Germany may be reintroducing a dark period where political opponents are simply declared mentally ill by the state and forcibly hospitalized for “treatment.”
A case for psychotherapy
In a recent paper dubbed “The Denial of the Apocalypse – Dealing with the Climate Crisis from the Perspective of Existential Psychotherapy” appearing in the German Das Psychotherapeutenjournal (The Psychotherapist Journal), author Fabian Chmielewski explains which “denial processes are effective and what the psychotherapists could and should concretely do about it.”
Panic over climate change is normal
According to Chmielewski, a psychologist with a practice in Hattingen, being in a panic about the rapidly approaching climate apocalypse is, in fact, rational behavior, while having doubts and remaining calm about it is abnormal and thus needs to be addressed.
The journal’s editorial, written by Hans Schindler, comments that although Chmielewski’s paper is contentious, it is “a suitable impetus for the necessary debate about the sociopolitical responsibility of our professional group and for the discussion about the possibilities – and limits – of engagement in our roles as psychotherapists and citizens.”
Leading journal in Germany
Das Psychotherapeutenjournal is not just some crackpot publication that gets little attention in Germany, rather it is indeed the organ of the Bavarian State Chamber of Psychological Psychotherapists.
The journal is co-financed by the membership fees of the other German state chambers and sent throughout Germany. It is the central organ of a corporation under public law, which represents the profession of psychotherapists by law.
Concrete psychotherapeutic ‘interventions’
The abstract of Fabian Chmielewski paper:
A broad consensus of serious research warns of the scenario of a soon inevitable spiral of man-made climate change. Nevertheless, both large sections of the population and decision-makers do not seem to be adequately interested in the impending destruction of the world as we know it.
The gloomy prophecies of climate scientists are played down or even denied, the necessary climate policy steps are not taken.
The article looks at these phenomena from the perspective of existential psychotherapy and tries to point out possible causes and mechanisms of this repression as well as to derive concrete psychotherapeutic ‘interventions.’
It also argues for the active participation of psychotherapists in health campaigns against this widespread “existential neurosis”.
Chmielewski claims that the “Fridays for Future” strikes and demonstrations are the clearest and most media-effective indication of the impending doomsday scenario, and calls for the implementation of the drastic climate policy measures demanded by science and that both doctors and psychologists warn of the health consequences of climate change and giving it top priority.
Here, he suggests, panic is the psychologically appropriate response.
Top human health priority
Chmielewski notes that at its annual general meeting, the Marburger Bund(association of physicians) demands:
“Stopping climate change caused by humans and its consequences for human health must also be given absolute priority in health policy action”.
“Existential threat”
In the paper, Chmielewski writes that in recent times, various psychologists and psychotherapists have marked climate change as an “existential threat” (Psychologists for Future, 2019).
And when it comes to scientific dissent with regards to the upcoming climate doomsday, auditor Chmielewski writes that despite the scientific certainty of climate doomsday:
Nevertheless, important decision-makers are either completely denying man-made climate change or trivializing it and the urgency of the pressure to act. […]
A large part of the population does not seem to be adequately interested in the impending destruction of the world as we know it and – as Brick and van der Linden (2018) put it – has only one lethargic “yawn” left for the apocalypse.
Even more questionable seems to be the motivation of people to reject the human cause of climate change as a lie – sometimes with astonishing aggressiveness and with reference to untenable conspiracy theories.”
Suggesting compulsory hospitalization, medication
Also commenting on Chmielewski’s paper at the critical German achgut.com here, Air Tuerkis notes that generally, therapists are rightly afraid to impose a certain point of view on people.
But according to Chmielewski: “Exceptions are to be made, however, if an acute own or foreign endangerment is present”.
Tuerkis continues:
The concept of an ‘acute danger to oneself or others‘ is quite explosive here. It releases the therapist, for example, from the duty of confidentiality.
The term normally aims at impending criminal offenses that pose a danger to life and limb and above all the danger of suicide. In Bavaria, the legislator speaks of a danger to public safety to a considerable extent.”
A ‘considerable and acute danger to oneself or others’ is even sufficient as a reason for compulsory hospitalization and compulsory medication. In this case, the patient could be admitted provisionally for up to 48 hours without a court order.”
In other words, back to the dark days of Soviet-style punitive political psychiatry. Dissenters should be medicated into changing their views.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
The above comments are excellent.
Liberals have a history of declaring those who don’t agree with them to have a mental problem. Consider the word “homophobia.” It declares that anyone who disagrees with liberals on homosexuality has a disease. There have been times when they asserted that firearm enthusiast were using guns as a phallic symbol. However, stating that they world is going to end and other hype that run contrary to true data is a real indication of a mental disorder.
In addition to Soviet-style punitive political psychiatry, Das Psychotherapeutenjournal is advocating implementing “thought crimes” that were depicted in the book 1984. This book is fiction, but it comes closer to reality every day.
Anyone who takes Climate Change/Global Warming seriuosly needs to stop reading or watching the M.S. Media since its no longer or ever was real news just liberal lefists Propeganda
This journal publication now touches on where we see the bloody edge of the issue. If authorities embrace the thinking suggested by this phycho and act upon his recommendations, we are indeed headed to a dark place. I do in fact REJECT the global warming gambit. As a life-long geologist who understand the principles of planetary processes and appreciates the immense power of Deep Time (in which geologic dynamics operate almost imperceptibly), I know that humans do and can not affect the global climate. Furthermore, I can be certain that it is the oceans which drive the climate and not the conditions of the atmosphere which do so. If I’m to be declared mentally disturbed for thinking this way, at least I can take comfort in knowing that I’m on the Good side of the Crazy Divide.
BOXOROX… You may like this comment…
Julian FellOctober 3, 2019 at 2:12 am | #As someone who did his dissertation in a marine subject I am well aware of the massive amount of heat that is stored in the oceans. The amount of heat contained in the lower part of the atmosphere between sea level and the thermal balance height is about the same as the amount of heat contained in the upper 1 metre of the oceans. By thermal balance or equilibrium level I mean the level where the temperature is 30 to 35 degrees cooler than the surface temperature, which is the temperature the planet would have if it were a bare rock. Typically this is about 5 Km above sea level but drops to surface pole-side of the polar circle when the respective pole is in winter. The atmosphere above the equilibrium layer is colder than the bare rock temperature and cannot participate in any warming of the planet. Thus the climate of the planet surface is pretty much contained in this lower 5 km of the atmosphere, which also contains about 40% of the entire atmosphere by mass. Current thinking seems to be that this “climate layer” in the gas atmosphere is responsible for the 30-33 degree difference between mean surface temperature and bare rock temperature. Further the CO2 cult believers are being led to believe that it is the CO2 in this layer that is mostly responsible for this temperature difference.
Each 24 hours the atmosphere (as a whole) looses back to space the same amount of heat it has received from the sun. In dry low humidity spaces over land the fluctuation between maximum and minimum temperatures spans 20 degrees. It should be apparent from this that the atmosphere has little heat storage/retention capacity. Yet most climate discussions dwell on the atmosphere as the agent of warming over bare rock temperature.If one looks at the daily temperatures of isolated small islands away from land masses one notes that the daily range is very small, typically 2 degrees or less and the annual seasonal fluctuation is only 4-6 degrees or less. Which is to say that the bottom of atmosphere temperature over the oceans is fixed by the temperature of the surface of the ocean. In fact typically it is one to two degrees cooler than the surface temperature of the sea. Between the polar circles, which is where realistically all planet heating occurs, the oceans account for 80% of the planet surface. I think it can be safely said that the climate of the planet is determined by the temperature of the oceans surface and what takes place on land is only a side-show to where the climate is determined. The real climate determinant is how much sunlight heats the ocean. Infra-red radiation is absorbed right at surface, it does not penetrate. Visible light penetrates and blue light goes down as far as 50 m. Over land most visible light is reflected. Over the ocean it is absorbed. It is quite possible that visible light puts more energy into the ocean than the other frequencies. The Argos buoy studies have shown that seasonal summer heating effects only go down to 50 m. The oceans show no seasonal fluctuation below this. The ocean is a surface radiator only. It absorbs energy in depth but can only loose it by surface radiation. The Argos studies seem to show that annually the ocean absorbs seasonally the amount of heat it would receive from the equivalent of 40 totally clear sunny days and takes nine times longer to loose this same amount of heat. The oceans have infinite heat storage capacity and so can accumulate heat during periods (years/decades) of sunnier weather, and equally slowly loose heat over periods of greater cloud cover.
The point I am trying to make is that it is the oceans that determine the base climate of the planet and the oceans that are responsible for the 30-33 degree warmer difference over bare rock temperature. It is the oceans that make the climate and the atmosphere only causes the weather, which is just a heat re-distribution system. Cloud cover is the mechanism that controls heat acquisition by the oceans. Svensmark has already proved this mechanism. CO2 has no role in the heating of the oceans.
Bottom line. Stop obsessing about the atmosphere in climate considerations; -look at the role of the oceans. The oceans contain about 1500 times more heat than does the climate atmosphere. This is about 12 times more heat than is contained in the Venusian atmosphere so I think it can be legitimately argued that Earth is actually warmer than Venus.
We’re ending the world as we know it
But can’t find the signs that would show it.
Since I’m in such denial,
Why not put me on trial.
Cuz in the end, you know you’ll just blow it
Who is more neurotic?
A skeptic who sits at home eating a cheeseburger?
Or this guy?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-extinction-rebellion-protester-climbs-top-british-airways-plane-london-airport-today-2019-10-10/
Leftists are the most dishonest and dumbest people on Earth.
These Existential Psychotherapy Climate Lysenkoist’s seem to be in denial of the simple fact that not ONE of the cLIEmate UNscientist’s model based predictions has passed the Scientific Method.
“It also argues for the active participation of psychotherapists in health campaigns against this widespread “existential neurosis”.”
Evidently the Bavarian State Chamber of Psychological Psychotherapists have never heard of psychological projection.
I guess the Germans
Not sure what happened to the rest of my comment.
Medical Definition of Neurosis
Neurosis: A chronic disorder featuring irritability of the nervous system (nervousness) and characterized by anxiety and/or extreme behavior dedicated to avoid anxiety situations.
Symptoms: Irritability; Anxiety
Skeptics are not anxious or nervous, and we are not the demographic that exhibits extreme behavior. If you want to witness neurosis, simply attend a climate change protest.
My many years on this planet have taught me many things, one of which is that an inordinately large percentage of psychology students are there for self help. These are not stable or rational people.
It is more likely that the people who came up with this theory are suffering from a mental disorder actually – they sound downright paranoid. Having said that, the method of declaring your critics mentally deranged is actually right out of the Marxist playbook. It was liberally used in the former Soviet Union to silence dissent. Many scientists and intellectuals were forcibly shipped off to mental institutions on the grounds that anyone who expressed doubt about the superiority of “real socialism” (Stalinism) simply had to have mental issues. What other explanation could there possibly be? It was an exceedingly cruel, but quite effective method. In short, we should not be surprised at this case of projection, i.e., the fact that the nutjobs are calling those nutjobs who refuse to fall prey to the hysteria. And it is a form of hysteria – if you listen to the jeremiads of the hysterians on TV, although they frequently invoke the term “science” in a general manner, just as someone religious might invoke God, they never cite any specifics. Neither the names of the scientists who allegedly support their panicked predictions, nor any of the allegedly “settled” scientific evidence is ever discussed in detail. As a rule their rants consist almost exclusively of appeals to emotion. Thinking and questioning is actively discouraged by this approach. This is by the way also consistent with the politics of the Left, which are largely envy-based. And similar to “climate change”, if one takes the time to actually look closely at the socio-economic statistics widely asserted to represent “settled facts” and used to fan the flames of envy, one soon finds out that they almost all of them are deeply flawed and by no means beyond debate. In fact, it often turns out that the truth is the exact opposite of what is alleged by the demagogues and their courtier “experts” and claqueurs.
Lastly, to come back to the topic at hand: psychology and psychiatry are areas of medical science that are themselves highly dubious, to say the least. A simple experiment was conducted a while back: a prospective “patient” presented himself to 10 different psychologists with the same medical history and symptoms. You may not be surprised to learn that he received precisely 10 different diagnoses and treatment proposals. And yet, only one (or more likely, none) of them could possibly be correct.