

Reply to  Marty
August 17, 2016 2:32 pm

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.

South River Independent
August 16, 2016 10:22 pm

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.

Thomas Gelsthorpe
Reply to  South River Independent
August 17, 2016 4:04 am

Well said. Keep spreading the message.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 16, 2016 10:25 pm

Katrina. And nothing since.

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 17, 2016 12:21 am

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]

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 17, 2016 10:14 am

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…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 17, 2016 10:22 am

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.

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 17, 2016 10:23 am

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…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 17, 2016 10:38 am

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…

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 17, 2016 6:25 am

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.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
August 17, 2016 11:17 am

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?

Reply to  Mike Bromley the Kurd
August 17, 2016 10:17 am

Mike, denihilize it all you want but the science of Katrina was spot-on: it was the storm to end all storms.

August 16, 2016 10:42 pm

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!

August 16, 2016 10:46 pm

“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.

August 16, 2016 10:49 pm

“… 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.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  C
August 16, 2016 11:26 pm

Reply to  C
August 18, 2016 12:36 am

We are not amused.
No, wait, we are.

August 16, 2016 11:02 pm

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.

Reply to  DanNCFla
August 17, 2016 3:47 am

Yup, ‘Duck and Cover’, and kiss your a$$ goodbye.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  stevekeohane
August 17, 2016 4:59 am

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,”

Reply to  DanNCFla
August 17, 2016 5:32 am

McCoy AFB?

August 16, 2016 11:12 pm

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”!
The inmates are truly running the asylum.

August 17, 2016 12:10 am

“…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.

August 17, 2016 12:17 am

WELL… in ’04 i DID have a white christmas. IN NEW ORLEANS !!!

Dave N
August 17, 2016 12:28 am

Attempting to explain skepticism as a coping mechanism, is a coping mechanism for alarmists who are troubled that people don’t believe them

August 17, 2016 12:31 am

Psychobabble, lol

Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 12:50 am

The CAGW movement is in its death throes. The True Believers know this deep down, so are themselves going through the stages of grief. The idea that skeptics/climate realists are somehow experiencing “climate grief” is laughably silly and pathetic.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 5:20 am

This is the right answer. Nobody is paying attention to CAGW anymore so their cries are becoming increasingly shrill. It is the Global Warming movement that is dying and it is the Global Warming proponents who are in the Denial Stage 1 of Grief about it.
Which is really weird, to make themselves feel better they have to point to high temperatures from an El Nino year and say, “See? Global Warming!! We’re Saved (from skeptics being right), We’re all going to die after all!! Yay!!!!”

August 17, 2016 12:52 am

how very desperate and weird

Peta in Cumbria
August 17, 2016 12:53 am

You do rather wonder sometimes but, is this one a bit/lot bigger than the previous scares. I don’t recall any great windmill construction projects, rampant tax rises or sunshine panels going up during the global cooling crisis.
‘The People’ are patently over-reacting, they are revelling in doom and disaster scenarios and cannot in any way accept their own blame for what is perceived to be happening. They are incapable of reasonable argument any more – hence the endless appeals to authority & consensus or the relentless ad-homs.
In other words, vast numbers of people are behaving like drunks – that is how chronically and clinically depressed folks behave. Anyone over the age of, let’s say, 40 will know that.
Of course the scary thing here is like when you yourself are one of The Drunks. If you are drunk/stupid at a roaring party where everyone else is drunk, you don’t realise just how dumb you/they are all behaving. But call in on that party after a year of abstinence and frankly, its really really frightening what you see and how those folks react towards you you.
Let talk ideas and not people or events.
Two possibilities, and not mutually exclusive either.
1. Something is depressing the people. Certainly western societies get through huge amounts of alcohol but also sugar = glucose = carbohydrate. Me, you, we all, feel sleepy after a large meal. A large meal of what though.
Try that large meal without any carbs and see what happens. We are all sat here in the perfect piece of test equipment.
Maybe you don’t want to.
Are you scared to = lack of self confidence = depression.
Doctors say to eat carbs = appeal to authority = passing the buck = lack of self confidence = depression.
You get my drift?
2. Maybe what is left of our natural instincts tell us that something really rather bad is going to happen. We patently don’t know what exactly, how it will unfold or precisely when but, we just ‘feel’ something.
Maybe that something is that we are existing on a starvation diet. this is The time of the Full Stomachs. Yes we have masses to eat but it is universally nutrient free and tasteless mush. Carbohydrate. Some misguided souls venture that we may be carnivores. BS. We are lipivores. We are meant to eat fat, jst like those other predators at the top of the food chain lions/tigers. They kill to get fat, livers, kidneys, brains, blood and bone marrow. The scavengers, the vultures, hyenas maybe get to eat the meat.
Instinctively we know there is a monster over the hill.
I say, like Murray Salby although he hasn’t said it outright that I know of, the carbon dioxide signal in the sky is the smoke from the fire breathing monster that’s going to get us. Its coming from the dirt, being stirred up by tractors and ploughs and ignited with nitrogen fertiliser.
As any farmer will tell you, you cannot keep growing the same stuff in the same patch of dirt forever and all the while expecting more and more yield. It doesn’t happen and when that system crashes, it does so rapidly and spectacularly.
So there’s the prefect irony, we are growing stuff that is destroying us (obesity, heart disease and diabetes) while the growing of it destroys the dirt that everything depends on.
Of course we have the perfect universal excuse ‘Oh sorry, I was drunk at the time’

Reply to  Peta in Cumbria
August 17, 2016 5:03 am

I think, in the USA at least, probably also in Europe, we went from the Cold War certainties into a period of total confusion as to the purpose of life. We had a certain enemy for so long that it became an ingrained part of our culture and then it was gone in a flash and we didn’t know what to do. So we began searching for new enemies, new doomsday scenarios, new people to hate, all to fill that void that the end of the Cold War left in our national philosophy. We tried to hate drugs, didn’t work. We tried evangelical religion. Few bought it any more. Now we have “climate change” on the left and Islam on the right. Everyone has their enemy again, their own personal Doomsday to keep them warm with fear and hate inside. Everyone’s happy.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Peta in Cumbria
August 17, 2016 5:19 am

Nah. I would put it all down to intellectual laziness, plus the herd instinct. Perhaps kids are no longer being taught to think for themselves, to question. That makes them prone to simply accepting propaganda.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
Charles MacKay

Rick Bradford
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 18, 2016 6:26 am

*Perhaps kids are no longer being taught to think for themselves, to question.*
Kids are being taught not to think. Rational thought leads to judgment of what might be right and what might be wrong, and to the Left, that is “discrimination” and hence a crime.

Reply to  Peta in Cumbria
August 17, 2016 5:19 am

“In other words, vast numbers of people are behaving like drunks”
Or vast numbers of people believe what the experts, via the MSM, has fed them. Really, can you blame people for that? Not everyone has the desire to learn climate. That’s why we have government climate scientists that are trained to know this stuff and keep us informed. That’s their job, how or why could any layperson question that authority? Even the data supports their claims (after adjustments).

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Paul
August 17, 2016 10:18 am

On an issue this important, yes we can blame people for choosing to simply Believe. Anyone with a modicum of desire to and at least half a brain can figure out that all is not as they say. It only takes a little time for the part of the brain that questions things – some call it a BS-meter to wake up. But people prefer Belief, due to the herd mentality and the fact that it doesn’t require them to actually use their brain.

Reply to  Paul
August 17, 2016 2:48 pm

One might suppose that for the supposed worst thing ever, number one threat to our national security, most expensive thing ever, change your life and do everything someone else tells you to do, world ending disaster,
that everyone make an exception and learn everything there is to know about this one.
In fact, now that I think about it, everyone in the world who is even slightly uninformed on this issue must think in a way which is entirely different from the way I have thought since I was about four years old…learn about important stuff!

Reply to  Paul
August 18, 2016 8:29 am

Bruce Cobb says: “It only takes a little time for the part of the brain that questions things”
Question things you know nothing about? Like I said, not everyone has time and/or desire to become a climate expert first. And you can question it all you want, that doesn’t change the facts that our “experts” say you are wrong. People have a “Belief” based on what they’re told. You can NOT learn the truth when your teacher lies to you.
Menicholas says: “learn about important stuff!”
Do you do your own experiments for car crash safety, or do you rely on what the experts provide?
Do you do your own food safety studies, or do you rely on what the experts provide?
Do you do your put up your own satellites, or do you rely on the data from the experts?
Do any work on medical devices, medicines, etc? Again, experts provide the data.
Sure, learn about important stuff but bottom line, you ARE relying on the experts to tell the truth. It has nothing to do about critical thinking when the “facts” are incorrect.

Coeur de Lion
August 17, 2016 1:22 am

In recent times we have seen the corruption of Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist at least. It’s all terribly terribly terribly sad.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 17, 2016 1:30 am

New scientist has been leftybollocks for several decades.

Reply to  Leo Smith
August 17, 2016 8:59 am

True indeed – as well as being pretty useless. I stopped reading that at least 30 years ago (and I was getting hand-me-down free copies from a friend too).

John M. Ware
August 17, 2016 1:28 am

The familiar “canaries in the coal mine” metaphor was cited in the article. We all know that the Canary Islands are a real place, and wind and rain often cross them on their way from Africa across the Atlantic to form hurricanes. My question is: Are there coal mines in the Canaries?

Reply to  John M. Ware
August 17, 2016 4:28 am

” My question is: Are there coal mines in the Canaries?”
Can’t say for sure, John, but I do know there are Sardines in the Canneries.

Chris Wright
August 17, 2016 2:03 am

Completely bizarre.
Almost by definition, sceptics are the people who are the *least* likely to be alarmed by future climate change.

August 17, 2016 2:04 am

Climate Alarmism helps us deal with our collective sense of environmental guilt.
People are so alarmed at what they think we are doing to the environment generally that climate alarmism serves as a coping mechanism and avoidance strategy.
In reality we should forget bout climate alarmism and focus on more effective environmental improvement methods.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
August 17, 2016 10:44 am

But that would be less expensive, make more sense and provide fewer opportunities for political, emotional and ideological grandstanding. We can’t have that.

August 17, 2016 2:06 am

The level of climate grief is inversely proportional to the size of the CGW research cheque.

August 17, 2016 2:17 am

This is all very interesting but let’s face it, this whole discussion is a displacement strategy to avoid confronting the real issue: overpopulation.
Science is telling us loud and clear that if we don’t cut our numbers on this planet drastically, and cut them now, people will start dying. Rapidly.
I’ve noticed that people with children and grandchildren have no trouble accepting the reality of population crisis and the need to do something. It tends to be the older, angrier, childless Caucasian—with no genetic investment in the future of this planet—who resists action.
You don’t have to be Sigmund Freud to guess why, though it probably helps.
[??? .mod]

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 3:39 am

…Ummmm, you forgot the /sarc tag!

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 5:08 am

The more technologically advanced the culture, the lower the birth rates. The environmentalists who call for the destruction of fossil fuel economies would reverse all that.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 5:14 am

I’d love to believe the answer was prosperity. Wouldn’t everyone? But beware the lure of the easy fix. Scientists have shown that lowering birth rates would not make enough difference, fast enough to avoid the worst impacts of overpopulation. We need to increase death rates—that’s the only way to meet the targets for a safe planet.
Time is running out.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 5:23 am

“We need to increase death rates—that’s the only way to meet the targets for a safe planet.”
The way the ACA is going, that should help out.
You’re joking, right?

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 7:18 am

You first, Brad.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 7:31 am

“You’re joking, right?”
I used to be like you. Making fun of the krayzee treehuggers who babbled on about population control. All the while aware that it was just my unconscious fear of the truth. So much easier to laugh than act.
But the day I first held my second or third baby girl in my arms, that’s when I finally had the courage to snap out of my denihilism and start spreading the word: people need to start making sacrifices. Not for our generation’s sake. For her. For the sake of the crowded planet she’ll inherit.
One day I hope you’ll have that moment too. Let’s just pray it won’t be too late for my kids.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 7:34 am

OK, I get it now!
Your humor went right over my head on the first few passes Brad.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 7:37 am

It will take a lot of people to get the message of population reduction out, Brad, so you best start working on child’s 4 5 6 and 7 ASAP, eh?
Have a few for me too will yah, because I’m too selfish.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 8:20 am

@ at Brad Keyes
Remember, Brad, you’re the one advocating that “we” must make sacrifices and “increase death rates” for the sake of the planet. But then, I note that you advocacy is on behalf of your own children, and your fervent hope that they’ll inherit a future with plenty of post-cull leg-room, free from the current “crush” of us tacky, cull-fodder riff-raff. In other words, I think it a reasonable inference that you see your self and your own children as getting a pass when the time comes, the sooner the better, to “thin the herd”, while you have assigned to us groaning hoi-poloi the lethal burden of your proposed increased death rates. Hard to interpret you otherwise, Brad. So why is it, Brad, that your parasite, “thought-leader” dumb-ass deserves to live to bounce grand-kids on your knee, while us coolie-trash herdling-nobodies, who do all of society’s real work, are marked for doom? And why is it that your kids are too good for Moloch, but ours aren’t? Just askin’, Brad.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 8:55 am

@ Brad Keyes
Just a stray thought, Brad. Might your comments on this thread be, collectively, just a self-indulgent, goof-ball, razz-booger, private-joke, snot-nosed-prankster put-on, intended to make your hive-mummy proud? I keep an open mind. But, if not, then let me just say that you’re one sick-puppy, Brad, ol’ buddy.

Reply to  Andyj
August 17, 2016 10:14 am

“We need to increase death rates—that’s the only way to meet the targets for a safe planet.”
The days when 100% was ‘good enough’ are over. Population change has changed everything. Your gym teacher was right: this is going to take a team effort, and it’s going to take 110%.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 7:27 am

I must be hard of hearing…I have never heard science telling me that people have to die in large numbers and that right fast.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 7:37 am

Wow! You really nailed it!
Get rid of all the people and this would be a great place to live!
Lonely, but great.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 7:48 am

Hey Brad!
This is some pretty advanced, cull-crazy good-stuff you’ve got goin’ in your topside comment, Brad, ol’ buddy. And, maybe I’m wrong, but I’d say that your thrill-cull call-to-action, above, has just made it a little bit harder for your fellow hive-tools to make fun of us “good guy” lovers of Liberty and ethical science–at least in terms of our conspiracy-theory “ideations”, and, most especially, in terms of our style-conscious, hand-crafted, tin-foil chapeaux. Which is sort of why I always thought hive-licensed big-thinkers, like you, Brad, were required to only discuss plans for the “Big-Cull” behind the backs of us doomed, coolie-trash, cull-fodder nobodies.
So what’s the deal, Brad?–are the gloves comin’ off, in the delicate matter of “thinning the herd”? If so, at least us expendable useless-eaters, who actually produce the wealth our parasitic betters rip-off from us and frivolously expend on their obscenely extravagant, brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie good-times, will finally get to see the creep-out reality behind all that shape-shifting in which our masters-of-the-universe have, heretofore, cloaked themselves. Some say, you know, Brad, ol’ sport, that the hive-masters, whose attention-seeking pervert-rumps, so many of your Camp-Commandant-wannabe, sell-out comrades regularly smooch (but not you Brad–not you, ol’ pal!), and who pull your hive-mates’ lickspittle-gofer strings and supply them with their party-line, mouth-piece “talking-points” (again, but not you, Brad!) are nothing more than a bunch of iguana-like lizards. But, for moi, my bet is that they’re really just a scuttling mutant-brood of blood-meal-seeking, genetic-hybird arthropods, indistinguishable from your common cockroach, except for that grinning death’s-head, that supports their antennae.
A “Bravo Zulu”, Brad, for your, “…if we don’t cut our numbers on this planet, drastically, and cut them now, people will start dying. Rapidly.” So let’s see, now, Brad, as I read your learned analysis of the over-population planetary-crisis, “cut” is dog-whistle hive-speak for “kill”, and “cut our numbers on this planet, drastically” means “kill” lots and lots of us “little guys”, and “now” means–well…we all know what that means, Brad, don’t we? Hope I got all that right, Brad. But the “good news” part of your “modest proposal”, Brad, at least as I can best understand it, is that if the mass-murder, you appear to be advocating, is “mass” enough, then those same poor saps, you’ve just killed off, won’t “die rapidly”. What a really, really great idea! You know–kill the plebs so they don’t die! Wow! Super good-stuff, Brad!–your best yet, guy!
But I’m sorry to say, Brad, that there’s some knuckle-dragger types who will maliciously want to smear your solicitude for the planet as just a tad-bit “genocidal” (those insufferable Gaia-phobes!), in character, and of a quality worthy of the work-bench of Professor Gruber, himself. And then, Brad, we can well expect those same, contemptible “flat-earthers” to further get themselves all worked up into one of their typical, conspiracy-theory, “ideation”-fantasy spazz-outs and insist that there must be some sort of detailed, supporting plan of “action”, behind all that generalized and rather vague, population-reduction chit-chat of yours (not to mention that they’ll also, more likely, than not, invite low-information readers to Google: “you tube Gary Grathwohl Bill Ayers”). And then–so what else is new?–look for these same, preposterous headless-chickens to get their over-heated “Republican-brains” into a dither and further insist that operation “Angel of Death” is all locked and loaded and ready to go just as soon as the hive can figure out how to get the “stupid” Americans to agree to a gun confiscation (nobody wants to go through another one of those “Tambov Rebellion” bummers–I think we can all agree on that, right, Brad?). But you and moi, we don’t think like that, do we, Brad, ‘cuz we’re just a coupla good buddies, right, guy?
And then, Brad, there’s your dig at us ol’ fart white-boys (almost all of whom have kids, I might add–it’s what our generation did, Brad, along with getting a “real” job, and moving out of our parents’ home, when we finished high-school). And I also like that “…genetic future of this planet” riff. Code-language to assure your hive-mates that certain, good-comrade “blood-lines” are safe in the coming “End Times”, maybe?
Finally, only one part of your comment, Brad, has me perplexed and scratchin’ my head, and that’s your parting, kinda cryptic, “Sigmund Freud” zinger. I mean, like, I’m probably gonna show just how ignorant I am in matters of psychoanalysis, but the best I can make of your allusion is that you just might be one of those typical, testosterone-deficient, can’t-get-a-date hive-weenies, angry that life has outfitted you with a comically teeny-tiny pee-pee (just a fantastically remote, but finite possibility, is all I’m sayin’, Brad), and so you harbor a really nasty, Freudian “penis envy” in regards to us studly, “good-guy” lovers of Liberty and ethical science and our big dicks that materially contribute to our continued success in the “gettin’ laid’ department. But just thinkin’ out loud here, Brad.

Reply to  mike
August 17, 2016 9:33 am

Hey Mike!
Don’t worry, impugning my manhood won’t deter me from standing up for what the latest scientists are telling us. Your comments hurt me more deeply than I will admit, of course. But so what? I’m used to being crucified by this crowd. At the risk of sounding grandiose, on the third day I shall rise again. Let’s see, it’s Wednesday now…

Reply to  mike
August 17, 2016 10:19 am

I’ll see your three kids and raise you two more plus two dogs and a cat. I think you’re bluffing.

Reply to  mike
August 17, 2016 11:30 am

@ Brad Keyes
“…impugn your manhood”? You’re “hurt”? Jeez, Brad…it’s called “joshing”, guy. And you’re supposed to respond with a kick-butt, “regular-guy” come-back, like, “YO MOMMA!!!” And it’s a little “rich”, Brad, that my tit-for-tat comments have reduced you to near sniffles when you’re the one who started the whole deal with your “Sigmund Freud” booger-flick. C’mon, Brad, you know the WUWT blog isn’t one of those ivory tower safe-spaces, I suspect you regularly haunt. Honestly, Brad, you’ve been hangin’ out with the hive-bozos way too much, you really need to get out of the hive-bubble more. I mean, like, you’ve gotta toughen up, Brad, since wadin’ through seas of gore requires not only scientific-detachment, but an iron-will, as well.
If you’d be so kind, Brad, I’d like to know three things about your “modest proposal”:
-What is your “cull-list” selection criteria and who devised the same and what was the logic of their “thumbs-up/thumbs-down” reasoning.
-What tools, techniques, organizations, and methodologies do you intend to employ to achieve your mass-cull, population-reduction good-deeds?
-Who has joined you in implementing your Gaia-freak, brave-new-gulag final-solution, and what is the current status of your noble work?
Finally, I checked out that “crucified” link in your last comment and noted your bumptious notion that “…science is, and always has been, fundamentally about concensus…” Well maybe so, but from what I can vaguely recall of an epistemology course, through which I mostly slept, a long, long time ago, science is, and always has been, on the contrary, a technique for making estimates of the situation, regarding the material world, that derive from rational empiricism, and that any such estimates are inherently tentative and corrigible and open to challenge by further iterations of rational-empiricism. But I guess that since science has now become a corrupted hive-tool, just like pretty much everything else that once had value, I guess my angry, white-boy, old-timer understanding of the subject merely proves that I just “don’t get it.”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 10:32 am

I see you’ve bought the Ehrlichian crap hook, line and sinker, and it’s rotted your brain (whatever is left of it anyway). Condolences.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 10:52 am

I’ve long been in awe of Ehrlich’s pre-science, and am not ashamed to say so.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 1:52 pm

You really should be. Ehrlich’s self-indulgent garbage is the poster child for eco-fascist paranoia and anti-human philosophy. And the fact that fifty years later sycophantic fools are still licking up his pap is just the latest atrocity.
It frankly disgusts me.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 8:07 pm

OK, ease up big fella. Read Menicholas’ comments.

Phil R
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 8:13 pm

Joel Snider, Bruce Cobb,
Please read his link before commenting, if you have not done so (which I’m guessing you have not, judging by your comments).
(I also get lost in commenting, so I hope this comes out in the right order.) :>)

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 11:44 am

Ah, so you’re an idiot and proud of it. Got it.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
August 17, 2016 2:55 pm

Brad is obviously not serious, peeps.
No one is so ridiculous as to advocate for people to die, in order to clear out some room for the kids of the advocate, and to go on a public forum and declare as much.
He is goofing.
Even if he don’t know it.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 8:02 pm

If only “peeps” would slow down and read critically. No shortage of tipoffs.

Phil R
Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 8:15 pm

Should have read further before my comment above, but I stand by it. :>)

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 8:55 pm

All kinds of people show up from time to time.
We have a presidential science advisor who was calling for this sort of thing in decades past, and a Presidential candidate who sings the praises of one Margaret Sanger, who called person of color human weeds, and used horrific language to advocate getting rid of them by whatever means necessary.
Our host requests that we use a /sarc tag if the brand of humor we are using is not at least somewhat transparent.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 9:40 pm

I am not sure if what made it click for me was the image of clutching a new born baby girl, and instantly deciding large numbers of people have to die, or if it was the perhaps mistaken-for-a-typo reference to de-nihilism.
Hey, it is not the first time someone being sarcastic got torn a new one, or had the old one widened some, before anyone realized.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 10:40 pm

@ Brad
Hey Brad, ol’ buddy! Like totally luv your “JUST KIDDING!!!”, surprise ending. I mean, like, that’s, like, really, really cool, there, guy! And I also hope that you, Brad, and all the other “peeps” all slowed down and read my comments, addressed to you, Brad, critically, too, because they were, likewise, all a bunch of goofs (no shortage of tip-offs)–and yes, Brad, I’m talkin’ about even that playful, just-horsin’-around, ribald suggestion that I threw out there about the size of your cock. Geez, this whole deal has been such a merry rip! And I hope there was nothing I said, in the course of our rough-house good fun, Brad, that detracted, in any way, from the savor of your smug, little denoument–I’d just hate myself, if I were think myself responsible for anything like that.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 11:36 pm

@ Brad Keyes
Hmmm…my earlier comment appears to have fallen victim to the moderator’s well-judged, zinger-cidal cull. But I don’t want to miss the opportunity, Brad, to tell you just how much I luved your “Suprise Ending!” That was like so totally cool, there, man! But it was all a merry rip, we had, so “what difference does it make?” (to quote a famous American). And, of course, I, like you, Brad, hope that the “peeps” (and you, too, Brad, for that matter) all “slowed-down” and read my comments “critically”, and thereby appreciated that my little rants were all “goofs”, as well (no shortage of tip-offs)–you know, just like yours, Brad. But, let me just finally say, Brad, that I sincerely hope nothing I said in the rough-house, give-and-take of our little exchanges worked, in any way, to lessen the self-satisfied savor you surely derived from your smug, impish little denouement–I’d truly hate myself, if I were ever to think such a thing.

Reply to  Menicholas
August 17, 2016 11:59 pm

Meanwhile Dr Harb continues to eat his own:
(Of interest mainly to UK and colonial readers within the sphere of influence of The Conversation.)

Reply to  Menicholas
August 18, 2016 12:51 am

Fear not, Mike, I knew you were playing along with the gag. The first ten hyphens were enough of a tipoff. We make a good team.

James McCartney
August 17, 2016 2:44 am

Pity about the Scientific American, though.

August 17, 2016 3:48 am

This kind of clap trap is why I no longer read or subscribe to Scientific American, National Geographic, and Smithsonian, despite having done so for years before they degenerated into Alarmist propaganda organs. It’s a sad, sad thing when these formerly wonderful publications decided to lose their collective minds and buy wholesale into the CAGW BS. I’ve lost all respect for them and they do not get my money as a result. If they had just fallen for the false “science” of CAGW that would have been bad enough, but they have gone full bore into the “let’s lambast the evil Deniers” and have pushed out propaganda and insulting diatribes like the above, and in doing so have moved so far from what science is as to be on the level of a supermarket tabloid. Heck, even the National Enquirer is right more often then these guys are.

Roger Graves
August 17, 2016 3:53 am

I think you’re all missing the point. What is driving climate alarmism is not psychology, but something a lot more concrete – money!
To take but one example, in the last ten or twelve years, more than $2 trillion has been spent worldwide on alternative energy, largely wind and solar. Now ask yourselves how much of that would have been spent had the terms global warming and climate change never entered our consciousness. When this amount of money gets spent, an awful lot of people get very rich.
Even if a new ice age descends on us tomorrow you can expect the global warming militia to fight a vicious rearguard action, because that sort of money isn’t going anywhere quietly.
Money talks. $2 trillion screams.

Reply to  Roger Graves
August 17, 2016 9:05 am

Roger Graves
….. and it will be the same people who get another $2 trillion to dismantle all the environment-destroying crap they’ve foisted on us.
(Unless a lot of people wake up, of course)

August 17, 2016 4:10 am

Psychiatrists are highly controversial. Move along, nothing to see here.
An Inconvenient Truth is “White Christmas” is a song, not a weather or climate forecast.
Their theory works both ways, though they are too blind or ignorant to understand that. Is that a stage of something?

Tom in Florida
August 17, 2016 5:04 am

They will know real denial when their grant proposals get rejected.

August 17, 2016 5:16 am

‘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.’
Katrina was extreme for Louisiana. It was not extreme for the world. Strong cyclones form every year, but few make landfall in the U.S. Describing Katrina as “canaries in the coal mine” is meteorologically ignorant. Dr van Susteren reveals the origins of her superstition. That you don’t share her superstition makes you defective.

August 17, 2016 5:25 am

Conservatives are dismayed by US debt. But we don’t cheer when we see graphs of it going through the roof.

August 17, 2016 5:44 am

“The idea is highly controversial, but at least one psychiatrist is convinced that we are, whether we know it or not.”
Personally I think being convinced we are something, whether we know it or not, exhibits neurotic, obsessive behaviour, but hey what would I know?

Reply to  observa
August 17, 2016 8:29 am

it’s called ‘gaslighting’

Reply to  gnomish
August 17, 2016 2:59 pm

Gaslighting is when it is done intentionally.
If these idjuts are serious, I think psychological projection is the correct terminology.

Reply to  gnomish
August 17, 2016 3:03 pm

“it” being the knowing presentation of false evidence or information.

Reply to  gnomish
August 19, 2016 6:37 am

scientific american is promoting the meme and they have no intentions whatsoever
because it has nothing to do with any agenda of any kind.
and they are a science magazine and that article is totally science.
pull the other one- the first 2 are already stretched.
don’t run. they are your friends.
[???? .mod]

August 17, 2016 5:53 am

Psychobabble + SWAG + Projection = 0

Walter Sobchak
August 17, 2016 6:26 am

“In 1977, I was in middle school in Michigan, … Fast-forward …2006, … 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”
Who writes this drivel? Who publishes it?
You moved from Detroit or maybe some place well north of Detroit, like the Upper Peninsula, where it gets really cold and snows a lot to Brooklyn NY, which is south of Michigan and which sits on the ocean and which does not get nearly as cold and does not have nearly as much snow as any place in Michigan.
This is not an example of global warming, it is an example of moving to a warmer place.
It is also an example of gobsmacking stupidity.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 17, 2016 7:08 am

I missed that small but damning detail Walter…good catch!
From start to finish, it does not get more unscientific than the dilly nonsense in this article. And, as usual, the comments section and the Intro from Eric are infinitely more informative and entertaining and scientifically accurate than the alarmists drivel being commented on.

Jeff Norman
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 17, 2016 11:04 am

I was going to make the same comment. Clearly the author failed geography.
I also thought it bs when they claimed that their middle school science teacher knew about anthropogenic greenhouse warming in 1977. I recall learning how the Earth’s atmosphere prevented everything from freezing but nothing about gloom and doom, except for the coming ice age.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jeff Norman
August 17, 2016 3:40 pm

I sort of quit when i got to jumping off the roof into the snow drift.

Reply to  Jeff Norman
August 17, 2016 5:44 pm

In the mid 1970s I wrote computer programs for meteorologists at NOAA and NCAR in Boulder, Colorado. I heard NOTHING about AGW. This writer is simply following the Leftists’ tactic of using words to shape history instead of reporting history.

August 17, 2016 6:51 am

It’s too hot. It’s too cold. It’s perfectly normal.

Reply to  n.n
August 17, 2016 6:58 am

I think that due to the Earth’s semi-stable system and relatively short human lifespans, the illusion of living in a literal greenhouse with invariant internal dynamics and isolated from external influences has corrupted the scientific and consensus (e.g. social) perspective.

August 17, 2016 7:01 am

I grew up with Sci Am and lamented its passing as a legitimate publication. One person being convinced is exactly the kind un-scientific thinking that science itself was invented to prevent.
But there is a perfectly sound reason why people are getting turned off to the alarmism. If you put rats or people in a cage and randomly deliver electric shocks which they cannot anticipate and over which they have no control, in short order they go mad. In the case of humans being tortured, they will agree to anything at all to stop the madness.
Against the barrage of scary CAGW stories, individual people are helpless to act effectively and thus to stop the madness instilled by the random fear jolts.
However, as I have experienced many times, people with uninformed fear about AGW relax instantly when presented with even a single verifiable scientific fact negating the fear claims. The sea level rise during the holocene chart, or the ice core temperature charts are excellent for this purpose.
A single verifiable conter-fact can negate thousands of fear messages and inoculate the person against future fear. That is why the fear-mongers (and their money grubber puppet masters), are so afraid of publications like WUWT.

Joel Snider
Reply to  markopanama
August 17, 2016 11:08 am

Science itself is not the least casualty of this entire AGW debacle – almost by itself, AGW, and it’s alarmist proponents, has shattered the credibility of science and scientific institutions for a generation .

August 17, 2016 7:22 am

The climate changes and that change affects some people some how!
I never would have guessed that.

August 17, 2016 7:36 am

The other obvious answer is we just don’t like being lied to. But seven or eight words does not make for a good article, so we get pages of climate alarmist denial instead.

Reply to  marque2
August 17, 2016 7:41 am

Nobody likes it when you sneak up while they are sleeping and scream” WAKE UP!” directly into their ear canal.

August 17, 2016 7:40 am

“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.”
Well, I can understand a 12 year old envisioning the Green House Effect that way, but as a supposedly “adult scientist”, I would think it would be important to point out that isn’t exactly the way it works.
Unless he meant his 12-year old mind is enclosed in a glass structure and he isn’t absorbing any new information?

Jeff Norman
Reply to  JohnWho
August 17, 2016 11:05 am


August 17, 2016 7:42 am

I have fond childhood memories of sledding in Delaware. All winter long, it was white and cold. Except it probably wasn’t because Delaware is not a particularly Northern state. It’s just that I only remember the parts that stand out. I was 8 after all. Meanwhile, Brooklyn gets its fair share of snow too.
I let my subscription to Scientific American lapse about 15 years ago after they “blamed” the end of the last ice age on agriculture. In the time since, it’s remarkable how stable the climate has been considering how unstable the climate is.

August 17, 2016 8:37 am

The only grief I’m feeling is for the money we’re throwing away on this non-problem to protect future generations when present generations really need help (Syrian refugees, people without clean drinking water, those suffering from AIDS, the list goes on). If these warmists were really concerned about mankind, that’s where their concern could make a real, difference.

August 17, 2016 8:38 am

Snowfall in Brooklyn:
YES, 0″
in December 2006 ; and 12″ for the season. (1900 had only 9″ total).
However in 2010, there was 20″ in Dec and 36″ in Jan for a season total of 62 inches! More than any year between 1900 and 1920.
Of course these comparisons mean……….absolutely nothing!
Shame on the author and shame on Scientific American.

August 17, 2016 8:44 am

Question: So, the media and climate-hysteric scientists poopoo and make fun of The Farmer’s Almanac for trying to predict the forecast for the upcoming winter season. Yet, these same anti-Farmer’s Almanac people would have us believe that their 50-100 year forecasts are golden???

August 17, 2016 8:46 am

I grieved for the lost integrity of the global media 25 years ago. Since then, I’ve had a healthy disrespect for anything printing in such organs. I assume that the organ has decided on a party line and needs a story to justify it, rather than the organ seeks to inform its readership based on rigorous journalists investigating in a proper manner.
Having spent much of my life out of doors, I have a healthy amount of real experience imprinted on my brain, in terms of snow falls, rainfall, hurricanes, abnormal temperatures (both warm and cold, in summer and in winter) etc etc. I don’t trust for one second what journalists tell me happened in the 1980s, I trust what I recall vividly happening at that time based on my own real life experience. I watch with disdain London journalists in hysterics claiming that 10cm of snow is ‘evidence of climate change’, when 10cm of snow is a piffling amount and I have photographic evidence of 25cm of snow in our back garden in the early 1980s, with our dog’s legs almost completely buried in the stuff.
I watch with disdain talk of the UK’s ‘heatwaves’ when I recall vividly the summer of 1976 when the sun shone from May until the end of August, temperatures were regularly in the 1990s and a drought more serious than any other in my lifetime took place.
I’m fairly sanguine about what happened in December 2010 in terms of snow and cold, because I was around when similar happened in December 1981. I’m not overly bothered by the snowfall in Scotland in winter 2015, as I remember winter 1994 when the ski lifts at Glencoe were all buried at Easter time and there were still huge swathes of snow in carries of the Skye Cuillin at midsummer.
I don’t grieve about climate change.
I grieved the loss of the profession of journalism. And my grief was done by 1990 and I have dealt with the real situation ever since……

Ross King
August 17, 2016 8:51 am

“Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” …. read it!

Eustace Cranch
August 17, 2016 9:03 am

The deterioration of our planet—the only home we have ever known and an assurance we used to take for granted—
WHAT deterioration?!!! Define it- in objective terms- and provide concrete, verifiable evidence. SA is being decidedly UN-scientific. They’re just a propaganda rag now.
If only Richard Feynman were still around…

Caligula Jones
August 17, 2016 9:05 am

I’ll just quote, again, from Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds: “I’ll believe there is a climate crisis when the people telling me there is a climate crisis ACT like there is a climate crisis”.
When the rich warmunists who fund climate alarmism move begin to move away from the coasts…then I might start listening to them.
Until then, another quote from Instapundit: “I don’t want to hear another goddam word about MY carbon footprint”.

August 17, 2016 9:58 am

How is anything in that article remotely “scientific”? It’s a subjective view of how things “used to be”. When I was 12 years old we rode our bikes to school right up until the Christmas break. That was 1976 and I live at 50 degrees north latitude, a fair bit further north than “New York”.
Does that mean I’m adding to the “data”? Hell no, it’s an anecdote, nothing more, nothing less. If I scrape the sides of my memory I can tell you that we’ve had multiple years of no snow right up to Christmas, but no discernible pattern really, other than to say maybe one in every ten years or so. It’s about as idiotic as saying that the snowbanks aren’t as big as when I was a kid (duh, I grew). Sadly now I measure snowfall by how high the piles are at the side of the driveway. Last year, not even waist height. The year before, over my head. On noes, the climate is warming. I fear Scientific American may have been surpassed by Sports Illustrated in terms of scientific content and quality (and that’s not saying much at all).

Reply to  buggs
August 17, 2016 3:09 pm

The swimsuit issue is very scientific. Female anatomy is a science, right?
I have sure spent a lot of time studying it like it was.

Joel Snider
August 17, 2016 10:08 am

The ‘collective grief’ is a fairly definitive example of projection. As in, ‘if it’s me, it must be everybody’.
I’ve said a thousand times, now – the ONLY worry I have about Climate Change is what these single-minded jokers will force upon us and the planet to pacify their own paranoia.
Remember the ‘politics of fear?’ – that was a Progressive catch-phrase until – gosh, about 2008, I think. They seem to have forgotten that because now were supposed to be afraid of my own breath and a sunny day.

August 17, 2016 10:24 am

It’s what passes for political debate for those on the left.

August 17, 2016 11:52 am

Anti-science like this from Scientific American is why I dropped my subscription many years ago. It is little more than a left-wing rag by harpies.

Smart Rock
August 17, 2016 12:51 pm

The link to Scientific American doesn’t work, so I don’t know the author’s name….
What I find disturbing about this article is the the author and Van Susteren both seem INCAPABLE of appreciating that there are intelligent, well educated, scientifically literate people out there who have looked seriously at the claims of the AGW hypothesis, at the science behind it, and just don’t accept it. Or don’t accept it all. Or think that there might be nuggets of truth buried in a mass of hyperbole and really bad science.
There was a time, not that long ago, when most of us would see an article a a mainstream news outlet, or a popular science mag like the old SA, or in a science programme on radio or TV, that a scientist somewhere had come up with new facts, new interpretations of old facts based on some other new fact, a new hypothesis or a new technological development, and we would just accept it. We all knew that “Science” didn’t get everything right all the time, but because of the “Scientific Method” it did get most things more or less right, most of the time. Even if you were scientifically trained, and the article was about something close enough to your own discipline, you normally wouldn’t bother to check, because you trusted “Science”.
To become a sceptic, you have to lose that mind-set, and IT ISN’T EASY. To say that I am in denial because I can’t face the horror of the imminent End Of Life As We Know It, simply shows no appreciation of what made me (and others like me) into a sceptic.
When I look at their inability to comprehend the sceptic position, I’m afraid that the only thing that can save us from the insanity will be a period of cooling so extreme that no amount of adjustment can hide it. What a sorry thing to hope for.

Reply to  Smart Rock
August 18, 2016 12:08 am

“…the author and Van Susteren both seem INCAPABLE of appreciating that there are intelligent, well educated, scientifically literate people out there who have looked seriously at the claims of the AGW hypothesis, at the science behind it, and just don’t accept it.”
Indeed. Which makes them guilty of their own favorite indictment: “denying science.” After all, the science of Yale’s Prof Kahan et al. showed that we infidels are, if anything, *more* scientifically literate than the faithful.

Bruce Cobb
August 17, 2016 12:59 pm

Here’s an example of “climate grief”, by astrophysicist Dr. Katherine J. Mack of the University of Melbourne:
“Honestly climate change scares the heck out of me and it makes me so sad to see what we’re losing because of it.” 100% Appeal to Emotion, 0% logic, facts, or rationality. She’s an educated fool.

Ed Bo
August 17, 2016 1:22 pm

The author of the article says:
“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”
I grew up near New York in the same period as the author, and there were virtually NO White Christmases then (1960s and 1970s), I remember to my great disappointment then.
The mid-Atlantic coast was (and is) seldom cold enough for snow in December. If it’s below freezing, it’s clear; if it’s cloudy, it’s likely above freezing.
This changes in January and February, when it is commonly cold enough for snow along the coast (although it often gets rain there in those months as well). This is just a mirror of the summer lag, where June is not the hottest month even though the days are longest — July and August are the hottest.

Reply to  Ed Bo
August 17, 2016 3:15 pm

You must have missed the part where he said he lived in Michigan in the seventies.
‘Salright…so did I.

Mark T
August 17, 2016 9:06 pm

Huh… and here I always thought it was my strict adherence to proper application of the scientific method and logical principles. Who knew?

Chuck Bradley
August 17, 2016 9:08 pm

While the Brooklyn Bridge was being built, SA had frequent articles about the project. Roebling was doing it wrong.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights