From the UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA and the “abnormal people don’t worry about climate change” department comes this load of codswallop. It’s all about messaging, if we didn’t have the MSM pushing the “weather events are now climate driven” BS, for which there is no evidence (even the most recent IPCC report says so), we would not have people “worrying” about it. An online survey of just 342 people was used for this “study”. Shades of Lewandosky…
Researchers explore psychological effects of climate change
Wildfires, extreme storms and major weather events can seem like a distant threat, but for those whose lives have been directly impacted by these events, the threat hits much closer to home.
As reports of such incidents continue to rise, researchers at the University of Arizona set out to learn more about how people’s perception of the threat of global climate change affects their mental health. They found that while some people have little anxiety about the Earth’s changing climate, others are experiencing high levels of stress, and even depression, based on their perception of the threat of global climate change.
While significant research has explored the environmental impacts of climate change, far fewer studies have considered its psychological effect on humans, said UA researcher Sabrina Helm, an associate professor of family and consumer science in the UA’s Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Helm and her colleagues found that psychological responses to climate change seem to vary based on what type of concern people show for the environment, with those highly concerned about the planet’s animals and plants experiencing the most stress.
The researchers outline in a new study, which appears in the journal Global Environmental Change, three distinct types of environmental concern: Egoistic concern is concern about how what’s happening in the environment directly impacts the individual; for example, a person might worry about how air pollution will affect their own lungs and breathing. Altruistic concern refers to concern for humanity in general, including future generations. Biospheric concern refers to concern for nature, plants and animals.
In an online survey of 342 parents of young children, those who reported high levels of biospheric concern also reported feeling the most stressed about global climate change, while those whose concerns were more egoistic or altruistic did not report significant stress related to the phenomenon.
In addition, those with high levels of biospheric concern were most likely to report signs of depression, while no link to depression was found for the other two groups.
“People who worry about animals and nature tend to have a more planetary outlook and think of bigger picture issues,” Helm said. “For them, the global phenomenon of climate change very clearly affects these bigger picture environmental things, so they have the most pronounced worry, because they already see it everywhere. We already talk about extinction of species and know it’s happening. For people who are predominantly altruistically concerned or egoistically concerned about their own health, or maybe their own financial future, climate change does not hit home yet.”
Those with high levels of biospheric concern also were most likely to engage in pro-environmental day-to-day behaviors, such as recycling or energy savings measures, and were the most likely to engage in coping mechanisms to deal with environmental stress, ranging from denying one’s individual role in climate change to seeking more information on the issue and how to help mitigate it.
Although not generally stressed about climate change, those with high levels of altruistic concern, or concern for the well-being of others, also engaged in some environmental coping strategies and pro-environmental behaviors — more so than those whose environmental concerns were mostly egoistic.
“Climate change is a persistent global stressor, but the consequences of it appear to be slowly evolving; they’re fairly certain to happen — we know that, now — but the impact on individuals seems to be growing really slowly and needs to be taken very seriously,”
said Helm, whose co-authors include UA Norton School researchers Melissa Barnett, Melissa Curran and Zelieann Craig, along with UA alumna Amanda Pollitt.
The research, Helm said, has important public health implications.
“Climate change has evident physical and mental health effects if you look at certain outcomes, such as the hurricanes we had last year, but we also need to pay very close attention to the mental health of people in everyday life, as we can see this, potentially, as a creeping development,” Helm said. “Understanding that there are differences in how people are motivated is very important for finding ways to address this, whether in the form of intervention or prevention.”
###
The paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378017305228?via%3Dihub
Some people have worried about climate change a little too much:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Quote “those who reported high levels of biospheric concern also reported feeling the most stressed about global climate change, while those whose concerns were more egoistic or altruistic did not report significant stress related to the phenomenon.”
What is biospheric concern?
How is that different to “egoistic” or “altruistic”?
egoistic: being centered in or preoccupied with oneself and the gratification of one’s own desires;self-centered (opposed to altruistic ).
altruistic: unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others (opposed to egoistic).
What is that sentence saying?
“What is that sentence saying?”
The “good” people have been brainwashed to worry about phantom threats and the “bad” ones haven’t. At least in terms of how they are paid to see good and bad.
The only skeptics I know are as concerned about the environment as any alarmists I know, with the exception being they aren’t hung up on CO2 being considered a “pollutant”. Most all recycle and try whole heartedly to conserve energy, including gasoline. Most are animal lovers, though not a high percentage of either are vegans. The farmers I know, most of which are skeptics, care more for the land than any urbanite I’ve ever met.
I also see no skeptics with stressed out kids due to the constant barrage of media-driven CAGW fear mongering stories.
Where there’s a grant to be had …
I won’t say I stopped reading right there, but that’s where I thought, “Are you sure you have the cart behind the horse?” Did the authors consider the other side of the coin? “How does people’s mental health affect their perception of the threat of global climate change?” might the question I’d start with.
The save-the-planet types are always fretting about something, and encouraging others to change, to prevent the perceived disaster, while maintaining their own behavior. Not one of the alarmists in the public eye have done the slightest thing to reduce CO2 output. They still jet to their conferences, drive their SUVs, have ginormous home with the electric consumption of small towns, you name it. I’d bet that Anthony has done more with renewables than any of the so-called climate activists.
However, in this article, as in every other oh-no-we’re-gonna-die article, the “fact” of CO2-caused “global climate change” is assumed from the beginning, and everything else derives from that.
One article I’ve never seen, but would love to see, would have the author interview all the leading lights of AGW: Hansen, Mann, etc., and ask them what would falsify, or disprove — however they want to word it — to them, the hypothesis of CO2-cased global climate change/global warming. Is it really just “an end to warming,” or would they be a bit more nuanced? Would ANYTHING disprove it to them?
“Would ANYTHING disprove it to them?”
Loss of all funding…
I’ve decided to do quick research on flooding in Boston since the peanut gallery keep screaming climate change.
Lo and behold, I came acoss this flood disaster that killed at least 21.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood
Great Boston Molasses Flood, occurred on January 15, 1919 in the North End neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. A large molasses storage tank burst and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event entered local folklore and for decades afterwards residents claimed that on hot summer days the area still smelled of molasses.[1]
…Gosh darn that global warming!
I think that we need to set up counseling centers throughout the world to respond to the emotional upheaval caused by man-made climate change. Have a toll free number to call when you feel the need to talk to someone about your feelings. I believe that all counselors should be required to have a master in psychology with a specialty in Chicken Little syndrome and Crying Wolf syndrome. Centers would have to be set up to offer one on one counseling. I am sure we can petition the United Nations and get this approved.
After all when something dramatic or traumatic happens in a school in the U.S. the news report covering the story always end with counselors will be provided by the school to help student and parents cope.
Maybe Penn State could offer them top positions with signing bonuses…..please oh please.
And I’d wager that the group showing high concern about AGW are also more likely to have mental disorders.
So, a generation that has never been told “no”, has no defense against ideas that may contradict the ones learned in an echo chamber, is addicted to media, cannot filter real news from click bait, can’t understand satire and whose only literature reference is a child’s book about magic…can’t cope?
Man, I’m gonna love the next decade or so…when the dumbz get the sadz it unfortunately brings out the worst in me. My bad.
And since none of them have retain (if they were even taught) a thimble’s worth of math, its no use trying to explain to them that tiny changes in average temperatures mean nothing to a planet the size of earth with a climate system as complicated as it is.
Basically, if you have to be told that something bad is happening instead of, you know, knowing that its happening, then it probably isn’t really happening.
Kinda like the kids I see freezing at the bus stop because, even though they are almost literally attached to a machine that will tell them the temperature, they can’t process the data.
The authors are saying “those with high levels of biospheric concern” are neither egotistically or altruistically orientated. That is they do not put humanity, or parts of humanity, before their concerns for the environment. That is something that should concern those who put people first greatly, particularly as they cannot ground their fears of impending environmental or climate catastrophes in real-world evidence, as opposed to the opinions of fellow believers.
PeTAphiles and Enviros.
I doubt the paper delved into what made them that way … or keeps them that way.