Making people anxious and depressed was the *deliberate* and well-understood intention of the green movement. Especially children.
Fact.
Here's a discussion I stole, way back in 2008, where a shrink discusses making people anxious for the planet.
Here's that discussion in context...
"...instead of using psychiatric insight and techniques to reduce excessive anxiety, shame, and guilt for global warming these emotions will need to be increased in the unconcerned."
"This kind of ‘help’ runs counter to our usual goal of not making people feel worse! But remember that at times we indeed try to make our patients more anxious or guilty when we want them to be more compliant. We just need to do this more strategically."
If you don't think that the 2008 video gives the context to the teens' anxiety, that their distress is owed to an ideological project, or at the very least that there is a case to answer here that such that anxiety has been weaponised, then I think you live in wilful ignorance.
The climate psychiatrist lays bare the "ethics" of climate change.
And in Greta and her peers, we see those ethics and that ideology that produced them, in motion.
Any shrink now claiming, 13 years later, "oh no, the kids are anxious" and demanding we take that anxiety at face value to do as they demand, is a dangerous liar, fraud, and ideologue, who should be struck off and never allowed to work in a clinical practice or research again.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whitmarsh believes that her research can help engineer social values, so that the government can elicit the public's obedience, rather than execute the public's wishes, as tested by democratic process. She was one of the four 'expert leads' that ran the UK Climate Assembly...
What Greenpeace's fake news department do is manufacture stories out of thin air, using the fact of their 'research' as a fig leaf for not having discovered anything.
But Greenpeace and others are zealots in the extreme.
They want to be able to claim that the IPCC reports are more conservative than the science they contain, because their politics depends on the most alarmist possible (or impossible) interpretation of facts.
Friends! Here is my new project, which I need some help with.
For the duration of COP26, I will be producing a daily livestream chat with guests -- #FLOP26 -- to give the other sides to the story being peddled in Glasgow and on most news media.
I have lots of excellent guests lined up, to speak about the history of the COP meetings, the UK political establishment's bizarre love affair with the green movement, #Climategate, eco-bureaucracies, the fatal flaws of #NetZero... From the science to the politics...
You can help support this daily, 1 hour livestream, by clicking on this link and making a donation, or going direct to paypal.com/paypalme/BenPi….
How we know that climate change is bullshit, even if it's real.
In this episode Gavin Schmidt and colleagues demonstrate the pathological bad faith that prevents them from engaging in cool-headed, rational, dispassionate, and objective scientific debate.
What this tells us is that the climate debate does not improve as its location moves from the Internet and its flame wars, up the ranks of institutional science and global political agencies.
This has been obvious to many since the late chair of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri asked, "What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler's?"
The Climate Assembly was an attempt to overcome the public's lack of interest in the climate agenda -- to manufacture a mandate for #NetZero, as I explain here.
Climate technocrats and fake academics had to force the Assembly into making decisions, and to then torture the data from their votes, to make it look like the Assembly had agreed with them, as I show in the report and here.