Posted on 01/14/2019 12:35:19 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
There are many areas of science and medicine that stimulate reasonable differences of opinion and even controversy. What exactly is dark matter made of? Whose cut-offs for normal blood pressure are the best ones to follow? Is psychoanalytic psychotherapy an evidence-based treatment?
But there are also many points that are clear and not subject to legitimate debate. We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon that is already apparent and will, if not mitigated, cause terrible suffering and destruction before this century is over.
That a few misguided politicians believe climate change predictions are exaggerated or even fabricated is lamentable. But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public.
Organizations like Climate Psychiatry Alliance and Climate Psychology Alliance have been formed not only to point out the severe consequences of climate change for emotional and behavioral health but also to lend expertise in determining how best to overcome climate change denial. For these and similar organizations, climate change denial constitutes an emergency that demands immediate attention. We need urgent attention to developing and implementing the best practices for overcoming public despair and inaction and increasing the motivation to demand large-scale climate change mitigation action.
(Excerpt) Read more at psychologytoday.com ...
> We can affirm without doubt ...
Fortunately science (which I’m sure the author cares deeply about) has developed over the last few hundred years with a number of practices broadly called “the scientific method”. Part of this is testing and predicting. So the author should be able to list all of the predictions that have come to pass
* ice-free arctic
* decline of polar bear population
* snow-free north west and ski slopes shutting down all over
* magnitude of temperature increase relative to CO2 presented to congress by Hansen in the 1980s (magnitude, not just direction, is critical since magnitude, not direction is what will kill us)
Those are few of the public predictions (which activist scientists didn’t argue with at the time). If you want to change my mind, list the predictions that have been shown to be accurate - that’s how science can be trusted. There are plenty of less public predictions too (e.g. distribution of water vapor in the troposphere, heat hiding in the oceans, etc). If this is about science, tell us the scientific results. And if there is “no doubt”, there should be a lot of predictions that have been accurate. But the author doesn’t seems to care about science.
You aren’t going to debunk it, because like it or not the fundamental reality is true...
Yes, CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas.. and yes, combustion, by humans is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.
The fundamental theory, that more CO2 will cause more greenhouse effect is solid. This is very demonstrable, and repeatable.
The problem comes in when you attempt to quantify the effect... and when you do that, you don’t get the doom and gloom scenarios, or really anything close to them.
The reality is, there is indeed a threshold at which our atmosphere would indeed hit a runaway CO2 cascade effect and wind up like VENUS.. but the reality is, that level is so far beyond anything that we are looking at that its comical. We are not on the verge of some worldwide collapse of life because of CO2 emissions.
The problem is the chicken littles are flat out lying and overselling this, for political purposes... The science, real science, does not back up their hyperbole.
“The fact is that many people born this year will not survive global warming if it continues at the current pace and exceeds 3.50C by 2050.”
reminds me of predictions from another climate change sage:
“On 14 December 2009, during a speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Gore cited newer research from the same group: These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
We can NOT affirm without a doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon.
On what basis would a psychologist make such a wild statement? The science of climate change is far from settled.
No you cannot. Because anthropogenic climate change is absolute nonsense with no basis in fact! It is a liberal myth morphed into a political agenda. Man has no impact on climate. The determining factor of climate change is and always has been solar activity, not man.
The article's authors are projecting their climate fantasies on those who engage in rational thought and reject those fantasies as without merit. The authors are prime examples of overly educated professionals who delude themselves into believing their narrow professional accomplishments extend their expertise to all fields of research.
I note that the article's authors do not call their fantasy "global warming" but "climate change". By that small change of phrase they are also deniers. But more to the point, I am heartily sick and tired of this propaganda catchphrase of "climate change deniers". It's akin to calling someone who thoroughly chews his food while dining in a restaurant as a "public masticator".
What the country needs is an accurate appellation for those of the authors' ilk. I suggest "climate pimps".
Sara Gorman, Ph.D., MPH, and Jack M. Gorman, MD
Scary thing is these two Look Normal.
But their thinking is deadly dangerous.
I love how they can cite things without any facts. I suppose facts are not necessary when getting a degree in a fake non-science.
Facing the reality of climate change is terrifying.
Why, New York and Miami are under 2 feet of water, the polar ice caps have melted, half the human population on earth has starved to death and we have completely depleted the supply of fossil fuels. Total disaster looms.
What do you mean that hasn’t happened?? It was all predicted, certainly by 2015. ——Nope.
Well, it must all be a CROCK of SH!T!
Except it is these 2 communism evil deniers who are ignoring that warming has always preceded carbon release locked in the ice otherwise.
Apparently I and everyone I know needs treatment.
Will psychologists investigate the mass hysteria formerly known as global warming, and now as climate change?
What drives people to abandon their own critical thinking and join a cult?
What causes people to hate others just because they don’t hold the same views? Lack of self confidence? feelings of inadequacy?
Ad what point people subjugate their id to a person of seemingly higher will?
Will you succumb to peer pressure?
These are the questions the psychologists should be asking, not the garbage that was posted.
Tom Cruise is as much an expert on psychiatry as a psychiatrist is on "climate change".
Yes, CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas.. and yes, combustion, by humans is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.
True, but it is very minor compared to water vapor (the biggest determinant of warming) and methane, a secondary cause greater than CO2.
The fundamental theory, that more CO2 will cause more greenhouse effect is solid. This is very demonstrable, and repeatable.
In theory true, but it is overshadowed and very minor compared to warming by other causes (mainly solar radiation). In fact, the historic record (from ice core samples) shows CO2 concentration increases lag temperature increases by several hundred years.
The problem comes in when you attempt to quantify the effect... and when you do that, you don’t get the doom and gloom scenarios, or really anything close to them.
Very true. The doomsday models very much exaggerate the effect and provide the proponents of government control of economy, lifestyle, wealth redistribution, etc. with their excuse to legislate controls on all of the above.
The reality is, there is indeed a threshold at which our atmosphere would indeed hit a runaway CO2 cascade effect and wind up like VENUS.. but the reality is, that level is so far beyond anything that we are looking at that its comical. We are not on the verge of some worldwide collapse of life because of CO2 emissions.
Also true; in prehistoric times CO2 was much higher and the collapse of life resulting in the demise of the dinosaurs was likely due to a meteor strike while other atmospheric/solar changes likely have reduced the CO2 concentration to approximately what it is today.
The problem is the chicken littles are flat out lying and overselling this, for political purposes... The science, real science, does not back up their hyperbole.
Indeed, so true and so sad.
The general ignorance of today’s society is mind boggling.
It’s water vapor, not CO2 molecules.
“Liberals want to muzzle us for dissenting via the criminal practices of Soviet psychiatry.”
Has worked so well on race and social issues, they now turn to climate taxes.
Climate changes by its very definition. It does not stay the same. It has been that way since the beginning of time. The notion that the climate has been the same since the dawn of man and now is changing because of man, is a bridge to far.
And exactly who gets to decide what the climate should be rather than what it is changing to? Who gets to stop the earth from spinning and pinpoint what the climate should always be from then on?
What I don't agree with is this arrogant notion that humans can actually do something to change the climate against the overwhelming forces of Mother Nature. The eruption of just one volcano changes the entire dynamic in an instant.
It is for this reason that I believe that the global warming or climate change movement or whatever they are calling it this year, is a scheme or ruse, not to prevent the climate from changing, but to enable them to change the economic and political systems of the world.
From the entrepreneurial, free-enterprise capitalist system to the elitist-controlled totalitarian socialist and communist systems.
Put me down firmly as a deplorable and a denier.
A real phenomenom
No prediction of the future is a real phenomenom. All predictions of the future have a probability and a confience level in that probability.
The Climate model set the probability of a Clinton President at 80% or 90% and a confidence in those numbers of 70%. The same type of model predicts the probability of Climate Change
There is probability A of a 1 Celsius increase in 50 years. There is a probability B of a 5 Celsius increase in 50 years.
There is also a probability C of a 5 Celsius dcrease in 50 years.
When we read things like “real phenomenom” we know we are not dealing with real scientists. We are dealing with religious prophets.
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.