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

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.

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.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here; Or go to PayPal directly. For Zelle, use my email.

Categories: Statistics

18 replies »

  1. Conflict of interest: I was a (not terribly) successful academic psychologist for 23 years – and I agree with what you say; only the problem is completely general to all the sciences of which I am aware. The problem is indifference to the truth, which translates as saying and doing whatever leads to the best prospect of career security and success.

    The way an academic psychologist thinks about this problem is to notice that that the powers-that-(should-not-) be will fund and appreciate anything which draws some kind of surface-plausible link between climate change and mental illness.

    The expertise required is not scientific – which must be focused on truth – but a kind of technical-rhetorical – the ability to use currently fashionable *psychological* pseudo-knowledge (pseudo, because itself indifferent to truth) to construct causal chains between two (or, in the case of the elite, more than two) pre-decided pseudo-facts.

    Other Experts are encouraged (by career incentives) to do the same thing for other types of jargon from many other specialties – zoology, botany, archaeology, history, economics, law, politics and so on. Same pseudo-facts, but a different technical-rhetorical jargon being used to ‘link’ them.

    That’s pretty much the entirety of professional, funded research in a nutshell. i.e. a bureaucratic activity – in which truth-seeking is strongly discouraged, and ‘truth’ is itself an embarrassing (or dangerous, or dirty) word.

  2. About the only thing left that it is Kosher to lambaste without restraint is Catholic Christianity; almost certainly because those gallant apostles took with them a nasty “climate change” that fried the brains of a “noble savagery” that made them pristine, almost brutes, into artists, scholars, and generous souls willing to deny their base ambitions for an abstract and altruistic, transcendent, good and true.

    I’d better stop now or my comment will exceed the length of the Briggsian article.

  3. But…But the science is settled. Or should I write The “SCIENCE” is settled?

    If this is so then we do not have to spend one dollar more on research. Stop it all – NOW. Spend the money on helping those who are suffering from vexxine injuries. Spend some in taking Fauci and his mates to court. Spend some in retiring some useless Experts, doctors, medical researchers, Judges. Spend some training uni grads to THINK.
    I could go on but my anger is playing havoc with my spelling.

  4. Dunno Briggs — you have any math to prove this? Can I build a bridge using these plans? If I make a circuit with this diagram do the lights turn on? Does your formula cure headaches? Only a fool trusts experts, and doubly so an expert on experts.

  5. Experts do what they’re paid to do create non-problems that grab headlines,
    research dollars, and maximize insecurity and anxiety in the general population.
    The latter being the most most important aspect for the government who can’t
    deceive a well educated, historically literate, secure, self assured, and competent
    population. Deception and fear is the throughput of government whose rank and file
    is generally comprised of the least competent dimwits of society and a leadership that is
    perpetually the the most venial psychopathy elements of a society. The entire system
    runs on anxiety and insecurity and produces learned helplessness in the host population.
    Their operant task consists of whipping up one crisis after the next and filling the headlines
    with a constant stream of fear porn. And I say host because it is an entirely parasitic relationship
    that has been perpetuated for millennia with no end in sight. They can create a war at the drop of
    a hat but the covid gambit is the crown jewel of the empire that will produce fear on demand

  6. You know it’s true: Climate Change –> academic psychology –> algal blooms –> neurotoxins –> badfeelz.

    Start with the truism that much of men’s blathering is interior reality projected outward in metaphoric disguise. “Climate Change”, a threat caused by man, is sin in disguise. Sin makes men stupid and crazy, manifesting in various organized forms such as “academic psychology”, which is the poisonous “algal bloom” in our projecting metaphor, that produces “neurotoxins” — toxic psychobabble — that makes men sick (badfeelz).

    The truth is hiding in plain sight if you know how to read stupid-crazy.

    Hagfish Campbell Jung Aquinas.

  7. Dr K.A. Rodgers queries:
    What would be an appropriate collective noun for Experts? Any suggestions?

    Expertium (attaching the -ium- suffix from Consortium)
    [Expertium] \EkspUHRt?-?m,-sh?-?m\
    Ex: The international academic expertium seemingly acts in lockstep.
    ~ diacritical (pronunciation marks) inside the \\ (reversed virgules) will probably not transmit ~ we will see ~

  8. People occasionally ask for a short explanation of why catastrophic CO2 warming does not exist. What follows is one way to explain without being technical:

    1) Environmental temperatures (mostly ocean which cover 70% of earth) precede carbon dioxide increases and not the other way around.
    ( Additional info – Nearly all climatology papers demonstrate this and it can be measured on a short term basis of a few months. Al Gore separated the changing temperatures and CO2 amounts in the graph he presented in his scary movie to hide this inconvenient fact.)

    2) Most of the carbon dioxide increases are natural, not man-made. Even the IPCC states this in their reports.

    3) The tiny increases in CO2 are so small that any increase in the earth’s temperature is difficult, if not impossible, to detect. NASA even says so (see cloud climatology computer models):

    4) Any CO2 warming increases, if they exist, are so small (about 0.6 to 1 watt per sq. meter) that it is impossible to detect because it is buried in noise.
    (Additional info – The Noon day sun is 1000 watts per sq. meter and the human body emits 60 to 100 watts per sq. meter. CO2 warming, if it exists, is the equivalent of a little AA battery discharging over a few hours. Little batteries that turn on televisions do not create hurricanes or tornadoes. CO2 warming is so small it is like adding a few extra people to the Rose Bowl stadium filled with 80 to 100 thousand people.)

    5) It is water vapor, not CO2 that keeps the earth warm. There is always more water vapor absorbing at more wavelengths of outgoing IR radiation than CO2 does.

    6) The claim that CO2 is a climate control knob because water vapor condenses out over a few days (while CO2 does not) is not correct. The inconvenient fact is that there is always more water vapor (even at the poles) than CO2 even after it condenses out. Water vapor warming always overwhelms CO2 warming.

    7) Real scientists do not use political propaganda. The people who propagate climate propaganda are not scientists (or experts), they are politicians practicing climate propaganda.

    8) Catastrophic CO2 warming displays all six symptoms of pathological science, as described by Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir:

    9) Climate Change came and went with Al Gore’s inconvenient movie. Nobody cares. See Google trends:,Climate%20change

    10) Lastly, The Grandfather of climate practitioners, James Hansen of NASA GISS, can’t get his physics equations for global warming correct, even after it is pointed out. See Eq. 7 in his 1984 paper.

    It sometimes helps to be able to fill in any additional information at the moment while explaining, but a second choice is to send people with questions to be answered here:
    A set of good fundamental discussions on global warming are here:

  9. In the here and now, many urban centers are chock-a-block with mentally psychotic, homeless, and often self-medicating, drug-abusing street urchins. Perhaps these psychologists could turn their attention to this human tragedy and misery that’s in front of their eyes, instead of speculating about the future effects on the brain due to global warming/climate change. That might try taking their own advice to ‘live in the present’ and deal with the present–not some year 2100 scenario.

    Besides, didn’t we all die from acid rain in the ’80s…

  10. Is there any point in investigating good things climate change might maybe possibly somehow ,do to our brains, along with the might maybe possibly bad somehow things?

    Oops. Wrong question.

    Is there any funding for investigating good things climate change might maybe possibly somehow ,do to our brains, along with the might maybe possibly bad somehow things?

    Oops. Not enough of the right question.

    Is there any funding for investigating good things climate change might maybe possibly somehow ,do to our brains, along with the might maybe possibly bad somehow things, and will it earn you the right academic accolades and cocktail party invitations?

    Time for another wrong question again:

    Suppose all those might maybe somehow sort of possible bad things were all real. Even in that case, was this an article on how climate change affects our brains? No. It was an article intended to frighten people with bad things while giving no attention to good things.

    For a fine, parallel demonstration of equally responsible scientific reporting, do a web search for dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). Awful, terribly, scary stuff. Run away! Run away!

  11. Clearly a debilitating brain disease, fatheadedness, is epidemic, but it’s incorrect to blame the weather because fatheadedness is out of control in all climate zones, especially on the insulated Island of Academia

  12. What about a rafter or raffle of experts? Rafter or raffle is the collective noun for a bunch of turkeys.

    Let me explain, (just for fun).
    When I was a cheeky little urchin (I’m still cheeky, still little, still urchin, almost 70 years later) a grandmother and one of Mum’s friends used to keep turkeys. The gobblers (male birds) would strut around their enclosure (ivory tower) grunting and displaying their feathers and wattles until they were stimulated by loud noise (like a little 4 yo boy shouting) (or an official press release) and they’d erupt into a chorus of “gobble, gobble, gobble” then relapse into grunting and strutting.

    I hope I’m not the only one who can appreciate the similarity between the two types of turkeys.

    (If I was to create the collective noun for either type of turkey it would be a gobble of turkeys and a gobble of experts).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.