Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to experts interviewed by the BBC, its important to provide parents worried about eco-doom with a safe space to talk about their darkest thoughts, even thoughts about murdering their children, otherwise they just bottle up these feelings and repress them.
The harm from worrying about climate change
By Christine Ro
10th October 2019Worry about climate change is affecting more people as global warming becomes more apparent around the world. But there is a solution that can help improve this anxiety and slow climate breakdown at the same time, writes Christine Ro.
…
In one study of a programme called Carbon Conversations, which involves group discussion and activity to reduce climate impacts, half of participants said that the programme helped them face their worries about climate change. And greater emotional engagement was associated with more change in habits. This showed the linked benefits of feeling part of a community, reckoning with difficult feelings, and taking constructive measures.
This kind of research has been put into practice at New York University’s Environmental Health Clinic, which prescribes climate-friendly actions and group activities to its visitors. “There’s less space for anxiety emotionally when you take practical steps,” Hickman notes.
This is true even for extreme feelings. Hickman has counselled parents who fantasise about killing their children, out of fear of the climate-ravaged future. But she calmly points out that history is rife with examples of parents preparing to end their children’s lives in order to protect them. “If we disallow those feelings, we’re just driving them back into the unconscious,” Hickman argues.
The parents who confess these dark thoughts to her aren’t actually going to act on them, she believes, and it’s important for them to have a safe, shame-free mental space to express the depth of their anxiety. Psychotherapy and other psychology tools can help people become more comfortable with the uncertainty that is inevitable when it comes to climate change.
“One of the routes through the anxiety is to engage with your grief and your sense of loss,” Hickman says.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191010-how-to-beat-anxiety-about-climate-change-and-eco-awareness
History has plenty of examples of people who believed in crazy actually acting out their nightmares, like the Jonestown mass suicide, in which 605 adults fed cyanide to 304 children and then themselves, so I’m not sure I share Hickman’s optimism that the climate worrier parents he treats will never act on their murderous impulses.
This kind of spreading depression brings to my mind the Mule in Asimov’s Foundation series. He seemed to be a popular entertainer, but actually depressed people so badly that the nations and planets surrendered wthout resistance to the conqueror he was secretly connected to.
Swift had a modest proposal for those carbon-tracking little feet…
Yes, talking about it is fine but the reasons for their feelings need to be challenged. And the BBC eeds to be challenged about its role in inducing such hysterical feelings, because it is intimately involved in creating them.
1. Would you still feel suicidal if climate were actually normal?
2. If I could show you that climate is actually normal, extreme events and all, would you be open to trusting that I were being honest with you?
3. Would you like to learn more about climate, extreme weather and how to manage resilience against such events?
4. Are your childrens lives more important than your own feelings?
5. Do you not think that no matter how bad you think things are, that the only people who should ever take your childrens lives are your children themselves, as and when they are able to take such decisions from sound minds?
Important to distinguish between:
actual climate and human feelings about climate;
human, animal and plant life’s ability to adapt vs propaganda claiming otherwise;
the right of adults to commit suicide and their belief about their rights to kill their own children.
Not yet got Puerperal Psychosis ladies???
Then take the new six part course from the BBC
pt1 Climate
pt2 Climate
pt3 Climate
pt4 Climate
pt5 Climate
pt6 errr ooh let’s see…..ClimateClimate
What they need is spaying and slapping. People like this have no business having kids since they can’t deal with the real world.
+++++ Andy
well said;-)
They have already planned children (e.g. selective-child, dodo dynasties) for social progress, social justice, so why not for green lawns and fair weather, too?
from what i’ve observed lately, worshiping Baal seems the logical next step. Is there an app for that?
ozspeaksup,
I don’t think you know how to identify prop’ganda.
“Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented”
Comparing anxiety about climate change to Jonestown isn’t designed to elicit an emotional response? Is it a rational comparison?
Pretty much all the posts on WUWT present one side of the story. That is not objective, that is selective presentation of fact (and opinions, and plenty of insults, and fiction, and misleading excerpts/summaries of research).
Who is the “them” that deserves to be laughed at? Scientists who have dedicated their career to pursuing truth? Sorry, I refuse to believe that they are all just in it to push a political ideology, or make lots of money. Salaries are nothing great is you take into account the many years of schooling and the work involved. Grants fund research, they don’t line people’s pockets.
Laugh at and despise the media, that’s reasonable. It is not reasonable to dismiss the science because the media are full of alarmists.
“Useless tools like Greta”? Why is she so offensive (or threatening) to people like you? Because she stands up for what she believes in? I can see thinking Gore is a dimwit, but attacking a 16-year-old? That’s pathetic.
On complaining of BBCbias they sent me this response:
Thanks for getting in touch with us regarding our news coverage on climate change.
BBC News takes its editorial responsibility seriously when reporting on climate change.
We acknowledge the weight of scientific consensus around climate change & this underpins all of our reporting of the subject.
The scientific community has reached a significant consensus on man-made global warming.
We therefore reflect that with due weight when reporting on the science involved.
This does not mean, however, that we should never interview someone who opposes this consensus, especially if they are influential in the political debate about how to tackle climate change.
There are times when it is editorially appropriate to hear from a dissenting voice.
There’s no obligation to include an alternative viewpoint within each & every individual item or programme. Rather, we achieve due impartiality on the political angles – when required – over a reasonable period of time. The merit of doing so is decided by the editor with the specific context in mind on each occasion.
The Director General has explained: “Our impartiality does not mean that we strike some sort of false balance – but that we reflect all contributions to a debate, & give each of them their due weight… We won’t give in to pressure to silence dissenting voices – nor allow those voices to be seen as mainstream.”
We do value your feedback about our news coverage. All complaints are sent to senior management and in this case the BBC News team every morning, & I included your points in our overnight report of audience feedback.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC & ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly.
Thanks once again for getting in touch with us.