Monday, August 10, 2009

One Flew Over the Climate's Nest

Skeptics of climate change orthodoxy--that is, of the human-caused/human-correctable variety of climate change, as earnestly espoused by our world-government-in-waiting as well as by the once reputable but currently true-believing National Geographic Society, now have something else to worry about.

Serious investigations have recently begun into understanding and correcting the underlying psychological dysfunction of the AGW-skeptical brain, and its for our own good--as a species. Better that the American Psychological Association can provide the government with the insights and psychological tools with which to break down our political resistance and turn us around before we skeptics have to be (justifiably!) sent off to the treason tribunals for climate change deniers. And it's not just for our own good--the very future of the planet is at stake.

Correlating decades of interrelated research, a task force chaired by Janet Swim, PhD, of Penn State University, made its presentation to the 117th annual APA convention in Toronto, Canada, the Association convention's surprisingly frequent home-away-from-home destination, on August 7. Discussing the means and methods of behavioral modification to unblock the sadly ill-informed and closed-minded prejudice of the skeptics was only a part of task force's report and its public policy recommendations.

The task force identified other areas where psychology can help limit the effects of climate change, such as developing environmental regulations, economic incentives, better energy-efficient technology and communication methods.

"Many of the shortcomings of policies based on only a single intervention type, such as technology, economic incentives or regulation, may be overcome if policy implementers make better use of psychological knowledge," the task force wrote in the report.

Because this is presumably a government-financed study, we are I'm sure, intended to understand it as impartial and even-handed, just as are most of the other $79B worth of government-funded global climate warming hope-and-change studies, right? How can I tell? It doesn't say a single thing about electro-shock treatments yet, so far as I know. Let's hope the next APA convention isn't being held in Chicago.

No comments: