Posted on 07/09/2008 7:35:59 AM PDT by Babu
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".
"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."
Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.
The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.
So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?
Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I wonder how they will treat the disease in McCain?
I also wonder if he will push to have this added to the GOP Platform.
Personally I think it’s about time... when are they going to start treating the presidential candidates?
btt
Oh NOOOO!!
This will now be listed with the American with Disabilities Act as a legal disability and we will have to suffer these fools or be open for lawsuits for discrimination!!!
D*mn lawyers will have a field day with this now...
They are scaring people to death. Just try to talk to someone about it. They are almost panicked stricken over it.
They don’t understand why I am not. So sad.
Has he seen Manbearpig?
....leading to many more being eligible to collect SSI.
Yep! Also, the Docs and Shrinks rejoice! Yet another billable disorder comes into the world to join the ranks of such money makers as “Post Electoral Depression Syndrome.”
A simple prescription: tell the stupid twit to watch less television.
Uh... I would say Hansen is the first case. Algore is the second.
Bump for after work.
Climate Change Delusion
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of “climate change delusion” - and they haven’t even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children’s Hospital say this delusion was a “previously unreported phenomenon”.
“A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events.”
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
“The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies.”
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What’s scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this “climate change delusion”, too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: “If we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd’s guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: “Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . .”
Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd’s next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this — and must — but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.
Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide — the gas they think is heating the world to hell.
The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they’re even planning to tax farting cows, so there’s no end to the ways you can be stung.
Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and — hey presto — the world’s temperature will then fall, just like it’s actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.
But you’ll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd’s mad plan — one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.
The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases by 2030.
Indeed, so fast are the world’s emissions growing — by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants — that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That’s how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.
And that’s why Rudd’s claim that we’ll be ruined if we don’t cut Australia’s gases is a lie. To be blunt.
Ask Rudd’s guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same — especially China and India: “Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels.”
So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.
A year ago China released its own global warming strategy — its own Garnaut report — which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.
Said Ma Kai, head of China’s powerful State Council: “China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments . . . our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth.”
In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: “It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China’s energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high.”
Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.
The plan’s authors, the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.
“It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people.”
The plan’s only real promise was in fact a threat: “India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries.”
Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won’t stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that’s a promise to gas the world like it’s never been gassed before.
So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?
Well, no. What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why.
Their conclusion? They couldn’t actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: “No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.”
In fact, they couldn’t find much change in the climate at all.
Yes, India’s surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: “The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . .”
It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: “While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.”
Nor was that the only sign that India’s Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.
For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won’t even discuss it.
The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed “and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories”.
Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.
In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions — delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they’ll instead drive broke.
And there’s that delusion on which their whole plan is built — that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.
So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?
Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
Join Andrew on blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt
Junk Science of the Century:
The DDT ban
http://www.junkscience.com/jan00/century.htm
By Steven Milloy
Copyright 2000 Junkscience.com
January 1, 2000
I’ve scrupulously avoided the list-itis that plagues editors at the end of the year. But an editorial in today’s’ Detroit News spurred me to make one end-of-the-century selection. The Detroit News commented,”Rachel Carson, a media icon for her book Silent Spring, which led to a ban on the pesticide DDT, is making many ‘Persons of the Century’ lists this week. Unspoken in these tributes, however, is that mosquito-borne malaria is actually one of the few diseases on the rise at the dawn of the new millennium - in large part due to the Carson-inspired ban on DDT.”
For my money, the attack on DDT, from Carson’s Silent Spring to the ban by the Environmental Protection Agency, is the mother of all junk science and, therefore, “junk science of the 20th century.” Here are a few reasons why. More info on DDT can be found in “100 Things You Should Know About DDT.”
A committee of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1970, “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT... Indeed, it is estimated that, in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable.”
DDT was not banned because there was evidence it harmed wildlife or humans. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency administrative law judge who listened to 9,000 pages of testimony over seven months concluded, “”DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
Despite the findings of the EPA judge, EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. His aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckleshaus was a member and fundraiser for the Environmental Defense Fund — a group who — according to a deposition in a federal lawsuit — conspired to discredit the scientists who defended DDT.
But it gets even more sinister.
Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.”
DDT should be hailed as one of the greatest achievements in public health. Instead, unscrupulous activists have made it the poster child for the environmental apocalypse.
Let’s hope that in the 21st century our society comes to realize that genocide by junk science is no different than genocide by the gas chamber.
“.. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.
“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”
“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”
“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emmanuel - MIT
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2042332/posts?page=16#16
The graph Rush is talking about can be found here:
Global Warming:
Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?
A demonstration of why climate models produce too much global warming:
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008
(The following is a simplified version of a paper entitled “Chaotic Radiative Forcing,
Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity” I submitted on
June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.)
[snip]
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm
The above is linked from his web site here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Global Warming and Nature’s Thermostat
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
NEW! Posted June 28, 2008
A demonstration of why climate models produce too much global warming:
Has the Holy Grail of Climate Sensitivity Been Found?
Here’s his new book:
“Climate Confusion”
(released March, 2008, by Encounter Books)
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
(who, by the way, has never been funded by Exxon-Mobil)
[scroll down to see first page of each chapter]
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Confusion-by-Roy-Spencer.htm
** now available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble **
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195938841&sr=1-1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
