Manufactured Hysteria Masquerading as Science – Watts Up With That?

Sometimes you stumble across a piece of “research” so self-serving, so packed with assumptions, and so nakedly designed to push a particular agenda that you almost have to admire the brazenness. The Lancet Planetary Health recently published an article titled “Climate emotions, thoughts, and plans among US adolescents and young adults.” On the surface, it purports to be a large-scale survey analyzing the mental health impact of climate change on U.S. youth. Beneath the veneer of academic rigor, however, lies little more than a thinly veiled manifesto for aggressive climate policies, rooted in the hyperventilating world of climate alarmism.

The authors claim that the emotional burden of climate change is creating widespread despair, anxiety, and life-altering fear among adolescents and young adults. Their evidence? Self-reported feelings and a whole lot of presumptive correlations between weather events, climate narratives, and mental health.

The Methodological House of Cards

We evaluated survey responses from 15 793 individuals (weighted proportions: 80·5% aged 18–25 years and 19·5% aged 16–17 years; 48·8% female and 51·2% male). Overall, 85·0% of respondents endorsed being at least moderately worried, and 57·9% very or extremely worried, about climate change and its impacts on people and the planet. 42·8% indicated an impact of climate change on self-reported mental health, and 38·3% indicated that their feelings about climate change negatively affect their daily life. Respondents reported negative thoughts about the future due to climate change and actions planned in response, including being likely to vote for political candidates who support aggressive climate policy (72·8%). In regression models, self-reported exposure to more types of severe weather events was significantly associated with stronger endorsement of climate-related distress and desire and plans for action. Political party identification as Democrat or as Independent or Other (vs Republican) was also significantly associated with stronger endorsement of distress and desire and plans for action, although a majority of self-identified Republicans reported at least moderate distress. For all survey outcomes assessed in the models, the effect of experiencing more types of severe weather events did not significantly differ by political party identification.

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

The study surveyed 15,793 young Americans between the ages of 16 and 25 through the Cint digital marketplace, a glorified Craigslist for survey participants. It’s a convenience sample, not a probability sample, meaning that it’s inherently biased toward people who actively choose to participate. Despite this glaring issue, the authors confidently declare their findings representative of the nation’s youth, with only a brief hand-wave acknowledging the obvious flaw.

Weighting the responses by census demographics (age, race, and sex) doesn’t make up for this selection bias. The study does break down responses by political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, and Independent—but it doesn’t appear to ensure that the sample reflects the actual distribution of political ideologies within the U.S. population. In other words, while they analyze responses by party, they don’t adjust the sample itself to align with real-world proportions of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

Then there’s the issue of self-reporting. Respondents were asked to recall their exposure to “severe weather events” like heatwaves, floods, and wildfires. Unsurprisingly, 93.2% reported living in an area affected by at least one such event in the past year. Did the study verify this exposure through weather data? Of course not. The authors took these claims at face value, assuming that perception equals reality.

This raises an important issue: If the survey disproportionately included Democrats (who are statistically more likely to express climate distress), the results will skew toward progressive attitudes. For example, a Gen Z activist in California is naturally going to report more climate anxiety than a rural Midwesterner who doesn’t spend their evenings doom-scrolling Twitter. Without proper weighting to account for ideological representation, the findings risk amplifying the views of one political cohort while marginalizing others, making the overall conclusions less credible.

Climate Distress: A Manufactured Crisis

The headline finding? 85% of respondents are at least moderately worried about climate change, with 57.9% feeling “very” or “extremely” worried. Around 42.8% claim that their mental health is negatively affected by climate change, and 38.3% say it disrupts their daily lives. These numbers are then waved around as proof of an impending mental health crisis among young people caused by climate change itself.

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

And speaking of emotional manipulation, the survey questions themselves practically begged for dramatic responses. For example rating belief in the following statements:

• “ Climate change will threaten my life”
• “Do you believe the US government is betraying you and/or future generations?”

Subtle, right? Asking questions like these doesn’t yield meaningful data—it validates the authors’ predetermined narrative.

The Agenda Beneath the Data

Make no mistake: this study isn’t about understanding youth mental health. It’s a tool to advance radical climate policies.

• The authors repeatedly emphasize respondents’ desire for “aggressive climate policies” and their tendency to vote for candidates who support such policies (72.8%). They interpret this as evidence of a groundswell of youth demand for systemic change.
• Corporations and governments are predictably cast as villains, with 82% blaming corporate greed for their distress and 81.8% declaring the U.S. government is “failing young Americans.”

These findings don’t reflect reality so much as they mirror the talking points of climate activists. And surprise, surprise—the study was funded by the Avaaz Foundation, a group known for climate advocacy. This is akin to Big Tobacco funding research that concludes smoking relieves stress.

Feelings Are Not Facts

The paper’s reliance on self-reported data leads to absurd leaps of logic. For instance:

• Exposure to severe weather events: Self-reported experience with events like heatwaves or floods is treated as evidence that climate change is driving distress. No effort is made to distinguish between ordinary weather variability and long-term climate trends.
• Mental health impacts: The authors conflate ordinary anxiety—stoked by relentless media fearmongering—with clinically significant mental health issues. Reporting sadness about the future isn’t the same as being clinically depressed, but the study makes no effort to separate the two.

The most egregious assumption is that these feelings represent a call to action. The authors argue that youth distress will only subside when corporations and governments “act at the necessary scale” to address climate change. Translation: More regulations, higher taxes, and more power handed to unelected bureaucrats.

Weaponizing Guilt

What’s truly alarming is how this study weaponizes guilt to push its agenda. It paints young people as helpless victims, paralyzed by fear and betrayed by previous generations. Parents and grandparents are accused of not doing enough, corporations are evil, and governments are apathetic.

The result? A generation that believes it’s doomed unless sweeping, authoritarian policies are enacted immediately. This isn’t science; it’s a roadmap for political manipulation.

Take the finding that 52.3% of respondents are hesitant to have children because of climate change. This isn’t a reflection of reality—it’s evidence of a successful propaganda campaign. It’s easier to control a population that believes the future is hopeless and the only solution lies in surrendering more power to the state.

Alarmism Sells

Ultimately, this paper isn’t a scientific analysis of climate change’s tangible effects—it’s a study in the effectiveness of climate alarmism. It demonstrates how fear can be cultivated, monetized, and weaponized to achieve political ends.

Its conclusions are better interpreted as a reflection of the efficacy of scare tactics than as a meaningful assessment of reality. The authors have crafted a study that validates their preconceived notions and serves as a rallying cry for “systems-level change.”

But here’s the truth they won’t admit: The greatest driver of youth anxiety isn’t climate change—it’s the relentless messaging that they are powerless victims of an imminent apocalypse.

Young people don’t need more fear. They need the courage to question these narratives, to separate facts from propaganda, and to reject the idea that the only solution to their worries is to hand over their freedom to those selling the panic.

It’s time to tell the alarmists, and their so-called research, to take a hike. The world isn’t ending. The kids are alright—they just need to turn off the noise.