A group of psychologists have claimed fear drives deniers to reject the truth. But they ignore evidence academic groupthink hysteria is the real “climate crisis”.
Time to freak out? How the existential terror of hurricanes can fuel climate change denial
Published: October 30, 2024 11.40pm AEDT
Jamie Goldenberg Professor of Psychology and Area Director, Cognitive, Neuroscience and Social Psychology, University of South Florida
Emily P. Courtney Assistant Professor of Instruction, University of South Florida
Joshua Hart Professor of Psychology, Union College
As TVs across Florida broadcast the all-too-familiar images of a powerful hurricane headed for the coast in early October 2024, people whose homes had been damaged less than two weeks earlier by Hurricane Helene watched anxiously. Hurricane Milton was rapidly intensifying into a dangerous storm, fueled by the Gulf of Mexico’s record-breaking temperatures.
…
Still, many people deny that climate change is a worsening threat, or that it exists at all. As its impacts grow more visible and destructive, how is this possible?
One answer lies in a unique facet of human psychology – specifically, in how people manage the fear aroused by existential threats. For many people, denying the existence of a climate crisis is not only convenient, but may feel psychologically necessary.
…
Terror management theory
The Pulitzer Prize-winning anthropologist Ernest Becker put it this way: “The idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else … to overcome it by denying it in some way is the final destiny for man.”
…
Terror management theory predicts that individuals whose ideologies conflict with environmental concerns may ironically double down on those beliefs to psychologically manage the existential threat posed by climate-related disasters. It’s similar to how mortality reminders can lead people to engage in risky behavior, such as smoking or tanning. Hurricanes may reinforce denial and commitment to a worldview that rejects climate change.
What saddens me about such articles is the alarmist academics who write them never seem to publicly admit to the possibility they got it wrong.
Because there is plenty of evidence the climate crisis narrative is simply Western academic mass hysteria.
The strongest evidence for hysteria and groupthink is all the academics from outside the North American and European sphere of influence who are sounding the alarm on the lack of supporting evidence for alarmist climate claims.
My name is Yonatan Dubi, I am a professor of chemistry and physics at Ben Gurion University, Israel. I am also one of Israel’s leading advocates for rational environmentalism and climate realism. Together with a few colleagues we have conducted a very nice research, detailing and quantifying the flaws in the famous consensus study by Lynas et al, which (falsely) claimed the ridiculous 99% consensus. After a year long journey, our paper was finally published in the peer reviewed journal Climate, the link is https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215.
You would think a group of psychologists like the people who wrote the article at the top of the page might take an interest in the possibility they are actually living through a period of academic group hysteria, like past episodes I am sure they have studied. Even if they don’t accept this interpretation of events, they should at least mention it, and explain why they don’t believe it is the correct interpretation.
A courageous study which exposed the groupthink would echo down the ages, would be celebrated by our descendants, just as we celebrate academics of the past who stood against the darkness of ignorance and prejudice.
People always remember heroes who stand up for the truth. How long will people remember the name of psychologist Jordan Peterson?
“What saddens me about such articles is the alarmist academics who write them never seem to publicly admit to the possibility they got it wrong.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Richard Feynman on Science:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool
Tom Halla
November 2, 2024 10:12 am
Laziness is a common vice, and these academics have probably not actually done any study of “climate science”. Going along with politically acceptable fashions is “safe”, and they feel validated to have their equally ignorant colleagues agree with them.
Oh no. It’s not that. It’s pure boondoggle. This isn’t about academic egos, (Mann excluded). It’s about power and it’s about money greed and corruption..
The useful idiots maybe, but the many beneficiaries of the $$Trillion climate industry, characterized by people pontificating about carbon, or by people pontificating about the people pontificating about carbon (hello Greta), aren’t raking in the money through stupidity. Malice, grift, phony-leftism, general fraud, carbon-credit fraud etc. etc. etc. That’s where the financial action is.
I really think a very conventional leftist psychologist, who never has any issues with Received Wisdom, could produce the article in question. The question is whether their conventionality is due to laziness or stupidity. Why should they disagree with Holy Consensus?
We normal people could give the nutcases unlimited electric chainsaws, and they couldn’t make one tree species extinct.
I’m not advocating that, by the way !!!
Russell Cook
November 2, 2024 10:32 am
When these folks begin right out of the gate with a false premise claim, everything that follows is guaranteed to be pointless. We don’t deny climate change on this side. I have my fun with such types by clobbering them with this great bit from Lord Monckton circa 2014 when he asked a room full of ‘deniers’ what exactly they denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVI-EdgLr4&t=834s . Pose this same clip to the psycho-climate alarmists above, and they’d probably respond with, “well, you’re just repeating the lies from Big Oil.”
It does not take much attention to notice that no statements are being put to a vote in Monckton’s lecture. A “climate” question is presented and then a count of people who disagree with the question. What the heck does that mean? How can one agree or disagree with a question? No claim or statement has been presented. This is just a demonstration of group think with the audience going along with the gag in order to not ruin the show.
Rud Istvan
November 2, 2024 10:38 am
To paraphrase the psychologists, ‘Denial is a coping response to climate fear.’
Fear of what?
Sea level rise did not accelerate as Hansen asserted.
Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear as Wadhams and Gore asserted.
Glacier National Park glaciers did not disappear as USNPS asserted.
UK children still know snow, opposite what Viner asserted.
They’re view is that anyone who doesn’t believe in the climate cult are deplorables- or as Biden recently said about Trump supporters, that they’re garbage. It’s extremely arrogant and elitist.
Joe Biden reflects the thoughts of the democrat party. Nothing more and nothing less.
Donald Trump reflects the thoughts of Donald Trump and republicans who don’t agree with him endorse democrats. Go figure.
Of course, once a republican does re-register as a democrat, all their previous belief system is forever forgiven. Examples: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Leon Panetta.
Six points seems to be the ticket. Your six points are going straight away into the file.
But first those six points I slap up here on WUWT frequently:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
So psychologists are now saying that terror invokes an evolutionary fight or flight response EXCEPT for climate change which invokes a denial response.
Who knew that over millions of years of evolution, natural selection endowed us with an exception to fight or flight? How did natural selection result in a denial response to something that never occurred until now?
I would like some of these “academics” to explain this to me.
In the old days, when confronted by a cave bear there were three outcomes. You fled, you fought, or you were dinner. Denying that the cave bear exists produces the same outcome as dinner.
“Terror management theory predicts that individuals whose ideologies conflict with environmental concerns may ironically double down on those beliefs to psychologically manage the existential threat posed by climate-related disasters.”
Sir, please understand that the reasons I think your “existential threat” claims are bogus is that I can figure it out for myself. For example, one simply asks, “Do our records show this kind of storm or flood or heat wave has happened before?” If so, then “climate” has nothing to do with it. No additional theory needed.
Hmmm … we’ve seen stories about psychologist concerned about kids suffering anxiety about “the existential threat”.
Perhaps they should encourage them to become “denialist”?
Yes, weather history refutes a climate crisis. There is no unprecedented weather. The severe storms we experience today have happened in the past, and there is no indication that they are getting worse or more frequent.
My fear & terror is aroused by the constant existential threats that are spouted by groups of psychopaths posing as experts …
When in fact they are just a bunch of grifters trying to make a dishonest buck !!
Richard Greene
November 2, 2024 11:09 am
In 28 years of climate science reading I have never found a climate denier
But there are any climate sciece deniers
Almost all leftists claim the climate in 100 years can be predicted, a claim never supported by evidence.
Some (too many) conservatives refuse to admit that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by +50% since 1850. Some are geologists — scientists with rocks in their head.
Others refuse to admit manmade CO2 causes some amount of global warming, as discovered 128 years ago.
One conservative scientist named Tim Ball, denied the existence of the greenhouse effect.
The AGW climate science consensus, which is at least 99%, is consistently misinterpreted.
The AGW consensus has two beliefs that are supported by evidence and a 128 year test of time:
(1) There is a greenhouse effect
(2) Manmade CO2 emissions make the greenhouse effect stronger
That’s it
The AGW consensus based on evidence that has withstood a 128 YEAR TEST OF TIME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRECT THAN THE much more recent CAGW CONSENSUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATRELY HAS A 59% APPROVAL BY SCIENTSTS IN A 2022 POLL
In my opinion, scientists who ignore evidence are science deniers if they: : (1) Support the CAGW consensus
Tommy my boy! CAGW is a complex belief system, including ignoring the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and all other changes in climate not related to greenhouse gases, and only noncondensing GHGs, as water vapor messes up the claims. Furthermore, any warming is a Bad Thing. Why?
Science is not “consensus”.
CO2 warming is nothing but a model-based theoretical conjecture.
It has NEVER been actually observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
mleskovarsocalrrcom
November 2, 2024 11:14 am
The fact that these type of articles are worth publishing lets you know who’s in control of the narrative. I’ve seen many articles in WUWT that refute them with facts and have yet to see one of those articles in the MSM.
I note that the writers offer no data relating to their proposition, which is based on a weak hypothesis from an anthropologist, also without data. This is an opinion piece written for Conversation, which we know to be totally in the alarmist tank. Furthermore the narrative makes clear that the writers are True Believers, and not oriented toward critical thinking. The sad part to me as a recently retired social psychologist, is that we have a good body of research on attitude structure and change, dating back to the fifties, which could have been applied here. But I have no doubt whatsoever, these faculty persons are unacquainted with the basics of their own alleged speciality. Such is the state of the academy today.
True story. In college I had to take one psych course to fulfill a distribution requirement. Intro to psych was colloquially known as ‘Nuts and Sluts’. No much has changed since, it would appear.
Wasn’t it psychologists who first claimed that all humans who were criminals could be rehabilitated?
Mr Ed
November 2, 2024 12:51 pm
Story kind of reminds me of a local multiple murder trial with two psychologists testifying after
examining the suspect. One said he had a mental disorder and the other said the
opposite. The one who testified about the mental disorder prevailed and the man
was sent to prison and not executed as the state was pushing for. He ended up
serving many years and had some kind of treatment and is now out on release in another state. Not the only time I’ve seen that. Two “experts” in disagreement.
Bob
November 2, 2024 1:13 pm
This is a hard one for me. I have no respect for the psychologists involved in this study. They appear to have accepted the CAGW claims with no critical examination of the issue. That is a bad thing. By doing that and participating in junk science studies like this one they discredit their profession. The more studies I see like this the lower my opinion of the psychology profession which is a bad thing because I am sure many psychologists have helped people.
One other thing is I always kind of looked at psychologists and psychiatrists as pretty much the same and they aren’t. Psychiatrists are MDs with additional training in mental health, psychologists aren’t MDs rather have PHDs in psychology or philosophy with additional hands on training before they can practice on their own.
Either way these guys have given their profession a black eye.
My now deceased significant other was under years long care for PTSD. Highly skilled physician who could diagnose mental disorders and then knew the drug options and dosage choices. He got her under virtually complete control in just four months. Tried one drug, didn’t work well. After just one month, went to a second with two rather than one action mechanisms, added a second drug for ‘emergencies’. After three months upped the dose on the first and reduced the dose on the second. Essentially full control for several years with just a couple of hospital induced exceptions until she passed away earlier this year from acute pneumonia after three times on a ventilator and two rounds of different antibiotics.
Psychiatrists are MDs with additional training in mental health
Personal and secondary evidence tells me very clearly that modern psychiatrists are mere pill-pushers. Indeed, the pills they push are incredibly damaging, creating terrible side-effects and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, and these charlatans either don’t bother finding out what problems they cause, or don’t care. They certainly don’t understand them at all.
I went to one to get an ADHD diagnosis. I ended up on anti-depressants and amphetamines, both doses doubled as they didn’t appear to have bad effects. After a couple of months, the effects were quite debilitating, and the (personally chosen, deliberately slow) withdrawal was an absolute nightmare.
Our children are being dosed with these absurd chemicals willy nilly, sometimes for years. It’s horrific!
As related just above, my significant other’s final psychiatrist produced just the opposite result in just 4 months, that lasted for years. Now, there are good ones and bad ones. The previous two she saw produced only transitory results, plus two hospitalizations for acute PTSD. One for 4 days, one for 2. Neither good. Choose doctors carefully.
Still, many people deny that climate change is a worsening threat
Professors of psychology need to define the terms of discussion before they pontificate. Otherwise, its not science, its opinion.
What is climate change? Weather change in a given location over 30 years. So weather changing over 30 years causes climate change.
Now, we are left with the curious circular logic of their argument that weather change causes weather change.
One answer lies in a unique facet of human psychology – specifically, in how people manage the fear aroused by existential threats
Existential threats are not defined by using faulty logic, unless you are uneducated and react only to feelings.
Edward Katz
November 2, 2024 2:08 pm
Regardless of what they, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists and their ilk from academia always attract a considerable degree of skepticism. This is largely due to their finding a great deal of negativity in whatever they study; so when many of their conclusions/predictions associated with these findings are inevitably alarmist in nature, their credibility levels are guaranteed to suffer
Are they denying that the term “climate denier” is an intentional insult and stems from the historical fact that climate alarmists were trying to link climate skeptics to holocaust denial? Quite horrible actually
Apparently, it is necessary to teach these people (and others) that insults have no place in an academic paper or discussion. In any other topic and field this would be disqualifier!
.
Actually, I disagree.. sorry!
Even if they could show that, insults still do not have any place in a scientific debate!
That is independent of any facts or the lack thereof.
To me, something is an insult only if it has a shred of reality behind it.
The word “denier” is just a meaningless throw-away, pertaining to nothing.
But true, as soon as you see the work “denier” in a academic paper…
… file the paper in the shredder and use it for cat litter.
David Wojick
November 2, 2024 5:16 pm
What you see depends on what you believe. In the jargon of philosophy of science: Observation is theory laden.
Ed Zuiderwijk
November 2, 2024 5:22 pm
They know nothing. Clueless about how the natural world operates. Ask them anything about the atmosphere or the planetary energy balance and they look at you with empty eyes. Their ignorance makes it almost impossible for them to contemplate the idea that there could be people who actually are knowledgeable on such matters. These psychologists are therefore psychologically incapable of recognising expertise in those they set aside as ‘deniers’. We used to call them quacks.
Duane
November 2, 2024 5:33 pm
As a long time Floridian (35 years and counting) who has been thru many hurricanes and threatened hurricanes, I can attest that there is no fear of them by me or most of us in the Gulf and Atlantic coast areas, only disgust and annoyance at the disruption caused by them. If a hurricane appears headed your way, and you are in a mandatory by evacuation zone, then evacuate. Otherwise be prepared. Afterwards, deal with the damages and power outages and other associated inconveniences. There is really no fear to speak of.
leefor
November 2, 2024 8:29 pm
In the Lynas et al paper, over 400 “implicitly supported” AGW. They know, the chicken entrails told them.
Over 2,000 papers held “no position”, but if they were as aware as the authors they would have subscribed to AGW. The authors just know.
“What saddens me about such articles is the alarmist academics who write them never seem to publicly admit to the possibility they got it wrong.”
__________________________________________________________________________
Richard Feynman on Science:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool
Laziness is a common vice, and these academics have probably not actually done any study of “climate science”. Going along with politically acceptable fashions is “safe”, and they feel validated to have their equally ignorant colleagues agree with them.
“Laziness is a common vice…”
_________________________
So is bias and avarice
“There is nothing weaker than the human mind in the face of money.” – Atty Woo
Exactly, it has now turned into institutionalized scientific fraud for money. Pseudoscientific fraud for money to be more accurate.
Ironically these people turn more people into “climate deniers” by writing garbage articles like that, and their crap being outed on sites like this.
Oh no. It’s not that. It’s pure boondoggle. This isn’t about academic egos, (Mann excluded). It’s about power and it’s about money greed and corruption..
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”
The useful idiots maybe, but the many beneficiaries of the $$Trillion climate industry, characterized by people pontificating about carbon, or by people pontificating about the people pontificating about carbon (hello Greta), aren’t raking in the money through stupidity. Malice, grift, phony-leftism, general fraud, carbon-credit fraud etc. etc. etc. That’s where the financial action is.
I really think a very conventional leftist psychologist, who never has any issues with Received Wisdom, could produce the article in question. The question is whether their conventionality is due to laziness or stupidity. Why should they disagree with Holy Consensus?
Ah yes, you were referring to the author. I was referring to the scammers at large, to whom the author lazily virtue signals.
Shocker ! One third of all tree species are on red alert for extinction. Will it be blamed on….you know….CCC – Catastrophic Climate Change?
We normal people could give the nutcases unlimited electric chainsaws, and they couldn’t make one tree species extinct.
I’m not advocating that, by the way !!!
When these folks begin right out of the gate with a false premise claim, everything that follows is guaranteed to be pointless. We don’t deny climate change on this side. I have my fun with such types by clobbering them with this great bit from Lord Monckton circa 2014 when he asked a room full of ‘deniers’ what exactly they denied. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSVI-EdgLr4&t=834s . Pose this same clip to the psycho-climate alarmists above, and they’d probably respond with, “well, you’re just repeating the lies from Big Oil.”
It does not take much attention to notice that no statements are being put to a vote in Monckton’s lecture. A “climate” question is presented and then a count of people who disagree with the question. What the heck does that mean? How can one agree or disagree with a question? No claim or statement has been presented. This is just a demonstration of group think with the audience going along with the gag in order to not ruin the show.
To paraphrase the psychologists, ‘Denial is a coping response to climate fear.’
Fear of what?
“ ‘Denial is a coping response to climate fear.’ “
My only fear is that I’ve neglected maintaining my snow blower.
And I’m behind in the use of my chainsaw. At least a cord behind.
They’re view is that anyone who doesn’t believe in the climate cult are deplorables- or as Biden recently said about Trump supporters, that they’re garbage. It’s extremely arrogant and elitist.
Joe Biden said what he really thinks.
He thinks people who don’t look at the world the way he does are garbage.
Joe Biden reflects the thoughts of the democrat party. Nothing more and nothing less.
Donald Trump reflects the thoughts of Donald Trump and republicans who don’t agree with him endorse democrats. Go figure.
Of course, once a republican does re-register as a democrat, all their previous belief system is forever forgiven. Examples: Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Leon Panetta.
Psychologists never ever address this conundrum.
Fear of what?
Not needing these scheisters
The fear of seeing their funding vanish if they were to admit there is no climate crisis.
Six points seems to be the ticket. Your six points are going straight away into the file.
But first those six points I slap up here on WUWT frequently:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
And the worst weather since I moved to Texas in 2005 was 2021, a freeze. If you cannot even get the sign right, . .
So psychologists are now saying that terror invokes an evolutionary fight or flight response EXCEPT for climate change which invokes a denial response.
Who knew that over millions of years of evolution, natural selection endowed us with an exception to fight or flight? How did natural selection result in a denial response to something that never occurred until now?
I would like some of these “academics” to explain this to me.
In the old days, when confronted by a cave bear there were three outcomes. You fled, you fought, or you were dinner. Denying that the cave bear exists produces the same outcome as dinner.
ROFL!
So, by extension, evolution should have eliminated those geneticaly disposed to denial.
Except for climate change.
“Terror management theory predicts that individuals whose ideologies conflict with environmental concerns may ironically double down on those beliefs to psychologically manage the existential threat posed by climate-related disasters.”
Sir, please understand that the reasons I think your “existential threat” claims are bogus is that I can figure it out for myself. For example, one simply asks, “Do our records show this kind of storm or flood or heat wave has happened before?” If so, then “climate” has nothing to do with it. No additional theory needed.
Hmmm … we’ve seen stories about psychologist concerned about kids suffering anxiety about “the existential threat”.
Perhaps they should encourage them to become “denialist”?
Yes, weather history refutes a climate crisis. There is no unprecedented weather. The severe storms we experience today have happened in the past, and there is no indication that they are getting worse or more frequent.
There are some extremely dumb people who are also allegedly intelligent.
Just because someone is highly educated doesn’t mean they have any common sense…
or inherent rationality.
My fear & terror is aroused by the constant existential threats that are spouted by groups of psychopaths posing as experts …
When in fact they are just a bunch of grifters trying to make a dishonest buck !!
In 28 years of climate science reading I have never found a climate denier
But there are any climate sciece deniers
Almost all leftists claim the climate in 100 years can be predicted, a claim never supported by evidence.
Some (too many) conservatives refuse to admit that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by +50% since 1850. Some are geologists — scientists with rocks in their head.
Others refuse to admit manmade CO2 causes some amount of global warming, as discovered 128 years ago.
One conservative scientist named Tim Ball, denied the existence of the greenhouse effect.
The AGW climate science consensus, which is at least 99%, is consistently misinterpreted.
The AGW consensus has two beliefs that are supported by evidence and a 128 year test of time:
(1) There is a greenhouse effect
(2) Manmade CO2 emissions make the greenhouse effect stronger
That’s it
The AGW consensus based on evidence that has withstood a 128 YEAR TEST OF TIME IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRECT THAN THE much more recent CAGW CONSENSUS, WHICH UNFORTUNATRELY HAS A 59% APPROVAL BY SCIENTSTS IN A 2022 POLL
In my opinion, scientists who ignore evidence are science deniers if they:
:
(1) Support the CAGW consensus
or
(2) Deny the AGW consensus
“Others refuse to admit manmade CO2 causes some amount of global warming,”
How much?
An immeasurable amount.. that is why RG cannot produce any actual empirical evidence.
Do you have ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT ALL of AGW in the UAH data since 1979 ?
Do you have ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AT ALL of warming by human released CO2 ?
How much has human CO2 raised the global temperature since 1979 ?
… provide empirical scientific evidence…. or stop your pathetic and ego-based ranting.
I followed Tim Ball when he was still alive, I do not recall him claiming the GHE didn’t exist.
Can you provide an exact quotation and a link to it that says otherwise?
Tim Ball was a real scientist.
RG is not, he is a pretender with near zero scientific integrity.
Tommy my boy! CAGW is a complex belief system, including ignoring the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and all other changes in climate not related to greenhouse gases, and only noncondensing GHGs, as water vapor messes up the claims. Furthermore, any warming is a Bad Thing. Why?
Science is not “consensus”.
“manmade CO2 causes some amount of global warming, as discovered 128 years ago.”
This statement is totally factually incorrect.
CO2 warming is nothing but a model-based theoretical conjecture.
It has NEVER been actually observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
The fact that these type of articles are worth publishing lets you know who’s in control of the narrative. I’ve seen many articles in WUWT that refute them with facts and have yet to see one of those articles in the MSM.
Trust in MSM’s biased narrative is at rock bottom, so we are making progress.
More people who earned a bogus college degree, must be a diploma mill they pay to get their sodden sheet.
The climate in my region remains unchanged and have been unchanged the entire interglacial period.
Claim: Weather Disasters are Fuelling Climate Denial
Still waiting for the return of the great prophet Zarquon…
He’ll be right along, any minute now!
I note that the writers offer no data relating to their proposition, which is based on a weak hypothesis from an anthropologist, also without data. This is an opinion piece written for Conversation, which we know to be totally in the alarmist tank. Furthermore the narrative makes clear that the writers are True Believers, and not oriented toward critical thinking. The sad part to me as a recently retired social psychologist, is that we have a good body of research on attitude structure and change, dating back to the fifties, which could have been applied here. But I have no doubt whatsoever, these faculty persons are unacquainted with the basics of their own alleged speciality. Such is the state of the academy today.
In other news:
Contempt for shoddy academic rigor drives people to reject Psychology.
True story. In college I had to take one psych course to fulfill a distribution requirement. Intro to psych was colloquially known as ‘Nuts and Sluts’. No much has changed since, it would appear.
Wasn’t it psychologists who first claimed that all humans who were criminals could be rehabilitated?
Story kind of reminds me of a local multiple murder trial with two psychologists testifying after
examining the suspect. One said he had a mental disorder and the other said the
opposite. The one who testified about the mental disorder prevailed and the man
was sent to prison and not executed as the state was pushing for. He ended up
serving many years and had some kind of treatment and is now out on release in another state. Not the only time I’ve seen that. Two “experts” in disagreement.
This is a hard one for me. I have no respect for the psychologists involved in this study. They appear to have accepted the CAGW claims with no critical examination of the issue. That is a bad thing. By doing that and participating in junk science studies like this one they discredit their profession. The more studies I see like this the lower my opinion of the psychology profession which is a bad thing because I am sure many psychologists have helped people.
One other thing is I always kind of looked at psychologists and psychiatrists as pretty much the same and they aren’t. Psychiatrists are MDs with additional training in mental health, psychologists aren’t MDs rather have PHDs in psychology or philosophy with additional hands on training before they can practice on their own.
Either way these guys have given their profession a black eye.
My now deceased significant other was under years long care for PTSD. Highly skilled physician who could diagnose mental disorders and then knew the drug options and dosage choices. He got her under virtually complete control in just four months. Tried one drug, didn’t work well. After just one month, went to a second with two rather than one action mechanisms, added a second drug for ‘emergencies’. After three months upped the dose on the first and reduced the dose on the second. Essentially full control for several years with just a couple of hospital induced exceptions until she passed away earlier this year from acute pneumonia after three times on a ventilator and two rounds of different antibiotics.
Rud, I sure am sorry to hear about her struggles.
Personal and secondary evidence tells me very clearly that modern psychiatrists are mere pill-pushers. Indeed, the pills they push are incredibly damaging, creating terrible side-effects and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, and these charlatans either don’t bother finding out what problems they cause, or don’t care. They certainly don’t understand them at all.
I went to one to get an ADHD diagnosis. I ended up on anti-depressants and amphetamines, both doses doubled as they didn’t appear to have bad effects. After a couple of months, the effects were quite debilitating, and the (personally chosen, deliberately slow) withdrawal was an absolute nightmare.
Our children are being dosed with these absurd chemicals willy nilly, sometimes for years. It’s horrific!
As related just above, my significant other’s final psychiatrist produced just the opposite result in just 4 months, that lasted for years. Now, there are good ones and bad ones. The previous two she saw produced only transitory results, plus two hospitalizations for acute PTSD. One for 4 days, one for 2. Neither good. Choose doctors carefully.
Professors of psychology need to define the terms of discussion before they pontificate. Otherwise, its not science, its opinion.
What is climate change? Weather change in a given location over 30 years. So weather changing over 30 years causes climate change.
Now, we are left with the curious circular logic of their argument that weather change causes weather change.
Existential threats are not defined by using faulty logic, unless you are uneducated and react only to feelings.
Regardless of what they, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, psychiatrists and their ilk from academia always attract a considerable degree of skepticism. This is largely due to their finding a great deal of negativity in whatever they study; so when many of their conclusions/predictions associated with these findings are inevitably alarmist in nature, their credibility levels are guaranteed to suffer
Modified from what I just wrote in the https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/02/the-geological-record-of-climate-change-and-why-todays-increase-in-atmospheric-co2-is-the-result-of-global-warming-not-the-cause/ :
Are they denying that the term “climate denier” is an intentional insult and stems from the historical fact that climate alarmists were trying to link climate skeptics to holocaust denial? Quite horrible actually
Apparently, it is necessary to teach these people (and others) that insults have no place in an academic paper or discussion. In any other topic and field this would be disqualifier!
.
Particularly when they cannot produce ANY actual scientific evidence for things they say we “deny”.
May as well call us “Three Little Pigs” or “Goldilocks” deniers.
Actually, I disagree.. sorry!
Even if they could show that, insults still do not have any place in a scientific debate!
That is independent of any facts or the lack thereof.
To me, something is an insult only if it has a shred of reality behind it.
The word “denier” is just a meaningless throw-away, pertaining to nothing.
But true, as soon as you see the work “denier” in a academic paper…
… file the paper in the shredder and use it for cat litter.
What you see depends on what you believe. In the jargon of philosophy of science: Observation is theory laden.
They know nothing. Clueless about how the natural world operates. Ask them anything about the atmosphere or the planetary energy balance and they look at you with empty eyes. Their ignorance makes it almost impossible for them to contemplate the idea that there could be people who actually are knowledgeable on such matters. These psychologists are therefore psychologically incapable of recognising expertise in those they set aside as ‘deniers’. We used to call them quacks.
As a long time Floridian (35 years and counting) who has been thru many hurricanes and threatened hurricanes, I can attest that there is no fear of them by me or most of us in the Gulf and Atlantic coast areas, only disgust and annoyance at the disruption caused by them. If a hurricane appears headed your way, and you are in a mandatory by evacuation zone, then evacuate. Otherwise be prepared. Afterwards, deal with the damages and power outages and other associated inconveniences. There is really no fear to speak of.
In the Lynas et al paper, over 400 “implicitly supported” AGW. They know, the chicken entrails told them.
Over 2,000 papers held “no position”, but if they were as aware as the authors they would have subscribed to AGW. The authors just know.
Speculation as science.