People in leftist coastal enclaves going insane over global warming


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

According to this very strange article put out by Kaiser Health and also published by People, there is anecdotal evidence that the mental health of people in the coastal Democratic enclaves of Washington, California, and New York is becoming damaged because of a fear of global warming.

The article reveals several facts. First, the understanding of science in Kaiser’s public relations department is abysmal. The article is generally junk, culling together a variety of anecdotes from various liberal news sources (television, HBO, one therapist, two psychiatrists, and some unreliable polls) to push its point. Meanwhile, it buries in a single sentence the one fundamental fact that makes everything else in the article scientifically invalid:

There is no epidemiological data yet to show how common distress or anxiety related to climate change is.

Sadly this kind of bad new reporting has become very typical in the mainstream press.

Second, the article illustrates the insane, close-minded mindset of these coastal liberal communities. The article quotes one psychiatrist in New York who recommends the following for those emotionally distressed by a fear of global warming:

Dr. Janet Lewis, a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester in New York, recommends building relationships within a like-minded group. That could involve group therapy, environmental activist groups or online communities. [emphasis mine]

Rather than propose the individual try to learn more about the subject, to find out about the many uncertainties that exist within the climate field that make their fears overstated, professor Lewis instead suggests they put their head in the sand, to hide within a bubble of “like-minded” people, all of whom think and feel the same. If anything this will only exacerbate their fears.

Third, the simple-mindedness of everyone involved, the therapist, the psychiatrists, the patients, and the reporter, all of whom seem to reside within these coastal Democratic enclaves, suggest that it will be very difficult to change their minds. They are not interested in new knowledge. What they want instead is a confirmation of their shallow beliefs, and an opportunity to continually express their “feelings” about these beliefs.

For Laura, becoming involved with the international activist group Extinction Rebellion has helped her build a network of people who share her values and made her feel as if she’s making a positive contribution to society. With the group, she has participated in nonviolent protests and is organizing the Atlanta chapter’s first grief circle, where people can share their anxiety and grief about the destruction of the Earth.

Rather than get educated, they form “grief circles” where they can bemoan together the evilness of those destroying the planet.

Finally, this article demonstrates that the violence and hate by these liberal enclaves against any dissent is not going to ease in the coming years. If anything, it is going to get significantly worse. They cannot tolerate opposing views. It distresses them too much.

Share

8 comments

  • Diane Wilson

    A simple test to find out whether a person can discuss climate rationally: “What are the benefits of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”

  • Cotour

    Oh, the worst among them that are true believers absolutely are wringing their hands driving themselves nuts in their frustration and helplessness that everyone who does not believe as they do is creating through their inaction.

    I would ask this one question to demonstrate that they may be going a bit over board.

    Q: Why are insurance companies still writing insurance policies (Other than Federal flood policies) for these coastal communities through out the country?

    Why are there developments continuing in these areas? Why are the property values in these coastal communities increasing in value and not falling?

  • Edward

    Since these feelings of distress and anxiety are due to the UN’s climate report, we can see some negative effects of bad science. Some people state that they do not want to bring children into a world with warmer whether, but a decade ago, one Argentine couple killed themselves, one of their children, and tried to kill their baby over global warming fears.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html

    People assume that the UN’s report is scientific, but it is political, and the political nature of the report gives me distress and anxiety, because it is the abuse of science to misuse it as a political tool.

    Those oceans do seem to be delaying their inevitable, deadly, drown-the-coastal-cities rise. When was that supposed to start?

    Robert wrote: “They are not interested in new knowledge.

    If they were, then they would have done a real study in order to obtain some of that “epidemiological data” that they lack. Instead, they seem to think that anecdotal evidence and feelings are all that they need in order to be a journalist.

    Did they ask any skeptics about their feelings of distress or anxiety? No. That would not contribute to a mass hysteria.

    Are you in a mass hysteria bubble?
    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/how-to-know-youre-in-a-mass-hysteria-bubble/
    Global warming is one such hysteria bubble:
    1) The trigger event for cognitive dissonance: Al Gore’s 2006 movie.
    2) The ridiculousness of it all: We have been recovering from a Little Ice Age, which began with temperatures that were higher than today’s.
    3) The confirmation bias: no matter what happens, it is proof of global warming (less snow or more snow, both are proof).
    4) The oversized reaction: government must control our lives in order to prevent the oceans from drowning entire cities.
    5) The “insult without support” argument: climate deniers deny that there is a climate to change.

    Rather than get educated, they form “grief circles” where they can bemoan together the evilness of those destroying the planet.

    Then again, these same uneducated people came to their “grief circles” in powered transportation, sit in a well-lit climate-controlled room, and will go home (in powered transport) to a home that also uses plenty of power and is full of stuff that was made and shipped using power. Who are the ones that do the things that are “destroying the planet?” They are, that’s who.

    Do they see themselves as the cause of their own problems? No. It is the climate deniers (those who deny that there is a climate to change) who are the problem, because if only the climate deniers stopped using power then the world would be a better place. Those who see the problem, such as Al Gore, get to use all the power that they want, because defining the problem is half of the solution, especially when government can be used in order to force (other) people to freeze in the dark.

    From the second article: “Small gestures, such as taking fewer airplane rides or buying local produce, can actually make a difference.

    I do the small gestures, too. Rather than flying all over the world in a private jet in order to giver a personal presentation about global warming and selling a bunch of carbon credits to gullible millionaires and billionaires, I stay home and read by LED light. Wow! I’m part of the solution to this non-problem, and I didn’t even know it. I may even be doing better than Laura from the article, because I don’t “feel” that I have to drive to some silly group therapy every week in order to “feel” like I’m “making a positive contribution to society.

    No wonder I think that I’m the smartest person in the world. There are so many who are below the median average in brain power.

  • wayne

    Professor Jordan Peterson- climate change & policy
    Cambridge Union excerpt
    https://youtu.be/pBbvehbomrY
    6:30

  • wayne

    F-16 Bill:
    Great link!

  • “What they want instead is a confirmation of their shallow beliefs, . . .”

    Did you mean ‘shadow beliefs’?

  • Blair: In this case “shallow” is exactly the word I wanted. These beliefs are based on a stunning level of ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *