Misperception and Amplification of Climate Risk

From Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

“Something frightening poses a perceived risk. Something dangerous poses a real risk.” – Swedish physician Hans Rosling et al.[i]

This post is a follow on to my recent post Victims of the faux climate ‘crisis’. Part I: Children.  The issue of psychological trauma of children is one that I am continuing to work on, to identify root causes and a way forward.

The theme of this particular post is how our perceptions of risk differ from the actual risk itself.  Understanding this difference provides insights to understanding these fears, as well as providing insights into how these differences are manipulated by propagandists.

Apart from the objective facts about a risk, the social sciences find that our interpretation of those facts is ultimately subjective.  Risk science makes a clear distinction between professional judgments about risk versus the public perception of risk. Risk perception is a person’s subjective judgement or appraisal of risk, which can involve social, cultural and psychological factors.

No matter how strongly we feel about our perceptions of risk, we often get risk wrong. People worry about some things more than the evidence warrants (e.g. nuclear radiation, genetically modified food), and less about other threats than the evidence warrants (e.g., obesity, using mobile phones while driving). This gap in risk perception produces social policies that protect us more from what we are afraid of than from what actually threatens us the most.  Understanding the psychology of risk perception is important for rationally managing the risks that arise when our subjective risk perception system gets things dangerously wrong.[ii]

The Psychometric Paradigm research of psychologist Paul Slovic and collaborators describes a suite of psychological characteristics that make risks feel more or less frightening, relative to the actual facts[iii] [iv] [v]

  1. natural versus manmade risks
  2. detectable versus undetectable risks (without special instrumentation)
  3. controllable versus uncontrollable risks
  4. voluntary versus imposed risks
  5. risks with benefits versus uncompensated risks
  6. known risks versus vague risks
  7. risks central to people’s everyday lives versus uncommon risks
  8. future versus immediate risks
  9. equitable versus asymmetric distribution of risks.

In each of these pairs, the first risk type is generally preferred to the second risk type. For example, risks that are common, self-controlled and voluntary, such as driving, generate the least public apprehension. Risks that are rare and imposed that lack potential upside, like terrorism, invoke the most dread.[vi]

The risk of manmade climate change is one that people would not be aware of without scientific research. People experience a great deal of weather and climate variability over the seasonal cycle and from year to year.  People would not be aware of the scientific research on climate change if not for the UN having declared climate research to be policy relevant in context of the 1992 UNFCCC Treaty to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic climate change.”  People don’t normally pay much attention to what is going at the UN; this changed circa 2006/2007 with Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truths and the IPCC AR4 and the Nobel Peace Prize.

People really weren’t caring so much about all this; after all what harm could a few degrees of warming actually cause?  Well, I was an inadvertent contributor to explaining the potential harm of 1 degree of warming, with the now famous Webster et al. 2005 paper that identified a doubling in the proportion of Category 4/5 hurricanes since 1970.  For the first time, the connection was made between a devastating hurricane such as Katrina and a small amount of warming.  What was previously understood to be a vague risk (#6) in the future (#8) and caused by humans (#1) became a specific and horrifying risk in the here and now, that was caused by our fossil fuel emissions. 

Climate activists, the media and even scientists seized on the “extreme weather event caused by climate change” narrative as being the ideal vehicle for ramping up the alarm about human-caused global warming.  In addition to striking chords with #1#6 and #8, extreme weather events also play into #7-uncommon risks, since these risks are uncommon for individual locations.  While the events are far from unprecedented in a specific location, they are sufficiently rare for people not to be prepared for them.

Every extreme weather event is now attributed to global warming, even extreme cold outbreaks and heavy snow. Scientists who should know better just can’t resist the opportunities for media attention and enthusiastically place blame on human-caused global warming.  In spite of the fact that IPCC assessment reports find very little in the way of any contribution of human-caused global warming to extreme weather events.  As emphasized by John Christy, if you look at the first half of the 20th century, you will invariably find equivalent weather and climate extremes.  As emphasized by Andy Revkin, if you look back into paleoclimate record, you will find much worse weather and climate extremes. No matter – never let the historical and paleoclimate data records get in the way of an alarming story that attributes the most recent disaster to fossil fuel emissions, and so amping up the pressure to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.

Extreme weather events have become an increasingly important part of the climate alarm narrative since 2005, but kids didn’t start getting “psychologically injured” until the climate communicators and “educators” took this to the next higher level. The timing of this started around 2017, following the increasingly apocalyptic rhetoric from UN officials and national leaders in support of the Paris Agreement and the coincident formation of the Sunrise Movement, Extinction Rebellion, etc.  I don’t find much in the published literature about psychological injuries to children from climate change prior to about 2018; this is a very recent phenomena.

In terms of risk perception, this amplified narrative of alarm emphasizes that these “climate change” catastrophes are imposed on society by villainous fossil fuel companies (#4), the risks are uncompensated (i.e. there have been no benefits to society from fossil fuels) (#5), and the risks are uncontrollable (#3) UNLESS politicians do the “right thing,” at the very least by virtue signaling with token knee capping of fossil fuel companies. 

And now for the final element of manipulating risk perception: asymmetric distribution of risks (#9), whereby children and under-developed countries are at greatest risk.  Serious virtue signaling tells us we need to eliminate fossil fuel emissions for the sake of the children and the underdeveloped countries.  Well, children in affluent countries are at far less risk than their great-great grandparents (not to mention children in underdeveloped countries) owing to the presence of fossil fuels in their lives that provide secure structures for their homes and schools with central heating and air conditioning, not to mention abundant electricity and also fertilizer to insure their food supply.  

Part II of my “Victims” series (forthcoming) is related to underdeveloped countries.  The proselytizers of apocalyptic climate change are exploiting both children and underdeveloped countries to urge action in eliminating fossil fuels.  The exploitation of children is outlined in Part I of my Victims series. The short summary for Part II is that while affluent countries continue to exploit the fossil fuel resources of underdeveloped countries (especially Africa), they are denying these countries the resources they need to actually use the fossil fuel resources on their land for their own economic development.  Instead, international development and adaptation aid is being redirected towards green energy projects – mitigation of CO2 emissions that doesn’t provide adequate energy and places the countries further in debt. Stay tuned.

I can only conclude that the climate catastrophists focused on elimination of fossil fuels above all else are exploiting and damaging children and underdeveloped countries as part of their political objectives to prioritizing elimination of fossil fuels above all else.  If children and developing countries are collateral damage, then so be it (oops they seem to have forgotten their original virtue signaling of eliminating fossil fuels for the sake of the children and the underdeveloped countries.)

Taking #9 back to the children with psychological injuries: they are being fed (via media targeted at them, educational materials, even story books) an explicitly political message that relates to the inadequate government response. Well I have spent most of my career as an educator, and it is a rare high school student (not to mention the alarmed children who are even younger) who has any idea of what their state/national government is doing on a particular policy issue, let alone a framework for assessing what the government should be expected to do.  Simplistic, alarming and political messaging targeted specifically at young people is clearly responsible for this. 

Consider this counterfactual scenario, whereby 1oC of warming has occurred over the past 100 years owing to natural processes (such a rate of warming is far from unprecedented in the Holocene; notably the period following the Younger Dryas).  Would people necessarily think that warming was “bad”? Presumably people in different climate regimes would have different opinions about that.  Would people blame extreme weather events on the slow creep of warming?  Without any rationale for blaming humans for extreme weather events, would anyone bother to try blaming severe weather on the slow creep of warming?  And finally, would anyone expect (or even want) the government to attempt to control the climate by drawing down CO2 from the atmosphere or promote cooling through solar geo-engineering?  Of course not.

The actual experience of 1oC warming over the past century hasn’t been bad at all: life expectancy has increased substantially, economies have prospered, and loss of life from weather catastrophes has been greatly reduced.  Regions encountering extreme weather events have worked to adapt to them, with affluent countries being better adapted.

The problem here is not not the climate change that has already happened, but rather “pre-traumatic stress syndrome” (see these previous posts).  Climate change pre-traumatic stress response is triggered by the continuing barrage in the media of extreme weather events that are worsened by “climate change,” the apocalyptic projections of future warming from unrealistic emissions scenario, and dystopian warnings of impacts from irresponsible politicians and leading journalists. 

The net effect of all this apocalyptic rhetoric, which effectively exploits how humans misperceive risk, is to increase neurotic worrying in many people (particularly children), which can indeed make people more vulnerable to negative stress reactions.  [LINK

Congratulations to all the proselytizers of climate doom, you have finally demonstrated an actual adverse impact of climate change that is actually caused by humans – psychological distress. This psychological distress is directly caused by you: the mistaken, irrational, politically motivated people that have created effective propaganda that is creating negative stress reactions particularly among children who have yet to develop a clear sense of self and lack a context for being able to filter the BS.   

In closing I would like to return to #3 – whether climate risk is controllable or uncontrollable.  The hubris of thinking that we can control atmospheric CO2 content, not to mention the actual climate itself.  Using the psychological injuries of children as the rationale, the objectives of the lawsuits being filed by Our Children’s Trust are to obtain a declaration of the federal (and state) government’s fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.  An implicit assumption of these claims is that governments can actually control the emissions into the atmosphere, as well as control the earth’s climate. Well, dream on.  A key element of the psychological injuries according to the recent literature on this is their frustrations and feeling of abandonment that politicians and government are not paying attention to their concerns about the climate.  This concern arises from the explicitly political messaging that young people are exposed to about climate change.

p.s.  This post is a riff on several paragraphs (identifiable as the ones with footnote) from my forthcoming book Climate Uncertainty and Risk.

Footnotes

[i] Hans Rosling et al., Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong about the World – and Why Things Are Better than You Think (New York, NY: Flatiron Books, 2018).

[ii] David Ropeik, How Risky Is It Really?: Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010).

[iii] Paul Slovic, “Perception of Risk,” Science 236, no. 4799 (April 17, 1987): 280-285, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507.

[iv] Carl Cranor, “A Plea for a Rich Conception of Risks,” in The Ethics of Technological Risk, ed. L Asveld and S Roeser (London, UK: Routledge, 2008).

[v] Nicolas Espinoza, “Incommensurability: The Failure to Compare Risks,” in The Ethics of Technological Risk, ed. L Asveld and S Roeser (London, UK: Routledge, 2008).

[vi] Daniel J. Rozell, Dangerous Science (London, UK: Ubiquity Press, 2020).

5 14 votes
Article Rating
27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
December 16, 2022 6:31 am

   The risk of manmade climate change is one that people
   would not be aware of without scientific research.

H.L. Menken’s “Hobgoblins” 

   Congratulations to all the proselytizers of climate doom, you
   have finally demonstrated an actual adverse impact of climate
   change that is actually caused by humans – psychological distress.

It’s not the distress of a warming climate, it’s the distress of what the crazies are going to do and cause in order to tame their imaginary hobgoblin that is causing heartburn for a large and hopefully growing portion of the adult population. A crippled world economy is something to be worried about.

Curious George
Reply to  Steve Case
December 16, 2022 12:17 pm

In 1861-1862 “California was hit by a combination of incessant rain, snow, and then unseasonally high temperatures. In Northern California, it snowed heavily during the later part of November and the first few days of December, when the temperature rose unusually high, until it began to rain. There were four distinct rainy periods: The first occurred on December 9, 1861, the second on December 23–28, the third on January 9–12, and the fourth on January 15–17. Native Americans knew that the Sacramento Valley could become an inland sea when the rains came. Their storytellers described water filling the valley from the Coast Range to the Sierra.”

“The entire Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys were inundated. An area about 300 miles (480 km) long, averaging 20 miles (32 km) in width, and covering 5,000 to 6,000 square miles (13,000 to 16,000 km2) was under water. The water flooding the Central Valley reached depths up to 30 feet (9.1 m), completely submerging telegraph poles that had just been installed between San Francisco and New York. Transportation, mail, and communications across the state were disrupted for a month. Water covered portions of the valley from December 1861, through the spring, and into the summer of 1862.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862

Should this happen in 2023 or 2040, it would be an irrefutable proof of a catastrophic climate change. The natural climate variability is dead in the minds of alarmists.

Last edited 1 month ago by Curious George
Steve Case
Reply to  Curious George
December 16, 2022 2:36 pm

The good news is, that article is on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine. But, as you know, it’s easy for the left to ignore history.

Joseph Zorzin
December 16, 2022 6:38 am

I really like the art work.

Steve Case
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 16, 2022 7:37 am

Me too, WUWT illustrations over the years has consistently been top notch.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Steve Case
December 16, 2022 5:59 pm

Stock images

Joseph Zorzin
December 16, 2022 6:43 am

“Scientists who should know better just can’t resist the opportunities for media attention and enthusiastically place blame on human-caused global warming.”

They should lose their title of scientist when they start preaching without substantial evidence.

Michael in Dublin
December 16, 2022 6:51 am

Adults and parents in particular are the real problem not climate.

Before the 2016 US presidential election young children were interviewed by the Irish press on their views of Donald Trump. History and politics are complicated and confusing so I was shocked to read what children of 8 to 10 were articulating. Clearly they were simply echoing what had been pumped into their heads by their ignorant parents and teachers.

Intelligent discussion of politics – and climate – should be left to the adults in the room and children should not be seen or heard on this topic. However we have a dumbed down society with few discerning adults especially among our politicians.

Bruce Cobb
December 16, 2022 7:05 am

#10: Actual vs imaginary risks. Children are prone to having imaginary risks, such as monsters/boogeymen under the bed or in the closet. They have an excuse, however. They haven’t yet learned enough about the world to know these imagined things aren’t real. They are easy marks for instilling climate fear and anxiety however. They haven’t realized yet that adults too are prone to fears of imagiary things, and also have no qualms about lying to children.

Editor
December 16, 2022 7:09 am

Thank you, Judith, for the post, and thank you, WUWT, for cross posting it here.

Regards,
Bob

Mark Whitney
December 16, 2022 7:55 am

Cults have always employed these tactics. The Climageddonists and Branch Covidians are two recent prime examples. It is always an exercise in power over perception.

antigtiff
December 16, 2022 8:32 am

Governments of the world have united…it is much bigger than cults….Joey Biden and his demrat band for instance have used CO2 to sieze more power….Joey admires Xi Jinping’s power…TOTAL POWER is Joey’s goal.

Mr.
December 16, 2022 8:43 am

Anxiety about how the weather might inflict doom upon us is rooted in the same origins as the anxiety that lots of people get about taking a plane flight –

not being in direct control of their situation.

Those same people will unthinkly jump behind the wheel of their car and drive off in a statistically more hazardous undertaking, yet feel quite unfazed about being at risk.

Why?
Because they have the impression of having personal control over their circumstances.

Moriarty
December 16, 2022 9:19 am

The way progressives use children as political pawns is shameful. Climate fear-mongering is the least of it.

Tony_G
December 16, 2022 9:43 am

The timing of this started around 2017, following the increasingly apocalyptic rhetoric

Seems like a lot of crazy rhetoric showed up about that time. Not that it hasn’t been around but they seriously cranked it all up around then.

Energywise
December 16, 2022 10:38 am

Schools are the target of all weird cultists, whether climate alarmists or drag queen story tellers – the stories in MSM show a disgusting rise in these incidents, from books on gender, to teachers being fired for refusing to follow the wokerati indoctrinations

Parents need to monitor their kids education very closely, to ensure no silliness is being forced upon them and where it is, it needs challenging, both locally and in the Courts

Of course, some parents are woefully oblivious to their childs education and this is where the wokeness can creep insidiously into the classroom

We have a duty to protect our youngsters – to fail, is not an option

Duane
December 16, 2022 10:58 am

Growing up in the late 1950s and 1960s, repeatedly hearing stories of Nikita Kruschev promising “We will bury you”, building basement and back yard nuclear bomb shelters, Hollywood producing tons of movies about nuclear doomsday, humanity reduced to the last two or three persons on earth wandering the empty streets of New York City, and films produced for classrooms demonstrating “duck and cover”, we had a much greater sense of pending doom than any of these little kiddies today. So we turned to sex, drugs, and rock’n roll to survive our preteen and teen years and somehow did not all commit suicide or end up in a straitjacket.

So I wouldn’t stress too much over kiddie stress today concerning climate change. Frankly, kids have an ungodly amount of real stuff to get stressed about … from how they look, what they’re feeling with the hormones and all, to bullying, being cool vs. uncool … to dealing with the opposite sex .. to not looking like an absolute loser in gym class or getting a date from the prom … to making it through school with top grades when everybody from parents to educators is telling them they’ll be utterly doomed losers and failures in life unless they get accepted at an ivy league university … etc. etc. etc.

I find it hard to believe that kids really put a premium over worrying about climate change amongst all the anxiety ridden days of childhood, puberty, and the teen years.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Steve Case
Reply to  Duane
December 16, 2022 12:12 pm

     “Growing up in the late 1950s and 1960s, repeatedly hearing
     stories of Nikita Kruschev promising “We will bury you”

So far he’s making good on his promise:

     “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen
     incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will
     gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political
     offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we
     move towards universal egalitarianism.” – – – – Max Horkheimer

He left out Hollywood the news media and our financial institutions.

JimmyV1965
December 16, 2022 12:15 pm

Two things.

I think politicians have discovered and embraced the benefits of selling fear. Almost all the messages we get now, from the left and the right, are vote for me because the other guy will destroy this or that. Covid was serious, but politicians sold it as some kind of existential threat. Climate change, up until now, has been the ultimate fear gambit. You could scare people witless with no consequences. That looks to be changing now with the energy crisis. So it’s logical to assume politicians will soon take contrarian positions.

As society becomes wealthier and less connected to the natural world, our sense of risk becomes distorted. Kids are no longer allowed to play outside by themselves. We see relatively uncommon storms as the end of the world. We are riddled with fear about even small amounts of pollution, while people in poor countries burn dung indoors.

Hopefully we find a way to overcome these trends and discover a more balanced perspective.

RickWill
Reply to  JimmyV1965
December 16, 2022 3:07 pm

I think politicians have discovered and embraced the benefits of selling fear. 

It used to be called religion. Give me your money and you will enjoy eternal life of happiness.

Now it is give me your money and soul and you will save the planet from the demon CO2.

macha
December 16, 2022 2:00 pm

No1 reference….love(d) Han Rosling video’s. Brilliant visual stats

RickWill
December 16, 2022 2:22 pm

It is pointless trying to fix something if you do not understand the cause of the problem you are trying to fix.

The whole concept of “greenhouse effect” causing an energy imbalance is pure drivel. There may be less flattering ways to describe the so-called science but it is all BS.

What we are now witnessing in Earth’s climate change has occurred four times in the past 500k years.

All the subtle clues are there. Northern Hemisphere ocean surfaces are warming up pushing more water into the atmosphere in September ahead of the land mass temperature plummeting. But the winter land temperatures increasing rapidly due to increasing advection from warm oceans bringing more snow.

New snow fall records are a feature of recent climate reporting. Snow being observed in Spain in recent times. Snow reaching down into Texas and across the land just north of Gulf of Mexico. Snow extending south and east across China. Snow fields enjoying extended seasons. City snow removal budgets going up as snow clearing requirements increase and the cost of demonised fuels go up.

All subtle changes related to Earth’s orbit. All happened before humans were around to take notes and jump at shadows and NOTHING to do with CO2 and fossil fuels.

Climate models based on BS have created this jumping at shadows and will hopefully kill off the silly idea as they constantly fail to predict the changes being observed. It is tough to explain why Greenland is gaining in elevation when you have been forecasting it melting entirely and flooding the land. It is tough to explain why Southern Hemisphere is not warming in concert with the NH:
comment image

And if there was not this pervasive addiction to reporting anomalies rather than real temperatures, a lot more people would be asking why is most of the warming occurring on land in WINTER when the temperatures are BELOW FREEZING.

Screen Shot 2022-12-16 at 11.06.29 am.png
Vincent
December 16, 2022 6:31 pm

That’s an excellent article by Judith Curry, which presents an over-all view of the types of risks that people in all societies have to deal with.

I’ve often wondered why so many people, both young and old, who have access to computer networks and the internet, do not seem to bother searching for the historical record of extreme weather events in their particular area, and just seem to accept the news-media reports that the most recent, extreme weather event, in their particular area, is the worst on record, or the worst in a hundred years, or even an unprecedented event.

I think a major part of the problem lies in the ‘Education System’, where the emphasis is on teaching children ‘what to think’, rather than ‘how to think’.

Another issue I’ve wondered about, is what the economic and political consequences would be if the alarm about ‘human-caused climate change’ were switched to an alarm about ‘naturally-caused climate change’.

Suppose, for example, whenever there was an extreme weather event, the MSM journalists were to delve into the historical record of past weather events, including records based on proxy data and old newspaper reports. 

Instead of reporting, for example, ‘This is the worst drought in living memory’, they were to report, ‘Ice-core studies from Law Dome in the Antarctic have revealed a 1,000 year history of droughts in Eastern Australia. The worst drought occurred around 800 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were similar to today’s temperatures. This drought lasted 39 years and was far worse than any drought experienced in living memory, in Australia.

https://www.cato.org/blog/1000-year-history-eastern-australia-megadroughts-how-do-they-compare-recent-occurrence-big-dry

Suppose there was a similar reporting of the historical record of floods, which are a major problem in many communities, world-wide. How many families, world-wide, would suddenly realize that their homes had been foolishly built in a flood plain, and that there was a very high probability that their house would be flooded, and perhaps even washed away, within the next 10 or 20 years. Wouldn’t that cause a huge amount of stress?

Would there be lots of protests? Would people march down the street, demanding to know why the authorities had allowed their homes to be built in flood plains, despite knowing that the historical record showed a regular occurrence of major floods where their homes were located?

Would there be lots of court cases where certain ‘Authorities’ were charged with serious incompetence in protecting the public from ‘known’ risks of naturally-caused extreme weather events?

How much would it cost, world-wide, to relocate families who currently live on flood plains, and strengthen the homes of those who live in hurrican-prone areas, and build more dams and long-distance water pipes to prepare for future droughts which could last as long as 40 years, and so on?

aaron
December 16, 2022 11:25 pm

Parents should take a page from the climate activist playbook and start suing media corporations on behalf of their children. NPR should probably be high on that list. They have been lying to them and it should not go unpunished.

I hear blatant untruths on NPR regarding climate almost daily, this seems to have become policy. https://www.npr.org/about-npr/1122885448/announcing-the-npr-climate-desk

“ No story touches as many people as climate change. Heat waves, mega-droughts and unprecedented floods are all becoming more intense and frequent. ”

This contradicts known science and cast serious doubt on the credibility of NPR as a whole.

There is no detectable increase in any of the events listed.

How will this be corrected? Why was such a blatant untruth allowed to be published?

Peta of Newark
December 17, 2022 12:29 am

Here’s a copy/paste from something that came in this morning – it’s talking about flu vaccinations.
But, just let your eyes go a bit fuzzy and replace the talk about flu with climate and replace doctor with scientist

Peta says:”‘It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.’
hahahaha. so perfect

Quote:If they listen to you at all, learning that flu shots, similar to the Covid shots offer risk but no benefit is disturbing, The reaction to this information is predictable.
Many people will deny it. Then many more will become angry and call it ‘misinformation.’
Denial is most pervasive among doctors and public health officials who encourage everyone to “get your flu shot NOW!” despite convincing evidence that they don’t protect you from getting the flu.

Denials from friends and family may sound something like this:
“Well, the flu shot always protects me.”
“Shouldn’t some people get the flu shot?”
“My doctor would never recommend something that wasn’t beneficial or could be harmful. I really LIKE my doctor!”

Reversing the ingrained beliefs about the effectiveness of flu shots is difficult, even in light of solid evidence. Many will never give up their long-held belief that a flu shot protects them from the flu.

I’ll close today with two of my favourite quotes:
The first, by Dresden James, a pen name of the writer Donald James Wheal, said: ‘It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn’t flat.’

James is also noted for saying one of my other long time favorite quotes:
“A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
Welcome to the Club of Raving Lunatics.

Dave Andrews
December 17, 2022 6:55 am

Excellent article.

One of the problems in the UK is that the curriculum is decided by the Department of Education and teachers have to teach to it. An individual teacher may well have doubts about climate change but the curriculum does not. The teacher thus cannot teach any thing different because it would damage their pupils results in the all important GCSE and A Level exams and prejudice their future life prospects.

Gary Pearse
December 17, 2022 1:34 pm

“This psychological distress is directly caused by you: the mistaken, irrational, politically motivated people that have created effective propaganda that is creating negative stress reactions particularly among children who have yet to develop a clear sense of self and lack a context for being able to filter the BS.”

Although I’ve greatly admired J. Curry for her intellectuality (climate science is not a go to place for intellectuals) and ber breakaway at a high cost to her from the dyed in the wool climateering consensus, I have criticized her from time to time over what seemed to me a clinging onto the main tenets of the meme. This despite Climategate revelations of gross misconduct of the main wroughters of climate alarm, predictions of warming that turned out to be 300% too high compared to observations and the shifting of goalposts and fiddling upwards of temperatures to correct the failed forecast and to cancel out an 18yr global warming flatlining.

Perhaps letting go after you have invested multi decades of university and career path is a hard journey. From the unequivocal quote above, Curry has completed the journey with flying colors. Bravo!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights