I’ve written a few pieces about the ‘doom and gloom’ phenomenon that infects our media (for example, here), and I go on puzzling about why it is so. No answers this time. But my eye was caught by a reference to ‘doomer porn’ on the Fabius Maximus website. And I thought I’d read on. That meant I learned of another term — ‘collapsitarian’ — which I had not heard of before. Collapsitarians are those who prophesy ‘the end of the world as we know it’, or even just the end of the world.
You’ll learn about them in this long and interesting piece, by K. L. Cooke, which is worth reading. My following exploration of doomer porn on the Internet allows me to make my own comments about The Doomsters (also the title of one of Ross Macdonald’s excellent crime thrillers).
Collapsitarians, says Cooke, have a theory that industrial civilization is about to tumble into a new Dark Age, precipitated by overpopulation, fossil fuel depletion and climate change, which will bring about global conflict, famine and epidemic disease. The more optimistic proponents foresee a near term population reduction to ten percent of the current load. The less sanguine envision mass species extinction to include Homo sapiens.
I’ve certainly come across that sort of stuff, though more in the USA than in Australia. And it makes fascinating reading. Start with ‘doomer porn’ and see where it gets you. Here’s an explicit statement: I believe that the turbocharged, energy-intensive, consumer-oriented lifestyle of contemporary society is doomed. This writer is a peak-oil catastrophist, and there are quite a few of them. It was written in 2011, or at least not later.
Here’s another:Â We have between now and July to get ourselves as ready as possible to feed ourselves, to protect ourselves, to keep ourselves warm, to stay out of the way … as much as possible until things settle down. I really do not think we will be living in anything like the society we have known, the civilization we have known, by this fall. I’m as confident about this as I’ve ever been. That was a few years ago, too.
Yet another, though from the same source as the one above: starting with bad corporate earnings reports due to the effects of the earthquake on Japan’s multinational corporations, the stock market is going to crash. And after the stock market crashes, the world economy is going to crash. And high oil prices are a major cause of this collapse. Apparently, farmers and fishers all over the world are not planting seeds or catching fish because they can’t afford the oil. Again, written in 2011.
This is stock-market-collapse doomsterism. You will know that high oil prices ceased  some time ago — but they could come back, say the doomsters, and look out then! There is God’s wrath, overpopulation, exotic bugs, a new ebola, Muslim triumph, Satan victorious, aliens from outer space (they are circling the planet as you read) — the threats are almost infinite. But they all lead to quick and total collapse of the existing order. There is ‘collapse fiction’, and handbooks about ‘wilderness survival’.
There seem to be a lot of websites devoted to the collapsitarian cause, and they compete with one another — as this one says, after making its own claim: We are in a crisis in the evolution of human society. It’s unique to both human and geologic history. It has never happened before and it can’t possibly happen again. Albert Bates, author of The Financial Collapse Survival Guide and Cookbook, brings you along on his personal journey… Global population, limits to growth, peak oil and climate change activists have been coming up with such similar contraction scenarios that they are beginning to echo each other.
Dr Kathy McMahon, who claims to be ‘the Peak Shrink’, has issued ‘Ten Dos and Don’ts for New Doomers’, one of which is not to spend endless hours on the Internet researching new dooms.
Yes, it’s bizarre, at least to me. Why is ‘doomer’ stuff  ‘porn? I guess because it excites doomsters, and they need it to feel that they are alive. A woman who went in for doomsterism, and then weaned herself off it, defined doomer porn like this: In brief, it means overwrought or unrealistic forecasts and predictions of shit hitting fan. More narrowly, it involves wrenching stories of global disasters that threaten the extinction of the human race; all is assumed to be lost except for a scant remnant of humanity. Obsessive dwelling on and morbid fascination with the mind-boggling, terrifying and plausible images of coming destruction brings on satisfying feelings of grim exhilaration.
Fantasies abound of outwiting the Four Horsemen, surviving all the desperate zombies and marauding hordes and entering a cleansed world. Doomer porn plays on base emotions and thrills — anxiety, fear, and fright and the urgent need for sudden climax — all for the furthering of someone’s agenda.
What happens then, she says, is that the sensationalist, distracting, time-wasting blight induces an urgency to DO SOMETHING, usually translated into buying someone’s books or reports, although the purveying of lecture gigs, precious metals and survival paraphernalia plays a role as well.
Cooke writes that the purveyors seem to do well out of it, writing and selling books that tell you how to survive, running websites that are the source for buyers, and asking for donations to support their virtuous work. One will use Spengler’s theory about the rise and fall of civilisation, another will criticise anything and everything to do with (in this case) American government; a third simply assumes catastrophe is coming, and has technical help for how to survive it.
How and why do they succeed? Cooke says these people are simply exploiting a demand, a need. What causes it? The doomer readers, he says, are outsiders, who feel they don’t belong. I want to know what causes that feeling. I have a feeling that the loss of the strong community feeling of the 1940s and 1950s, the decline of organised Christianity (though not obviously in the USA), and the rise of individualism, has meant a growth in the number of people who feel rootless and perhaps unwanted. From my reading, I think they include a lot of people who find large cities and their infrastructure (freeways, high-rise) quite frightening. I don’t know, but while Australia does not seem to be infected by the doomer virus, at least so far, you can see examples of it by looking up ‘doomer porn australia’.
And the most obvious example are those who keep saying that we are doomed unless we control greenhouse gas emissions.. They are supported, not so much by doomers, but by those who feel that we ought to ‘do something’, but haven’t looked at all hard as to why, or as to whether or not the ‘something’ will actually have any effect.
Searching for articles: If you have, like me, used Google and Google scholar to find papers you will have noticed that there is an awful amount of dross that you have to go past in order to find something that doesn’t start with the assumption that AGW is here and frightening. Someone else felt the same, and has done something about it. Go to
http://www.defyccc.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=climate%20sensitivity&gsc.sort=
and enter in the field you are interested in, and you’ll find references to the sceptical side of whatever it is (climate sensitivity, for example). You’ll still need to know what the orthodox people are pinning their hopes to, and the current Bible is of course the IPCC’s AR5. While the orthodox blogs are publishing much less than they used to, RealClimate is worth going to for defences of the orthodoxy. SkepticalScience is, in my view, not worth going to for anything.
It is useful to reflect that similar themes are found in the Christian Bible’s Old Testament, as well as in the New Testamant’s Book of Revelation. Here’s a sample from the latter, opened at random (“ah ha”, you’ll exclaim, “it opened at that page because you have obviously been opening at that page quite often!”).
“After this, I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendour. With a mighty voice he shouted,
‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit . . . ‘ Then I heard another voice from heaven say, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues, . . . . ‘ ” (Ch 18, New International Version 1978).
Seems to me the basic message is not very different – another form of doom merchandising.
A couple of years ago I spent some time thinking about why ordinary rational people have such great difficulty in looking at actual climate data, at examining argument and claims, even simply reviewing those grim climate forecasts for periods up to the present that have proven to be false, sometimes grievously so. I’ve had to conclude that many simply don’t want to undertake this simple examination, even where they have the time and the intellect. There is a deal of satisfaction in being able to say “You’re wrong, and I’m right!” Perhaps it is a way for people for whom the glass is always half empty, to feel better about themselves and their own lives. Are doom believers often depressed?
I’ll have to settle down and read the whole of the Book of Revelation, an omission from my youth that until now I have never regretted. I could so do with a dose of ‘doom porn’ – but will it make me feel better?
“why ordinary rational people have such great difficulty in looking at actual climate data, at examining argument and claims, even simply reviewing those grim climate forecasts for periods up to the present that have proven to be false, sometimes grievously so. I’ve had to conclude that many simply don’t want to undertake this simple examination, even where they have the time and the intellect.”
No Peter, I don’t agree with that conclusion – it’s because many simply find such detail boring and many more things in their lives more time consuming and/or more interesting.
So what do you do?
Do you just believe sources like the ABC and press releases from the CSIRO or AMA about climate change. Or do you say reasonable people like Don have valid points, perhaps I should have an open mind on the subject?
I have an open mind on the subject. I am reasonable also.
You have also not lived long enough to have an opinion.
I’m a bloody grandmother! Do I have to wait till my grandchildren have babies before I can have an opinion?
dlb
Reasonable?. What do you find reasonable about this article? The thread of this article is a tiresome meme that Don has pushed on a number of occasions to advance his jihad against AGW.
Surely a moderately reasonable treatment of “doomer porn”
might examine other irrational fears such “terrorism” , “illicit drugs” or “the internet”. But no none of that. That would not be on message.
Surely an open minded treatment of “Doomer Porn”, would not simply conclude with some insipid and entirely predictable criticism of AGW.
If you search you will find that I have written about illegal drugs as well, and about deaths from terrorism. I object to your use of ‘jihad’, and think it belittles what you are seeking to say. My objections to the claim that AGW is potentially serious, indeed catastrophic, are based on argument, evidence and real data. I ask for a debate on the subject, but your usual contribution is at the level of high school debate, and rarely will you tackle the business of defending arguments, and the supposed evidence that goes with them.
I object to AGW in large part because it seems to me to have debauched good science, which I care about.
Why do you object to “jihad” when you use the term “orthodox”, both terms have religious roots.
Surely if you can use the word porn loosely then jihad is equally allowable – “In Arabic, the word jih?d is a noun meaning “to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere.” Taken in that context that is exactly what you do in your ‘climate change’ posts.
Like economics, I find climate science a bit dismal really, round and round you go experts and amateurs alike, chasing each other like the tigers who turned into butter.
If the growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement then this space needs others than those who hang on your every word because you are reasonable, when really, they just want to hold your coat tails because they are closet deniers.
So what is your definition for “climate denier”?
By logic Don must be a denier because of those deniers that hang off his coat tails.
Only Don can know that. My definition for a climate change denier is someone eager to assert that all of mankind’s scientific discovery and industrial progress has been entirely beneficial for the natural cycles of climate change and that AGW is a perfectly good thing for the planet.
Margaret,
Do you mean something like ‘human industry and activity has had little or nothing to do with the natural cycles of climate change, and that global warming has been of benefit for the planet and the living things in it’?
Yes, that would be a view that denied the potentially catastrophic view of AGW.
Semantics.
Is this why Christine longer comments?
Well there is always a possibility that is the case, but I wouldn’t like to bet on it. My definition of a climate denier (is one who denies the greenhouse effect, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the current rise of the CO2 in the atmosphere is all due to natural processes.) I don’t think too many of the coat tailers would carry that view.
Just because I’m not interested in detailed science doesn’t mean I don’t want it to be accurate. Perhaps as much as being a sceptic, Don is a whistleblower for the cause of accuracy in climate science data and the “hype” that surrounds AGW.
And it just occurred to me – whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer?
I like your thinking.
Definition of a climate change denier – someone who believes the climate was stable before mankind began burning fossil fuels!!!
So your “doomer porn” is OK?
The only way to combat bad science is with good science. If you want to reach the people that matter blogging isn’t going to cut it. Insurance companies, financiers, farmers and governments are all going to base their decisions on the best available science. No CEO is going to stand in front of his board and declare “We don’t need to mitigate against this risk because of insert-favorite-blog here”. Get your findings properly peer reviewed and published, and then the people that matter might sit up and take notice.
Yes, it’s Steven Mosher’s point (see a few posts ago), though he doesn’t rabbit on about peer review. His point is that sceptics need to have an alternative theory that can be tested and in fact works better than the AGX orthodoxy, if they are to be taken seriously by those in power. And I’ve agreed that he’s right. There isn’t such an alternative theory at the moment, though there are bits of several theories.
That’s not the point. I write as I do because I can see what is wrong with the orthodoxy, and argue that the AGW theory is simply not good enough to warrant the social and economic policies that have been foisted on us by governments. If you think I’m wrong you are at liberty to show me how and why. Telling me to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a cop-out, in that you don’t have to do anything. I just shrug and keep writing. I’ve heard all that before, and in the meantime the evidence accumulates that the orthodox AGW argument is getting weaker, not stronger. I’ve shown why in numerous pieces. Again, you are liberty to argue against me, but not that way. It’s as weak as …
My “secondary-school” take on the scientific process is
1. Hypothesis
2. Data collection
3. Analysis
4. Results
5. Conclusion
Don its not really OK jump from step 1 to step 5, because you think you “..see what is wrong with orthodoxy”. 🙂
David, I think you’re being overly generous granting step 1. If Don does have an hypothesis I’m yet to stumble across it. All I ever seem to be able to find in these essays is:
1. Conspiracy Theory
2. Conclusion
And Don perversely claims “…debauched good science, which I care about”. I suspect we all care about debauched science, we just differ on who’s doing the debauching.
Since I have written about conspiracy theories, and argued that they are not necessary as an explanation of AGW, I would be pleased to learn where you find evidence of them in my writing.
Well you link to and promote people who propose conspiracy theories. For example you suggested we all should read Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s letter to BoM which concludes
“The entire historical temperature record for Australia is being re-written by your ACORN-SAT [BoM] team with fictitious justifications.”
Walks like a conspiracy theory
Talks like a conspiracy theory
It’s a,….. 🙂
Oh dear. As I have argued many times, I don’t see any need to have a rival theory in order to look at the weaknesses in another one. In critiquing the AGW proposition I look at all those steps and see if the data are strong (mostly they aren’t, especially early temperature data), the analysis (seems rarely to take account of alternative possibilities), results (usually over-egged) and conclusion (doom).
As I pointed out to Jimbo, I don’t have an alternative theory, and I don’t believe there is one, though you can see elements of a number. The current AGW one is pitifully weak, in my judgment. You and Jimbo are invited to show how I am wrong, with data, analysis and results.
You don’t really contribute to a debate by doing what you do.
If you really want to contribute to good science, why not publish your findings so other scientists can reference it and build on it? You don’t need a unified theory of everything in order to publish what you’ve discovered. Your paper could be as focused as “BoM Temperature Data is Wrong” (or whatever it is you’ve discovered).
Do you really think CSIRO or BoM scientists have the time to scour thousands of blogs every week looking for new discoveries? In general, the signal-to-noise ratio in the blogosphere is pretty low.
It’s usually about now that you bring out your giant conspiracy theory about how you are prevented from publishing because everybody wants to stick to the orthodox view. Another possibility is that your science isn’t rigorous enough to pass muster. How many papers on the topic have you submitted for publication? How many were rejected, and why?
And in anticipation of your next question Don, I couldn’t possibly improve on what these two scientists say, so quote them unmodified, except to add their answer applies to all your research in the area, not just to the BoM temperature data.
Valid critiques of data homogenisation techniques are most welcome. But as in all areas of science, from medicine to astronomy, there is only one place that criticisms can legitimately be made. Anyone who thinks they have found fault with the Bureau’s methods should document them thoroughly and reproducibly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This allows others to test, evaluate, find errors or produce new methods.
This process has been the basis of all scientific advances in the past couple of centuries and has led to profoundly important advances in knowledge. Abandoning peer-reviewed journals in favour of newspaper articles when adjudicating on scientific methods would be profoundly misguided.
(http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009)
Why is it Don’s business to publish in peer review journals.?This sounds like the football coach saying to critical sports commentators “why don’t you coach the team!”. All you need is a critical eye to call out a bad job.
re the BoM temperatures, I would be generally in agreement with you.
Hmmm… because he cares about outing the truth? He claims to be concerned about “debauched science” and the only way I know of fixing that is with good science.
I like your football analogy, although I’d probably tweak it a bit. There’s a good chance a football coach is going to hear/read what the sports commentators report. I think there’s almost no chance that climate scientists start each day checking donaitkin.com to seek out his latest review of their work.
Don’s more like the fan way at the back of the stands yelling his views into the abyss, nowhere near loud enough to be heard by anyone that matters. It might influence the views of a few people sitting near him, but it isn’t going to change the score.
Its ironic that Don continues to invite us to debate him in his forum, and that’s exactly what the climate scientists are inviting reviewers like him to do in their forum (peer reviewed scientific literature). They are literally gagging for new findings, especially the ones that will change the orthodoxy.
Why won’t Don participate in the big league? He claims there’s a conspiracy theory that locks him out from participating in their forum. They’ve made up their minds and shut the door behind them to prevent any other views getting in. I think a far more likely explanation is that his science simply isn’t up to the job. Hence his “findings” (perhaps opinions would be a better word?) continue to get shouted into the abyss, which is probably where they belong.
Of course I don’t have to do anything, I’m not a climate scientist. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with them. The only way you can take on bad science is with good science. If and when you start participating in that process, I (and more importantly people making big decisions about this stuff) will pay attention.
I’ve already agreed that there is no strong rival to AGW, but that doesn’t make AGW strong. It is the ruling theory because of the political process, not because of its own inherent virtues. But showing weaknesses in a hypothesis is surely a normal, everyday, process in research.
David, perhaps this article could be improved as you suggest but on the whole I find Don’s views reasonable, moderate and well researched. He definitely has a message and that is there another side to the concept of anthropogenic global warming. In my view he can push it as much as he can, as it is a message that has been sidelined in the media and shunned in academia.
I find this blog very reasonable and politically neutral, unlike some other climate sites. Why don’t you start your own blog eliciting your views on science and society?
Politically neutral? Really. Humor me and explain to me why this article is politically neutral.
http://donaitkin.com/labor-and-the-carbon-tax/
Only if your politics is out on the far green, idealistic fringe.
Of course that wouldn’t apply to you David. 🙂
Did you crack a smile?
yes 🙂 🙂
Don, I think that ‘glass half full/empty’ people are born that way but that some of the latter then go to work on making themselves even more unhappy. Being happy is just the most wonderful feeling to have but you have to work at it. I’m also wondering if self respect comes into play. I think a study of any links between ‘doomers’ and obesity could perhaps show something. If that is so, diabetes would have to be added to the list of possible extinction scenarios. By the way, I’ve lost 7 kilos in the last 4 months 🙂
Are you appreciably happier, too?
Cheers,
Don
Absolutely. I feel better in myself and that makes me happier too.
I love the tipping points (the point after which no amount of effort will prevent the world spiralling into an apocalyptic abyss) that come and go on climate change….without a blush there is no explanation of why their prediction failed. I agree they seem to flourish on bad news. Example: when was the last time you heard the ABC present a good news story on climate change e.g. the hiatus, the barrier reef which has not have been destroyed along with polar ice caps and the polar bears, the stubborn persistence of the Maldives and the pacific atolls and the lethargic sea rises? One could go on.
My view is that we are an exceptionally short-lived species, and have no real appreciation of the consequences of our actions. This ignorance affects every facet of our existence. Hence our reliance on all forms of mysticism, rather than rational analysis, to explain the apparently inexplicable.
Don,
Doomer Porn? Is this what you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMHoEMwFNQ
To be fair, when his promised “wrecking ball through the economy” failed to show up, he quietly morphed it into a “python squeeze”….
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-admits-carbon-tax-not-a-catastrophe-20120825-24t62.html
Frank Kermode wrote a book to document the recurring theme in literature that the end is nigh. The Sense of an Ending, available from Amazon on kindle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sense_of_an_Ending:_Studies_in_the_Theory_of_Fiction
[…] Aitkin on doomer porn and Frank Kermode on A Sense of an […]
If you go to RealClimate for the orthodox view, then SkS is for the evangelicals.
The links in the For More Information section of “Doomer Porn” go to a wealth of examples and analysis of this important phenomenon.
You might find the follow-up post of interest: “Despair: so common these days, so good for the 1%”.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/21/doomster-friend-1-percent-88827/
It has stunning examples of despair are from comments at the website of Brad DeLong (Prof Economics, Berkeley) — probably liberals or leftists. But similar sentiments are just as common on the right (although with different details).
Despair makes us ideal subjects for the 1%: hard-working and politically passive. It’s how we justify our apathy.
I was going to mention this link in my next post, but you’ve done it for me!
I do enjoy your varied website.
It’s the overuse of the word porn that is the phenomenon. Now instead of meaning explicit sexual material it’s a blanket term for anything that has a negative connotation. I think Peter K has a point – the broadcast of doom and gloom began with the Old Testament.
Margaret,
I see your point. On the other hand, generalizing “porn” can be considered material viewed for the purpose of arousal. Doomster porn qualifies, as people view it like a horror film — for the purpose of arousal. Very seldom do they treat it as information that affects their actions.
It’s slang, usefully vivid descriptive language.
Hi Don. I think it is an attempt to achieve a state of transcendence. It makes people feel special. Only they have the clarity of vision to see beyond the coming apocalypse. A state of grace achieved by having special insight. It’s what gives them the right to belittle those who don’t share their highly tuned gifts of insight.
As you rightly point out it’s for ego preening and cash flow enhancement. Ordinary people who indulge in these activities are doing it for their own ego enhancement.
It’s high noon but the train’s late so last words from Amy. I’ve found the comments from David and Jimbo lucid, helpful, amusing and broadening for the debate on ‘climate change’. Thanks.
Yes, plan is to win the debate one smile at a time. 🙂
Well, I’ve just been reading all of the comments below. I think the best resolution, if a resolution is the wish of all of those contributing to this discussion, would be to have a formal debate. I don’t think that major issues would necessarily be resolved, but at least we would have a clear explanation of each point of view. It is not a debate in the sense of choosing which is the better debating team; it is a debate to bring out the data and argument that each wishes to present.
I think we’d all agree that name calling doesn’t cut the mustard. Appealing to authority doesn’t cut the mustard. Calling for an alternative to the AGW theory , in my view doesn’t work either. Did Galileo have a theory about why the Earth and our planets revolved around our Sun? I suspect not. I think he just had observations, which contradicted the current theory. Do we have the full explanation about “natural variation”? No, we do not. “Natural variation” means simply that we don’t know.
Now to give a few tips on what I would raise in such a debate, here are a few pointers. David, Margaret and Jimbo, I’d be interested in your specific comments on each of these points:
** the Minoan , Roman, medieval warm periods, all warmer than the current period;
** the warming since Little Ace age circa 1700 ad, and expected effects on global temperatures and sea levels;
** consistently gentle sea level rise since then,
** the geological record of global temperatures and CO2 that are in
anything but lock step,
** flat global temperatures for last 18 years, despite steady rise
of CO2,
** the long History of ice melt and re-freezing in both poles,
especially the Arctic with its better history,
** an AGW hypothesis built almost wholly on mathematical models
that have consistently over-estimated global temperatures,
** a persistent claim that 97% agree about AGW, when the 97% was
based on 75 out of 77 climate scientists – selected from a pool of 3000+ – who
were asked only two simple questions about global warming, to which even I
would have answered “Yes” ?? “Is it warming, and are human affecting this warming?”
When you seriously address each of these issues in turn, we at last have a debate.
I look forward to your responses.
[…] 'Doomer porn'. I've written a few pieces about the 'doom and gloom' phenomenon that infects our media (for example, here), and I go on puzzling about why it is so. No answers this time. But my eye was caught by a reference to 'doomer porn' … Article by doomers – Google Blog Search. Read entire story here. […]