“Younger people more accepting of the science and facts than older people,”

[Origanalist]

Youth anxiety on the rise amid changing climate
GAYLE MACDONALD
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, May. 01 2014, 3:30 PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 01 2014, 3:30 PM EDT

This is part of a series examining the health repercussions for Canadians of a changing climate.

Sammy McLean, 14, felt overwhelming helplessness as she stood with her family and watched two angry rivers – the Bow and the Elbow – surge through their home, cutting a path of destruction across the downtown Calgary neighbourhood. Furniture flew through the front windows, and the basement and first floor were washed out and filled with mud. McLean remembers thinking that her once calm, picturesque street resembled a war zone.

Video

A confident, athletic girl, McLean says the flood left her vulnerable, scared and hating the rivers that encircled her home. “They wouldn’t let us in for several days after we were evacuated,” says McLean, who now lives in a downtown condo with her parents and three siblings while the house is being extensively renovated. “I used to think the rivers were so pretty. It made me not like them any more. I thought the water was going to take away the whole house – and my bedroom.”

While the Alberta floods haven’t been directly linked to climate change, destructive weather events are expected to increase in Canada in the future. McLean, a normally upbeat youth, is painfully aware of the sheer power of Mother Nature and the carnage its fury can wreak. She’s now anxious about what we’re doing to our environment. “I volunteered to take an active role in my school’s Model United Nations, which is studying the impact climate change is having on our planet,” she said.

On one hand it scared her, but it also made her want to know more so she could help activate positive change.

Child psychiatrists, psychologists and educators say they’ve seen an escalation in the anxiety levels of today’s youth, who are constantly exposed to doomsday talk about the destruction of our planet. But despite the fact that we live in a world with more volatility and fear, experts say there is hope. And to stay mentally strong, they all advocate not just calling for change, but acting for it.

Dr. Anthony Levitt, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre’s director of research in the department of psychiatry, agrees climate-change anxiety increasingly enters into the discussions he has with many of the young people who come to see him. “Younger people [teens to mid-20s] appear to be much more accepting of the science and facts than older people,” Levitt observes. He’s also seen an uptick in climate-change-related anxiety in parents with younger children.

“For most people who are anxious about climate change, the anxiety is escalated by the fact they do not see an answer or a way to make a change. Worry plus powerlessness leads to distress,” says Levitt, who is also a professor in the psychiatry department at the University of Toronto.

“The answer, on a personal basis, to this kind of helpless distress is ‘mastery’: that is, helping people to master small tasks that reduce their carbon footprint can lead to a greater sense of control and efficacy for that person – and with that a reduction in anxiety. Can one person taking action to reduce their carbon footprint change global warming? Who knows. But it can relieve the distress that comes from anxiety mixed with impotence that affects a growing number of people in our society,” he said.

North Carolina-based psychotherapist Chris Saade, co-director of the Olive Branch Center, a grief/wellness counselling firm, says he’s seen a huge jump in the number of patients under 18 who come to him with concerns about the environmental crisis.

“Unlike adults who can put their heads in the sand about what we have been doing to our planet, these kids are very aware of what’s going on,” adds Saade, who has led more than 200 psychological retreats in the United States and has offered grief counselling through his private practice for more than 20 years. “Because of the Web, it’s not hidden any more. Children often ask me questions that we, as adults, try to evade: What is going to happen to the human race?”

more fear at....http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/youth-anxiety-on-the-rise-amid-changing-climate/article18372258/

[Paulbot99]

If you are told something is true long enough, you are bound to believe it. Too bad adults aren't forced to go to public schools. ;)

[Christopher A. Brown]

Children often ask me questions that we, as adults, try to evade: What is going to happen to the human race?


Not this adult.

However I have large false groups of those who would try snd pass as adults working very hard to dismiss REAL solution.

Americans need to exercise our first constitutional right, to "alter or abolish". First action, clean up states.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A step by step process in a forum which stands un opposed because it is fully lawful and logical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

This represents real hope because the dysfunction of party politics can be permanently escaped.

Never has a critical poster been accountable to the overall effect of preparatory amendment. It is absolutely logical and constitutional. It removes all fears of Article V.

[oyarde]

As an adult I have no problem with real , unbiased science. Then there is the rest .

[klamath]

I love science however as an older person I have lived long enough to see those science "facts" turn out to be science wrongs.

[AuH20]

'Science' can be manipulated like organized religion. That's the dirty little secret.

[Origanalist]

I love science however as an older person I have lived long enough to see those science "facts" turn out to be science wrongs.

You sound like one of those climate change deniers.

[Southron]

'Science' can be manipulated like organized religion. That's the dirty little secret.

Modern "science" practically is an organized religion.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Modern "science" practically is an organized religion.

I do not really doubt this, but do not see how it originates, the mechanisms of it, or the results. Can you elaborate?

[jclay2]

Yeah, this story just breathes with "facts" and "science". This girl experienced a very tragic event which by her own words left her emotionally distraught. She then searches for answers and comes upon climate change as the reason her home flooded. And of course floods never happened in Alberta before human's started destroying the planet in the last 50 years.

What is even crazier, though, is the article talks about how all the doom and gloom surrounding climate change is causing high levels of anxiety, but then states that is the absolute correct position without any evidence?

I don't know about you, but I was taught that science is supposed to leave emotions, paranoia, and fear behind when making their conclusions.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You sound like one of those climate change deniers.

The possibilities of human impacts on climate are certainly present. However record keeping has not been concise enough over a long enough period of time to be conclusive.

Science should know that and some scientific articles on the subject express it. The dominant article and perspectives do not.

What this does is turns the fact of climate change into a diversion from an absolutely proven impact relating to toxic pollution which is very seriously effecting all species to varying degrees. Toxic pollution are very much a result of industrialized corporate commerce, or there is a specific interest in finding something obvious to assure is misrepresented which can cover and distract from the activity which produces huge profits and enables endless immersion in wants and desires for the few at the top of the economic, industrial, corporate structure.

We can see this in the recent statement of the director of greenpeace when he stated "science has not proven man made climate change." He never mentioned toxic pollution despite the fact that the Bering straits have shown for over a decade serious impacts from southerly coastal pollution cycling in natural currents toward the Aleutians that are now so severe polar bears, sea lions, and walrus are missing fur in areas and have open lesions.

BTW, over the last 12 years I've tried to dialogue with greenpeace leadership perhaps 7 times about promoting effective conservation methods and political activism that could offset or impede corporate exploitations of resource and populations.

Not one reply has ever been received.

[Origanalist]

Yeah, this story just breathes with "facts" and "science". This girl experienced a very tragic event which by her own words left her emotionally distraught. She then searches for answers and comes upon climate change as the reason her home flooded. And of course floods never happened in Alberta before human's started destroying the planet in the last 50 years.

What is even crazier, though, is the article talks about how all the doom and gloom surrounding climate change is causing high levels of anxiety, but then states that is the absolute correct position without any evidence?

I don't know about you, but I was taught that science is supposed to leave emotions, paranoia, and fear behind when making their conclusions.

Another denier.

[AuH20]

I do not really doubt this, but do not see how it originates, the mechanisms of it, or the results. Can you elaborate?

Grant monies have certain 'expectations' tied to it, let's just say. In other words, don't come back with an alternate theory or you will be cut off.

[Brian4Liberty]

OMG! A river overflowed it's banks? That is unheard of! The end of the world must be near.

[Quark]

My opinions on "climate change" align with Freeman Dyson's (he is 90 years old, I am 20 years old.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming


Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:


He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."


In an interview at age 90, he asserted that climate change is a complex problem, and is not close to being fully understood. Much additional scientific inquiry will need to be done before anything approaching a broad scientific consensus is in place


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

[VIDEODROME]

I kind of wonder if science has become so advanced and complex, most scientists wind up being highly specialized. That very few scientists are able to look beyond their area of expertise into other scientific fields to see the bigger picture?

What really happens if a Meteorologist, Theoretical Physicist, Chemist, and Climatologist all come together to discuss climate change? Do they agree, argue, or would they rather avoid each other and come to their own conclusions?

[angelatc]

I love science however as an older person I have lived long enough to see those science "facts" turn out to be science wrongs.

Legitimate science tends to stay away from declaring anything as "fact." It's the media and politicians that do that.

Yeah, I stay out of the climate debate because I don't understand the science behind it. But I saw a chart the other day that graphed all the predictions of the temperature rise that we could expect, and none of them got it even close to right.

If you liken it to a vaccine trial...saying that we expect to see the incidence of a disease drop to a certain number over a set number of years if the population meets a certain vaccine level...other scientists migt disagree with your number. They would tell you what they expected to see over that same time frame.

At the end of the cycle, if you took all their predictions and graphed them, and then iompared them to a graph that showed the actual cases of the disease, you would expect to see the predicted drop somewhere in the middle of all those predictions, I would think. But if the disease did not drop as much as any of the predictors indicated, you would think that perhaps the vaccine was not effective.

That's what this showed. Every single prediction showed a rise in temperature over the past X number of years, while the actual rise was far below all of them.

[acptulsa]

Kids are more accepting of bullshit, too...

[Origanalist]

Earth day 1970;


“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” said Barry Commoner, a Washington University biologist.


“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” according to Life magazine.


“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable,” according to ecologist and UC Davis professor Kenneth Watt.


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” warned professor Kenneth Watt.


“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” warned Harvard biologist George Wald.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/apocalyptic-predictions-first-earth-day/2/#lABASMCdc49tfkxz.99


“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years,” according to Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich.

Ehrlich continued: “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”



“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson
--------------------------------------

Fast forward 2014;

New Climate Change Report Warns of Dire Consequences

IPCC highlights risks of global warming and closing window of opportunity.

The world is not ready for the impacts of climate change, including more extreme weather and the likelihood that populated parts of the planet could be rendered uninhabitable, says the planet's leading body of climate scientists in a major new UN report.

The 772 scientists who wrote and edited the report argue that world leaders have only a few years left to reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid catastrophic warming, which would produce significant sea level rise and large-scale shifts in temperatures that would dramatically disrupt human life and natural ecosystems.

"Observed impacts of climate change are widespread and consequential," according to the report, which is from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was released Monday morning in Yokohama, Japan.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-ipcc-report-global-warming-climate-change-science/

[angelatc]

Kids are more accepting of bullshit, too...

Yeah, it's pretty obvious to me that the kids today are NOT getting much in the way of critical thinking skills and science education, that's for sure.

[William Tell]

Kids are more accepting of bullshit, too...

Yes, most of my fellow youth are.

[KingNothing]

'Science' can be manipulated like organized religion. That's the dirty little secret.


Not real science. Real science can't be manipulated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

How a conclusion is reached, the methods employed, and how information is gathered and analyzed is so very important.
To paraphrase Feynman: "I've found out how hard it is to really get to know something; how careful you have to check your experiments, how easy it is to fool yourself. ...I see how they get their information! I can't believe that they 'know' it -- they haven't done the work necessary, they haven't done the checks necessary, they haven't done the care necessary."

Science should be based on rigorous study and testing. Not bombastic claims, and illogical/weak experimentation.

[pcosmar]

I call bullshit at the premise.

Old people have been actually using science longer than young people have even been thinking about it.

[Natural Citizen]

Modern "science" practically is an organized religion.

There are no sacred truths in science. None.

And the biggest problem with the so called "older generation" in the science department is that they view science to be applicable within the only model that they generally understand. That being consumption. And what follows is political science that you get from jokers sitting in office catering to the logic of that particular demographic. When is the last time anyone ever heard a politician give his/her position on science itself other than the consumption model they're fed from the very corporate doners who are bastardizing it. It's pathetic.

Until science is reviewed correctly and independent from special interests whose research is solely premised upon consumption there can be no true error correcting mechanism. Well...except out with the old and in with the new. This is a natural phenomenon. Takes time. But we live in special times where science and technology is so relevant to the generational transition. Transition that we haven't seen since the Apollo days. And look how the older generation screwed that up. They were the young generation back then and they gave everything that was learned to other countries for them to sell it right back to us in the form of useless plastic shit. Have we seen the list of countries ranked in education? Guess who is at the bottom? Us. That's who. Guess who is leading. The same countries we're feeding H1-B's while throwing our own youth to the curb in the education department. Guess who did that. The older generation. That's who. The same one that handed everything we learned from the Apollo days over to foreign nations who in turn became the greatest producers while developing their economies. We seem to want good little consumers. Not scientifically literate producers.

Oh well. I could go on for days about this. Not really in the mood today.

[Dr.3D]

Old folks have been around long enough to know the old addage, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!" (except Bush still can't get that one right)
We've been around long enough to have been fooled once so we are not so likely to be fooled again.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Except younger people were the ones swallowing Obama's kool-aid the most in 2008.

[Natural Citizen]

Except younger people were the ones swallowing Obama's kool-aid the most in 2008.

We're talking about kids under the age to vote in the op. The ones that the older generation has managed to consistently maneuver down to the bottom of the list in the education and scientific literacy departments. The same kids that some politicians want to continue to disfranchise in the scientific literacy department in favor of handing it over to their foreign counterparts via the H1-B. Again.....some folks remain comfortable with creating one generation of consumers after another. Gosh, I wish time would speed up. I really do. Just for a little while.

[otherone]

While the Alberta floods haven’t been directly linked to climate change

stopped reading right here. ^^^^

http://www.drjoe.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/skyfallingjpg-copy-300x200.jpg

[euphemia]

You sound like one of those climate change deniers.

Um, no. When I was in government school--from elementary through high school--we were taught that another Ice Age was coming. Science is not always exact, and their are aspects that have high variables. The composition of water is a fact. Climate change and evolution are *theories* with large acceptance in the community. Even people who accept the generalities of climate change and evolution have vastly differing theories on the how and why.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

We're talking about kids under the age to vote in the op.

I know.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/election-over-kids-pick-obama/


Today Scholastic released those results, and the tally can’t be music to Republican ears. Barack Obama scored a landslide victory over John McCain 57% to 39%.

[Origanalist]

Um, no. When I was in government school--from elementary through high school--we were taught that another Ice Age was coming. Science is not always exact, and their are aspects that have high variables. The composition of water is a fact. Climate change and evolution are *theories* with large acceptance in the community. Even people who accept the generalities of climate change and evolution have vastly differing theories on the how and why.

More denial, reported.

[euphemia]

More denial, reported.

What actual proof do you have that climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans? We are not here by accident.

[William Tell]

What actual proof do you have that climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans? We are not here by accident.

He's trolling you.

[Quark]

Um, no. When I was in government school--from elementary through high school--we were taught that another Ice Age was coming. Science is not always exact, and their are aspects that have high variables. The composition of water is a fact. Climate change and evolution are *theories* with large acceptance in the community. Even people who accept the generalities of climate change and evolution have vastly differing theories on the how and why.

I wouldn't place human-induced climate change and evolution in the same category. The first is a hypothesis that is mostly substantiated by computer models whose equations don't account for all real-world variables, and whose empirical results are disputable. The second is a well-developed theory with tons of empirical evidence, primarily in genetics, but there are even real world examples of human selection causing vast phenological differences in species from common ancestors (particularly in plants.) Seeing as the hypothesis of evolution has remained pretty consistent since Darwin, only being added to since, I think it is safe to say that it has a longer and more substantiated history of empiricism and subjected falsifiability than human-induced climate change.

[Quark]

To, clarify my last post further, I'll try to depict (qualitatively) my opinion on the empirical nature of current climate change theories/hypotheses vs. the Theory of Evolution vs. Quantum Field Theory (most testable and empirically accurate science, many experiments have an accuracy of +/- 10^-8) Climate change is as accurate at making predictions as "empirical economics", or let's just say not very accurate at all.

On a scale of least empirical to most empirical:

climate change theories .................................................. ..............Theory of Evolution......QFT.

[Brian4Liberty]

Earth day 1970;


“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half,” according to Life magazine.


Well in fairness, they did get that one almost right. We mostly reversed it here in the US, but China gets to suffer now.

2425

2426

[Henry Rogue]

To, clarify my last post further, I'll try to depict (qualitatively) my opinion on the empirical nature of current climate change theories/hypotheses vs. the Theory of Evolution vs. Quantum Field Theory (most testable and empirically accurate science, many experiments have an accuracy of +/- 10^-8) Climate change is as accurate at making predictions as "empirical economics", or let's just say not very accurate at all.

On a scale of least empirical to most empirical:

climate change theories .................................................. ..............Theory of Evolution......QFT.
But, but, computer climate models sound so sciency. They can predict the future. Haven't you seen Water World?

[jonhowe]

Earth day 1970;





Fast forward 2014;

New Climate Change Report Warns of Dire Consequences

IPCC highlights risks of global warming and closing window of opportunity.

The world is not ready for the impacts of climate change, including more extreme weather and the likelihood that populated parts of the planet could be rendered uninhabitable, says the planet's leading body of climate scientists in a major new UN report.

The 772 scientists who wrote and edited the report argue that world leaders have only a few years left to reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid catastrophic warming, which would produce significant sea level rise and large-scale shifts in temperatures that would dramatically disrupt human life and natural ecosystems.

"Observed impacts of climate change are widespread and consequential," according to the report, which is from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and was released Monday morning in Yokohama, Japan.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-ipcc-report-global-warming-climate-change-science/



You could say the same of people on these boards talking about the failing of the US Dollar/American Empire/Fiat Currency System/etc.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Grant monies have certain 'expectations' tied to it, let's just say. In other words, don't come back with an alternate theory or you will be cut off.

Yes, I've seen that extensively with non profits, but academia and science generally does not operate on grants. Those are extra. But the connection to religion still is not clear, although not doubted.

[heavenlyboy34]

If the OP is actually indicitive of teh youth, a more appropriate title is “Younger people more likely to be naive and blindly accept claims of scientists than older people”

[Henry Rogue]

Yes, I've seen that extensively with non profits, but academia and science generally does not operate on grants. Those are extra. But the connection to religion still is not clear, although not doubted.

Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e.g., from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc.)
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
So where do you think the majority of money for climate research comes from? Rich Sierra club members?

[Henry Rogue]

You could say the same of people on these boards talking about the failing of the US Dollar/American Empire/Fiat Currency System/etc.
Let me know when those forum posts affect government policy.

[Origanalist]

What actual proof do you have that climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans? We are not here by accident.

There is a scientific consensus. And of course we are here by accident. It's all just one big cosmic accident and we repay our good fortune by destroying mother gia.

[euphemia]

Way to get sucked into the fairy tale. It's what the government wants you to think so they can reduce your standard of living more than they already do.

[eduardo89]

There is a scientific consensus. And of course we are here by accident. It's all just one big cosmic accident and we repay our good fortune by destroying mother gia.

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/images/4/46/Tumblr_mboo.jpg

[Origanalist]

Way to get sucked into the fairy tale. It's what the government wants you to think so they can reduce your standard of living more than they already do.

Facts are facts. It's proven science, and the government doesn't want to reduce my standard of living. They give away food for free and make health care available to everybody.

[Christopher A. Brown]

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
So where do you think the majority of money for climate research comes from? Rich Sierra club members?

It has been my impression that general funding to universities by gov was where the body of financing came from, but that could be an outdated mode.

The trend towards privitization would logically create the structure you indicate.

So, have you said that religious interests control gov financing to science? Again, I do not doubt it, I just do not see how that control over gov is asserted. Perhaps because it is not legitimate, it is hidden in politics so well that the public can't see it but through partisanship officials who control funding direct it as religion would, and no other way.

[Henry Rogue]

It has been my impression that general funding to universities by gov was where the body of financing came from, but that could be an outdated mode.
Right, that is the point I made.


The trend towards privitization would logically create the structure you indicate.
I didn't indicate that at all. The links I provided indicate that science research has moved away from private grants and moved towards government grants.


So, have you said that religious interests control gov financing to science? Again, I do not doubt it, I just do not see how that control over gov is asserted. Perhaps because it is not legitimate, it is hidden in politics so well that the public can't see it but through partisanship officials who control funding direct it as religion would, and no other way. No, I have not said that, you must have me confused with someone else. Of course, some people treat government as a religion, so in that respect, you could say the religion of government control science.