Is there nothing Global Cooling Warming Climate Change Disruption cannot do?
From depression to substance abuse to suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, growing bodies of research in the relatively new field of psychology of global warming suggest that climate change will take a pretty heavy toll on the human psyche as storms become more destructive and droughts more prolonged. For your everyday environmentalist, the emotional stress suffered by a rapidly changing Earth can result in some pretty substantial anxieties. […]
Lise Van Susteren, a forensic psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. — and co-author of the National Wildlife Federation’s report — calls this emotional reaction “pre-traumatic stress disorder,” a term she coined to describe the mental anguish that results from preparing for the worst, before it actually happens.
“It’s an intense preoccupation with thoughts we cannot get out of our minds,” Van Susteren says. And for some, it’s a preoccupation that extends well outside of the office. “Everyday irritations as parents and spouses have their place, they’re legitimate,” she says. “But when you’re talking about thousands of years of impacts and species, giving a shit about whether you’re going to get the right soccer equipment or whether you forgot something at school is pretty tough.”
Poor dears, bless their hearts.
h/t The College Fix
What a load of loads. The biggest psychological trauma being suffered over Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Weirdening is among the alarmists because skepticism just refuses to curl up and die when they tell it to.
Apparently Big Oil has been sending agents around to all of the measuring stations to pile ice over the thermometers for the last 17 years, and the eeeeevil skeptics have been drawing power from this deceptive conspiracy.
The “Grist” link didn’t seem to work, but the link at the College Fix to Grist does, I hope.
sdferr
That was weird … I believe I fixed it now.
This would seem to be the perfect place to deploy the word “phobia” with the emphasis on the irrational modifier to “fear.” I, however, will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
They are out of their minds. The problem is that they are spoiled children who aren’t getting their way so they invent elaborate explanations for their temper tantrums.
“The field of the psychology of climate change is still very, very young . . .”, quoting ” psychosocial researcher and consultant Renee Lertzman” there.
The “field” of the psychology of climate change, we might say more appropriately, is no field at all to the extent that currently there is no such thing as a verifiable climate change toward one relative temperature stability or another — though there are plenty of inadequate computer models — i.e., “fictions” — upon which or to which these delusional people attach themselves.
So there may be a potential (or even extant!) field of research inherent in a study of a mass delusion of climate change, but then that potential field can surely be unified with researches into any human mass delusion, such as the verity of certain religious cults or political movements, say.
Care to study German National Socialism, anyone? Raelianism?
Call this what it is: Neuroticism.
Preparing for a crisis that you rightly or wrongly anticipate is a DISORDER now? Seriously? Is there even a discipline hiding in that field anymore? It looks like slops pool.
There is no sane, only different flavors of crazy which are somewhere on a spectrum of popularity.
What we may have here might be termed a “pre-stressed-concrete blockhead” disorder, characterized by “answers first, questions aligned with answers later”.
N.B., the solution the the “problem” is to take immediate action to halt man-made climate change. However for those who fear and prepare for an economic meltdown because our government insists on printing money and devaluing everything we own in the process, the solution is to “shut up. You’re just conservative wingnuts.”
IPCC says world should have ‘zero emissions’ by 2100
So, are environmentalists prone to anxiety? Or do you suppose a certain type of anxious personality is drawn to environmentalism?
“Not the way yer oughta’ be” disorder is out of control. Everyone needs to be treated.
-Dead solid perfect, Ernst.
-As I get older, achieving zero emissions is more doable.
http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot&play=true
Zero emissions by 2100 = no humans alive on the planet by 2100.
I imagine we’re not counting the animals and volcanoes.
Well, when I read “world should have zero emissions” I damn sure understand that to mean animals and volcanoes as well. So obviously, we need to destroy the earth to save it.
I agree that is what I read, but the climate weirdos never mention volcanoes as emitting more “carbon” than any human activity ever did, so I assume they only consider emissions to be bad when humans are directly or indirectly involved (e.g. cow farts).
I should have said, “I agree that is what I understood it to mean.”
cranky
IIRC, the Icelandic volcano is currently spewing 35,000 tons of sulfur dioxide a day.
If the greens want to do anything about that, how about they all gather together and try plugging the volcano with their bodies?
proggtarded -Pre-traumatic stress disorder-
Cancel the Midterms
“Cancel the Midterms”
That there is worthy of further study after the election.
We know why they say things like this and agitate against the electoral system during presidential years.
They hate republicanism. They want mob rule. What they want is something base and ugly.
What they might find is a base and ugly result. Want mob rule? Really? Really? What, with all your soft post grads manning the barricades? Really? Really?
Let’s imagine the two guys who wrote that horseshit living in the world they’re advocating for: DAVID SCHANZER and JAY SULLIVAN.
These are not men who thrive in the world of direct democracy that they ostensibly demand. They are soft and weak men who want the hordes to do their bidding.
If either of them can change a tire or re-shingle a roof I’d be shocked. But what they call for is something far more, let’s just say challenging for such soft men.
I suppose I mean to say that I have your state of nature right here, you soft little twats.
Your lot in life will be to be sold off as sex slaves to gay men in Thailand. If they doubt it, it’s only because they have no idea about the nature of man. They just have their precious, little ideology. Good luck with that.
they be living the big edu bubble thanks to Griggs v. Duke Power Co.. someone’s going to certify.
I’d ask if that was too far but it simply isn’t. Soft and weak men like DAVID SCHANZER and JAY SULLIVAN have no ability to live in a world stripped of its institutions and mores. They are the last people in the world who should ever rationally call for such measures. Only the supermen should call for such things and even they don’t understand how often they’re killed quite violently every few years.
These are men who should be cloistered with similar men and occasionally jerk each other off during the lulls between high holy days.
Too far? Can’t be. I have far more bile still in reserve for these sorts.
so flood big edu with fed gov’t money and control hiring
The spiders are up to something.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/4-acre-spider-web-engulfs-building/
Just like that time in Australia:
http://io9.com/5891091/massive-spiderwebs-engulf-australian-town-as-arachnids-escape-floods
And in Pakistan before that…
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/sets/72157626301656975/with/5571181942/
The only reason the people of the left can survive given their proclivities is that there are enough people on the right who actually do the things that keep civilization together and functioning. Once they get their wish and stop us from doing that, they will find that their lives are worth significantly less than they believe.
Or, what bh said.
OT: MeTV is airing a 1964 episode of “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” with guest stars Werner Klemperer (Col. Clink), William Shatner, and Leonard Nimoy.
Shatner and Nimoy are on opposite sides of the conflict. Hilarious.
> Once they get their wish and stop us from doing that<
my wish is to turn off the fed gov't spigots to the proggtards. good defense is an offense or sumthing. orangeman dreams i'm sure.
>Shatner and Nimoy are on opposite sides of the conflict. <
yea that was last night's star trek with shatner as an android
Steven Hayward over at Powerline linked a piece on the neo-Malthusians in charge. It’s no wonder those sorts are twisted out of shape, insofar as they choose to contemplate all the people their beliefs require them to do away with.
Just finished watching Ice Age Continental Drift (tired of football) and I must say that climate change is obviously quite traumatic for all those extinct species like Joy Behard and Queen Latifa. Why Ray Romano put up with them all is beyond me. But he’s extinct too now.
>insofar as they choose to contemplate all the people their beliefs require them to do away with.<
allan ackbar says hi!
yea that was last night’s star trek with shatner as an android
SUCH a lame episode. Again with the logic/emotion dichotomy. Again with the lady android developing feelings despite her programming.
Roddenberry never aged past 15, the dork.
I should occasionally make a post about such things but I don’t really want to create a separation between friends. Much like our friend, Bob Belvedere, possibly a fake name ( jokes are fun), I think that as conservatives we should everywhere and always puncture the strange balloon of ideology.
But then people don’t jump onboard with this and I’m perplexed. Conservatives aren’t ideologues. Well, I’m not. But I sometimes wonder about the dearth of attaboys when our mutual friend Bob (his avatar looks like Roy Orbison) mentions this.
Perhaps I could pose this another way. Isn’t conservatism a disposition or set of dispositions rather than an ideology?
It’s a thing that confuses me from time to time when I read comments and sometimes even posts here.
This is entirely off-topic, of course.
Perhaps I pose this anther way, when you find yourself with what seems to be a unique circumstance do you reach for principle or historical example first?
(Okay, fine, this should probably be a post rather than a series of comments but, c’mon, let’s face it, this would be a fairly terrible post.)
(And, quite possibly, an equally terrible couple comments!)
Here I’m going to offer a thought. Liberalism doesn’t always equal conservatism in that only where liberalism has become reliable and steadfast has it become a conservative more or custom.
But, much of the Enlightenment has not given up this fruit and thus we find this schism. What are proper liberal principles are not yet finding conservative reactions.
It’s what I’m seeing from time to time anyways.
I will write another overly long comment. I will. Any second now.
Someone stop me.
Principle, but learned from historical examples — of which there are many and often pointing in the same direction, but also often pointing in contradictory directions. And much depends on whose description of the event is deemed “authoritative.”
So I take an overview and try to correct for unknowns and chronicler bias, and salt in some personal experience for flavor. Hence, principle.
Now, if I want to persuade someone else that my principles are worthy, I’ll certainly discuss the historical examples as support rather than go the progg route and say, “Well obviously it’s better to redistribute the wealth, what are you, a Scrooge!?”
BH, FYI…
-‘Bob Belvedere’ is a nom de plume. I use it because I work for a state government up here in the Northeast and would be fired [Manager, employee-at-will] if my views were known. It was my stage name when I was an active musician [I owned a ’64 Plymouth Belvedere].
-The avatar is a picture of me taken in 1982 when I was posing for a local artist. She painted me ala Max Beckmann [http://www.artchive.com/artchive/b/beckmann/tuxedo.jpg]. Damn, I wish I had kept in contact with her so I could have eventually bought the painting – she was good, although the subject was no Venus.
Yes. As my favorite college professor observed, To a conservative, ideas aren’t good because they’re old, they’re old because they’re good.
He, by the way, never called himself a conservative — yet these days, his mere willingness to understand why conservatives prefer the proved, would brand him a heretic.
As a general observation, one not directed towards any in the PW commentariat, maybe that’s because some conservatives get quite ideological about how non-ideological conservatives are. Also, I think you have to then come to terms with the fact that the founders were quite ideological. Therefore, insisting that conservatism is anti-ideological undermines fusionism (i.e. classical liberalism allied to traditional conservatism).
John Locke: conservative? Nah, doesn’t look it, really. Destutt de Tracy, a Lockean, a French Lockean, a republican, invents ideology. Hmmm.
When one holds “truths” to be “self-evident,” there is a hint there, n’est-ce pas?
But then again, a valid historical example of a successful idea isn’t annihilated by the idea’s having been proposed by an ideologue, or as part of an ideology, is it? What works, works.
There may be a better hint in a self-evident half-truth.
BH wrote: Perhaps I pose this anther way, when you find yourself with what seems to be a unique circumstance do you reach for principle or historical example first?
I like what Patrick Henry had to say:
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past….
My Father puts it somewhat less eloquently: Why reinvent the wheel?
I, like, McGehee approach it thusly:
Common Sense and Right Reason being used there.
An Ideologue, I like to say, develops his System Of Ideas in the sterile laboratory of his mind, far away from Reality, from Life as it is. He then tries to impose his System on others without allowing for a deviation, so enamored has he become with this ‘perfect’ System. Obviously, if others don’t like it or won’t follow it, the fault is within them. [Perhaps the word should be spelled ‘enamoured’, so it stresses the love involved.]
If I state that a Truth is self-evident, the next question is: how did it become self-evident?
The answer may be found in The Declaration [emphasis mine]:
Certain Truths are self-evident to me because I believe in a Creator, what John Adams called: ‘Great Legislator of the Universe’.
One need not necessarily be an Ideologue to believe that there are Truths that are self-evident. The non-Ideologue’s way of getting to that belief, however, is based on Faith in a Just God, not on some System Of Ideas devised by Man, who is imperfect [and who some of us believe is ‘Fallen’], who can never devise a plan for achieving Perfection.
In the sight of God, all of Mankind is equal. The Founders believed that in His eyes Man has the Right To Life, the Right to Liberty, and the Right To Pursue Happiness [aka: Free Will, if you will].
Perhaps I should also – for the sake of making my position clear – offer again this quote from Russell Kirk, which I agree with fully:
You can fine the ten principles here.
It looks like faith in a just God is no more than another system of ideas (and aren’t there an abundance of them!?), albeit a commonplace system of ideas attributable to lots and lots of human made Gods, is the trouble. Justice, a demand for justice or the need for justice for human beings looks like a constant requirement — and yet, as such, perhaps merely another in a long list of tautological tough nuts.
Let me also throw in some Edmund Burke:
And…
Both quotes taken from Reflections On The Revolution In France
Rights may be inherent by virtue of being Created in God’s image, and the inclination toward virtue may even be inborn, but it takes only the first shiver of cold, the first pang of hunger, the first jolt of fear, to overprint the World on these traits.
Thus no Man is born civilized, nor free to live virtuously, but must be taught in these things, that the voice of God may be heard, if it speaks.
Men consent to being governed, but only acquiesce to being tyrannized.
calls this emotional reaction “pre-traumatic stress disorder,”
Usually known as “batshit crazy”.
AKA the hysteria of a mob.
Cheers, guys. I really enjoyed the discussion. Truth be told what we found is how pw is still a grand place to bat ideas back and forth.
Seriously, cheers. Well done.
To put my cards on the table here I very much like hearing from Burke, Kirk and Belvedere. This is the manner in which I’m conservative. This is the thing we’re referencing when we say conservative. Not this amorphous blob of idealogy that’s so often run through with German horseshit.
Hot damn! Because here we find a bit of truth that we cling to as civilized men. There is little to be found from those sorts speaking for God. I say this, it’s a sin to speak for God. It’s blasphemy. What you might want to try is recognize your extremely low, fallen state. It’s not so much judge not lest ye be judged but more that we’re insects under-foot.
You can add Oakeschott to your list BH
It’s more that I didn’t correctly acknowledge him on the first pass. He’s already there. I’m just this dummy being all dumb and stuff.
Well of course your a dummy, if you were smart, you wouldn’t be a slave to tradition, would you? You could dream of things that never were and ask “why not?”
Ha! Good times.
proggtard/jew hating video news
Rice Mocks Israeli Ambassador: ‘He’s Too Busy Travelling to Sheldon Adelson’s Events’
Hey, bh, if you’re still around, do have any thoughts on whether a minimum wage that would automatically increase as with the cost of living would be inflationary or not?
By definition it would be.
Okay, longer answer. What you find with this sort of thing is what we call wage stickiness. What’ll happen is not immediate. What’ll happen fairly quickly is a number of these jobs will stop existing. If nothing mediates this (fast food robots increasing efficiency faster than the amortized cost) then prices must increase (or portion sizes will hide this inflation or other such methods) If after all of that plays out (increased unemployment, robot cooks, etc) prices will necessarily increase.
Tanstaafl. There aint no such thing as a free lunch.
True everywhere and always.
>a minimum wage that would automatically increase as with the cost of living would be inflationary or not?<
yea let the ruining class run the show.
If I was paid for this we’d run a series of data runs with different base measures along a modified Phillips curve. It’d give us a reasonable range but couldn’t ever really tell us how individual employers might respond.
Perhaps there’s a bit of technology out there right now that I’m unaware of that could do more than a basic POS system does now as I understand them. That’s why this is a bit of fools game.
What might very well happen is that we would increase our structural unemployment once again. That I feel safe in prognosticating.
>If I was paid for this <
the caveat
Don’t hector your fellow man, nr. It’s a vice. An unattractive one.
“Tanstaafl. There aint no such thing as a free lunch.”
Yeah but on the other hand, there are such things as turn pikes, dangeld, graft to pass, rent seeking, beak wetting, squaring things with gate keepers, solidifying connections, and shakedowns.
Right you are, palaeo. And you correctly place this into an appropriate category.
This is about goosing union pay.
Sadly, it’s likely to pass tomorrow.
Because poor working mothers struggling to make ends meet.
The chamber of commerce is tainted by the ruining class, no?
There’s been next to no opposition to this thing.
I didn’t express something as clearly as I should:
This is about goosing union pay forever.
There is this state just a bit east of you that is pretty darn beautiful you know.
It’s not like you’d have to jump any barbwire.
Howsabout just once we get an influx of good folks like the Schreiber peoples into the state along the western counties? Why can’t this happen?
There are just as many little lakes and bits of woods here. It’s pretty much the exact same bit of land with you guys, Wisco, and Michigan.
I’d probably be a total failure with the tourism board. “Hey, dude, just move already. We got trees and shit too.”
No state income tax.
(At least not until the minimum wage reaches $20/hr and they have to find a way to pay all those damn state employees.)
And if I have to live in a banana republic, (which it seems we all do) I for damn sure want to live in a Republican banana republic.
Damn it if I don’t enjoy the hell out of these exchanges.. I’m not kidding.
This is about as close as I have to college football rivalries now. Good times.
I’m very fond of Northern Wisconsin. Just as I am of Northern Minnesota and Michigan’s Upper Penninsula.
It’s all the toothless banjo-pickers looking at me like I was a fresh shoat that I can’t stand.
When toothless banjo-pickers are declared vermin, and can be shot on sight, I might consider relocating.
“And if I have to live in a banana republic, (which it seems we all do) I for damn sure want to live in a Republican banana republic.”
I think the republicans will gladly sell you to a leftist banana republic once they see a bid they like. It’s Frists all the way down. Or worse.
Well played, sir.
It was what the kids call a laugh out loud. Sometimes expressed as lol.
What’s funny about this is how when you live in a real state you sorta shrug off your kid brother giving you a hard time because he’s sorta a loser and it’s just awkward at Thanksgiving to give him a hard time about this sort of thing.
I’m not saying this. That’s just an example of a joke that maybe a big brother might say to his tiny little pipsqueak brother when he made a funny almost by accident.
’round here, we don’t call ’em Frists. We call them Thunes.
Likely by this time tomorrow, we can call ’em Roundses too.
Which is to say that they’re only conservative as they need to be. Our job is to make certain that they need to be more conservative if they want to keep on in their phoney-baloney jobs.
Part of that is going to have to be a devolution of power so their phoney baloney jobs aren’t worth hanging on to until after rigor breaks.
And doesn’t that seem to be the goal these day?