Perhaps then some of the problems of politicized science that are now so bedeviling us would disappear.]

The Psychologists of the APA, who insist that they are scientists, accept the premise and construct a 230 page report detailing ways in which the people are failing in their understanding of the risks of “Climate Change”, the necessity of the dissenters learning to accept the wisdom of those who know better than they do, and ways in which the public can be induced to accept the necessity of stringent measures to fight the menace.

pp 20)This report considers psychology’s contribution to understanding and responding to climate change by focusing on psychol...

read more»

Perhaps then some of the problems of politicized science that are now so bedeviling us would disappear.]

The Psychologists of the APA, who insist that they are scientists, accept the premise and construct a 230 page report detailing ways in which the people are failing in their understanding of the risks of “Climate Change”, the necessity of the dissenters learning to accept the wisdom of those who know better than they do, and ways in which the public can be induced to accept the necessity of stringent measures to fight the menace.

pp 20)This report considers psychology’s contribution to understanding and responding to climate change by focusing on psychological dimensions of climate change. [...] After a review of the literature, we recommend ways that the APA can: 1) Encourage psychologists to become involved in understanding human and psychological dimensions of global climate change; 2) Create effective outreach programs that assist the public in understanding of climate change, mitigating its human causes, and adapting to climate change impacts, and facilitate international, cross-disciplinary, trans-disciplinary collaborations that address a climate change; and 3) Address the organization’s environmental impacts that contribute to global climate change. [Emphasis mine-SW]

The report reads like a pseudo-scientific discussion. It imagines climate change to be a closed, ie complete, science, rather than a series of hypotheses for which evidence remains in short supply.

It is at this point that two things occur:

(pp 41) The perceived ability or inability to take corrective action is an important determinant of emotional reactions. Potential catastrophes from climate change (of the kind graphically depicted in the film “The Day after Tomorrow”) have the ability to raise visceral reactions to the risk (Leiserowitz, 2004). Climate change that is construed as rapid is more likely to be dreaded. Perceived behavioral control and its absence can both work a...

The report reads like a pseudo-scientific discussion. It imagines climate change to be a closed, ie complete, science, rather than a series of hypotheses for which evidence remains in short supply.

It is at this point that two things occur:

(pp 41) The perceived ability or inability to take corrective action is an important determinant of emotional reactions. Potential catastrophes from climate change (of the kind graphically depicted in the film “The Day after Tomorrow”) have the ability to raise visceral reactions to the risk (Leiserowitz, 2004). Climate change that is construed as rapid is more likely to be dreaded. Perceived behavioral control and its absence can both work against behavior change. That is, it fosters the (probably unwarranted) belief that one would move from the hazard zone, and thus need not fear the hazard. At the same time, when people believe that they have no control over climate change, it facilitates such mechanisms as denial (e.g., Gifford, Iglesias, & Casler, 2008).

First, “The Day after Tomorrow” was risible nonsense. It had absolutely no relationship to any science one could imagine. It did not work as Physics or as Climatology. By approvingly citing it as a way to raise “visceral reactions to the risk” it discredits the report as no more (and perhaps less) credible than movies claiming there are aliens in Area 51.

Second, it establishes that those of us who do not accept the received wisdom of Anthropogenic Climate Change (and whatever happened to Global Warming?) are exercising a primitive defense mechanism, denial. Brief episodes of denial are not diagnostic, but sustained denial suggests an impairment of reality testing. The APA has now established a baseline assumption that those who are in denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change are suffering from a psychological disorder that is reflected in their use of denial.

The report has an entire section devoted to explaining “Which Psychological Barriers Limit Climate Change Action?” (pps 123-132) Nowhere does the report include a recognition that the science of climatology is still in its infancy, that the global cooling for the last 10 years had not been predicted by any of the computer models, and that there may well be many more immediate problems that have a higher claim on our concern. No, to the APA, Anthropogenic Climate Change is a privileged “fact” which has become unquestionable.

ShrinkWrapped

A Psychoanalyst Attempts to Understand Our World

[url=http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=bc5d873da3944b887b5912dba164612b&url=http...

The report has an entire section devoted to explaining “Which Psychological Barriers Limit Climate Change Action?” (pps 123-132) Nowhere does the report include a recognition that the science of climatology is still in its infancy, that the global cooling for the last 10 years had not been predicted by any of the computer models, and that there may well be many more immediate problems that have a higher claim on our concern. No, to the APA, Anthropogenic Climate Change is a privileged “fact” which has become unquestionable.

ShrinkWrapped

A Psychoanalyst Attempts to Understand Our World

continue reading >>>>>