Could "Global Warming" be Compared to Repressed Memory Syndrome?

Question

Back in the 1980's and 1990's, Doctors determined that people under stress could repress memories. Many studies of repressed memory were taken, and after review, and other studies the consensus of Psychologists determined that this was an actual human condition.

Many people went to court being accused of heinous crimes and were convicted because the courts determined Repressed Memory to be a real and accurate medical condition.

In time, skeptics of Repressed Memory started to become vocal in their opposition to this condition. At first they were attacked by the main stream doctors in their profession. The doctors who accepted Repressed Memory questioned the qualifications of the skeptics, called them names and tried to get their licenses revoked.

After time, more studies were commissioned and these doubts were determined to have merit. Over some more time and more studies, it was discovered that the consensus was wrong, that Repressed Memories did not in fact exist in reality, these ideas were just planted into the minds of the victim by the doctors.

Is the same thing happening with "Global Warming"? Are we at the point where more scientists are starting to question the consensus? Do new studies show the inaccuracies of Global Warming, and uncovered emails show that there was collusion among scientists to support the theory?

Now that "Global Warming" results have not followed computer models, and more information is discovered about the climate, how much longer will global warming last before the theory is scrapped like repressed memory?

Answer 1

Surely Billy Joe's post is a put-up job from someone trying to discredit alarmists?



This man who was apparently "draft-eligible" (notice he doesn't say "drafted") for Vietnam, makes the most elementary school errors. Polar bears are NOT drowning. His friends field wherever it is has nothing to do with global warming (a truly bizarre suggestion).



Furthermore, psychology is NOT neuropathy, okay? You can image Broca's area in the brain as much as you like, it will tell you nothing about the levers and motivations that make people behave as they do. To suggest otherwise is an example of reductionism of the most simplistic kind.



Anyway, Dr Jello, to answer your question. There are many similarities between the two. I remember at the time the increasingly shrill assaults on those who questioned Satanic Ritual Abuse. Here in the UK families were torn apart for the duration of the child's childhood because of over-eager social workers with a bee in their bonnet.



See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_abuse - especially the section on "skepticism"



Turns out the sceptics were right - who'd of thought it?

.

Answer 2

Yes I have more than once. I lost a niece who was only 7yrs old and that had to be one of the worst. The death of a family member is one of the hardest to deal with. The memories keep coming back and that's what makes it so hard. I wish none of us had to go thru that.

Answer 3

Not really, and it you want to use the analogy you have it reversed. While many zealous therapists jumped on the recovered memory bandwagon, that was not the case among most clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.



So, on the one side you have degreed professionals studying the hypothetical phenomenon (like today’s climate scientists) and on the other side are mostly unscientific, poorly trained, ill-educated, and ideologically biased believers that only pretended to be educated and more knowledgeable (AGW deniers) than the majority of skilled behavioral scientists

Answer 4

Meadow: yes, draft-eligible but not drafted. Since you're from the UK, I assume you are unaware of the lottery system implemented by Nixon, where numbers were drawn for birthdays. My birthday gave me a higher lottery number and I was not drafted. What that has to do with the consensus of climatologists world wide is exactly nothing more than an ad hominem attack. I myself am a skeptic by nature never accepted repressed memory or satanic ritual abuse stories.



It is disingenuous of you to compare a soft science to a hard science. Soon, psychiatry will be a hard science as we learn more about brain and genetic functions. We're a long way from the media-fueled repressed memory of old as neuroscientists like Dr. Michael Persinger continue to discover new evidence. Persinger is also a psychiatrist.



So, the hard science of climatology cannot be compared to the soft science of psychiatry. My friend who lives on a Six Nation Reservation in northern Ontario says her small bay has yet to ice over this year, and here in Mississippi, we just had a heavy snowfall. When I lived on the coast, I met some of the Air Force's finest: The Hurricane Hunters. I also was able to visit the inside of a NOAA facility at Stennis Space Center and met many climatologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists working on volumes of data. One told me part of their latest work was watching a shift in currents leading to the Gulf Stream. I'll take their word over your political opinion any day.



Also, get your terms straight. The media coined global warming as scientists called it climate change. Polar bears are drowning. Entire shelves of ice are falling from Antarctica. This is real, the data is before you but I cannot cause you to disengage your brain from politics first, facts second.



Jerry, I agree. You will love school. The terms about the sciences have been around longer than I, and I was draft-eligible during the Viet Nam War.

Answer 5

Global warming is a fact. I "chase" hurricanes for a living and have since Andrew. All anyone needs to look at to know the Earth is heating up is pay attention to the temperature of the oceans. Hurricanes/cyclones are created in the ocean. All it takes for an increase in severity is one(1) deg Fahrenheit . And it takes quite a bit of additional energy(heat) to raise the temperatures of the ocean by a mere single degree Fahrenheit. There are numerous papers of HARD SCIENCE on this subject from all over the world. Always a good source is NOAA. A quick example is on their site http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/ . Perhaps a better way to gauge the potential validity of someones answer is to ask yourself does that persons job/profession deal on a daily basis with the science/business of your inquiry?! The reality is, you have the best answer to your question right in front of you on the same computer you made this request. You can research it for yourself on the internet and make your own decision. Good luck with your quest for the knowledge.

Answer 6

i just learned that we now have hard and soft science, i need to go back to school to learn this amazing science, and polar bears drowning? where? amazing, yes GW is in the same category

Answer 7

global warming is a real fact. i live in a country where we depend on nature for electricity. as it has not rained enough, dams are drying up, and turbines could stop working. all thanks to CO2 and human unawareness of the problem