health

Climate change trauma has real impacts on cognition and the brain, wildfire survivors study shows

21 Comments
By Jyoti Mishra

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

The Conversation at it again with even more woke psuedoscientific propaganda. It's not "Climate Change Trauma" it's just trauma. It can be caused by natural disasters or imposed on one from another. It's just trauma and it's been the tool of brainwashing and mind control for a very long time.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

 it's just trauma

Or even more plainly put: a harrowing experience. If it weren't climate change, they'd find another cause to justify their existence...

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

ish very boring.....anything global warming...

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The Conversation at it again with even more woke psuedoscientific propaganda

What part of the findings can you prove are false? it is a perfectly valid scientific publication that is explained in relatively simple terms without misrepresenting the conclusions.

Calling pseudoscientific something just because you are unable to accept their conclusions is not valid, it just means you were unable to argue against it.

It's not "Climate Change Trauma" it's just trauma.

This is clearly explained in the article, climate change is causing more and more natural disasters, so there is nothing wrong with calling the associated trauma for those disasters a consequence of the general situation that climate change represents.

If it weren't climate change, they'd find another cause to justify their existence...

Can you prove this claim? that people that are traumatized by the disasters that climate change is affecting would have the same traumas by any other reason? because this claim you make requires evidence.

ish very boring.....anything global warming...

No, not anything but a well described problem that is clearly related to climate change. It is inevitable that people with a heavy bias against anything scientific find them boring, but that says much more about the people making this judgment than from the findings.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

They're really reaching to push their climate change agenda.

Anyway, there is neither proof nor evidence that any wildfire mentioned in this article was caused by "climate change".

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Anyway, there is neither proof nor evidence that any wildfire mentioned in this article was caused by "climate change"

They are not saying climate change is the only cause, but that it is already well characterized how it is increasing the chances for these kinds of disasters to happen and to cause more destruction.

What part of the findings of the article can you prove are false? none? that means your claim that they are "pushing" for something is not true, they are simply describing what they found.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

virusrexToday  12:47 pm JST

They are not saying climate change is the only cause, but that it is already well characterized how it is increasing the chances for these kinds of disasters to happen and to cause more destruction. 

That's your take. Because just reading the title it is seen there is an affirmative position being taken. What part of my claim can you prove is false?

What part of the findings of the article can you prove are false? none? that means your claim that they are "pushing" for something is not true, they are simply describing what they found.

You just agreed climate change is not the only cause, so you contradict their attempt to push their narrative.

In other words, you asked and answered your own question.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

That's your take. Because just reading the title it is seen there is an affirmative position being taken. What part of my claim can you prove is false?

the part where you say they are pushing for an agenda when you have provide no proof this is the case.

You just agreed climate change is not the only cause, so you contradict their attempt to push their narrative.

No, I did not in any part of the text you quoted, your claim is the one that is baseless, climate change has already been proved beyong any reasonable doubt to increase the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, you are saying this is false and unproved while offering nothing to support that claim.

Therefore I only proved yours is the claim without basis.

In other words, you asked and answered your own question.

Yes, since you failed to provide any evidence of your claim that means the answer is clear, you said something that is not true and the questions asked only made it much more simple to understand it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It's not like climate change isn't obvious. It is. It's not like natural disasters like wildfires aren't traumatic. They are. But this fetish towards quantifying everything as being worse because of climate change is so ridiculous. Bad trauma is not better or worse because of the cause. Bad trauma is always bad. It's about creating a new narrative where every problem of human existence is now rerouted to a climate related cause. This is psuedoscientific because it forms a preconceived basis where there necessarily isn't one.

"People whose lives are ruined by wildfires are even more traumatized when the wildfires are caused by climate change." If this is the assertion then it's a laughable one.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

They're being traumatized by the MSM constantly talking about climate change.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But this fetish towards quantifying everything as being worse because of climate change is so ridiculous

What is ridiculous is the phrase "quantifying something as being worse", the report in this article clearly shows that there is a deep mental health problem related to the disasters being exacerbated by climate change. They are not measuring as worse, they are measuring it because it since climate change is getting worse then it is important to see what other things are also going to be worse togheter.

Bad trauma is not better or worse because of the cause

Which is something nobody in the article is saying, what is important is that climate change is not getting better, so it makes sense to see other effects that will come with it and be prepared for the now expected increase in mental health problem because of it

It's about creating a new narrative where every problem of human existence is now rerouted to a climate related cause. 

The article clearly is talking about a specific problem that can be objectively correlated with climate change, your claim is completely unrelated to it.

If this is the assertion then it's a laughable one.

No, that is a terribly wrong misunderstanding of the article that has absolutely nothing to do with what the article is talking about.

They're being traumatized by the MSM constantly talking about climate change.

You mean instead of being traumatized by actually experiencing the disasters, as well as the ruin and death that comes with them? that makes absolutely no sense. The article is not talking about completely unrelated people living a peaceful life, it is talking about survivors of the disasters, it would be much better if you could read the article before commenting.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@virusrex,

Based on your logic, bad things are now bad not only because they were bad before but now they're bad because of climate change. So if climate change weren't happening should we be less concerned with the trauma someone endures due to wildfires?

My point, which you will miss, is that linking trauma from natural disasters to climate change is simply a narrative tool by the propagandists at The Conversation to promote radical progressive policy making.

Nothing good will come from this article except to further stoke paranoia in those who buy into the global public private partnership sustainable development goals that seek to reduce individual freedoms to save the planet from the doom those very groups have caused.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

This is clearly explained in the article, climate change is causing more and more natural disasters

But is it? Natural disasters (and non-natural ones) have occurred throughout history. In some ways, we are better prepared to deal with them now than in the past. I don't imagine the trauma was any different for those who suffered. The link below suggests there were far more deaths from disasters 100 years ago than now. Note that I'm not denying that climate change is real - I'm just questioning the term "climate-change trauma".

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Going near an intense fire is an intense fire is an intense experience but not sure if climate change can be blamed for trauma as is suggested

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Based on your logic, bad things are now bad not only because they were bad before but now they're bad because of climate change

That makes no sense and it has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Disasters are bad no matter what is the cause but having a well described cause that is known to be more important means the disasters are going to increase, and so will all the problems related to them. So just pretending things are as usual is a terrible idea when it is been proved that things will get worse and people should prepare to deal with the increase of problems.

The "logic" of things being "bad" because of climate change is yours, and I explicitly rejected this as irrational and a bad misrepresentation of the article.

But is it? 

Yes, it is. According to the scientific consensus there is an increase of extreme weather caused by the climate change, just saying there have been always disasters does absolutely nothing to disprove that the frequency and intensity of them are increaseing because of a well known cause. Once again, the point is not that trauma is worse for people if the disaster was caused by climate change, that is just a bad strawman used to ignore the actual argument which is that the people being affected by the disasters is going to be more and more precisely because the disasters are going to be more frequent and important.

Going near an intense fire is an intense fire is an intense experience but not sure if climate change can be blamed for trauma as is suggested

Since nobody made that suggestion in the article that has no importance. Climate change is not making trauma more important by itself, it does it by making the disasters more common and important.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ok, the consensus here is that people are affected mentally by catastrophic events. Wildfires are one of those catastrophic events.

Nowhere in the article do the authors claim these wildfires in which the survivors are mentioned were caused by climate change.

That's logical.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Nowhere in the article do the authors claim these wildfires in which the survivors are mentioned were caused by climate change.

But since wildfires are a disaster that has been well characterized as of increasing importance because of climate change it its completely logical to infer that the effects observed in mental health will also increase accordingly. Climate change cause more wild fires, wild fires cause mental health problems of importance, so climate change will cause more mental health problems because of the increase of wild fires (and other disasters) which is something useful to know to plan for future health policies.

It is like an article proving a huge increase of health care costs in patients with antibiotic resistant bacterial infections. Knowing that inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the causes for antibiotic resistance makes it valid to say inappropriate use of antibiotics will affect health care costs, even without proving the patients of the report had antibiotic resistant infections product of inappropriate use of antibiotics.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

jeffbJan. 22  08:31 pm JST

@virusrex,

Based on your logic, bad things are now bad not only because they were bad before but now they're bad because of climate change. So if climate change weren't happening should we be less concerned with the trauma someone endures due to wildfires?

My point, which you will miss, is that linking trauma from natural disasters to climate change is simply a narrative tool by the propagandists at The Conversation to promote radical progressive policy making. 

Nothing good will come from this article except to further stoke paranoia in those who buy into the global public private partnership sustainable development goals that seek to reduce individual freedoms to save the planet from the doom those very groups have caused.

Spot on.

Some readers believe just because an article appears on JT and has a scientific or medical tilt, then everything in the article must be accurate!

If the scientists take a closer look at these people experiencing trauma, they will also find that almost every one of them had eaten pizza at least once within the year,

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Spot on.

Actually a completely wrong and invalid mischaracterization of both the article and the comment being quoted, because in neither of those places the negative consequences are being represented as worse just because a disaster is originated in climate change.

Some readers believe just because an article appears on JT and has a scientific or medical tilt, then everything in the article must be accurate!

If an article is based on a scientific report it is much safer to consider it accurate until there is any argument or evidence to contradict it. Just claiming it must be wrong or worthless without those arguments or evidence is what makes absolutely no sense. The same as arguing about something that is not being presented because the actual content of the article can't be refuted.

If the scientists take a closer look at these people experiencing trauma, they will also find that almost every one of them had eaten pizza at least once within the year,

And what importance would that have? unless you can present evidence that eating pizza is correlated with presenting mental health problems you are just making an invalid comparison between something that is actually relevant to mental health and something that is completely irrelevant.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I can see how people can get caught up in believing an article like this when the title is so misleading.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I can see how people can get caught up in believing an article like this when the title is so misleading.

The real reason why people are likely to believe this article is that it does present solid evidence supporting the conclusions, what unfortunately is happening here is people reading only the title and making invalid assumptions about the content, that problem would be much more easily solved by reading something you want to have an opinion about instead of just misunderstanding the title.

The headline itself is not misleading, climate change do have an effect on natural disasters, and those disasters cause problems in mental health on the survivors. Keeping the previous analogy it would be like a title saying "Misuse of antibiotics have real impact on health care costs" which would be true thanks to the increase of antibiotic resistant infections.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites