Creating hysteria masquerading as science – is Watt surprised?

Sometimes you stumble upon a “study” that is so self-serving, filled with assumptions, and so blatantly designed to push a particular agenda that you almost have to admire its audacity. Lancet Planetary Health A recent article was published titled “Climate Sentiments, Ideas, and Plans among U.S. Teens and Young Adults.” On the surface, it purports to be a large-scale survey analyzing the impact of climate change on the mental health of young Americans. Yet beneath the veneer of academic rigor lies little more than a thinly veiled manifesto of radical climate policy, with its roots in the overventilated world of climate alarmism.

The authors claim that the emotional burden of climate change is causing widespread hopelessness, anxiety and life-changing fears among teenagers and young adults. Their evidence? A number of hypothesized correlations between self-reported feelings and weather events, climate narratives, and mental health.

Methodology House of Cards

We assessed survey responses from 15 793 people (weighted proportions: 80·5% of 18-25 year olds and 19·5% of 16-17 year olds; 48·8% of women and 51·2% of men). Overall, 85·0% of respondents expressed at least some concern about climate change and its impact on people and the planet, with 57·9% expressing great or extreme concern. 42·8% said climate change had an impact on self-reported mental health, and 38·3% said their feelings about climate change had a negative impact on their daily lives. Respondents reported negative thoughts about the future due to climate change and planned actions to address it, including political candidates who were likely to vote for aggressive climate policies (72·8%). In regression models, self-reported experience with more types of severe weather events was significantly associated with greater endorsement of climate-related distress, aspirations, and action plans. Political party identity is Democratic Party or Independent Party or other (and Republican) was also significantly associated with stronger support for distress, desire, and action plans, although most people who identified as Republican reported at least moderate levels of distress. For all findings evaluated in the model, the impact of experiencing a greater variety of severe weather events does not differ significantly by party identification.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(24)00229-8/fulltext

The study surveyed 15,793 young Americans aged 16 to 25 through the Cint digital marketplace, a Craigslist for survey participants. This is a convenience sample rather than a chance sample, which means it is inherently biased towards people who actively choose to participate. Despite this glaring problem, the authors confidently claim that their findings are representative of young people across the country, simply waving their hand in acknowledgment of this glaring flaw.

Weighting answers by census demographics (age, race, and gender) does not compensate for this selection bias. The study does break down answers by political affiliation (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents), but it doesn't appear to ensure that the sample reflects the actual distribution of political ideology among the U.S. population. In other words, while they analyzed party responses, they did not adjust the sample itself to match the realistic proportions of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

Then the question comes self-report. Respondents were asked to recall “severe weather events” they had experienced, such as heat waves, floods and wildfires. Not surprisingly, 93.2% said the area they live in has been affected by at least one such event in the past year. Has the study verified this exposure through weather data? Of course not. The author takes these statements at face value and assumes that perception equals reality.

This raises an important question: If the survey disproportionately includes Democrats (who statistics show are more likely to express climate distress), then the results will tilt toward progressive attitudes. Gen Z activists in California, for example, will naturally express more climate anxiety than those in the rural Midwest who don’t check Twitter at night. Without appropriate weighting to account for ideological representation, research results may amplify the views of one political group while marginalizing others, making overall conclusions less credible.

Climate catastrophe: a man-made crisis

Headline discovery? 85% of respondents are at least somewhat concerned about climate change, with 57.9% feeling “very” or “extremely” concerned. Some 42.8% of people claim that climate change has a negative impact on their mental health, and 38.3% say that climate change disrupts their daily lives. The figures were then widely circulated as evidence of an impending mental health crisis for young people caused by climate change itself.

But let’s pause and ask: Are these feelings the product of actual climate phenomena, or the product of relentless fear-driven messaging? This study completely sidesteps the role of media narratives, education systems and social media in amplifying these fears. When you spend years telling your kids that the world is going to end because they used a plastic straw, don’t be surprised when they start crying over their oat milk lattes.

Speaking of emotional manipulation, the survey questions themselves actually asked people to respond dramatically. For example, rate your beliefs about the following statements:

• “ Climate change will threaten my life”
• “Do you think the U.S. government has betrayed you and/or future generations?”

Subtle, right? Asking such a question does not produce meaningful data – it validates the author's predetermined narrative.

The agenda behind the data

Make no mistake: This study was not designed to understand teen mental health. It is a tool for promoting radical climate policy.

• The authors repeatedly highlight respondents’ desire for “aggressive climate policies” and their tendency to vote for candidates who support such policies (72.8%). They interpreted this as evidence of growing calls among young people for systemic change.
• Unsurprisingly, business and government are seen as the villains, with 82% blaming corporate greed for their plight and 81.8% declaring that the US government has “failed young Americans.”

The findings reflect climate activists' talking points less than reality. Surprisingly, this research was funded by the Avaaz Foundation, which is known for its climate advocacy. This is similar to studies funded by big tobacco companies that concluded smoking relieves stress.

Feelings are not facts

The paper's reliance on self-reported data results in absurd leaps of logic. For example:

• Exposure to severe weather events: Self-reported experiences of events such as heat waves or floods are seen as evidence that climate change is causing suffering. No effort was made to distinguish between ordinary weather changes and long-term climate trends.
• Mental health effects: The author conflates ordinary anxieties fueled by relentless media intimidation with clinically significant mental health issues. Reporting sadness about the future is different from clinical depression, but research has made no effort to separate the two.

The most alarming assumption is that these feelings represent a call to action. The author believes that the suffering of teenagers will only subside when businesses and governments “take action on the scale necessary” to combat climate change. Translation: more regulation, higher taxes, more power given to unelected bureaucrats.

weaponizing guilt

What’s truly shocking is how this study exploits guilt to push its agenda. It portrays young people as helpless victims, paralyzed by fear and betrayed by previous generations. Parents and grandparents are accused of not doing enough, businesses are evil, and governments are indifferent.

The result? This generation believed that unless full-scale authoritarian policies were implemented immediately, it was doomed to fail. This is not science; This is a roadmap for political manipulation.

The survey results showed that 52.3% of the respondents hesitated to have children due to climate change. This is not a reflection of reality but evidence of the success of the campaign. It is easier to control people if they believe there is no hope for the future and the only solution is to surrender more power to the state.

Alarmist

Ultimately, this article is not a scientific analysis of the actual impacts of climate change, but rather a study of the effectiveness of climate alarmism. It shows how fear can be cultivated, monetized and weaponized to achieve political ends.

Its conclusions are best interpreted as a reflection of the effectiveness of scare tactics rather than a meaningful assessment of reality. The authors crafted a study that tested their preconceptions and provided a rallying cry for “system-level change.”

But what they don’t want to admit is this: The biggest driver of young people’s anxiety is not climate change but the relentless message that they are powerless victims of an impending apocalypse.

Young people don't need any more fear. They need the courage to question these narratives, separate fact from propaganda, and refuse to think that the only way to address their concerns is to hand freedom over to those who spread fear.

It's time to tell the alarmists and their so-called research, it's time to raise rates. The world is not over yet. The kids are fine, they just need to turn off the noise.

Relevant