You can also call it climate depression, as well as climate rage
The harm from worrying about climate change
Back in 2014, my partner and I marked a date in our shared online calendar. Unusually, this was for 27 August 2015 – a year ahead. It was an arbitrary date.
We’re indecisive when it comes to big life decisions, and this was the biggest: whether to have children. We were aware that, now in our 30s, we couldn’t wait indefinitely to decide. So we marked “baby-making conversation†in the calendar, as ever using irreverence in an attempt to make weighty matters seem less daunting, and happily pushed the question away for the time being.
But 27 August 2015 came and went. We felt no more prepared. We moved the date back another year. Then 27 August 2016 passed too. Clearly our stratagem hadn’t worked. While plenty of factors affected our ambivalence, the personality-level issues were overshadowed by a global one: anxiety about a future planet made unliveable by climate change.
Even if the average temperature went up to 2C (3.6F), our planet will not be unliveable. It will be fine. And it still wouldn’t be proof of anthropogenic causation.
Climate change harms mental wellbeing in a number of ways. From trauma and stress following disasters, to relationship damage caused by separation and displacement, the psychological effects of climate change can be enduring. Of course, these effects are heightened for certain vulnerable populations, such as elderly and low-income people, as well as those on the frontlines of climate change.
Loonies.
Researchers at the University of Bath have some suggestions. When I visit the university, surrounded by woodland, with soaring views of the stately city below, Caroline Hickman and I decide to talk not in her office, but by a small lake on campus. We sit on rocks surrounded by sunbathing students and preening ducks, and swap stories of climate anxiety (or Hickman’s preferred term, “eco-awarenessâ€)….
Yet Hickman insists that climate anxiety – like climate depression or climate rage – isn’t a pathology. It’s a reasonable and healthy response to an existential threat. “I’d kind of wonder why somebody wasn’t feeling anxious,†she says.
Because they aren’t nuts, would be my guess. And this turns rather dark
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.
You can thank the Cult of Climastrology for creating this type of atmosphere. I’d usually consider dropping a Prozac graphic in that paragraph, but, this is really no laughing matter. These people are beyond unhinged, and really do need proper mental health professionals, not idiots agreeing with them on climate doom.
TEACH typed: “And it still wouldn’t be proof of anthropogenic causation.”
What would “proof” of anthropogenic causation look like to you?
And if you can’t describe “proof” how can you deny it?
Fact 1: The increase in temperature is consistent with the increase in CO2.
Fact 2: CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range (heat).
Fact 3: The stratosphere is receiving LESS infrared radiation from Earth.
Fact 4: The increased CO2 is derived from burning fossil fuels. (And is the highest in 1 million years).
So… what evidence do you require?
Shot in the dark here, but proof would consist of unaltered data that the temperature has risen and that the cause was solely man-made.
So… what evidence do you require?
Something that wasn’t connected to your phony Facts, for starters, 1 and 4 (since we don’t have records from 1M BC, a little hard to prove), specifically.
And a little something that blows 2 all to Hell.
Someone named Rod Gill, over at Tony Wuwt’s blog, types a short note “proving that CO2 cant’ cause warming”.
On the other hand, over a century ago, Svante Arrhenius proved experimentally that CO2 did absorb infrared radiation. This has been confirmed many times over. Since Professor Arrhenius conducted actual experiments and went to the trouble to write down his results we’ll give him the nod.
Absorbing IR does not mean there’s global nonsense or that CO2 causes it.
Throwing useless sentences out proves nothing.
And Arrhenius believed more CO2 to be beneficial, a fact usually left out when discussing his work. But this is interesting-even in 1972 NASA knew that ever increasing amounts of CO2 would have less and less effects, as after a point it’s all absorbed. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Image1810472019.png
Jeff has been schooled on this many times. He refuses to learn. First it is necessary to determine if the absorption of radiation has at influence at all. The easiest way to determine this is with two greenhouses, one with excessive CO2 the other without. Then measure the temp. Jeff throws this out as e claims glass blocks radiation, which it does not and the experiment could be conducted with any substance that would allow observation. This has been done and there is no increase with CO2. He refuses to accept. So he has no basis for his claim.
dave should take it up with all the physicists who have proven him wrong over the past century.
Can you cite where you found the results of this experiment? It’s so simple and direct that if you reveal your data you’ll be famous as the scientist who saved the world from the communist plot.
In fact, why are hiding this data? The fate of capitalism and the free world depends on you.
They’re hiding it so they can scare the world into giving control of everything to them and the people who pay them.
glass blocks radiation?????????????????????
As they used to opine in the The Royal Fusiliers City of London Regiment, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Ever hear the words, “solar collector”, genius? Of course, glass doesn’t block solar radiation. Ever get into a car even on a cold but sunny day and marvel how warm it was? Ever sit by a window on a cold but sunny day?
You may not be the dumbest troll out there, but you’re certainly in the top two.
glass blocks radiation?????
Take it up with dave, he typed it.
Glass absorbs radiation in the UV (under 400 nm) and reflects much in the infrared (above 700 nm). So most radiation between 400 and 700 nm is transmitted.
Form,
The glass reference comes from Jeff. He used that to discount my greenhouse experiment last time.
The fact is that most scientist do not support the climate religion. And, global communism will not stop anything except our economy.
Fact: the increase in temperature doesn’t necessarily mean it’s cause is CO2, as it’s been as warm or warmer in the past. Fact: the temperature record has been “adjusted†to fit the narrative. Fact: over the long term record, CO2 and temp don’t correlate. Fact: there’s no empirical evidence CO2 is a major detriment to life on earth. In fact, the only real evidence is a greening of the earth.
So it’s fake science! Or is it corrupt science? Who’s in charge of “adjusting data to fit the narrative”? Who set the narrative? How deep does the conspiracy go?
Over the past million years or so, CO2 and temperature correlate pretty well.
CO2-caused warming IS detrimental to human society, but will not kill off our species.
So it’s fake science! Or is it corrupt science?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Who’s in charge of “adjusting data to fit the narrative� Who set the narrative? How deep does the conspiracy go?
Michael Mann seems to get a lot of the credit. Of course, a lot of this is funded by Dr Evil.
And it goes throughout the Left.
Over the past million years or so, CO2 and temperature correlate pretty well.
When you can produce Fred Flintstone’s and Betty Rubble’s records (they had a thing going, y’know), be sure and let us know.
CO2-caused warming IS detrimental to human society, but will not kill off our species.
And here you support all that claptrap that says in a dozen years the icebergs will melt and flood the world, but now you say it won’t.
You’ve got too many voices.
“Correlates well over the last million yrs.â€. And over the last 500 million or so, it doesn’t. “How deep does the conspiracy goâ€? Who said it was a conspiracy? No doubt it’s just a common interest in collecting a pay check. And notice you don’t deny the adjusting, but rather wonder who’s in charge of the adjusting. But the best for last- “CO2 warming is detrimental to human societyâ€. Not quite true in the fact that if you were right, any “warming†would be detrimental to human society, not just CO2 warming, as nature doesn’t know or care how the warming is generated. But that’s beside the point, because there’s no evidence it’s detrimental.
The only facts that matter:
None of the doom and gloom predictions made over the last few decades have not happened.
If the ‘experts’ understood how the climate works and everything that drives it, the models would be accurate. As it is, NONE of them are.
Elwood is forever upset that the Global Communism hasn’t started yet because he as nothing to lose and everything to gain from watching all of his friends and neighbors get their private possessions, wealth and freedom knocked down and taken from them so they are all equally poor.
Then Elwood might be happy.
But for now, everyone who has made better life decisions than Elwood, is the target of his unhinged calls for socialism to fix our weather.
Here’s something that Elwood, nor any other AGW proponent can answer:
What phenomena would falsify the theory of AGW??
They never answer that because there isn’t one.