http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".
"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."
"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."
Well I won't take the obvious tack on this story. But it truly concerns me what we're doing to our children. We have an almost continuous onslaught of Doomday stories, commercials, and leadership blasting our children. You have our children bombarded by people making apocalyptic predictions.
"Professor Ross Garnaut: "Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . ."
Is it any wonder that we're starting to see this kind of thing. I still remember that absolute fear I had as a kid about the Killer Bees that were on their way from South America and were going to overrun us and sting us all to death. Well thankfully they have decided to hold off on wiping out whole towns.
So what do you think is this no big deal or do we have to worry that we're going to start seeing more and more people debilitated by the abject fear of "Global Warming"?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
We have to teach our children to educate themselves. The internet offers a huge variety of sources, we are past the days when we had to trust the news presenters.
Not one professional scientific organization worldwide disputes IPCC reports. Not even the Petroleum Geologists Assn. So how can it be "propaganda"?
You're so concerned about the fear generated in some kids re: global warming. Yet you apparently have no concern for an entire generation and the kind of world they will live in as a result of global warming. Just deny it. Call it propaganda, while you have no leg to stand on except a failing political ideology.
"Yet you apparently have no concern for an entire generation and the kind of world they will live in as a result of global warming."
You and many seem to think that because I don't have you views and question the science and the policies that are being enacted that I have absolutely no regard for my kids and grandkids welfare is astounding to me. You seem to have this attitude towards anyone who dares question you and Gore are somehow uncaring and selfish. I however think that you and others have taken such a rigid view that have become incapable of looking at any opposing material and opinions without dismissing them out of hand. I don't think the subject can even be discussed by some without devolving into name calling.
When they are members of groups funded by fossil fuel industries, have a history of denying science re: tobacco and cancer/heart disease, and are signatories to "petitions" that have been exposed as fraudulent - then, absolutely, they deserve to be undercut.
But it is very funny that you don't even acknowledge that of every professional scientific organization in the world, not one disputes IPCC. Not one. I imagine you may even think that these organizations have never heard of the "opposing material" you refer to. No, you try to move the arguement to Gore and me, and completely ignore every professional scientific organization in the world. And you accuse me of being "rigid". Now, if you can name even one professional scientific organization, which disputes IPCC, then you might have something. Until then, you have no credibility on this issue.
Charles: "You and many seem to think that because I don't have you views and question the science and the policies that are being enacted that I have absolutely no regard for my kids and grandkids welfare is astounding to me."
Well, then be astounded. You ignore the massive scientific opinion re: this issue, demonstrated by the fact that no professional scientific organization in the world disputes IPCC. Why do you ignore that in favor of political ideology? Yes, I do assert that you are more concerned with your politics than with the consequences for future generations. I hope at some point you will come to your senses. Even Exxon has thrown in the towel on this one.
Exxon Mobil greens up its act
Hell even the co?-founder of The Weather Channel questions Global warming. There are so many who haven't taken "oil" money who questions the science. But nobody questions the ethics of those who get grant money.
Like I've said before right now for many "Green" is a great way to make "Green" money and it doesn't have to mean you believe or agree with it. Do you deny that there are some who are only doing it for the money. And I include the massive amounts of grant money in that criticism. Somehow we've reached this "purity" quota when it come to the issue of "global warming" and if your "purity" rating isn't "high" enough, well then there's no way that your science can be accurate because you're impure.
So I guess when I see and read how data has been wrong how it's been exaggerated "to raise awareness" and other things. When the models cannot account for all the variables in the climate, I question it. When models have historic data entered and do not show the climate change as it actually happened, I question it. When weather forecast models(I know weather is not climate) cannot predict with ANY accuracy a week or two or a month out, but we're suppose to accept that somehow these scientist with their climate models have somehow figured out how to be so accurate that they cannot be questioned. Well again I question.
But I guess I just don't care at all. I mean why whould I question anything that is going to have major consequences to myself (opps I'm selfish again) my kids and my grandkids.
This question is as absurd as your position. If you had even one ounce of objectivity, you'd see the absurdity of this question. How much compelling evidence do you suppose it takes for a professional scientific organization to take a position on an issue - not to mention every professional scientific organization in the world.
Charles: "Hell even the co?-founder of The Weather Channel questions Global warming."
Yeah, he's one of the political hacks, who hasn't been associated with TWC for over 20 years. Now, what's the position of TWC? Maybe you should watch "Forecast Earth" for a clue.
Charles: "But nobody questions the ethics of those who get grant money."
Always very funny when politically and profit motivated people accuse scientists of being politically and profit motivated. You sure have the talking points down. Actually, corporate America has moved very far from your position, so don't look to them to accuse scientists of a political or profit motive.
Charles: "...right now for many "Green" is a great way to make "Green" money and it doesn't have to mean you believe or agree with it. Do you deny that there are some who are only doing it for the money."
Corporations have mixed motives, including, but not limited to profits. "Green is green" is a theme that Amory Lovins and Paul Hawken have been writing about for some time, e.g., Natural Capitalism, showing how corporations can dramatically increase profits by instituting conservation practices. Waste is waste. But I tell you - keep attacking the predominant scientific view. You do me a great favor by doing so.
Charles: "So I guess when I see and read how data has been wrong...."
You should check your sources. Stay away from organizations describing themselves as "free market institutes," like Heartland and Fraser, or "think tanks" like CATO and AEI. Try reading sources that really are science based. You might even try looking up major corporations, and see what they say about it. Of course, you ignore that even Exxon, the former financier of the talking points you echo, no longer finances organizations like CATO or AEI.
Charles: "...we're suppose to accept that somehow these scientist with their climate models have somehow figured out how to be so accurate that they cannot be questioned."
Science constantly questions itself. If you knew anything about the scientific method, you'd know that. The FACT that every major scientific organization in the world lines up on this issue is tesitmony to how compelling the evidence is. Politically motivated "contrarians" like you will "question", but your "questioning" is baseless. You have no leg to stand on.
Charles: "I guess I just don't care at all. I mean why whould I question anything that is going to have major consequences to myself (opps I'm selfish again) my kids and my grandkids."
I don't know if you're selfish. I do know you're an intransigent ideologue. Your political view is apparently more important to you than the well-being of future generations. Yep - the shoe fits, Charles, so wear it.
Finally, you know all those fires in Californa? Last year, during last year's mega-fires, 60 Minutes interviewed the federal fire chief. Here's a short segment:
"You know, there are a lot of people who don't believe in climate change," Pelley remarks.
"You won't find them on the fire line in the American West anymore," Tom Boatner says. "'Cause we've had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we're seeing, and we're dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought that's different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes."
''Meteorologist Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism 'Can Corrupt Anybody'
Cullen adversary argues he knows only one broadcast meteorologist who is 'on the global warming bandwagon.'"
Source: "Business and Media Institute: Advancing the Culture of Free Enterprise in America
__________
You can't be serious, comparing this to a scientific organization, much less all scientific organizations. What a joke!!!!!!!!!
Here, try this one.
Climate Change:
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
Thanks for posting about this. Debilitating fear is a terrible thing. I remember days of thinking nothing but gloom and doom after "The Day After" aired.
I do think we're seeing more of this. Teen suicide rates are rising, and part of that is surely attributable to the gloomy picture of the future shown by the media. I wish I could just say "make it go away", but it still needs to be there -- because our political leadership, and our media, is still not making the connection between the future being shown and our current policies. McCain, while in front of the GOP on this issue, still advocates only a 50% cut in emissions by 2050; Obama has to be watched to ensure he doesn't commit more gaffs like his initial support for liquified coal as a solution to energy security. Even the news media still segregates environmental news -- statements by the Saudi oil minister that OPEC might increase production are universally reported in the economic sections as good news, even though it's bad news for the future.
We do need balance. Some global warming is inevitable -- there's a lag of 30-50 years between carbon emissions and the full environmental impact we see from them -- but we have to believe that if we change our habits now, the future will be livable. I see from your other articles that you're not going to be readily swayed by arguments about the reality of global warming, so I won't argue -- with you -- about that -- but I do agree that a universally gloomy picture of the future can be harmful; and if it is presented as the way the future WILL be, it engenders fatalism, which in this case will probably be fatal.
True enough. Of course, the IPCC Report doesn't present this fatalism. It presents a range of possibilities. "Contrarians" often exploit this range of possibilities as evidence of the uncertainty surrounding global warming. However, it is clear from the report that the primary "uncertainty" is mankind's response to the emerging, potential catastrophe. Unfortunately, very little has been done as of the present to avert a catastrophe. Fortunately, that is changing, and the next administration - hopefully democratic - will get behind an 80% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which scientists say we need in order to avert the worst consequences of global warming.