This is a post from J.Curry's Cimate Etc site where a study demonstrates that white cons. dudes are the ones forcing the scientific community to get their shit together and tell the science the way it is instead of theorising or using manipulated computer models to spread their AGW according to their preconceived religion, which by the way is coming unstuck as I speak..
It is just another condescending study by those learned elites whose comprehension of reality relies on someone else's opinion as they don't get out much. Anaemia is their main complaint and the sun is something they study in their spare time..
Gladly, I can confess and state that there are more guys not convinced that feminism is the utopia that those lying feminists claim it to be, I am glad also to say that the MRM is chock a block full of people from countries all over the world. It's easy to join, confessions held right here. The only request is that you admit how much feminism sucks and how much it has screwed up your life, see, easy..
JC comment: you think that this relationship would give them a clue about what “denial” is actually about.
It is also important to note the effects of the other social, demographic, political, and temporal variables we employed as controls in our models. Age generally has no effect on climate change denial, but older adults are more likely than are younger adults to believe there is no scientific consensus. Lesser educated adults are more likely than are their more highly educated counterparts to believe human activities are not the primary cause of recent warming and that there is no scientific consensus. Adults with higher socioeconomic status (both educational attainment and annual income) are more likely than are their lower SES counterparts to believe the media exaggerates the seriousness of global warming. Employment status and parental status have no direct effect on climate change denial. For each of the five denial items, more religious individuals, people unsympathetic to the environmental movement, and self-identified Republicans are more likely to express climate change denial than are their respective counterparts. Finally, climate change denial has increased over the time period between 2001 and 2010.
From the conclusions:
The positive correlation between self- reported understanding of global warming and climate change denial among conservative white males is compelling evidence that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying tendency.
Our results relate back to earlier work on the political mobilization of conservative elites and organizations in the US to challenge climate science and policy . Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry)—domains dominated by conservative white males—have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present. The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts. When mobilized, these conservative white males may constitute a key vector of climate change denial in their own right via their online and offline social networks and through participation in various protest and campaigning events.
Since the mid-1990s, organized climate change denial has diffused from the US to other Anglo nations with established conservative think tanks that promote free-market conservatism and front groups promoting industry interests, most notably Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand . This spread of climate change denial has been driven to a significant degree by key actors—and their resources, strategies, and tactics—in the U.S. climate change denial machine. Throughout these Anglo countries organized denial seems to be dominated by politically conservative white males, and this suggests that a similar conservative white male effect might be emerging in the general publics of these nations with regard to climate change denial. Clearly the extent to which the conservative white male effect on climate change denial exists outside the US is a topic deserving investigation.
JC conclusion: This article is notable primarily for coining the term “cool dudes” in the context of climate change “denial.” My main reaction to this is to question how social scientists, who actually study this, can be so clueless about the whole thing. Perhaps someone needs to develop a demographic and behavioral theory about social scientists who write about climate change “deniers.” I look forward to the reactions of the “cool dudes” to these ideas.
The results of the likelihood ratio tests (1 df, x2 distribution) in Table 6 indicate that the confident conservative white male dummy variable improves model fit more than does the conservative white male dummy variable. Further, for each denial indicator, the odds ratio for the confident conservative white male dummy variable is greater than the one for the conservative white male dummy variable. For example, while conservative white males are 1.43 times more likely than other adults to believe the effects of global warming will never happen, confident conserva- tive white males are 3.39 times more likely than other adults to do so. Thus, confident conservative white males are much more likely than are other adults to report climate change denial. Building upon the results presented in Table 3, the patterns revealed in Table 6 further suggest that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying ten- dency.
