Tony Thomas reports grief among climate scientists.

Climate scientists inclined towards catastrophe theory are suffering "environmental melancholia" because they cannot understand why the Australian electorate laughs at computer-generated predictions of the end of the world.

One such, Joelle Gergis, switches between sobbing as she travels on jets, to "volcanically explosive rage" at the plebs' refusal to take her seriously.

For Katharine Wilkinson our scepticism causes rage, deep grief. Kath is happy that she has no children, and she thanks God that her dog "will be dead in 10 years".

At the Bali UN climate summit, Yvode Boer, IPCC functionary, had to be led, crying, from the podium because he lost a procedural motion that he had "worked around the clock for " to "protect the Earth from warming".

A meteorologist turned journalist bleated, "It's only getting worse. I confess: I need help".

There is "daily grief"; "profound grief" caused by "the constant background of doom and gloom and 'gloom science'. When Sarah, a gloomy one, asked a 'senior climate scientist' how he communicates with "ordinary folk", he replied, "I don't talk to those people anymore. F… those people". Sarah went to her room and had a good cry.

Climate scientists live a "surreal existence" according to 'New York' magazine. Psychologists move among them, handing out advice, describing 'pre-traumatic stress'; 'anger'; 'panic'; and 'obsessive-intrusive thoughts'.

Melbourne and Wollongong universities have revealed all this 'suffering'.

A paper entitled "Keeping the heart a long way from the brain: the emotional labour of climate scientists" discusses "climate-panic people's emotional labour from feminist perspectives, in which the scientists COMBAT "a strong climate denial influence".

There does not seem to be much 'combatting' going on, given all the sobbing and swearing.

The survey found that climate scientists use "emotional denial to to suppress the consequences of climate change"; they are then "guilt free" when they use "long distance airplane trips throughout a scientific career".

This BS alone cost $2,467,256 over three years 2014-2017. Just to tell us that climateers don't take criticism or rebuttal very well.

There's a very good chance that many of the climate scientists work very long hours and believe in what they say or what they are part of. I guess I'd look at it kind of like a bad relationship a person is in but doesn't recognize it for what it is. Climate scientists probably really do believe in what they are teaching because it is also what they are taught and are teaching themselves.

Is any of it true? Doubtful. Very doubtful because we've heard the same stories of drastic horrible futures in the next 5-10 years. Been hearing this for 30+ years now. What is true is that pollution is real, and we are taking crap care of the world around us. That's true regardless of climate change, and the world is likely not going to end yet because of the tragic beliefs of climate sciences.

Our health on the other hand due to smog or polluted water though; yeah let's focus half our energy focused on global warming to reducing smog and supply clean water. There will be a lot more benefit from that then any of the global warming doom and gloom predictions.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Mate, the science is pretty clear on the basics of climate change. To even suggest it isn't substantive and based on high level research and data sets is idiotic.

Don't be an idiot.

Steele Redux,
So, why isn't science doing anything to curb it all ?
I have yet to see scientists refrain from unnecessary travel, using petroleum-based commodities etc.
Let's see who the real idiots are, shall we ?

Has everyone seen the article Bazz told me about:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

Bazz reckons it's the bee's knees.

To SteeleRedux.

When the data doesn't match reality, then one of 2 things can be said. 1) the data was wrong or the conclusions were in error, (a misunderstanding on the scientists part). Or 2) the data was based on lies. I honestly think it's a combination of the two regarding global warming and the doom and gloom narrative.

On that note it doesn't take a scientist or a data point reasurchers to understand what's been told to us the, dumb masses, about climate change and mass extension within 10 years or so. Been hearing it for longer then 10 years, I'll tell you that much. Which means the data is in error, the conclusions are in error, or everything's a scam to get more grant money.

It would do a lot better to spend the same resources that are used for global warming, towards reducing smog in cities and in manufacturing industries (for the sake and health of the people), or towards developing clean water for growing populations, and for areas that don't have access to reliable clean water. Do these two things and there will be much more benifit to the world then all the climate sciences combined.