Global Warming: When The Pseudo-Science Fails, Send In The Psychologists

Alternative title: Send in the Psycho-babblers.

The so called “science” of global warming is increasingly being revealed for the straw man it always has been (see my articles: “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming“, and “What You Never Hear About Global Warming“, as examples). Yet the more evidence that discredits the theory of anthropogenic global warming, the more hysterical its proponents become.

NASA nutjob James Hansen, (who used to be a leading proponent of “global cooling,” by the way) is a classic example of the WAY over-the-top hysteria:

The global warming debate, a top NASA scientist says, is over. Now, he adds, the issue has turned urgent.

“We have reached a critical point,” NASA scientist James Hansen said Tuesday in an interview. “If we don’t get on a different path within the next several years, then we’re going to pass tipping points in the climate system with large consequences that will be felt especially by our children and grandchildren.”

The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen was in St. Paul with Arctic explorer Will Steger to participate in several forums Monday at the Science Museum of Minnesota. He was one of the first scientists to issue warnings about global warming more than two decades ago.

Already, the Earth’s surface temperature is 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was a century ago. Many climate scientists predict it will rise many more degrees in the next century, melting glaciers, raising sea levels and leading to other ecological changes.

So here we are: an incredibly weak scientific case for what amounts to an enormously costly socialistic redistribution program, and global warming advocates becoming increasingly over-the-top in their rhetoric. What comes next?

Dennis Prager has said that he majored in Soviet studies to learn how the other side thought. And he has said that his studies of Soviet totalitarian communism revealed numerous parallels with the mindset of the American liberal.

So how did the Soviets deal with their dissidents?

They put them in gulags and treated them as mentally ill.

Well, in the global warming debate, enter the white-coated psychobabblers.

A frankly incredible article begins as follows:

Psychologists determine what it means to think ‘green’

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
Those who make human behavior their business aim to make living “green” your business.

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

“We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,” says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. “We know what messages will work and what will not.”

During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources.

Now, you might dismiss these statements, “We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do.” You might even ridicule them (Remember KAOS villain Siegfried from Get Smart? In one show he said to a pigeon, “Fly UP!” And when the bird sat there he leaned over and said, “So, you will not fly. We have ways of making you fly. Do you have any relatives in the park?“). But when white-coated “professionals” – who literally have the power to have people committed, take such a radical stand about an issue completely outside of their field and come to such conclusions about people who don’t happen to believe in global warming, it should be alarming.

If that isn’t freaky enough, one passage in the middle of the article reads:

• News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people’s beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

His presentation will detail a decade of American attitudes about climate change. His new experiment, conducted in May, illustrates what he says is a public misperception about global warming. He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort.

In other words, just a relative few seconds’ worth of skeptical treatment opposing the doctrine of man-caused global warming sufficiently innoculated viewers such that well under half continued to buy the garbage they were being fed.

This is beyond disturbing. The long-politically correct American Psychological Association has essentially determined that only the mentally ill don’t accept man-caused global warming, and that any exposure to alternative views increases the “sickness.”

This is right out of Stalinism. Even worse, it’s right out of 1984 with “Big Brother” controlling the not only the lives but the very thoughts of everyone. The essence of totalitarianism is megalomania: the need to have absolute control over everyone and everything. And anyone who came to think differently from the official doctrine of Big Brother was subjected to “treatment” until he was capable of believing that “two and two made five.”

Lev Trotsky wrote in Literature and Revolution:

“The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training … Man will make it his goal…to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will.”

And in its article on “the new Soviet man,” Wikipedia says:

The three major changes postulated to be indispensable for the building of the communist society were economical and political changes, accompanied with the changes in the human personality.

The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy’s prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.

Author and philosopher Bernard Byhovsky, Ph.D. writes: “The new man is endowed, first of all, with a new ethical outlook.”

Among the major traits of a new Soviet man was selfless collectivism.

Thus the parallels between the aims of the American Psychological Association (the concept of the “construction of the new man” angle becomes quite clear in the article) and the aims of the “new Soviet man” become clear. And the logical implications between the potential tactics of global warming alarmists and the historical tacts of the gulags become clear as well.

These people are genuinely scary. All they lack to transform society in a terrifying way is the power to fully implement their ideas.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Global Warming: When The Pseudo-Science Fails, Send In The Psychologists”

  1. Anne Cox Says:

    Let the psycho-babblers talk themselves in a very deep hole.
    Climate change is the norm. Climate change is fact. Global warming just describes the fact. Although after a long wet summer the ‘average’ non scientific UK resident wonders why the word ‘warming’ is used!

    Semantics matter not. Change is happening. We all need to DO something and stop trying to apportion blame. Is it the US or China, mother nature or God? It couldn’t be us!

    I have been aware of Climate Change since 1980 and have adjusted my life style. Having been born just after WW2 I was bought up with the need to ‘salvage’. Everything was passed on, mended or just used till it could no longer be mended. Even food waste was collected to feed pigs. This was only 60 years ago. A blink of the eye in geologic time. When you can’t have much whether you are poor on not, you adapt. We can adapt again if we stop arguing! Birds and animals are adapting. Perhaps they have more of a will to survive than supposedly intelligent Human beings.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Anne,
    You get it. Climate cycles are as natural as the planet we’re standing on. The planet goes through warming periods and cooling periods. Get over it.

    The claim that man is causing global warming needs to deal with the fact that “Greenland” was called Greenland for a reason. The actual science is crystal clear: myriad studies from all over the world show that the earth has warmed and cooled quite apart from human actions.

    “Global warming alarmists” are hysterically demanding that people in the wealthy West radically change their lives and redistribute wealth to the poorer developing world to stop something we never started and couldn’t stop if we tried.

    Moderate global changes are a fact of life. As you say, deal with it. There is no reason not to believe that human beings have more than enough ingenuity to adapt. Global warming is actually a GOOD thing, for the most part; it’s the ice ages that are tough!!!

  3. Todd Says:

    Nobody can be 100% certain whether or not humans are partly to blame so we need to keep an open mind and take an economically sound approach to the issue folks.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Todd,
    You’re right. Given our limited, finite, fallen human natures, we can’t be “100% certain” of much of anything in this world.

    And I would never disagree with someone arguing that we need to keep an open mind and take economically sound approaches.

    Having said that: 1) the best scientific evidence available supports climatic cycles of approximately 1,500 years, and that our climate has mechanism to deal with excess carbon dioxide (realize that the overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide – over 97% – is natural and not man caused). And 2) the cost to radically transition to non-fossil forms of energy would be catastrophic to our economy and in fact hurt the poorest Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: