Climate Change Hysterics Produced by Emotionally Unstable People! By James Reed
The Daily Sceptic.org, a go-to site for climate change critic material discussed a recent survey by the Leftist The Guardian, on the views of "leading" climate scientists, who throw together the UN reports, for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While they all are alarmist, some are more apocalyptic than others, with 77 per cent of these climate scientists expecting a rise of at least 2.5ºC by the end of the 21st century. If true, this would be significant, but it is nothing more than guess work. The 23 percent dissenting, could well be right.
The title of the article promised to discuss the idea that the members of the climate change cult were emotionally unstable. I do not think we know enough about the personal psychology of these academics to conclude that; it seems more like going with the herd for the reward system. What we do see are public figures like little princess Greta, who while she is probably sincere in her convictions, says some outright silly things, and is intensely emotional. But she is still young, so while she deserves criticism, maybe she might mellow as the years go by and she sees that her predictions of planetary doom by the so-called climate apocalypse, have not happened. It will be a case of when prophecy fails.
"The Guardian last week published its survey of 'climate experts'. The results are a predictable mush of fire-and-brimstone predictions and emotional incontinence. This stunt may have convinced those already aligned to the newspaper's ideological agenda to redouble their characteristically shrill rhetoric, but encouraging scientists to speculate and emote about the future of the planet looks like an act of political desperation, not scientific communication.
For the purposes of creating this story, the Guardian's Environment Editor Damian Carrington contacted 843 'lead authors' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports (IPCC) and 383 responded to his questions. The actual substance of the survey does not seem to have been published by the paper, but the main response Carrington wanted to get from his respondents was an estimate of how much global warming there will be by the end of the century. "World's top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5ºC target," claims one headline. A graphic in the article shows the responses:
The obvious problem this raises is that such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a 'scientific consensus' on climate change. The 'consensus' – the putative expression of agreement by the worlds 'top climate scientists' – is the lynchpin of the narrative, epitomised by the Guardian, that the climate debate is between scientists and denialists. "Seventy seven per cent of climate scientists expect a rise of at least 2.5ºC," explains the chart. Well, yeah, but 23% of climate scientists do not. And a good number of those connected to the IPCC believe that there will be just 1.5 degrees of warming – a third less warming than is anticipated by their colleagues at the other end of the spectrum. Clearly, there is, or needs to be, a debate.
This in turn raises the question of why this survey was necessary at all. The IPCC's main output is an Assessment Report (AR), of which six have so far been produced since 1990. Each AR consists of three main volumes, each produced by a Working Group (WG), whose focus is on assessing the available research on "the physical science" (WG1), impacts and vulnerabilities (WG2), and mitigation options (WG3). A Guardian opinion survey is hardly going to shed any light on science that these scientists, who authored the reports, have not already published. It would seem rather silly to ignore the thousands of pages of summaries of the state of scientific understanding that hundreds of scientists and other experts have compiled and substitute it with a DIY opinion poll.
Opinion isn't science. Even scientific opinion is not science. Yet Carrington seems to believe that tapping into the emotions of scientists is of greater value than reading their work. And all sorts of mush seems to have been unleashed by his project. "'I am starting to panic about my child's future': climate scientists wary of starting families," claims one headline based on the survey. According to the article, the victim of the panic is a Professor Lisa Schipper, whom Carrington describes as "an expert on climate vulnerability". Schipper's profile, however, reveals her actual occupation: "I am particularly interested in socio-cultural dimensions of vulnerability, including gender, culture and religion, as well as structural issues related to power, justice and equity." I'm smelling a rat here, and more than a whiff of humbug. Schipper is not a climate scientist at all, as Carrington seems to imply in both his headline and his article.
Another article – an interactive page on the Guardian website – claims: "We asked 380 top climate scientists what they felt about the future." The article quotes, among others, Lorraine Whitmarsh from the University of Bath, who tells Carrington:
[Climate change] is an existential threat to humanity and [lack of] political will and vested corporate interests are preventing us addressing it. I do worry about the future my children are inheriting.
But Whitmarsh is not a climate scientist either. According to her academic profile at Bath, She did a BA in Theology and Religious Studies with French at the University of Kent, graduating in 1997. She followed this with a Masters in 'Science, Culture and Communication', before completing a PhD in Psychology in 2005. Now Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), Whitmarsh researches "perceptions and behaviour in relation to climate change, energy and transport" and "regularly advises governmental and other organisations on low-carbon behaviour change and climate change communication".
I have discussed the nature of climate psychologists' work before in the Daily Sceptic. And of course, CAST is of that lofty academic milieu which wraps naked Stalinism in motherhood-and-apple-pie. "We want to work closely with people and organisations to achieve positive low-carbon futures — transforming the way we live our lives, and reconfiguring organisations and cities," says the group's website. What it doesn't have an answer to, however, is people who do not share CAST's radical ideology and do not want their lives, cities or organisations transformed or reconfigured by self-regarding shrinks – who are manifestly the ones in need of help.
There are of course a number of respondents with scientific backgrounds who have replied to Carrington. But these scientific credentials do not seem to have made those who own them any more rational. "Sometimes it is almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken," says climate scientist Ruth Cerezo-Mota, who at least appears to have a PhD in Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, "after all the flooding, fires, and droughts of the last three years worldwide, all related to climate change…"
But perhaps Cerezo-Mota forgot to read IPCC AR 6 in which her colleagues conclude that any detectable increase in floods and meteorological and hydrological droughts cannot be attributed with confidence to anthropogenic climate change. And perhaps she forgot that two decades of wildfire data in all regions of the world show significant declines.
I think it is probably for the best that such nervous wrecks do not reproduce. Their grasp on the data is particularly myopic. Despite their apparent belief that the climate crisis is upon us, life for children born in recent years is immeasurably better that of earlier generations. Rather than being dominated by the weather, today's children are not only far more likely to survive their fifth birthday, they are going to live longer, healthier, wealthier and safer lives than any generation before them.
That is, unless these crazy climate scientists get their way. Because they would strip away every last benefit of industry, capitalism, and freedom to 'save the planet', and deny those children the abundant and affordable resources that has created their historically unprecedented position.
It goes further than humbug. I sense very little data and science underpins their anti-natalism, but a great deal of ideology and manipulation. So how can we explain these scientists' views, if we don't believe that they emerge from science?
One answer might be that, for nearly 40 years now, green ideology has been poured into classrooms throughout the world, without any care for the consequences. It has largely bounced off most people. But several generations of children have now come up through this system into the adult world, through higher education. The institutions of climate and environmental science have increasingly become the centres to which unhinged individuals are drawn. Emotionally unstable people naturally seek reasons to explain their dysphoria and believing there is a crisis unfolding in the skies above their heads (rather than in them) is a way to explain their anxieties. After all, if you were not a climate loon, why would you volunteer your time to the IPCC? Gradually, rational views have been weeded out of these institutions.
I believe that is the implication of Carrington's series of Guardian articles and his survey. It shows that people with no scientific expertise to speak of are nonetheless routinely presented as 'scientists' and experts. It shows that even those with scientific expertise will happily and radically depart from both the consensus position and the objective data on both meteorological events and their societal impacts. And it shows they have no reluctance to use their own emotional distress as leverage to coerce others. Carrington thinks that showing us scientists' emotional troubles will convince us to share their anxiety. But all it shows is that it would be deeply foolish to defer to the authority of climate science. It's an unstable mess."
Comments