The U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) is calling for evidence to show that climate change is causing “mental health” problems. The agency notes that climate change can have psychological implications through growing awareness of the issue, “leading to psychological distress”. Of course it might help if the UKHSA was not itself a major promoter of fake climate alarm. Last December it claimed that London could suffer endemic dengue fever by 2060 based on, among a number of implausible assumptions, the idea that the temperature would rise by 4°C in less than 80 years. Professor Paul Reiter, retired Professor of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, branded the dengue and other mosquito-borne diseases claims as “entirely fictional” and “shameless”.
The activities of Government bodies such as the UKHSA have made it difficult to distinguish between genuine psychological anguish and young spoilt adults with unchallenged luxury death-cult beliefs who just don’t appear to fancy a lifetime of striving and work. Some of them don’t even seem to want to have sex and procreate, so perhaps they are a bit doolally after all! For those worried about the weather, as less-informed populations have been through the ages, a better solution might be a course in critical thinking. This would enable them to understand the science and become less reliant on Net Zero-promoting fanatics like the UKHSA.
What an appalling waste of public money this proposed UKHSA make-work report will be. Submissions of “case studies” are invited, “which demonstrate provision of mental health interventions in relation to climate change and extreme weather events”. Climate change is said to be having a “substantial impact on both physical and mental health and will continue to do so in the future as increased frequency and intensity of climate related events (such as heatwaves, flooding and droughts) occur”.
Rather than peddling this activist wish-list nonsense, British taxpayer money would be better spent noting that climate data going back 100 years show little or no evidence of ‘extreme’ weather events increasing, an opinion largely backed up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Instead, the UKHSA is pandering to the hysterical antics of over-indulged kidults reacting to the “join the weather dots, jail the deniers” hokum spread by figures such as Jim Dale and Dale Vince. Of course one must not entirely blame the two Dales. BBC Verify/Vilify Climate Correspondent Marco Silva recently returning from a Green Blob-funded six-month course where one of the past tasks has been to take a mango and write a story about how it is less tasty than last year due to climate change.
The “call for evidence” by the UKHSA is framed by claiming: “It is vital that the evidence and guidance produced addresses the needs of stakeholders and is presented in a way that is usable to inform action.” In other words, the UKHSA is repeating the formula from the dengue scare and causing alarm that feeds into demands that we stop the climate changing by going to Net Zero.
Which is a shame, since Net Zero is dead – killed off on November 5th by the return of President Trump. The upcoming COP will be a wake – developing countries will demand free money or “climate reparations” as they call it, China and India will pay lip service. But without the backing and money of the most powerful country in the world, the idea that you can run stuff without hydrocarbon energy and processes is a lost cause. It will not die easily, particularly in the European countries. The U.K. will suffer egregiously if fanatics in the new Labour Government continue to hold sway. Net Zero promotion and the agitprop that underpins its survival are deeply embedded within political and bureaucratic elites, as the latest stunt from the UKHSA demonstrates.
Net Zero may be dying but its propensity to cause heavy economic and societal damage will linger. For too long activists have managed to spread the lie that the science around the opinion that humans are causing most climate change was ‘settled’. In the interests of promoting the authoritarian green agenda, the long established scientific process of rigorous questioning and inquiry was trashed and discarded. To not much surprise, both the Dales are in favour of jailing people they call “deniers”. One of the speakers on Marco Silva’s course, run by the Reuters Institute, has also considered such drastic penalties. On the heels of ‘settled’ science comes emotion, a far more effective political weapon when command and control is the order of the day.
Few weaponise climate emotion better than the Guardian newspaper. Last May, Damian Carrington said he had polled 400 “scientists” and the conclusion was that the world was heading towards a “semi-dystopian” future. Sadly, some of the “scientists involved”, while no doubt academic bigwigs in their own right, turned out to be a little light on scientific qualifications. Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, for instance, is an “environmental psychologist” whose first degree was in theology and religious studies with French. A few disobliging comments followed, no doubt there were a few hurty tweets on X, and now Carrington has struck back on their behalf. The ‘gaslighted’ researchers claim that “embracing their emotions was necessary to do good science”. Those dismissing their fears as doom-laden and alarmist, “were speaking frequently from a position of privilege in Western countries”.
These days emotion reigns supreme and happily everyone can identify as a climate scientist. Ahead of the recent U.K. General Election, Green Blob-funded Bob Ward from the Grantham stable organised a petition signed by 408 “scientists” calling for an ambitious programme of green policies. The BBC referred to “the most distinguished” of the country’s climate scientists, while Bob Ward tweeted, “be ambitious on climate, scientists urge”.
Scientists you say? The first claimed scientist in the alphabetical list was an Associate Professor of Accounting, the second was a geographer specialising in “disaster risk reduction”, while the third was an archaeologist.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I recommend they take injections of common sense.
Containing modified Reliable Normal Advice?
I think a few C1984 boosters would achieve the correct results.
Perhaps the Dales et al could be jailed forfact denial.
I, a pale, stale, male am suffering mental distress because of the climate crisis hoax. Do I get my share of tea and biscuits?
No, I though not.
The mental health problem is way over-blown. It appears that the diagnosis and treatment is okay to be delivered for someone who can’t keep their nose out of your business, to offer some platitudes like ‘You okay, hun’, and force you to talk about private matters while feeding you tea and biscuits. It is however a complete cure, so you can look forward to leaving the encounter with a smile on your face, a spring in your step, and a whistling a happy tune. God forbid we were over-reacting to people who are ‘a bit sad’, or trivialising conditions that need the work of a professional psychiatrist.
Our walking route to our town centre takes us down a woodland shared path. It is tarmacked and well used by pedestrians and cyclists, but obviously suffers from overgrowing undergrowth and leaves in the “leafing season”. This morning one of the locals has spent the morning sweeping all the leaves off it. The council cannot even manage to do the basics, but they find money for all sorts of other irrelevant BS. At every level of government, the basics are not being executed very well but plenty of money is available for lunatic political projects.
So UKHSA is looking for evidence on how best to treat people to relieve their anxiety about climate change?
Simple. Reassure them.
Surely if their anxiety is crippling it does not matter if you don’t believe the reassurances you’re giving – use some professional bedside manner to make the final days of the patient more bearable. I think there’ll be a lot more ‘final days’ than they think.
U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA)
Department of Health and Social Care
NHS
You can never have too many civil servants, doing the same thing, wasting our money.
Genuine mental health issues like anxiety, depression and substance abuse caused by societal and lifestyle factors are being overlooked, and instead we invent new ones (for example climate anxiety) that would not exist if it were not for the deliberate steering of people’s worldviews towards anything – literally anything – that might justify Net Zero.
Since the wheels are falling off the Net Zero bandwagon, increasingly desperate attempts are being made to keep the masses on board – now that, for example, the National Energy Systems Operator claim in a report that at best household bills will remain the same (and probably increase) once the grid has been decarbonised.
So, no savings to be made for your average household, a crippling of individual mobility with the decimation of private vehicle usage, no holidays abroad, lack of evidence of a climate crisis and no evidence that Net Zero would have any impact on the climate. The mental health thing really is a last resort!
Classic.
Government intervention to solve a (non-existent) problem causes a new problem that disnt exist. And government intervenes to solve the problem it created.
So with this new intervention we can comfortably predict 2 things.
1. The problem of stress from climate change will not be solved by this intervention (because it isn’t climate change but the hysteria causing the problem obviously and because governments are terrible at solving problems anyway)
2. This government intervention will cause a whole new problem that the government will blame on something else and will attempt to solve. In an endless maddening escalating cycle.
If the disaster risk person wants to look at real risks, he might investigate the reckless destruction of dams that manage waterflow in dry countries that are prone to natural cloudburst events and the risk to countries of blackouts by not having secure base load electricity production when skies are grey and the wind is not blowing, rather than the fictional claim that weather related disasters historically never happened to the same degree as they do today.
What about spending money on finding out the Covid boosters kill people? My mate’s care home has lost 5 inmates already since the latest jabbing starting. It was into double figures last Autumn.
The climate does affect mental health and obviously affects the character of a nation. We have words and phrases too many to mention that link the weather with states of mind. Anxiety about carbon dioxide damage makes no sense at all because either there is nothing to be anxious about or there is nothing that can be done about it, anthropogenic or not. They have already said that the tipping point was reached years ago so why not just chill out and enjoy the end of the world you bloody fools.
If the ‘news’ or every wildlife programme, or really anything on TV stopped including Climate Change, or Climate Emergency, or Global Warming, the afflicted would realise it’s a load of crap meant to frighten them and their children into believing the world is about to implode and would be a better place without people! No wonder our birth rate is falling.