Some things, the saying goes, are too good to check.
Take the peer-reviewed paper “Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety” by Hannes Zacher and Cort W. Rudolph in Climatic Change.
To my NPR-listener readers, “inversely associated” means the more environmental knowledge you have, the less you worry about the environment. It also means the greater your ignorance of the environment, which is to say, the more you listen to NPR, the more you worry.
The paper begins by quoting logician Bertrand Russell, who, believe it or not, foresaw Twitter: “The degree of one’s emotions varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts, the less you know the hotter you get.”
Before we get to the results of that study, let’s first look at efforts to increase anxiety. This is from Eos (a political publication of the American Geophysical Union): “The Mental Toll of Climate Change“.
Now it would seem impossible for there to be a “mental toll” caused by “climate change”, for the simple and true reason that the climate has not changed by much, or in any unusual way, and it has been this way for a very long time. This implies that if there has been, in any person, a “mental toll” because it was announced the modeled global average temperature has gone up a fraction of a degree, the cause must be hersteria (there is no misspelling), or something like it.
And that hersteria, or whatever it is, is surely brought about by propaganda, incessant idiotic ignorant propaganda. Let’s test that hypothesis. Quoting:
Our physical health can suffer in many ways from the effects of climate change. The most obvious are cases of mortality. In July 2018, an unprecedented heat wave in Japan killed more than a thousand people; researchers later showed that the event could not have happened without climate change [Imada et al., 2019].
You have to love the understatement of those first two sentences. Anyway, it is false, and absurd, to say that a heat wave could not have happened without “climate change.” That kind of statement can only be the result of stupidity or propaganda. You pick. The article referred to is “The First Undeniable Climate Change Deaths“.
Undeniable is that which cannot be denied. Propositions which cannot be denied are few in number, and do not include sketchy claims about causes of heat waves. Especially claims produced by “attribution” studies—the vast over-certainties of which I have written about elsewhere (here and here).
The original trauma article continues with the woman writer using the It’s Going To Happen So It Is Happening Fallacy, pace: “As the climate continues to change, the frequency and intensity of acute events such as wildfires and hurricanes are predicted to increase.” So, she implies, the people lining up outside therapists’ offices are traumatized (her word) by this prediction, believing the events they see now are those which might someday happen.
If you can follow that, you, too, can work for a “news” firm.
“Changes in temperature and weather patterns can trigger a sense of uncertainty, said” a female therapist. It’s hard to imagine how, unless those who are “triggered” have been prepped to assume the worst. Proof of that is our final example:
The third broad category of climate change–induced mental health impacts is often characterized as lingering and unshakable concern, worry, or anger. Those feelings—sometimes referred to collectively as climate anxiety—are brought on by an awareness that the environment is, perhaps indelibly, changing.
This is the scientific equivalent of the lady’s horror Lifetime film genre (we did this years ago), which always have the husband running off or the Other Woman intruding. For whatever reason, many women (and weak men) seem to enjoy excessive worrying. Which, if it wasn’t for voting, would not be of special interest.
Back to the paper we started with. They asked some 2,000 people thirty five questions like “Which of the following phenomena has been the main cause of global warming over the last 20 years?”
They also asked thirteen Lifetime-horror-movie questions like “I find myself crying because of climate change.”
Crying because of climate change.
Conclusion? “Results showed that, even after controlling for demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and environmental attitudes, overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge were negatively related to climate change anxiety”.
They even had a wee p-value!
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Briggs- that first quote. You seem to be implying that the writer means all heatwaves could not occur without climate change. I think they meant that specific heat wave in Japan at that time.
Plan,
Yes, you’re right. I didn’t mean to give that impression. I meant to say they were foolish for saying any individual event, including this one, could not have happened without “climate change.”
Yes, but did they establish a causal link? xD
Nailed it! Briggs seldom disappoints!
@Plantagenet, just wanted to say hello my cousin.
Also, wasn’t there talk amongst our ruling “experts” that we needed to carry the Rona panic over into the GoreBull Warming panic? Seems there is a term for when they tell you what they are going to do to you before they actually do so. Alighting methane or some such thing…. ?
WW
Yes in fact the the title of Schwab’s book in June of 2020 was “Covid 19
The Great Reset” which followed his 2019 Fall production of ‘Event 201’
which coincidentally coincided with the ‘accidental escape’ of the Covid 19 bio-weapon
followed by the WHO MRNA vaccine carefully prepared to combat it. All is well the book
carefully connected the same measures to combat Covid 19 with his proposed measures
to combat ‘climate change’. All pure coincidence of course nothing to see here, the predominant
message; bio-weapon Covid 19 was an ‘accidental release’ from a P-4 US funded lab in China working
to protect your health and safety. Stay asleep.
I have a solid understanding of climate history, and a basic clue about how climate works. I often wish my climate-hysteric acquaintances shared my knowledge so they’d calm down and stop voting for climate-cult politicians. But they don’t want knowledge. NPR tells them what to think; that’s all they need.
Hmmmm!!
ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD” – Electroverse
https://electroverse.info/climate-scientist-breaks-ranks
God bless, C-Marie
I read the study this morning and recommended it on my blog as one of 20 climate and energy articles I enjoyed this morning. But during the day I realized I had no idea about how they judged “environmental knowledge”. There was a survey used for about 2,000 German adults with jobs (no children or retired folks). But access to the survey was not free. So I never saw it. It’s possible what they call “environmental knowledge” is what I call environmental baloney.
So I left the following note on my blog, deleting my recommendation:
“Deleted because the survey used to determine environmental knowledge was not available to me for free. The survey could include false claims of “knowledge”. I read the study. The conclusion makes sense. But I later realized I don’t have access to backup data needed to verify the conclusion.
So my recommendation is withdrawn. Sorry. Ye Editor.
A study of local climate reconstructions fr the past 10,000 years makes it obvious the current climate is the BEST climate for humans and animals in 5,000 years (since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended 5,000 years ago) … and today’s climate is also the BEST climate for C3 plants in millions of years.
Therefore, we should be CELEBRATING the current climate. We are living in a mild warming trend during an interglacial period — the climate of our planet does not get much better than this for humans and animals.
The people who fear the future climate are people susceptible to government brainwashing on the climate, and every other subject. It probably does not matter how much they “know” about the environment.
Knowledge is based on data. We have knowledge of the present and past because we have data. There are no data for the future climate, or future anything else. So any prediction of the future climate is data-free speculation by people with a sorry track record for predictions (aka human beings).
The prediction (speculation) is for rapid, dangerous, manmade global warming in the future. The specifics “consensus” numbers (the ECS of CO2 range) were guessed in the 1979 Charney Report. The prediction has been wrong since 1979.
Rapid, dangerous manmade global warming (aka CAGW) has NEVER happened on Earth. Therefore, no data exist on that subject from our climate history. That’s why I say the prediction of rapid, dangerous, manmade global warming is merely data free speculation based on a guess of the long tem (400 year) effects of CO2 emissions. Climate astrology is data-free — real climate science requires data.
There are no data to support guesses of the global average temperature in 400 or more years. And there has been only ONE accurate long term climate prediction in world history, made by me in 1997:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.”
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Ye Editor
http://www.HonestClimateScience.Blogspot.com
Pingback: The greatest threat to the U.S.A is the horrible, U.S.A. hating people that represent us | vulture of critique
BRIGGS YOU FOOL!
You are forgetting to consider the impact that stupid people worrying about climate change has on knowledgable people that don’t worry about climate change!
The stupids fill the knowledgable with anxiety over their sheer stupidity and the stupids have power to make stupid things happen whilst the knowledgable don’t.
Therefore climate change has a 2nd degree adverse impact on the knowledgable. That’s two whole degrees of measurement! Double! There is no escape from the queendom of the hersterics!
All any interested climate watchers have/had to do was review the available data over the millennia …. simply put, periodically fluctuations occur naturally within our Sun’s cycles.