Psychologists “Affirm Without Doubt” the Evidence for Imminent Climate Catastrophe

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Psychology Today contributors Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD, psychologists are united in their determination to help climate “deniers” face the need for urgent climate action to prevent imminent human extinction, though they are uncertain about how to deliver group therapy to millions of people in the same session.

Climate Change Denial
Facing a reality too big to believe.

Posted Jan 12, 2019

Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD
Denying to the Grave

But there are also many points that are clear and not subject to legitimate debate. We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over. A recent report from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we can still hope to avert some of the catastrophic consequences of climate change, but only if we “abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two.”  Scientists may disagree about how fast the atmosphere is warming or what the best solutions are, but except for a small number of outliers, none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe.

That a few misguided politicians believe climate change predictions are exaggerated or even fabricated is lamentable. But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public. As monumental hurricanes lash out in Houston and Puerto Rico and California forests burn out of control, it would seem that the evidence that climate scientists are right would be clear enough. Almost annually meteorologists tell us we have just experienced the warmest year in recorded history. Yet even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experience as a manifestation of climate change. Polls tell us that many people are worried about climate change, but that does not seem to motivate much willingness to take action to mitigate it. Others deny that climate change is either occurring at all or that it represents any significant threat to civilization.

Too Large to Believe

Among the myriad reasons that we shun this problem is its enormity. We aren’t “merely” being told that unless we take action our identities will be stolen, we will lose thousands of dollars, or even that it will take a few years off our lives. What the climate scientists are telling us is that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels the human race faces extinction. The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050.

Climate change denial is in some ways a new mental process for psychologists to understand. Of course, the concept of denial itself is well understood. Psychologists consider denial—the refusal to accept facts in order to protect us from uncomfortable truths—to be a primitive defense mechanism.

But despite the fact that psychologists know a lot about denial, they have never had to face denial on this scale before. Millions of people share the phenomenon of climate denial. This is clearly not something that is amenable to individual or even group psychotherapy.

Organizations like Climate Psychiatry Alliance and Climate Psychology Alliance have been formed not only to point out the severe consequences of climate change for emotional and behavioral health but also to lend expertise in determining how best to overcome climate change denial. For these and similar organizations, climate change denial constitutes an emergency that demands immediate attention. We need urgent attention to developing and implementing the best practices for overcoming public despair and inaction and increasing the motivation to demand large-scale climate change mitigation action.

Read more:

If Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman had even the most basic grasp of the science, they would know that the “current rate” of global warming, between 1-2C / century depending on how you measure it, is not even remotely on track to hit 3.5C by 2050. An enormous acceleration of the current rate of warming would be required to hit 3.5C by 2050.

The evidence for imminent climate catastrophe is far from unequivocal.

Even the IPCC leaves room for doubt about the significance of global warming. The IPCC’s lower bound climate sensitivity of 1.5C warming / doubling of atmospheric CO2 would make global warming a complete non-event, even if we burned every scrap of recoverable fossil fuel on the planet.

There is substantial peer reviewed evidence climate sensitivity is even lower than the 1.5C lower bound provided by the IPCC.

By making unsupported assertions about climate science and the future fate of the human race, and by attempting to dispel legitimate doubts about the urgency of the alleged climate crisis, in my opinion Dr. Sara Gorman and Dr. Jack Gorman are potentially doing unspeakable harm to the lives and wellbeing of people within their sphere of influence. Let us hope Sara and Jack realise the enormity of their error.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 13, 2019 10:10 pm

Anyone who uses the word ‘the’ before ‘myriad’ ‘the myriad’ should be ignored.

Reply to  Gbees
January 14, 2019 1:50 am

Not sure you are right here Gbees. Myriad may be used as a noun; so is entitled to have “the” before it. It refers to the sum of 10,000 from its greek origin.

Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 4:27 am

Psychologists who repeatedly use the word “denial” as opposed to the more appropriate word “scepticism”, are unconsciously revealing their unscientific bias. I suggest they spend some time examining their own distorted opinions and less on my rational, science based ones.

Reply to  Trebla
January 14, 2019 6:00 am

Careful, you almost insinuated psychology is a ‘science’ there, you don’t want more people getting that sort of idea.

Reply to  WXcycles
January 14, 2019 9:07 am

No, for once they are using the term denial in a correct clinical way. However, this conclusion is based on their total ignorance of climate science and hubris that knowing something about psychology means they can make repetitive claim about “the fact that …..” which is not a scientific but some sound bite which they cut from a newspaper article.

The talks about “the climate scientists” like this is one homogeneous body with only one opinion. Their breathless commentary is hardly the stuff of a serious work in any science. It is more politics masquerading as science.

Reply to  WXcycles
January 14, 2019 10:26 am

Here, here WX, the first warning from my inbuilt bullshit detector was the first word in the title “physchologists…”
Might as well say “bullshit artists*…”, the involuntary eye rolling would be triggered either way.
*a couple of mates of mine are psychologists, the reason for entering that branch of astrology? There were plenty of hot chicks studying psychology (and biology it turns out, but to succeed in biology you have to do more than memorise the collected memoirs of a demented nutter who fancies his own mum) and the slick talking they teach you in pyschology school can help when chatting up girls at the bar.

When their title states “Psychologists “Affirm Without Doubt” the Evidence for Imminent Climate Catastrophe”, my first thought was ‘how does a conceited bullshit artist presume to lecture me on the made up evidence for climastrology?’ Next they’ll be ‘affirming without doubt’ that despite physical evidence to the contrary ( that Santa Clause really does deliver everyone’s presents on Christmas eve. So you’d better be good and stop arguing, or else…

Just for a laugh, I started reading and it sounds like a copy-paste effort from the guild of Gullible Warming useful idiot’s handbook and I stopped wasting time reading further.

Reply to  Trebla
January 14, 2019 6:23 am

These clown shrinks wrote:

“What the climate scientists are telling us is that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels the human race faces extinction. The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050.

Climate change denial is in some ways a new mental process for psychologists to understand.”

First, ~85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, unchanged in decades. Eliminate fossil fuels and ~everyone in the developed world dies within a few weeks of starvation and exposure.

Next, there is no global warming crisis, based on a large body of credible evidence.

The only consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 is increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor, net-beneficial warming.

January 14, 2019 8:11 am

Psychologists, used car salesmen and government bureaucrats have something in common — they can’t be trusted.

While the future is unknown, and unknowable, we have already had about 20,000 years of recent global warming to study.

About 20,000 years ago, my property in Michigan was covered by a mile of ice.

Today there is a dusting of snow, after an unusually cold November 2018, only about 1/2″ of snow in December 2018, and very little snow so far in January 2019, although cold.

After 41 years in Michigan, 31 years in my current home,
I’ve observed very little global warming — I wish we had more warming here in Michigan.

The warming in the past 20,000 years has been good news, and according to the UAH weather satellite data, there has been very little warming since the 2003 peak.

So there is no sign that global warming is accelerating and strong evidence that the brief period of warming from 1975 to 2003 is slowing down … a lot.

So you have two choices:

(1) Observe the beneficial global warming
in the past, and celebrate that good news, or

(2) Fear the fairy tales of a future climate catastrophe
never before experienced on this planet …
( that we’ve been warned about for many decades)
… that will never come.

Choice (1) is for people with common sense.

Choice (2) is for leftists and other stupid heads

The correct choice for a real scientist was not listed:
“The future climate is unknown, and unpredictable,
but based on past cycles, the next important
climate change is likely to be a return of the glaciers
that used to cover southeastern Michigan.
People living in that region should learn how to ice skate!”

My climate science blog:

Steve O
January 14, 2019 8:48 am

Maybe for $250 an hour they can help people cope with their fears. In some ways this is like a fireman setting fires so he can be paid to put them out.

Samuel C Cogar
January 14, 2019 10:00 am

Maybe for $250 an hour they can help people cope with their fears. In some ways this is like a fireman setting fires so he can be paid to put them out.

You got that right, Steve O.

Put the “fear of God” in them ….. and then charge them $250/half hour for their weekly scheduled “de-programing” appointments and give them a “free” Lorazepam pill to swallow at the end of each “session”.

But after their article was published in the Psychology Today magazine, Sara and Jack Gorman’s “BIG MONEY” will be made from all the “speaking” engagements that they will surely be paid handsomely to perform.

Doc Chuck
January 14, 2019 1:21 pm

Yup, While the consistently clumsy overstatements of verifiable climate science ever so adequately reveals their actual competence in assessing that particular subject matter, what meanwhile readily passes notice by these self-proclaimed “therapists of an entire population” (that in its wisdom has irritatingly judged that all this alarm just doesn’t meet their sniff test of decades of broad life experience)? Isn’t it indeed the proper primary caution of their trade (and mine) that should at the least be within their grasp, “First of all do no harm.”?

When you authoritatively peddle such ‘doubtless’ hysterical doom, what are the foreseeable discouraging, depressing, and even suicide-promoting psychological effects upon the very hearers you portray such tender concerns about?! The professional cognitive dissonance of this kind of power hungry political activism at all costs is deafening.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Trebla
January 14, 2019 2:52 pm

Yes, psychologists suffering from cagw delusions should try introspection, ala Wilhelm Wundt.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 7:04 am

Nope, “the” is not required. Indeed the language is more economical than most speakers realize. We say “There are some apples in the bowl” when “There are apples in the bowl” will do. You would use “some apples” if there was a mix of fruit in the bowl and it wasn’t obvious apples were there.

Climate science’s frilly, careless language is telling.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 14, 2019 9:14 am

Some indicates a small quantity rather than a lot , it infers a little more information that just “apples”.

Reply to  Greg
January 14, 2019 9:50 pm

A man without eyes saw apples on a tree.
He took no apples, and
He left no apples.
Now how could that be?

George Lawson
Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 8:22 am

Whilst on the subject of grammar, I notice how often these days the word ‘enormity’ is used out of context in both the written and spoken word. The word is misused in both the above article and in Eric Worrall’s reply piece. Enormity has nothing to do with enormous or size, but everything to do with sinful acts, atrociousness, vicious crime or guilt. Check the dictionary for the correct description.

Reply to  George Lawson
January 14, 2019 8:33 am

Interesting, I had not been aware of the negative connotation of the first two definitions as greatly immoral.
The one I am familiar with (third definition) does read: “the quality or state of being huge” : immensity

Reply to  George Lawson
January 14, 2019 8:36 am

The article uses enormity in reference to “the problem” as outlined earlier in the article. Since the authors claim to believe that “the problem” is going to result in the extinction of mankind, the use of enormity to describe it is not unjustified.

Eric’s use of enormity is clearly in the realm of sarcasm.

Reply to  George Lawson
January 14, 2019 10:07 am

Indeed, from

noun, plural e·nor·mi·ties

1.outrageous or heinous character; atrociousness:
– the enormity of war crimes.

2.something outrageous or heinous, as an offense:
– The bombing of the defenseless population was an enormity beyond belief.

3.greatness of size, scope, extent, or influence; immensity:
– The enormity of such an act of generosity is staggering.

Usage note
3. Enormity has been in frequent and continuous use in the sense “immensity” since the 18th century: The enormity of the task was overwhelming. Some hold that enormousness is the correct word in that sense and that enormity can only mean “outrageousness” or “atrociousness”: The enormity of his offenses appalled the public. Enormity occurs regularly in edited writing with the meanings both of great size and of outrageous or horrifying character, behavior, etc. Many people, however, continue to regard enormity in the sense of great size as nonstandard.

Thanks George, I learn something new and unexpected every time I visit this site.

Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 9:17 am

Alasdair, Gbees point is correct, although not particularly impactful, and yours is incorrect because these two lamentably misguided social “scientists” are using “myriad” as an adjective here, not a noun.

Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 6:11 pm

The way it’s used here …. the myriad reasons. Myriad means “a great number” or ” a lot of”. There is no need for the “the” in front.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Gbees
January 14, 2019 9:45 am

Well ahead of you: stopped reading at “Psychology Today”.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Gbees
January 14, 2019 10:19 am

Anyone who brings psychology to the table as a tool to interpret the science pertaining to the climate and the proper interpretation of the scientific evidence is more than a bit of a nutjob or maybe just a self important wannabe. Evidence for that takes the form of Stephan Lewandowsky IMO.

January 13, 2019 10:10 pm

I sleep just fine every night, even after reading the laughable “we are doomed soon” wailings every day.

I deal in reality which is why I am not fooled by their overblown propaganda of a doomsday future over a he he… ha ha ha, trace gas with a very small IR absorption window.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2019 12:08 am

I always wonder why Canadians and Americans from the northern states re worried about global warming. I’m sure no-one has that problem in Siberia or Inner Mongolia etc.
Seems to me that the Canadians most of all to consult a shrink.

Anyway in case you guys haven’t read it yet, is an excerpt from my blog which lays out the science simply and clearly.



Reply to  Roger
January 14, 2019 5:41 am

Date: 09/12/18 Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor
Date: 09/12/18 The Sunday Telegraph
Date: 07/12/18 Polar Portal Season Report 2018

Reply to  Roger
January 14, 2019 8:18 am

As a Canadian, I also cannot understand a fear of global warming or climate change either unless it is destined to become colder.
That said, although most people that I know acknowledge that some warming may be occurring, none seem to be concerned with consequences other than a few righteous politicians concerned with their own agendas.
A layperson (the word a slight concession to a Trudeau obsession) view can be found at my website

Reply to  Rick Kargaard
January 14, 2019 11:44 am

Rick K, although this thread and site have myriad good posts, I must celebrate your comment here. I would add that Canadian policy, in part driven by climate hysteria and the consequential political posturing and pandering to “the Canadian as the good guys” meme is causing serious damage to this country. Together with a lack of political will to stand up to vocal but minority dissent by those with an axe to grind against projects of national implication, we are left unable to export our riches to markets except the US. In addition we subject ourselves to new taxation in an irrational guilt fest. The politicians complicit in this scam point to Canada’s high “per capita” CO2 emission; this an inevitable consequence of a cold, thinly populated, huge landmass. Fact is one could accept the most exaggerated warming hypothesis and Canadian emissions up or down would have negligible effect on the climatic outcome.

PS I started reading your website and find it well written. PSS, I live in Quebec and the politicians here are even worse than Trudeau when it comes to climate hypocrisy.

Reply to  jbcan
January 14, 2019 4:29 pm

It’s about changing the story to suit the intent. Australian Greens also talk about the “per capita” because it sounds big and scary. If you talk about actual emissions people would realise that what Australia (or Canada) do to emissions is like a fart in a windstorm. It doesn’t matter.

Reply to  JohnB
January 14, 2019 5:22 pm

JohnB it would be amusing if it was just the “greens” that used the deceptive measure of “per capita” emissions for Canada; however this is actually part of the political discussion in Canada vis-a-vis policy discussions — notably the “need” for the Carbon Tax. Simply posturing on the world stage for Trudeau. Going back to the original topic of the WUWT post, those that question this “need” are pigeonholed in the psychotically denying dustbin. Scary.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2019 1:02 am

the article does not mention doom or catastrophe.
the earth will endure
humans will endure
They suggest that. “The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050.” is hardly a statement of fact (“many”??) and is not supported by IPCC statements.
I could be wrong so please show peer reviewed papers supporting these statements – I cannot find any.

Ed Reid
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 14, 2019 5:28 am

The word “fact” is thrown around rather carelessly in the consensed climate science community.

An “adjusted” temperature is not a “fact”. An “infilled” temperature is not a “fact”.
A range of values for climate sensitivity does not make any value within the range a “fact”.
A spaghetti graph of climate model outputs does not make any single output a “fact”.

James Beaver
Reply to  Ed Reid
January 14, 2019 6:22 am

Wish I could vote this comment up. Well said.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 14, 2019 8:22 am

No people will survive global warming. They will mostly die from age-related causes

Big T
Reply to  Rick Kargaard
January 14, 2019 8:49 am


David Bennett Laing
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2019 6:05 am

And that absorption window, from13 to 17 microns, corresponds to a temperature range from -51 to -103 degrees C, i.e., well below Earth’s surface temperatures!

Reply to  David Bennett Laing
January 14, 2019 7:14 am

David Bennett Laing – do you not find it odd that a 8micron CO2 laser can cut wood/plastic/glass? 8u peak is even cooler than a 13u peak.

I think I am correct in stating that most on here believe in the green house effect of CO2

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 14, 2019 8:33 am

While I believe in the greenhouse effect, with a sensitivity around 0.3C to 0.5C, yours is not a good example.
The laser cuts not because the source is hot or cold, but because there is a lot of energy coming out of the source.
The earth isn’t radiating much energy between 13 and 17 microns, so there is not much energy there for CO2 to redirect.
Anyway, 13 to 17 microns is not the only band that CO2 absorbs in.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 14, 2019 9:26 am

” 8u peak is even cooler than a 13u peak”

NO. A micron is unit of length ( in this case wavelength ), not of temperature. So it can be neither warmer nor cooler.

If your “peak” is in a measure of intensity or power flux , two peaks of equal size would carry the same power. Neither would be “hotter” or capable of inducing a higher temperature in some medium through which they passed.

I single photon of 8 micron is more energetic that one of 13 micron wavelength. ( size isn’t everything. )

Steven Fraser
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 14, 2019 10:10 am

Do the math. What wavelength photons are emitted from the sunlit surface of the earth at 30C?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2019 6:35 am

This magazine has an estimated 2015 circulation of 250,000, of which I’d bet a sizable percentage are doctors’ and dentists’ waiting room coffee tables. Not exactly a major influencer. Of course, if someone here wanted to write an op-ed rebuttal to the article, they probably wouldn’t print it.

Just one more megaphone wielded by kool-aid drinkers.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 14, 2019 9:49 am

If more people had better math skills, fewer people would be worried about most headlines.

The media rely on the fact that most people can’t tell how much difference there is between 0.01% and 0.001%.

Or what an error bar is.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Caligula Jones
January 14, 2019 12:38 pm

Isn’t that a place where mistakes go to drown their troubles?

Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 16, 2019 11:02 am

A computer model walks into an error bar…

David Chappell
January 13, 2019 10:12 pm

Unbelievable! Obviously trying to drum up business.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  David Chappell
January 14, 2019 12:41 am

Do they have a 1 800 hotline up yet? A number we could all call up to get our delusions straightened out?

Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 14, 2019 1:11 am

Yep, I didn’t know my “delusion” was that serious. Oh no! I am a “climate denier”! Who can I call? Are those shrinks working pro bono?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 14, 2019 2:06 am

One of those bright sparks will come up with the idea of a concentration camp. Convert people ten thousand at a time.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 14, 2019 3:38 am

Don’t laugh. There are elites conducting meetings in their private rooms working on putting that together as we communicate. They just need the pesky majority to vote the politicians, they paid for, the power to set these up.

This is why they are so distraught over that mess in France. They are losing their grip on the under educated public school masses. So plan B: let’s put them in mass extinct…ahhh, indoctrination camps and get their minds right.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 14, 2019 3:56 am

I was going to post that but you beat me to it.

Obviously the resolution to climate denial should be an Endlösung.

Or maybe in the proud tradition of clinical psychology, lobotomy and shock therapy.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Mike McMillan
January 14, 2019 3:12 pm

One Eight Hundred, Ninety Seven, Ninety Seven.

Call us now for consensus on your denial.

(calls may be charged at 17% of your first world nation’s GDP)

Reply to  David Chappell
January 14, 2019 5:14 am

Yep, they keep pushing their talking cure.

Reply to  David Chappell
January 14, 2019 5:40 am

Could also be the inmates are running the asylum. The psychologists need to be better informed. An effective self-help program already exists for these tortured souls.
comment image

Fortunately, there is help for climate alarmists. They can join or start a chapter of Alarmists Anonymous. By following the Twelve Step Program, it is possible to recover and unite in service to the real world and humanity.

Step One: Fully concede (admit) to our innermost selves that we were addicted to climate fear mongering.

Step Two: Come to believe that a Power greater than ourselves causes weather and climate, restoring us to sanity.

Step Three: Make a decision to study and understand how the natural world works.

Step Four: Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves, our need to frighten others and how we have personally benefited by expressing alarms about the climate.

Step Five: Admit to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our exaggerations and false claims.

Step Six: Become ready to set aside these notions and actions we now recognize as objectionable and groundless.

Step Seven: Seek help to remove every single defect of character that produced fear in us and led us to make others afraid.

Step Eight: Make a list of all persons we have harmed and called “deniers”, and become willing to make amends to them all.

Step Nine: Apologize to people we have frightened or denigrated and explain the errors of our ways.

Step Ten: Continue to take personal inventory and when new illusions creep into our thinking, promptly renounce them.

Step Eleven: Dedicate ourselves to gain knowledge of natural climate factors and to deepen our understanding of nature’s powers and ways of working.

Step Twelve: Having awakened to our delusion of climate alarm, we try to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Jacob Frank
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 14, 2019 7:38 am

That there is a keeper

Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 14, 2019 7:46 am

You are visionary.
As opposed to the delusions of the climate obsessed.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 14, 2019 8:20 am

Can you send your steps to the Gormans? The shrinks are are in desperate need of help for their mental state.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Ron Clutz
January 14, 2019 12:24 pm

Great idea. Great card.
Where is the step involving getting up in front of the room full of people, and saying …
Hi, my name is John Doink and I am a climate alarmist.

Steve Reddish
January 13, 2019 10:13 pm

“We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.”

If this claim could be CONFIRMED by facts they would have grounds for the rest of the article.

That they use the word “affirm” means they know they do not actually have confirming facts.

Thus the rest of the article is meaningless drivel.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
January 14, 2019 3:05 am

We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.

It’s freaking awesome when people who have no professional knowledge on relevant science and technologies, like energy, economy, agriculture, go forward and give their professional opinion (no, their affirmation without doubt) on what is going to lead to terrible suffering without comparing adaptation to mitigation — because they have no clue on the scale of the problems in suggested mitigation. They don’t know the question, yet they affirm their answer.

Doomed, doomed, they shout, unless you do what we tell you to do. No need to show the effieciency of the given policy, as long as you take our leftist world government as a cure to the extent of the problem we imagine.

How leftists have managed to frame the question on global warming so that it is a question about if you deny or not, totally refusing to listen to any good news and uniformly applying their own ‘solution’ to a problem which is highly complex and beyond their understanding, I just wonder.

We don’t, after decades of scientific work by a huge crowd, know how sensitive the atmosphere is to doubling of the CO2 (IPCC: 1.5-4.5 centigrade), we don’t know how much emissions reaching doubling means, we don’t know how much ‘terrible suffering’ 1.5 degrees would cause, and we don’t know how to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions growth that happens in the third world. We don’t know how to reduce energy consumption without severely hurting economy and causing a collapse that would cause ‘terrible suffering’, to loan their own words.

The question is not about affirming one’s faith, it is a genuine and complex question on what to do, exactly, to avoid risks all actions and inactions will cause.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Hugs
January 14, 2019 4:03 am

Now now hugs, we know it’s too big for you to believe, but we AFFIRM it without doubt.

…we believe in one molecule, Carbon Dioxide (bow), destroyer of heaven and earth, and in the IPCC, our only true hope…

January 13, 2019 10:14 pm

We once had a neighbour who was a psychologist/psychiatrist. He said that you needed to be mad to be one!
The above would seem to indicate that he was right.

Reply to  Annie
January 14, 2019 1:22 am

Psychology is an attempt to quantify and normalize current social values. The really cool part of it is that you can make up any shit you want.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 14, 2019 2:52 am

Psychologists/psychiatrists are specialised in brainwashing, they’ll do only their best.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 14, 2019 8:45 am

Who can people turn to for help when they need to undo their brainwashing?

I was hoping psychologists would step in and work with such victims because the impact on their psychological state is devastating.

Reply to  Annie
January 14, 2019 3:23 am

There’s a cruel saying that no one is crazier than a shrink except his kid.

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 14, 2019 12:53 pm

Not that cruel. Probably true.

We had friends and she was a shrink. Crazy lady. Had a nervous tic and everything. So one day at our house her kid is jumping up and down on our living room sofa, as if it was a trampoline. I was livid at the kid and ready to yank him off when she comes in yelling at him… “DON’T JUMP ON THAT SOFA”!! You could fall and hurt yourself on that coffee table. JUMP ON THIS ONE INSTEAD…

Reply to  Annie
January 14, 2019 9:28 am

In college the standing joke amongst friends was that the psychology majors were there to try to figure out their own mental problems.

Reply to  icisil
January 14, 2019 2:27 pm

My ex wife was pretty mental herself. Quess what major she chose.

Chris Hanley
January 13, 2019 10:18 pm

The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050 …
Alternatively they could shift about 10degrees latitude away from the equator or about 500 meters higher.
“Medice, cura te ipsum”.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 13, 2019 10:35 pm

If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable change in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. It is the convective greenhouse effect caused by gravity, the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the troposphere that is responsible for the warming effects of the atmosphere. Derived from first principals, the convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be approximately 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Additional warming that would be caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
January 14, 2019 4:22 am

William – the surface is heated directly by solar insolation and in turn it heats the atmosphere. You have omitted that factor in your analysis.

Any atmosphere will be warmer at the bottom that the top, if there is a heat source. The sun is that heat source, and not the pressure. If you remove the GHG’s from the atmosphere, the surface is heated more powerfully (about 100% more) because at the moment they are “in the way”. That increased heating of the air near the surface in the daytime is significant. At the top it will still be cooler, of course, until reaching the rarefied upper regions (which are hot).

There is no convective greenhouse effect, but there is heating by the surface which is convective cooling. The cooling of the atmosphere, on the other hand, is controlled by radiation from GHG’s into space. If you remove them, the atmosphere would not be able to cool. Consider for a moment the consequences of heating without cooling. Will it really be 33 degrees C cooler?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
January 14, 2019 10:55 am

“The cooling of the atmosphere, on the other hand, is controlled by radiation from GHG’s into space. ”

All atmospheric gases radiate to space because all objects radiate IR according to their temperature.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
January 15, 2019 6:33 pm

A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the class limits cooling by convection. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm, instead it is a convective greenhouse effect caused by the glass. So to on Earth but instead of glass there is gravity that limits cooling by convection. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to be 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is what has been derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. No additional warming has been observed that could be attributed to a radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. An additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system.

The Earth’s atmosphere operates as an insulator that reduces the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface. This cooling can be characterized by the temperature profile of the atmosphere. The lapse rate is a function of gravity, and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. H2O’s moving heat energy via the heat of evaporation affects it but not the LWIR absorption properties of trace gases. If CO2 really did affect climate, one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. At the top of the atmosphere, more so called greenhouse gases cause cooling because they are more efficient radiators to space than the non greenhouse gases. However, LWIR absorption band radiation to space is dominated by H2O and the contribution from CO2 is insignificant. Heat transfer in the troposphere is dominated by means other than LWIR absorption band radiation. We also must consider that good absorbers are also good radiators so the so called greenhouse gases do not really trap heat energy. In fact it is the non-greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat energy because they are such inefficient radiators to space.

For those that still believe in a radiant greenhouse effect, calculations performed decades ago estimated the climate sensitivity of CO2 to be 1.2 degrees C, not including feedbacks. A recent study based on temperature data since 1850 showed that if all the global temperature gain was caused by the increase in CO2 during that time that the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not be more than 1.2 degrees C, including feedbacks. Another researcher showed that the original calculations of the climate sensitivity of CO2 neglected the fact that a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a slight increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. This change in the dry lapse rate reduces the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. so that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is less than .06 degrees C, a trival amount.

Then there is the question of feedbacks. The AGW conjecture argument is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming to happen because H2O is also a greenhouse gas with LWIR abortion bands. This argument ignores the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the troposphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the the heat of vaporization. Evidence of the over all cooling effect of H2O is that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of providing a positive feedback, H2O provides a negative feedback. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve because we are here.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
January 14, 2019 4:24 am

CO2 does affect climate. Few people deny this, even among us the skeptics and/or lukewarmers.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Nylo
January 14, 2019 6:13 am

The problem with your statement is that you have forgotten the key caveat of the basic hypothesis you have asserted the “truth” of. Let me remind you of the basic hypothesis (and you must take into account every word, not only those that you like):

ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL, if the atmospheric CO2 level is doubled, then the temperature, on average, would be about one degree Celsius higher than it was before the change in CO2 level.

So the basic hypothesis basically says that IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES, then under THOSE circumstances, and ONLY under THOSE circumstances, the atmospheric CO2 level was doubled, THEN, and ONLY then, CO2 “would” as you say, “affect the climate.”

Here in the real world, however, “all other things” are NOT “held equal,” the feedbacks are negative, offsetting feedbacks (which we know because the Earth’s climate history shows long periods of stability which would be IMPOSSIBLE if the climate system reacted to changes in CO2 level, which has changed much more in the past, with positive feedbacks), and the net effect of CO2 on temperature is indistinguishable from ZERO. Even IF the “greenhouse theory” is accurate.

So no, there is no “certain” relationship “CO2 affects climate.” And the Earth’s climate history shows the assertion to be false on multiple time scales. The notion that CO2 level drives temperature is nothing more than “hypothetical BS.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 14, 2019 10:30 am

AGW is not Science–
I agree with most of what you said. There are negative feedbacks that maintain earth’s homeostasis within certain ranges despite any positive feedbacks from a radiative greenhouse effect. Unlike William, you don’t deny that CO2 delays the loss of heat from the atmosphere ceteris paribus. I’m not convinced that the net effect of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero, but would agree that it’s never going to have a catastrophic impact.

You don’t subscribe to the Nikolov-Zeller hypothesis I trust?

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Nylo
January 15, 2019 6:37 pm

Counting people as being for or against is not an argument because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated though a voting process.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
January 14, 2019 10:13 am

I see that you’re pushing Nikolov and Zeller’s hypothesis again, whereby a higher rate of molecular collisions in a dense gas will generate heat in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. We might begin to suspect that you are a troll whose job it is to promote discredited theories on WUWT so that alarmists can point to all the crazy ideas posted here.

And it’s “principLES”. The first principALS would be the guys who ran the first public schools I guess.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 15, 2019 6:48 pm

No I an not doing that. It is all a matter of how CO2 affects the insulating properties of the atmosphere. For example the lapse rate is a measure of the insulating properties of the atmosphere. The lapse rate is unaffected by the LWIR absorption properties of component gases. If the IPCC really knew how CO2 affected the insulation characteristics of the atmosphere they would quote a single value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 rather than the wide range of guesses that they have published. More than two decades of effort has not allowed them to reduce the range of their guesses one iota. They have learned nothing that would allow them to do so.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 13, 2019 11:34 pm

… or turn the air conditioner up a bit, or the heater down.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 8:43 am

If the heater or AC is running off a thermostat, it will turn itself up or down.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 2:08 am

It’s like studying in Brisbane and getting a job at Emerald. Oh, that’s a 20C temperature change. It’s a wonder anyone survives at Emerald.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 14, 2019 3:25 am

Greg, when I worked in Oman we endured 55C day in and day out. I returned to Oz and 0 deg on July in the Adelaide Hills,my Canadian colleagues went from 30 degC in winter to -40 deg at home. After break we all came back to Oman happy, mainly because we avoided psychologists. We did this every 4 weeks much to the amusement and wonderment of our friends who thought we were nuts. Point is, people can get used to anything.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
January 14, 2019 3:30 am

The valued psychologists are also welcome here to evaluate what difference, if any, -13C and -11C have to lifelong important questions, like ‘should I wear longjohns’, or did the banana plant freeze to death. Yeah, I still see no end of snow shovelling despite the horrible Arctic amplification.

(sarcasm intended, but I was much friendlier than what I could have been)

Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 3:16 am

The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050 …

This is just so awesome.

The fact is, people who claim >2.0C in 30 years have not internalized the bible (IPCC AR5).

But as it is said, a sucker is born every minute. I guess Greenland could start selling property for rich people who believe in that kind of scenarios which will make Greenland the second-to-last inhabitable place. They could make some good money before the rich people realize the land under snow and ice is pretty useless without a right to pump oil and gas from it.

George Daddis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 5:25 am

if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050 …

By basic logic standards, that is an “and” statement (as contrasted to an “or” statement for example.)

That logic statement would return “FALSE” because as already noted the two conditions are contradictory; if (temps) continue at the current pace, they will NOT reach 3.5C by 2050.

Their own opening statement the remainder of the piece is meaningless. They need to review logic as well as climate science before attempting another article.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  George Daddis
January 14, 2019 9:09 am

Thus, at least 2 self negating statement in their premise.


Wiliam Haas
January 13, 2019 10:21 pm

“We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.” But this is all not true and it is a matter of science and not a matter of politics. The reality is that, based upon the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero, This is all a matter of science.

The AGW conjecture appears plausible at first but upon a closer evaluation one finds that the AGW conjecture is based upon only partial science and cannot be adequately defended in terms of science. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere. or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. This is not a matter politics but rather science.

January 13, 2019 10:30 pm

There is no evidence whatsoever for Transient nor Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity! All based on an assumption, well actually two assumptions: 1) All climate change since 1880, or 1850, or some year, is due to CO2, and 2) Natural climate variability has for some reason ceased.

Let us cross this bridge when we come to it. If sea level rise swamps a beach close to a large city, and appears to be inexorable, we can: A, build a wall, as the Dutch have shown us all how to do, or, B, abandon prosperity and revert to the 19th century, what a blast that was.

Do these people never consider the conditions for which they advocate???

January 13, 2019 10:32 pm

CO2 is a trace gas, comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere. A trace gas has only trace effect on the surrounding molecules of air. Trace means insignificant. Either English is not well understood by the psychologists, or that tidbit of scientific fact has been conveniently overlooked.

David Guy-Johnson
January 13, 2019 10:35 pm

They are the ones that need help, not the general population. Mad as a box of frogs.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
January 13, 2019 10:51 pm

I disagree:
A box of frogs will have a predictable chaotic, mostly bleating noise, but benign behavior when opened.

The Progressive chaps will be psychotic maniacs, imaging all sorts of hobgloblins, and screaming the sky is falling whilst pushing everyone else off the cliff, save themselves.

Best to just keep the lid closed and turn-up the fire to “parboil” until the croaking stops.

January 13, 2019 10:35 pm

Ouch. The stupid contained herein is painful. Book smart idiots.

James Beaver
Reply to  Cosmic
January 14, 2019 6:37 am

Dr. Nassim Taleb coined the term “Intellectual Yet Idiot” (IYI) to encapsulate this class of highly credentialed yet woefully stupid people.

Reply to  James Beaver
January 14, 2019 8:44 am

Educated beyond their intelligence.

Joel O'Bryan
January 13, 2019 10:46 pm

And Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are also real… to a 6 year old.

Which is about where these clowns operate at mentally. And it is also about the same the developmental age of most Progressives in their ability to handle the realities of the Real World.

January 13, 2019 10:48 pm

There must be a provision in the Dem’s budget for Psychologists to tap into the Governmental AGW Teat. These two just want to be first in line.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Scott
January 13, 2019 11:11 pm

Who wants to suck the hind tit?
Even piglets and climatists know that simple rule.

F. Ross
January 13, 2019 10:49 pm


John in Oz
January 13, 2019 10:53 pm

Millions of people share the phenomenon of climate denial.

Is this a large enough number to be considered a consensus, which is supposedly the arbiter of truth?

The Cob
Reply to  John in Oz
January 14, 2019 3:03 am

Millions of people thinking for themselves is a phenomenon? I find people AFFIRMING that to be the phenomenon.

There is something very wrong with these people.

The Cob
January 13, 2019 10:53 pm

Well that’s nice of them to affirm an alternative reality for us plebs. Your last paragraph is really the point here. We’ve already seen people go off the deep end from how the scam is being promoted. The murder/suicide in Europe (i think) for example.

It was one thing to analyse totalitarianism from the outside, how does it feel everyone – looking at it from the inside?

Up is down, right is wrong, cooling is warming yadda yadda yadda.

Bill In Oz
January 13, 2019 10:54 pm

Ohhhhh Dear…Psychologists of course have a hopeless track record of being scientific in their endevours..

When & If any of us skeptics need their ‘assistance’ , we can always give them a call…But till then the best suggestion is to tell them to “Bugger Off” !

Reply to  Bill In Oz
January 14, 2019 4:13 am

tsk tsk, then you’d get labelled as “oppositional defiant”
join the club;-)
theres a LOT of us apparently

Russ R.
January 13, 2019 11:02 pm

Scientists may disagree about how fast the atmosphere is warming or what the best solutions are, but except for a small number of outliers, none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe.

1) Scientists disagree on the rate – so if you don’t know the rate, you don’t know what is the correct action, if any is required to solve or mitigate the problem.
2)You don’t have agreement on solutions, so you don’t know what to do about what you don’t know the rate of.
3) Small number of outliers, does not eqate to “none doubt”. They just said some doubt, where does “none” come from?
4) Plenty of people that have studied the evidence for this conjecture think we are not “rapidly approaching climate catastrophe”. The data does not even correlate over many decades between the growth in CO2, and the global temperature record which is “produced” by climate activists.
It worries me more than climate change, that people can express such complete incomprehension on a subject, and then proceed to analyze those that know more than they do. And use science from sources that have a severe conflict of interest as equivalent to science that is reproducible by unbiased sources.
Maybe they just wanted to write something controversial to get attention for themselves. My diagnosis is : Histrionic personality disorder (HPD).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Russ R.
January 14, 2019 8:05 am

“1) Scientists disagree on the rate – so if you don’t know the rate, you don’t know what is the correct action, if any is required to solve or mitigate the problem.”

I think these doctors are getting their CAGW “facts” from newspaper headlines and articles and not from scientific studies, otherwise they wouldn’t make such a claim as “none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe”. Even the IPCC doesn’t make such claims.

The doctors wonder why millions of people don’t believe in CAGW. It’s because the people don’t see it happening in their lives. The doctors would point to hurricanes and wildfires as evidence of CAGW but the people have seen these things before and they are not unusual to them.

So until we see some unusual weather, noone is goig to get too excited about CAGW. All the bad weather we see today was just as bad or worse in the past, and statistics show that all forms of extreme weather are fewer in number and less severe than in the past.

It’s business as usual. Nothing unusual going on here. People are acting rationally based on what they see with their eyes.

January 13, 2019 11:14 pm

What the climate scientists are telling us is that if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels the human race faces extinction.

Oddly, when I read the actual IPCC reports and what the actual climate scientists actually say, I can’t find words to that effect.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 14, 2019 6:42 am

That’s probably because, like most of the deluded idiots that share their point of view, they only read the political agenda pushing “summary for policymakers,” not the underlying summaries of anything resembling any actual science (though even THAT is suspect, based on “selectivity” and “amendments” to make it more “supportive” of the “summary” bullshit).

Of course, their ridiculous statement is so over the top that even the “summary for policymakers” probably doesn’t include words to that effect.

Seems like they need some serious therapy.

lyn roberts
January 13, 2019 11:17 pm

the world is WARMING, shouts the crowd.
See the article I found about Hitlers propaganda, reads very similar to what we are hearing from the warmists.
1. Keep the dogma simple 1 or 2 points.
2. be forthright and powerfully direct, speak only in telling or ordering mode.
3. As much as possible reduce concepts down to stereotypes which are black and white.
4. Speak to peoples emotions and stir them constantly.
5. Use lots of repetition, repeat you points over and over again.
6. Forget literary beauty, Scientific reasoning, balance or novelty.
7. Focus solely on convincing people and creating zealots.
8. find slogans which can be used to drive the people forward.
Need I say more, we all know what happened to Germany and its people and victims.

James Beaver
Reply to  lyn roberts
January 14, 2019 6:44 am

Thankfully we have other sources of information and can educate ourselves. This frustrates the propagandists to no end.

January 13, 2019 11:18 pm

It must embarrass/annoy Nick Stokes to no end knowing that these two are batting on his team.

Has anyone challenged these “psychologists” to debate the AGW vs CAGW theories? If not, they are doomed to wallow in their own ignorance.

Reply to  SMS
January 13, 2019 11:21 pm

If it embarrassed Nick Stokes one would think he would have the balls to stand up and say something…

Reply to  SMS
January 14, 2019 3:59 am

Let’s not attack Nick before he says anything. It’s unseemly and rude.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 14, 2019 8:47 am

Speak not the name of he Devil, lest he take notice and come hither.

Barry Sheridan
January 13, 2019 11:50 pm

The day ‘greens’ and other ‘eco-fanatics’ get behind harnessing some form nuclear process to generate electricity is the day I will believe they are serious in addressing this issue.

Eric McCay
January 14, 2019 12:11 am

Dr. Jack M. Gorman had stunned the staff at the Harvard-affiliated hospital in May 2006, resigning after just four months on the job for undisclosed “personal and medical reasons.” It turns out that Gorman was having such guilty feelings about his relationship with the patient that he quit his job, according to the Gorman associate. At about the same time, Gorman reported himself to medical regulators in his home state and attempted suicide, said the associate and a New York official.

In an astonishing fall from grace, Gorman, 55, signed a consent order last month with the New York Board for Professional Medical Conduct admitting that he had inappropriate sexual contact “on more than one occasion” with the patient, violating a cardinal rule in psychiatry. He surrendered his license to practice medicine indefinitely, effective yesterday.

Yes, it’s the same guy. There is a photo and that page and on the climate article.

Scott W Bennett
Reply to  Eric McCay
January 14, 2019 7:03 pm

Oh the delicious irony of using your fathers authority to promote your book after it backfires when it becomes public knowledge that he was deregistered and is unlicensed after admitting to sex with a patient and attempted suicide many years before it was written!

Talk about Medice, cura te ipsum! She would be wise to attend to her own defects and those of her own family before those of the world and in others!

Reply to  Eric McCay
January 14, 2019 9:03 pm

Just the type of person I’d take moral advice from.

January 14, 2019 12:13 am

The politicians and movie stars are big on telling everyone else to cut back. But they don’t cut back so why should we?

Of course they want us to get out of our cars and take buses. That would free up the traffic jams and the fat cats could zoom around traffic free.

They must get really pissed at having to wait in traffic like everyone else. So of course they are going to pay Dr Judas Fruitcake, PhD to write a report with Big Words that says WE are the problem.

Scott W Bennett
January 14, 2019 12:14 am

Well obviously Professor Jordan B Peterson will have to be sent to a re-education camp!

Reply to  Aelfrith
January 14, 2019 3:32 am

“Only the madman is absolutely sure.”

I’m not sure if this is a brainy quote?

Reply to  Hugs
January 16, 2019 1:17 pm

I put it this way

“Only the completely insane are completely convinced of their own sanity.”

January 14, 2019 12:40 am

The last I heard, the psychologists were going on about all those people having breakdowns worrying about about global warming. I suppose they get their money either way.

January 14, 2019 12:40 am

The late, unlamented Soviet Union also used psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose mental illness in dissidents.

The Cob
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 14, 2019 3:10 am

Yes! And this is where we’re at. Elites – govt, universities, media, leftists telling us what our realities should be, and need to be. This is more than an argument of science.

Lewis p Buckingham
January 14, 2019 12:44 am

This is mindfull of the predictions of the archetypal Hanrahan,

“If we don’t get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”

The catastrophe ideation affects the mentally compromised and is discussed in this abstract.

Skills to refrain from catastrophic thinking were negatively related to worry and a wide range of psychological distress. Repetitive negative thinking (including worry) is proposed as a common etiological factor for a wide range of psychological distress. Therefore, reduced repetitive negative thinking would mediate the negative relation between refraining from catastrophic thinking and psychological distress (depression, social anxiety, phobia, generalized anxiety, and obsessions and compulsions). As an overlap between five indices of psychological distress was expected, we first computed latent factors underlying them, which were then predicted by refraining from catastrophic thinking and repetitive negative thinking. Cross-sectional questionnaire data from 125 nonclinical voluntarily participating students (M age = 19.0 years, SD = 3.6; 54% women) supported the predictions: refraining from catastrophic thinking was negatively correlated with depression, social anxiety, phobia, generalized anxiety, and obsession and compulsion. Repetitive negative thinking mediated the negative relationship between refraining from catastrophic thinking and latent factors underlying psychological distress (Fear and Distress). Refraining from catastrophic thinking may be negatively correlated with psychological distress due to its negative relation to repetitive negative thinking.

This is my own observation particularly with street people.

My attitude is to follow the data.
Its simpler.

We are well below the Roman warming, which led to the spread of commerce and civilization.
A big component of the modern warming could be natural so outside all but adaption.
Best work on the problems that beset us now which are fixable.
These psychologists should contact their counterparts in China, India Japan, Korea and Russia
to obtain a bit of feedback as to the living conditions they are aspiring to achieve.

January 14, 2019 12:47 am

If climate change were real, I wouldn’t care. I live in Canada and would love to have warmer winters.

If climate change were real, wouldn’t all the people screaming “we must do something” actually do something serious themselves? And I’m not talking of buying carbon credits. The climate change advocates must stop flying, stop using internal combustion engine vehicles, and convert their houses to electric heat. And for those in warmer climes, set their air conditioning to 80 deg F.

Plus for all those advocates who make more than 100k a year, please take 50% of all your income over $100 and send it to India or Africa, plus each year send 10% of all your wealth over one million, to the same.

Once all climate change advocates do this, then I”ll consider climate change.

Flight Level
January 14, 2019 12:56 am

“Too Large to Believe” – actually works both ways. But there’s worse.

I dare a psychologist, a panel of psychologists, anything of the trade, to provide a clear set of rules & algorithms upon which a fully functional & working computer model of the human brain can be built.

Until then, psychology will remain a set of assumptions and beliefs based on the unknown.

Reply to  Flight Level
January 14, 2019 1:30 am

It is not even that. It is an attempt to quantify and constrain what the norms of a society are at a point in time. As society changes, what is normal changes. So psychology has no baseline. It is just a means to justify current social views. In other words, it is just made up shit and is always retroactive. However, if you define it as the study to identify sociable versus unsociable behavior, then it may have some small value.

Flight Level
Reply to  Donald Kasper
January 14, 2019 2:12 am

Oh, gosh, observe the results without a clue on the “computing” underneath. As good as a science gets.

Must be pretty boring, lol 😉

Ivor Ward
January 14, 2019 12:58 am

“In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrent violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happenning. By lack of understanding, they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”

George Orwell. “1984”

Written in 1948. Considered a warnng by sane people. Used as an instruction manual by the “progressives”.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Ivor Ward
January 14, 2019 9:42 am

“1984” was the first thing that came to mind, having just read this post. But I hesitated to comment, first searching to see if someone had already done so. I read Orwell’s book the year of its title. Perhaps it is time to read it again.

January 14, 2019 1:13 am

During the 20th century a number of political leaders (I can think of three prominent ones) were convinced their views of society were correct. They also believed everybody had to follow their ideas to avert problems. I am sure they all could “affirm without doubt” their views were the only true way to go. Unlike our Psychology Today contributors, these political leaders had no such problems about how to re-educate their masses. They all had rather direct ways of convincing the public to follow their rules. 150 million human lives and many failed political systems later…..

Rod Evans
January 14, 2019 1:13 am

As was evidenced in the days of the USSR, when a belief system turns to the Psychologists and Psychiatrists,to support its principles and advocacy, resulting in the jailing of those who do not conform with the state’s philosophy or objectives in asylums, you just know, the end of their flawed/false paradigm is imminent.
I just wonder who will be the UN state’s first climate realists, they decide must be locked away? Who will be our Solzhenitsyn?
“I am of course confident that I will fulfil my tasks as a writer in all circumstances — from my grave even more successfully and more irrefutably than in my lifetime. No one can bar the road to truth, and to advance its cause I am prepared to accept even death. But may it be that repeated lessons will finally teach us not to stop the writer’s pen during his lifetime? At no time has this ennobled our history”.

Iain Russell
January 14, 2019 1:17 am

Rug up you psych folk. The Ferbil Coldening is here now, just as the Climate Scientologists predicted back in the 70s. Dress warm!

January 14, 2019 1:24 am

Really, the paper shows the level of development of the field of psychology, full of cliches, propaganda, loaded words (those with emotional impact but no meaning), and media hysteria, and attempting to codify it into a field of study as something real, real meaning repeatable amongst a group of people studying the same phenomena.

E J Zuiderwijk
January 14, 2019 1:26 am

They are a gullible lot aren’t they?

January 14, 2019 1:36 am

These psychologists are obviously suffering from a severe dose of the SatanicCO2 viral Meme. A daily dose of WUWT et al is to be recommended. They should heal themselves first, before pontificating rubbish.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alasdair
January 14, 2019 8:29 am

“A daily dose of WUWT et al is to be recommended.”

That would be good therapy! And it’s free! 🙂

Hokey Schtick
January 14, 2019 1:42 am

Ah yes, psychologists. Bat-sh*t crazy the lot of them.

E J Zuiderwijk
January 14, 2019 1:46 am

Something worries me.

They may be right in observing that some problem may be ‘too large to believe’ by Joe Bloggs.

Could there also be hoaxes ‘too large to believe’ by psychologically challenged psychologists?

Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
January 14, 2019 3:47 am

Hysteria. This is not about a hoax, somebody just misleading some other people. This is a hysteric moment, where large masses of people start to believe in radical means in order to reach a utopia – here a more liveable planet without fossil fuel.

There are fraudsters and hoaxers always around and active, making money on the hysteria, but the hysteric people mostly run their hysteria on their own. I have been optimistic, and willing to believe that this is just the zeitgeist, and it will go away and be replaced with something more sensible, something more feasible and constructive

Reply to  Hugs
January 14, 2019 4:05 am

I disagree. Catastrophic Climate Change is the biggest scientific fraud in all of history!

Steve Borodin
January 14, 2019 1:46 am

“We need urgent attention to developing and implementing the best practices for overcoming public despair and inaction”


We need urgent attention to developing and implementing the best practices for overcoming (some) social scientist’s gullibility, scientific illiteracy, prejudice and arrogance.

M Courtney
January 14, 2019 2:21 am

We’re looking at Psychology Today?

What next, the Fortean Times?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  M Courtney
January 14, 2019 3:43 am

I have a terrible feeling that somehow you are being grossly unfair to the Fortean Times by even mentioning this group of Psycho-delusionists in association with the former.

Reply to  M Courtney
January 14, 2019 4:13 am

This journal doesn’t even appear on my list of acceptable journals to reference in Masters grade assignments. What is it, something to put on a shrink’s coffee table?

January 14, 2019 2:30 am

Everything is wrong in the comments. There is no need for evidence for just one percent probability, because the danger is so great.

Flight Level
Reply to  malkom700
January 14, 2019 4:24 am

Speaking of numbers. 99% of certitude to destroy all we have to eventually prevent something that could putatively destroy a part of what we have.

What a deal !

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Flight Level
January 14, 2019 6:55 am

Well said.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  malkom700
January 14, 2019 9:09 am

Danger of WHAT?! Better weather?!

History shows us that “warm” climate is the BEST climate, and that “cold” climate is what brings misery and suffering. So you’re afraid of what, insufficient misery and suffering?!

January 14, 2019 2:35 am

The Climate Change CONsensus Cult are uniting into a Climate Liar United Bullies (CLUB).
Has any one seen Gerald Kutney’s twitter propaganda – it’s relentless.
Mind you, he has a vested interest as MD of the Sixth Element Sustainability Management, renewable energy technology consultancy!

4 Eyes
January 14, 2019 3:09 am

These people cannot prove a single thing. They should be charged with menace or a similar crime. Psychology on steroids. This is proof that things have gone too far (and that psychology is a really stupid profession). Let’s take no prisoners from now on, we’ve been far too accommodating and tolerant with these idiots. Derision and ad hominems is all they deserve. It’s late but I need to have a drink after reading their cr@p.

Rhys Jaggar
January 14, 2019 3:09 am

If you have ever had a consultation with a psych professional, you may quickly realise that they are more in need of therapy than you are.

It is undoubtedly a mental ailment to practice medicine and say that opposing mass genocide in the Middle East shows mental ill health.

You can of course believe Western propaganda whole, just as Global Warmers believe the IPCC.

But if you actually interrogate evidence critically nd reach radically different conclusions?

Definitely off with the fairies!

The medic says so, so it must be true….

January 14, 2019 3:11 am

For a bunch of supposedly highly educated individuals, how did these brainless wonders pass 9th grade Earth Science?
When these Eggheads start living in conditions prior to the Industrial Revolution and live in squalor, then I might take them seriously.

January 14, 2019 3:15 am

Clients. They want clients – and psychologists know how to get them. This is malpractice. Never mind that psychiatry and psychology are questionable professions. Psychiatry for sure. Nothing that’s “mental” is an illness, although there are illnesses that can stem from physical illnesses like thyroid problems, but in those cases, the thyroid problem is treated. There is no pill to “treat” the mind. This is insanity.

January 14, 2019 3:51 am

“Let us hope Sara and Jack realise the enormity of their error.”

Not while it is so obscenely profitable.

January 14, 2019 3:58 am

If I could speak to these psychologists, I would recite Luke 4:23. But they are not physicians, and, as evidenced by their posting, their science is more like alchemy.

Tom in Florida
January 14, 2019 4:34 am

I say we restart the Psychic Readers Network and bring back Miss Cleo.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 14, 2019 7:41 am

I think they already have and they just took office in DC.

Buck Wheaton
January 14, 2019 4:43 am

The data that is available for my review shows “without a doubt” that increases in CO2 levels TRAIL increases in temperature. Thus human consumption of hydrocarbon energy cannot be the primary cause any temperature change. This was affirmed to my by Murray Salby’s lectures and his use of the isotope data from open air testing of nuclear weapons about 60 years ago. There also exists ample record of epochs in earth’s distant past where levels of CO2 were far higher than today, yet glaciation occurred.

Advocates of human-induced climate change do not seem be interested in glaciation, and appear to treat it like something that was imposed on earth by aliens. The big question for me is what drove massive amounts of water into the atmosphere to make glaciation possible?

There is a rough rule of thumb about snow: ten inches of snow yields one inch of water. There is a rough rule of thumb about ice: one inch of water yields one inch of ice. So when I read that Wisconsin Episode glaciers (about 25,000 to 13,500 years ago) where about one mile thick over where Chicago is presently located, I am compelled to ask, where did ten miles of snow come from? Now, ten miles of snowfall is roughly 50,000 feet. Or five feet of snowfall a day for 30 years with no melting. Or a half foot a day for 300 years. Or a fraction of an inch a day for 3,000 years. The longer I drag this accumulation out, the easier it is for it to melt or sublimate away. Please tell me what mechanism of a normally functioning atmosphere makes that possible? Well the quick answer is that what was “normal” changed drastically without a single gallon of crude oil or a single lump of coal being burned. It then changed back again. Without human influence. I’m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.

To put these learned psychological professions at ease, I am not in denial that some 20,000 years ago, where Chicago sits was under a mile of glacial ice. It seems to me that if there is any denial, it is that the earth’s natural climate has has excursions in the past that make our epoch seem calm and peaceful by comparison. Apart from the fact that the climate trend of the past 20 years is only some 69% likely of not being random, if we are in fact in a positive trend, when compared to natural trends of the past, this trend is mere noise compared to those excursions. I thought that some phenomena needs to be 95% non-random to be significant. Only for climate are the rules different. Because “climate change” is a means to a higher-order ends, to impose the sustainable progressive Utopia.

Let me share some of the other things about the climate that I don’t deny::

I don’t deny that some 12,000 years ago mammoths were frozen in Siberian with green leafy plants still in their stomachs.

I don’t deny that some 1,100 years ago Vikings harvested barley and raised cattle on an island we now call Greenland.

I don’t deny that around the end of the 13th century, the Mesa Verde region of the American Southwest experienced a maga-drought so severe that the Anasazi who lived there died out.

I don’t deny that between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 – the ice was thick enough to hold a public festival called a “frost fair.”

To deny these things happened is real climate denial.

January 14, 2019 5:02 am

Because roughly 95% of all psychologists are Leftists, it’s not at all surprising Psychology Today is a rabid propaganda rag for the CAGW cult.

Moreover, pathological symptoms of: helplessness, depression, anxiety, anger, paranoia, fear, panic and malaise manifested by individuals with an irrational belief in the CAGW hoax is a huge boon for the psychological therapy business—a self-licking ice cream cone…

This Psychology Today article was inundated with blatant lies and utter hyperbole, which not even pro-CAGW scientists would publically espouse..

When (not if) the CAGW hoax is officially disconfirmed, I hope individuals and organizations who so strongly propagandized its certainty will be held responsible for wasting $trillions and inflicting so much psychological harm upon billions of people who actually took this scam seriously.

January 14, 2019 5:37 am

Actually this cr*p does not warrant attention of a serious discussion site like WUWT. Or if you must dub it “Ridiculae”.

January 14, 2019 5:39 am

Skeptics should stick with the data. CO2 rise follows temperature rise after a lag of several hundred years.

Most of the CO2 that we see is due to the temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age  (LIA) with a lag of 300 years . Coincidentally,  a much smaller amount is being added by humans.  It’s an accident that warmists, the IPCC and their much-amplified propaganda machine have taken advantage of.

January 14, 2019 5:43 am

“Climate change denial is in some ways a new mental process for psychologists to understand. Of course, the concept of denial itself is well understood. Psychologists consider denial—the refusal to accept facts in order to protect us from uncomfortable truths—to be a primitive defense mechanism.”

Just who is in denial here.

January 14, 2019 5:45 am

True climate change denial: “The climate should never change! CO2 is a pollutant! No species should ever go extinct! We must stop the planet from changing! Nothing should ever change!!!”

Now THAT’s denial.

January 14, 2019 5:52 am

Just include the mass therapy bill for services as a rider on the carbon tax bill. Everyone else is in it for money and very little real effort.

January 14, 2019 5:52 am

As an ex psychologist, I do apologise for this bunch of charlatans going off half cocked without regard to evidence. People always used to joke that psychologists were from a different planet – sadly, I think they were right, but not all of us are /were so dim, they give the rest of us a bad name.

Reply to  Angela
January 14, 2019 6:04 am

Pretty sad when you have to confess the sins of a profession Angela.

Apology accepted though.

Reply to  WXcycles
January 14, 2019 7:11 am

Yes, accepted

January 14, 2019 5:56 am

What’s with all these busted-arse psychology department back-room academic turnips and their neurotic anthrophobic climate-change obsessions?

Bill Murphy
January 14, 2019 6:11 am

I’m reminded here of a psychology convention I attended out of curiosity as an undergrad back in the early 70’s. The presenter was being openly and rudely heckled by a strict behaviorist. When the presenter, obviously annoyed by the unprofessional behavior of the heckler, asked him what was wrong with the paper, the reply was, “Your data is sh** and your procedures suck. That’s what!” At the time I considered the heckler’s behavior unprofessional and petty (he was a PhD in psych.) However now, 45 years later, I have only one thing to say to Gorman & Gorman — Your data is SH** and your procedures suck! The actual number of that “small number of outliers” is far larger than they realize, something they are in denial about.

January 14, 2019 6:30 am

Can we dump all the shrink subjects in with Wimmins Studies and the Yarts?
Whatever happened to Self Actualisation through Macramé by the way? It’s all this new fangled pendulums and crystals nowadays.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  observa
January 14, 2019 12:58 pm

It went the way of Underwater Basket Weaving 101 /s

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 14, 2019 1:39 pm


Here in Ontario, Canada, our new conservative government is making all the proper heads explode:

Stay tuned…

Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 14, 2019 2:10 pm

Steven did you perchance attend Colorado School Mines? Underwater basket weaving was a favourite description of the curriculum at Boulder (U of Colo, home of NCAR) back in the day.

Farmer Ch E retired
January 14, 2019 6:42 am

I have a leftist Psychology Ph D relative with a big heart who takes the AGW alarmism at face value and has a disdain for the oil industry (a true activist). I’ve pointed him to facts that shed reasonable doubt on the CO2 meme as the underlying cause of climate change. A quick history of the Quaternary glaciation on Wikipedia is a good place to put climate change into perspective. Also, a look at NOAA tide gauge trends going back to the 1800s, looking at ocean vertical temperature profiles, looking at the DMI Greenland mass budget especially for 2017 and 2018, educating on solar cycles and space weather, viewing sea level changes at the end of the last glaciation, showing evidence of the glacial lake Missoula floods, etc. He trusts sources like Wikipedia, NOAA, and DMI so at least he is seeing some of the data skeptics see. I don’t expect him to change his leftward leaning but at least he is understanding more of the history of climate change and has reason to question some of the AGW claims.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
January 14, 2019 1:00 pm

Ask him what he finds most convincing about the results. Should be instructive about how to continue his recovery…

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Steven Fraser
January 14, 2019 8:25 pm

After he looked at the sea level tide charts, he switched topics to social justice inequalities from the 1800’s. He’s a 2nd-generation university educator (friends call him a yellow dog).

Mike Bryant
January 14, 2019 6:45 am

I have only one question for the eminent Doctors Gorman, “Is the sky blue in your world?”

James Clarke
January 14, 2019 6:50 am

For a brief period of time, back in the late 80s, I was concerned about man-made global warming. Then I studied the science, and my fear vanished. The science was crap, and clearly driven by agendas. Some of the agendas concerned funding of the science, but the underlying agenda has been revealed to be a socialist movement.

Today, more than ever, there is no science that supports a doom and gloom scenario. In fact, the science has always supported a more benign and welcoming future climate, although modestly so.

Yet my fear has grown over the years and has never been more acute than it is now. My fear is of my fellow human beings. History tells me that such fear is well-placed, as it shows that human nature is far more dangerous than mother nature. And it is most dangerous under the guise of socialism.

At its core, socialism is a political and economic philosophy based on the dysfunctional human condition known as victimhood. Victimhood is a condition in which all choices are justified, due to the perceived injustices suffered by those in victimhood. In this delusional state, the victim feels morally superior when taking property, freedom and life from those who they blame.

So as the atmospheric climate grows marginally more benign and benevolent, the social climate grows evermore hostile and threatening! Sara and Jack are in the throws of victimhood, and they feel quite justified, indeed, morally and intellectually superior, in calling for ‘treatment’ for those who claim they are not being victimized at all!

kent beuchert
January 14, 2019 7:07 am

These two spooks are a good example of “deniers of reality.” Do you suppose that they have never seen the graph that plots the estimates of temps by hundreds of climate models?

January 14, 2019 7:08 am

Psychosis over takes Psychologist

January 14, 2019 7:08 am

When I was taking pscyhology classes for my BA, the math classes for psych majors were very, very dumbed down. I wonder if they even have math classes any more, yet they make pronouncements about a math intensive subject. Charlatans is what they are. Worse, they push the idea that everyone has to think alike, which is so anti-science and so completely political it’s incredible they can do this with a straight face. What a disgusting bunch of losers.

January 14, 2019 7:13 am

Scientists may disagree about how fast the atmosphere is warming or what the best solutions are, but except for a small number of outliers, none doubt that we are rapidly approaching climate catastrophe.

IOW, they buy the 97% bait and switch.

Alan Tomalty
January 14, 2019 7:18 am

Since there are 1 billion of us deniers and growing everyday, the psychologists will have lots of work trying to deprogram us.

Mike Bryant
January 14, 2019 7:21 am

Yesterday, we were all Briggled. Today we’ve been Gormaned.

January 14, 2019 7:23 am

We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon

What is it about leftist academics and their eagerness to make pronouncements about matters that are completely outside of their field?

William Astley
January 14, 2019 7:27 am

We are so lost.

These guys are of course just pushing the party line. It is easy to be a mouth piece for the Left’s ideology.

Finding and speaking the truth is a different matter.

Psychologists are missing a real opportunity.

Long term studies support the assertion that drugs used to treat depression and other mental illnesses change the brain which causes chemical mental illness.

P.S. The most effective treatment for depression is exercise. Prior to the use of drugs this was the standard treatment. Most people recovered and did not relapse.

I would highly recommend Anatomy of an Epidemic.

In this astonishing and startling book, award-winning science and history writer Robert Whitaker investigates a medical mystery: Why has the number of disabled mentally ill in the United States tripled over the past two decades? Every day, 1,100 adults and children are added to the government disability rolls because they have become newly disabled by mental illness, with this epidemic spreading most rapidly among our nation’s children. What is going on?

Anatomy of an Epidemic challenges readers to think through that question themselves. First, Whitaker investigates what is known today about the biological causes of mental disorders. Do psychiatric medications fix “chemical imbalances” in the brain, or do they, in fact, create them? Researchers spent decades studying that question, and by the late 1980s, they had their answer. Readers will be startled—and dismayed—to discover what was reported in the scientific journals.

Psychiatry Under the Influence investigates the actions and practices of the American Psychiatric Association and academic psychiatry in the United States, and presents it as a case study of institutional corruption.

January 14, 2019 7:30 am

“They are uncertain about how to deliver group therapy to millions of people in the same session”. The BBC manages easily enough, though I would call it brainwashing rather than therapy.

Gary Pearse
January 14, 2019 7:30 am

The “Climate Blues” epidemic of depression suffered by a number of climate scientists half a dozen years ago ended the careers of the patients. This was a result of the extending “Dreaded Pause” that began sowing doubt in their minds. They rationalized, of course, that it was because they saw the horror of global warming coming and no one would listen. Psychologists like the Gormons, instead of recognizing classic psyche D*nile, became enablers that supported their D and left them suffering.

The disorder is most interesting for what it says about the brain and truth. The brain recognizes you are pushing back against accepting a reality that you don’t want to acknowledge and, not
responding to its nigglings and attempts to present your conflict with truth, it makes you sick. Wow!

Nick Schroeder
January 14, 2019 7:34 am
Walter Sobchak
January 14, 2019 7:43 am

If you can “affirm without doubt” a proposition, you are asserting a proposition about religious faith.

Climate change, a/k/a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a religious faith. The “psychologists” are writing an apocalypse, in the same fashion as John of Patmos wrote an Apocalypse known in the English speaking world as the Book of Revelation. This is a religious, not a scientific activity.

Science is a method of doubt. All propositions in science are subject to doubt and to revision. 350 years after Newton, scientists are still doing research, theoretical and empirical, on gravity. That is science. Affirming without doubt is religion.

BTW. Where did they get 3.5°C by 2050 from? I didn’t think that RCP 8.5 projected anything that high.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 14, 2019 9:49 am

Yes, “climate science” in the mainstream has devolved into nothing more than a secular religion.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  AGW is not Science
January 14, 2019 2:12 pm

AGW is not Science: Your name says it and it is true. Climate change a/k/a AGW is not Science, but it is a religion.

Bob Vislocky
January 14, 2019 7:45 am

Of course the Gormans didn’t actually read the IPCC report. Instead they quoted a “science” article from a left-wing publication (the Atlantic Magazine). If you really want to hurl just take a look at some of the irresponsible “climate” articles they’ve written recently:

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 14, 2019 10:03 am

Actually no, I feel worse – the cooling oceans indicate climate cooling ahead, and it is cooling, not warming, climate that is alarming. Of course, all we can do about it is adapt to the changes, just like in a warming climate.

Joel Snider
January 14, 2019 7:56 am

Can you say, ‘re-education’?

January 14, 2019 8:24 am

The human race faces extinction. The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace

Lets be honest, this script has been thrown out a thousand times

Joel Snider
Reply to  fretslider
January 14, 2019 10:41 am

Behavior-based extinction, perhaps – what with crippling energy, food production, pesticides, all with the frequently stated goal of 90% population reduction.

The real danger has always been what warmists will do to save us from their own imagined threat.

Steve O
January 14, 2019 8:43 am

This is another example of “The Great Bifurcation.” Scientists write papers to fit a warming trend that are dutifully called “dangerous” while acolytes warn of impending doom and catastrophe. The scientists never correct the doomsayers because… why would they. They’re helping raise the alarm. If there is smoke in the building, you don’t criticize the person saying the fire tornado apocalypse is upon you, so you must therefore leave the building.

The actual warming level is whatever one justifies windmills, new taxes, and transfer payments,

January 14, 2019 8:52 am

You should probably correct the title and body of this posting. While Jack undoubtedly has the credentials to qualify as a “psychologist” his daughter Sara most definitely does not.

“Sara earned an MPH in Health Policy and Management from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and a PhD in English literature from Harvard University. She also holds a Masters in English literature from Oxford University. She graduated with a B.A. in English and Psychology, Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania.”

Perhaps your title should be:
A Psychologist and His English Lit PhD Daughter “Affirm without a doubt” Imminent Climate Catastrophe While Promoting Their 3 Year Old Book in Psychology Today.

Steven Fraser
Reply to  RichDo
January 14, 2019 10:20 am

I disagree with one aspect Jack is an MD, and from his bio, has been a professor of Psychiatry, not Psychology. I do agree that the article should be re-titled.

I think its just a father/daughter thing.

Reply to  RichDo
January 14, 2019 12:06 pm

Sara earned an MPH

Sounds like just what you need in order to get out of town quickly.

January 14, 2019 8:58 am

Using the IPCC as Biblical prophecy, without examining its fundamental basis, otherwise considerably intelligent people can unknowingly choose to look through tainted intellectual glasses to endorse a religion that they cannot know is a religion, because they are blind in a critical part of their mind.

This is fragmentation of knowledge gone seriously awry (i.e., “specialization” separated from the fundamentals of another field, to the point of creating specialized idiots)

January 14, 2019 9:16 am

These “psychologists” are simply activists who are part of a “groupthink” fiasco. They think they’re the “smartest people in the room” and won’t admit that the state of “climate science” is just not as credible as other academic fields. Anyone who has seen Anthony’s reports on the decrepit state of surface temperature measurement stations in the U.S. can see that it was never intended to influence policy. No one ever dreamed that the AGW nut cases would come into existence. It’s an absurd situation, really. Could you imagine doing medical procedures based on such a faulty diagnostic tool? Never.

January 14, 2019 9:26 am

denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

These are the 5 stages of human coping with bad news like climate change.

The authors of this paper are at stage 5, and lament that many are still at stage 1. Their position is denial of the teaching of their own profession.

Healthy people are supposed to be allowed to cope at their own speed. The two authors now propose to turn their profession on its head by proposing everyone cope at the authors speed.

January 14, 2019 9:31 am

I have 2 questions for the Gormans:

“What is your confidence level, we can successfully create a global, CO2 neutral, market friendly society? If we can establish this society, what is your confidence it will stop climate change?”

Jim Gorman
January 14, 2019 9:33 am

And so it begins! When the “consensus” of psychologists and psychiatrists come together to declare “climate denial” as a mental sickness, the politicians will have all they need to begin “treatment” of the disorder!

Postmodernism at its best!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 14, 2019 3:30 pm

Actually, the Soviet Union was doing that 70 years ago.

January 14, 2019 9:42 am

For my not so bold prediction of the day, I predict more alarmists will seek out their services than “deniers”. Best to focus on your core market, quacks.

January 14, 2019 10:18 am

“… cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over. A recent report from the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us we can still hope to avert some of the catastrophic consequences of climate change, but only if we “abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two.” ”

Slight rearranging of the above words:

“… if we abandon coal and other fossil fuels in the next decade or two, this will cause terrible suffering and destruction.”

January 14, 2019 10:41 am

Political Climate (PC), perhaps.

January 14, 2019 11:08 am

This is a dangerous notion. We know from history that many medical professionals easily slid from ethical to monstrous, and murderous behavior to curry favor from rising authoritarian / totalitarian regimes. It was a common practice in the old Soviet Union for dissidents who were too well known to just shoot, to be labelled insane, and imprisoned.

January 14, 2019 11:15 am

The American Psychologists Association (APA) has been at this sort of brainwashing for years. Ten years ago they stated: “Psychologists need to examine the attitudes and behaviors in the wider context of beliefs about environmental and social change. … developing an international agenda for psychology and climate change.”

John Robertson
January 14, 2019 11:27 am

The hysterics are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
A couple united in producing one Lew Paper.

Dilbert did a cartoon that covers this.
“Yes you are batshit crazy”.
Thomas Szaz comes to mind,back in the last century he mocked his own “profession” as they were attempting to define all human activity as clinically deranged.
Nice to see this lovely couple confirm nothing has changed.

I wonder when the scientific method will become fashionable again?

January 14, 2019 11:59 am

As long as the IPCC only has a mandate to assess manmade climate change, and not natural climate change, there will be many difficulties in finding out what is going on in the atmosphere and oceans. How can we sort out which aspects are caused by humans, if we don’t first know what natural causes (without humans) is doing? This has nothing to do with psychology, it has to do with geophysics. These guys are trying to find a cure to an ailment that does not exist. They’re not out on a branch even, as the tree they are sitting is does not exist.

January 14, 2019 12:29 pm

Mental Defectives in need of psychological “deprogramming. Unhinged and hysterical, they can’t comprehend the possibility that THEY are asylum “patients” gazing out at a sea of ‘normal’ people.

Doctor Gee
January 14, 2019 12:48 pm

Happy to be counted among the “small number of outliers” and be “stuck” with the unadjusted measured data rather than hang with the 97% of “consensus” models (and the aggregates of the same) that are not even close to demonstrating/predicting reality.

January 14, 2019 12:56 pm

Psychologists are notorious for the irreproducability of their research. The are frequently guilty of p-hacking, stopping their study when they get the “right” answer, wishful thinking, implausible conclusions, and wild speculation. They have now declared masculinity to be problematic. They cannot make heads nor tails out of proper treatment for depression or schizophrenia. For them to be confident of climate change being a catastrophe does not inspire confidence in me at all.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  ccscientist
January 14, 2019 1:28 pm

They’re also quite frequently responsible for releasing mentally ill criminals who commit crimes.

All due to “science” of course…

January 14, 2019 12:58 pm

My only concern is that as CAGW is a one-world socialist production, and as socialists have used psychology as a political weapon in nearly every occurrence of such governance, pronouncements such as this will be used as rationale to round up dissenters in institutions to “cure their obvious psychological problems”. In these benevolent state institutions, such treatments as full lobotomies and high dose electroshock therapy will be employed to bring about compliance and make the patients good world citizens.

1984 was prophecy, and The Brave New World shall come to pass. Only deniers of the “true state of evolved man” see these as warnings and not handbooks for right-thinking governance!

(Do I need a big /SARC here?)

Caligula Jones
Reply to  OweninGA
January 14, 2019 1:34 pm

Yes, but the world described by Huxley in “Brave New World” IS here, or at least quite a bit of it.

I have to mention this to people who moan on about how we are in a dystopian-like 1984 society, when in fact, its just the opposite.

“1984” was set in a grim future where few smiled and everyone toiled in endless misery. And loved it, of course.

“Brave New World” was full of light, and endless fun and partying, etc. Everyone was stoked on soma (i.e., smart devices), played ridiculous games (Angry Birds, etc.), etc.

Turns out the entire world was being run by a clique of elites who didn’t trust anyone else with ideas and forced everyone into a stratified social system…

Reply to  OweninGA
January 15, 2019 9:31 am

It makes sense to me that a global PR effort would turn to psychologists as their ally since marketing and psychology majors go together. In this case it’s in the name of bad public policy, but then the Marlboro Man was not exactly created for the best of health to everyone including GIs and the Greatest Generation saving the world from evil.

January 14, 2019 1:02 pm

Psychologists “Affirm Without Doubt” the Evidence for Imminent Climate Catastrophe?

Based on what? All of the IPCC models and reports have overestimated observed cLIEmate UNchange buy factors of 3 to 5. Their affirmation/ appeal to their own authority is as worthless as a fraudulently adjusted temperature record. Pick one.

This proclamation will only convince those already in the cLIEmate Choir.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  amirlach
January 14, 2019 1:47 pm

The alarmists aren’t bringing out the A team, science-wise this week.

I mean, psychologists AND philosophers? Wow, that’s one entire math course over 8 collective years of college…*.

* Yeah, I know, math and philosophy have gone together in the past, but these days? Kinda like the split between astrology and astronomy.

Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 2:05 pm

“But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public …”.
Psychologist would be better studying why certain personality types not only accept the most lurid alarmist prognostications without demur but enthusiastically, even joyfully, embrace them.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 14, 2019 2:40 pm

Alarmist Prognosticators AND Psychologists AND Philosophers.
They’ve triple-downed on the PR!
Yet Ma’ Gaia still isn’t buying what the Ad Men (and Women) are selling.

John Loop
January 14, 2019 2:43 pm

The simplest argument against this nonsense I am making to my friends these days is that it simply doesn’t matter what the US/West do this century. Our future is in the hands of the Chinese/Indians/emerging world if they think CO2 is the key. Try and convince THEM! US has been decreasing [cept for last year], so we just do what we have been doing. Money better spent on getting ready for the certain-to-occur CME, volcanoes, mass pandemic. Simple argument. Liberal guilt complex is truly amazing. They want to do something that has no effect just because it makes them feel good.

January 14, 2019 2:44 pm

Too large to believe? Too small to measure! Corrected

January 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Really??? I look out of my window and see snow everywhere. Am I deluded that snow is not suppose to be there? AGW is sheer lunacy. Yeah, let’s not check to see if ice is in the Arctic before we send a boat of students up there, we know it’s melting. Or the Antarctic from the other cruise with eco warriors.
I’m worried, we haven’t advanced at all. Collectively, a lot of people are, including Psych Today, seem to be mentally retarded. Either I am much smarter or they are really dumb.
Is that snow out there or not? Is that ice at the Arctic or not? Oh, it’s just a little tiny patch…. covering most of the Arctic Ocean. .
I would counter that I have never seen so many supposedly bright people taken in by a lie. But then, I didn’t invest with Bernie.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rishrac
January 15, 2019 6:07 am

“I would counter that I have never seen so many supposedly bright people taken in by a lie.”

Yes, this is what the psychologists should be investigating. CAGW is the biggest, mass-marketed lie in history. How did this happen?

Craig from Oz
January 14, 2019 3:55 pm

In one of my other lives I spend time in an online group that once asked its forum members to list their areas of skill and knowledge so that anyone with questions in those fields could contact them directly.

Which seemed like a reasonable idea.

The reality seemed to be that scores of people suddenly decided to declare themselves subject matter experts on their various mental illnesses and, should others wish for details, they were sitting by their keyboards awaiting the call.

It does seem to me that in some parts of Western culture the problem is now less getting sufferers to open up to others about their problems, but more getting the enjoyers to shut up about it. Problems that once caused sufferers distress in their day to day social activities are now something to be proudly worn as badges of honour.

‘What? You have a stable and happy social life? Well *I* suffer from Mental Illness(tm)!’

Mental Illness has become the new norm which suggests the next stage in its social evolution is to become openly desirable and the cultural dominance that discriminates against stable and happy people.

January 14, 2019 3:58 pm

Well they are certainly advertising their psychology today.

Not Chicken Little
January 14, 2019 4:33 pm

So, “psychologists” are throwing in their lot with “climate scientists”, it appears.

Birds of a feather…and for some reason, just a coincidence I’m sure, the word “quack” comes to mind.

Michael Jankowski
January 14, 2019 5:10 pm

“…The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050…”


January 14, 2019 5:18 pm

I’ve always said most psychologists were nuts ! : )

Peter K
January 14, 2019 5:58 pm

So some Psychologists also have their nose in the trough. Where ever there is money (funding) on offer there will always be corruption.

S W Bennett
January 14, 2019 11:07 pm

My posts about Dr Jack M Gorman being the same guy who has had his license to practice medicine suspended after admitting to having sex with a patient and attempting to commit suicide, are going into the bin. So I’m trying again without links, this one more time!

Reply to  S W Bennett
January 16, 2019 5:49 pm

Occam’s Razorburn

The simplest explanation is too distressing to accept, so any other explanation is enthusiastically pursued, no matter how far-fetched or insulting to the intelligence.

January 15, 2019 5:04 am

The only clinical psychologist worth his salt is Jordan Peterson & he does not accept the global warming scam. The answer he gives is “No”!

January 15, 2019 10:35 am

Psychology, marketing, and political science–the new axis powers.

January 15, 2019 12:58 pm

In another context, I once made a comment to the effect that if psychologists really wanted to do something useful about CO2, they would address the public’s propaganda-induced phobia with respect to nuclear power and help people understand the real (minimal) risks vs. the low-carbon benefits.

Even old-time environmental icons like Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog, late 60s) have embraced nuclear as the way to go. The only thing still preventing it is the anti-nuclear activists who use lawfare to delay projects and vastly increase the costs, which are otherwise no greater than ordinary industrial construction.

When was the last time you went to a Pro-Nukes concert? Anybody out there know a festival promoter? 🙂