In his book Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and Adolescents (co-edited with John R Weisz) there is a distinction between therapy in an adult context and in a child/adolescent context. “In the context of adult therapy, psychotherapy is defined as a special interaction between two (or more) individuals in which one person (the patient or client) has sought help for a particular problem and in which another person (the therapist) provides conditions to alleviate that person’s distress and to improve functioning in everyday life (Garfield, 1980; Walrond-Skinner, 1986). A more recent definition in the context of evaluating child and adolescent treatment defines therapy as any intervention that is designed to alleviate distress, reduce maladaptive behavior, or enhance adaptive functioning and that uses means that include counseling and structured or planned interventions (Weisz, Weiss, Han, Granger, & Morton, 1995).”

And in the next paragraph, after describing adult therapy, which involves the therapist giving support, encouragement, etc., directly to the adult client: “The definition is modified slightly in relation to children and adolescents. For example, children usually do not seek help but someone responsible for them seeks treatment and in some cases the therapist may work more directly with responsible others (i.e., parents) than with the child.”

Do you see where I’m going with this? In my opinion, Dr Kazdin’s “We know how to change behavior” statement seems to flow directly from his work with delinquent children. In his view, it seems that we are not responsible adults, capable of evaluating evidence and making up our own minds. We are children, whose delinquent and antisocial behaviour needs to be curbed and modified by wise, authoritative parent figures. It is as if “children [sceptical members of the public] usually do not seek help but someone responsible for them seeks treatment and in some cases the therapist may work more directly with responsible others (i.e., parents [governments and the media]) than with the child [sceptic].”

Some interesting reading can also be found here: http://www.alankazdin.com/index.htm

KU should stick around, and is welcome to post comments. We started the blog in order to provide debate in an area we felt was lacking. There are other blogs where the pure science is debated, and others have their own perspective on the politics of climate change. We don’t want people to come here just to agree.

KU’s comments relate to a post which was not about whether or not claims about the future of the climate had any foundation. Instead, it was about whether or not it was legitimate for psychologists to engage with the agenda in the way that they have; by theorising about people who fail to observe the diktats of the environmental movement.

As we say often, it is perfectly possible to believe that humans have influenced the climate, and that this influence will cause problems, while remaining sceptical of the political actions to try and stop it. Expressions such as ‘climate change is real’, as others here have pointed out, means absolutely nothing, yet from it are supposed to flow moral imperatives. Some of these are relatively harmless, we should ‘recycle’, we ought to think about how often we use our cars, &c &c.

But what these psychologists seem to be saying is that because ‘climate change is real’, they have a responsibility to begin to dehumanise dissent, and to pathologise it, and to make it an illness that needs to be treated. Disagreement with ‘the consensus’ is not explained as the expression of a rational engagement with the issues, but in mechanistic terms.

Even if ‘climate change is real’, it does not follow from it that it is right to treat people in this way. Increasingly, the environmental movement makes moral, political and economic claims which seem less about ‘saving the planet’, and much more to do with exerting control over society for the sake of it. The reasons for that desire, we would argue, are not in the atmosphere.

KU should take more care to understand what the arguments being made actually are. Like many of his comrades, he misses the point. This epitomises the environmental movement, which is high in moral tone, but lacks intellectual power.

Yesterday I was in a bookshop and glanced at a book called Going Green, in which the author stated: “Modern civilisations have built their lives around a more or less predictable climate over the past centuries.”

Reading up on the history of the Little Ice Age, the exact opposite becomes clear. From roughly the mid-19th century onwards (in the northern hemisphere at least) climatic conditions became generally milder, with fewer harsh winters.

Before that, there were centuries with many extreme climatic events – freezing winters, scorching summers, monstrous storms.

The last few decades have generally seemed pleasant, stable and mild by comparison.

I’m wondering how many more years of non-catastrophe we need to go through before the message starts to sink in.

Yes, climate change is real, it changes all the time, always has, always will. Its been changing for some 4.5 billion years. If you had been alive at the end of the last ice age, would you try to stop that? And, yes, our activities do have some effect, a very small effect, probably insignificant.

The belief that we control or drive the climate is just plain human arrogance. Look around, make observations, real world observations, not computer model outputs. Read the literature on both sides of the arguement. If you want to believe that humans control the climate and that we are getting to a tipping point, please feel free to do so. James Hansen laid out three scenarios in the 1980′s. The most realistic one, the one that matches what we are actually seeing is the one scenario that required massive cutbacks in emmissions. Gore claimed that several island nations are being flooded by rising seas, its not happening, unless you call 3 or 4 milliletres as drastic rise.

The average global temperature has risen about 0.7 + or – 0.2 degrees C in the last hundred years, after we came out of a mini ice age. You can’t even detect that amount of delta when it happens immediately.

But, like I said, its up to you to decide what you believe. Its all opinion anyway.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/coming-down-to-earth-20080815-3wdz.html

Cheers.

I will keep on eye on this but it seems that we have a case of a left-over sect of Eugenecists roaming around our mental health care profession.

Our defence is a late night post at the end of a long, boring day.

How can you sleep at night, knowing that what you are propagating is the biggest lie ever against humanity?

Professor Hansen was correct – we need to have trials and convictions of denialist criminals!!!1!!