How Academic Psychology Affects Brains Of Academic Psychologists Studying How Climate Change Affects Brains

It isn't pretty

Yesterday I made the claim that academic psychology contained vastly more "banality, ephemera, and outright enforced mandatory quackery than real psychology." This was proved by a paper written by a gaggle of females in the field seeking to stuff even more silliness into it in the name of the god Equality.

Today we have a new proof in an article in Psychology Today, coincidentally also written by a female, on "How Climate Change Affects Our Brains". Has the provocative questioning subtitle, "Did you know that climate change impacts our nervous systems?"

I answer: no, I did not know. Because it is an absurd claim, and no one not addled by years of irrational fretting over carbon dioxide, the literally Hitler of molecules, would think to make it. Do the people "migrating" from Ohio to Florida in winter become mentally enfeebled?

Now I don't want you to think I am picking only on this woman. It's that her article helps make an important point on how Experts stick together, how they reinforce each other's errors, how these errors are perpetuated and strengthened. On how the coalescence of Expert theories combine to make it appear evidence is stronger than warranted.

Our lady's article begins with a full five paragraph of feelz, which we can skip. After, she describes a section of the Bosphorus that was last summer covered with an algal bloom. Then this:

Some of these algal blooms, for example, are known to produce neurotoxins, which accumulate in fish and other seafood and can cause neurological damage, such as amnesia, epilepsy, parkinsonian- and dementia-like symptoms, in humans who consume the contaminated fish and water. These toxins have even been shown to cross the placenta and accumulate in the amniotic fluid disrupting neurodevelopment in fetuses.

Sounds nasty. Should we worry? Let's do the quote again with only the important words:

Some...are known...and can cause...in humans who consume...have even been shown. Maybe, might, could, possibly, who knows, if.

Maybe, might, could, possibly, who knows, if.

There's more:

Similarly, long-term exposure to air pollution and fine inhalable particles, known as PM 2.5, have been strongly linked to increased risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s. Most recently, researchers have found an association between extreme heat waves and worsening symptoms of mood or anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, schizophrenia, and suicide risk.

That's enough with the maybes. Here's the kicker:

These are just some of the ways we know climate change can cause harm to our brains. But, there is still so much we don’t know about, mostly because our brains are very adaptable and can mask the harm done for many years.

You will have noticed that she accepts, without proof and with no doubts or qualifications, that all the things that might be bad for brains are going to grow worse under "climate change."

Now there have been in the last few decades demonstration after demonstration showing that things are not only not growing worse with the climate, but better. At the least, there has been nothing that has occurred, or is likely to occur, that cannot be mitigated.

Maybe because the propaganda has been incessant, that it isn't recalled global warming mania started in the mid 1980s. I was in the Air Force at the time and wrote one the authors of the first IPCC report. He mailed me a copy in Japan.

It has been thirty-five years of academic Chicken Littleing. It was a brilliant move in the 2000s---I don't know who gets credit---to switch from global warming to climate change. Because the earth’s climate will never---this is a hard never, dear reader---stop changing. Meaning there will always be a "reason" for activism.

Our lady tries this same gimmick to justify eternal psychological vigilance: "our brains are very adaptable and can mask the harm done for many years", she says.

Just because you haven't found it after many years searching doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, she means. It's there.

The reinforcement in Expert ideas is present. She has accepted blindly global warming Experts; she has believed their most awesome predictions.

She is an authority, an Expert. Not in global warming, but it takes some kind of brains to become a professional psychologist. Regular folk reason it isn't crazy to believe that shes knows more things about this global warming business than I do. There must be something to it.

Her favor will be returned by a genuine global warming Expert. That Expert will point to her work and say, "Here is why we need to fear climate change. It will cause dramatic increases in the screaming willies. Your brains will melt from poisonous algae."

The same reasoning will be used to accept his words about hers. It will appear, and it will be true, these top minds all believe the same things.

Well, and shouldn't it be like that? Don't we want our top minds all believing what "the" science shows? Yes, but only when accounting for the massive uncertainties in the theories. Each Expert takes the others' theories and treats them as certain, or near enough. This causes everybody to take them as certain or near certain.

Add to that a culture that dissuades Expert-on-Expert criticism, and the result is massive over-certainty and the hardening and promulgation of error.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Visit me at wmbriggs.com.