From press release at Michigan State University via Eurekalert, something sure to rile almost everyone.
Published: Sept. 14, 2010
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men, according to a study by a Michigan State University researcher.
The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.
“Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,” said McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.
The study is one of the first to focus in-depth on how the genders think about climate change. The findings also reinforce past research that suggests women lack confidence in their science comprehension.
“Here is yet another study finding that women underestimate their scientific knowledge – a troubling pattern that inhibits many young women from pursuing scientific careers,” McCright said.
Understanding how the genders think about the environment is important on several fronts, said McCright, who calls climate change “the most expansive environmental problem facing humanity.”
“Does this mean women are more likely to buy energy-efficient appliances and hybrid vehicles than men?” he said. “Do they vote for different political candidates? Do they talk to their children differently about global warming?”
McCright analyzed eight years of data from Gallup’s annual environment poll that asked fairly basic questions about climate change knowledge and concern. He said the gender divide on concern about climate change was not explained by the roles that men and women perform such as whether they were homemakers, parents or employed full time.
Instead, he said the gender divide likely is explained by “gender socialization.” According to this theory, boys in the United States learn that masculinity emphasizes detachment, control and mastery. A feminine identity, on the other hand, stresses attachment, empathy and care – traits that may make it easier to feel concern about the potential dire consequences of global warming, McCright said.
“Women and men think about climate change differently,” he said. “And when scientists or policymakers are communicating about climate change with the general public, they should consider this rather than treating the public as one big monolithic audience.”
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.
Contact: Andy Henion, University Relations, Office: (517) 355-3294, Cell: (517) 281-6949, Andy.Henion@ur.msu.edu; Aaron M. McCright, Sociology and Lyman Briggs, Office: (517) 432-8026, mccright@msu.edu
Also, more western women go to church than men. The link thickens!
Someone forgot to tell my missus !!!!
[snip] and then there’s also [snip], and [snip].
This is just bait for Lubos. 😉
We all know why, men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
Today my daughter described her Advanced Placement Environmental science class.
All the students computed their carbon footprints.
They measure on a scale of :”earths”. Pure guilt trip abuse.
The kid came out pretty good at a mere 4 earths.
( Largely due to our small cars and little airplane travel)
Many of her fellow students had scores of 6 or 7 .
But then she and her friend did some further calculations.
If they pooled their resources, lived together in a small apartment, had no cars,
ate vegan, and used virtually no appliances or modcons, their scores would still be in the 1.4-1.5 “earths” range.
So they did it again for a child living in a one room hut in Africa with 7 other people and pretty much nothing at all. Still .7 “earths”.
These weenies are weenies for trying to get over on women, or assuming that they can.
My wife reads this blog, thus preventing any sort of comment from me whatsoever! Nice weather we’re having lately! Fine day for a stroll…
Just call me Schultz.
So in summary, women are more gullible than men.
REPLY: and we have ignition…
This sociology professor obviously believes the “scientific consensus,” and anyone who agrees with him is “more scientifically literate.” I think it’s interesting that the alarmist party line is bought by sociologists, psychologists, liberal arts graduates, and some climatologists. On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.
The human understanding when it has once adopted an
opinion (either as being the received opinion or as
being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to
support and agree with it. And though there be a greater
number and weight of instances to be found on the
other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or
else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order
that by this great and pernicious predetermination the
authority of its former conclusions may remain
inviolate.. . . And such is the way of all superstitions,
whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments,
or the like; wherein (wo)men, having a delight in
such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled,
but where they fail, although this happened much
oftener, neglect and pass them by.
-Francis Bacon, dead white male philosopher & probable Climate Skeptic
I showed this to my sister.
She snorted – that was the end of the conversation.
(PS My sister is Chair of the Faculty of Social Research at a major UK university)
Wow, there are so many assumed premises in this story that it makes my head swim.
Will not go there…
….except to say I find this study insulting
Ha ha. I wonder whether he asked any control questions about trigonometry, astrophysics, neurology, or machine language?
Nevermind, he’s a sociologist from “MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.”
Perfect guy to be conducting this survey about The Science.
That study might actually be saying something else……
So being fooled by propaganda equals scientific literacy? Hmmm…
“the most expansive environmental problem facing humanity.”
Does McCright mean “comprehensive” with the term “expansive”?
Or is one of the other possible interpretations meant; such as a generous nature or overestimation? The English language has lots of words. Each has a meaning. Almost always there is a correct word and several that come close. It is always best to pick the correct one. (Exception: when writing fiction where misdirection is a worthy tactic.)
Which scientific consensus are we talking about?
Is this poll from the US of A only?
Is there any indication that those answering the poll had any “science comprehension”?
“challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate”
No this tends to confirm the perception that men are more scientifically literate. Saddly the author is not one of those scientifically literate men or he would have known this.
Agreeing with an imaginary and politically motivated consensus that is not even defined is most certainly not evidence of science literacy.
I’m not really surprised. This tends to confirm my experience and intuition. I believe men are also more confident than women, which I think would tend to make us more non-conformist about certain things.
It is interesting, but individual differences will overpower most of these group tendencies.
Also, I kind of read this to be a preliminary study with the next step being how to push “male” buttons to better convince us of the AGW hypothesis. In other words, this is the science of propaganda.
No mystery. Modern news media (TV and newspapers) are written
for a female audience. Modern college courses are aimed largely at
a female audience. Males understand that they’re “not wanted” in
those circles, so they find their information elsewhere.
On this subject the truth will not be found on TV, so those who get
their info elsewhere are more likely to find the truth. (I’m tempted
to say “on all subjects”, but in theory there could be something true
on TV about SOME subject. In theory anything is possible.)
Another bit of data that provides some real world perspective on his assertion that women are really more scientifically aware because they agree with Algore.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/there-are-142-women-enrolled-in-grad.html
Women now outnumber men in grad school enrollments by over 40% and they dominate in 7 of the 11 fields listed. The exceptions? Engineering, Math & Computer Science, Physical Sciences, and Business. Of course these lingering deficits in their otherwise total dominance are just the remnants of the old patriarchal prejudice and in no way reflect any inherent female preference. Uh- huh.
well it was good for laugh.
once again, i consider it a travesty that folks get paid to sit around and manufacture this kind cr*p
the core finding might actually have legs, as from the the marketing one can see that AGW is sold as an emotional/religious product- which appeals to women in general more than men.
when i first tried to watch the gore movie i had to turn it off because it was so implausibly ridiculous. however, the misses….well she found it insulting too 😉
so never mind
I should like to see a study on climate change views between black and white people. Should there be a difference, we may speculate and generalize about why that is, too. I think that would be every bit as useful as this exercise.
Some desperate “scientists” will say anything to get laid!
This is a poorly thought out report. That fact that men are more skeptical has to do with us looking into the science more than the women do. I bet if any of us goes out on the streets and asks 10 men and 10 women about the hockey stick issue, the ice-core lag in CO2/temp graphs, or climategate, I bet more men will be aware of the issues and have the “additional” information than women and NOT because they aren’t capable of understanding science, rather because more women than men are disinterested in science and because of this disinterest, they aren’t aware of all of the holes in the AGW science, hence they tend to believe what the scientists say.
In other words:
We’re losing the proles! Fine tune the propaganda – Target women and tell them to go with their feelings. Men are a bunch of troglodyte throwbacks who whouldn’t know what global warming was unless it wore a tight skirt!
Soon they’ll try some “Network”esque marketing to our cats – Then we’ll really be screwed!
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”——I always that it was Ricky Nelson but now they tell me it’s some Pope dude.
You could take the same data and argue that women are, as the author puts it, “less confident in their scientific knowledge” and conclude that therefore they are less likely to challenge the “consensus” even if they see flaws in it or it doesn’t make sense to them.
This headline should have been;
“Beta male finds unique method of removing self from gene pool!”
“thegoodlocust ”
“We call this one the “Good Locust” . She has been bred to resist the brushing of the wings “. ( James Earl Jones to Linda Blair)
Good name.
Any how i think they are going the other way. Bias the message to women and hope that men follow in the interest of peace.
Weren’t women at the forefront lobbying for prohibition too?
How’d that turn out?
This doesn’t exactly bolster the case that disbelief in CAGW = anti-science, and belief in CAGW correlates to pro-science.
All humor aside, I think the days of generalizing gender trends are of days gone by. Truly, there are specific nature differences that cause nurture differences. There are differences, physically, emotionally(caused by both chemical and nurture differences) and thus mentally as far as perspective……generally. But a blanket generalization is ……..what I would expect from a mediocre sociologist.
I’m not sure which gender this report trivializes more, the Women ? Or the Men?
The McCright and Dunlap duo have very ‘interesting’ papers indeed – right from the early days. 🙂
Didn’t I read somewhere that the more people are informed about AGW, the more they are skeptical?
That fits in very well with ‘…common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate…’.
Very few people have the skill and the courage to rethink their beliefs in the light of new evidence.
And there are few people who have the courage to uphold their conviction when ‘authorities’ disagree.
This article doesn’t say there are no women with skill and courage, it only concludes there are fewer of them.
Is that really a surprise? Hasn’t it been the case for centuries that courage is a capacity that more men than women strive to develop?
Personally I love courageous and skillful and intelligent women, wherever I meet them.
This changes nothing in my contacts with individual men and women. I still have to figure out whether a man or woman I meet has scientific knowledge and is courageous or not.
i must tell my sceptic female friends that they are letting down their side.
uk express weighs in on the GWPF report:
15 Sept: UK Express: CLIMATE CHANGE: FAILURES OF GLOBAL WARMING PROBES ‘LET DOWN PUBLIC’
( Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull ): “The public has been fed a particular variant of the climate change story with many of the caveats stripped out. There is a much richer but more complex story to be told which recognises there are strong natural variations upon which manmade emissions are superimposed.” The UEA said the Lord Lawson report “offers nothing new”.
A spokesman said: “Three independent reviews have found in favour of the integrity and honesty of the scientists in the Climatic Research Unit and there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is warming and that humankind is having a marked effect on the rate of warming.
“CRU’s research points to conclusions on global warming which are replicated by separate data sets being analysed by independent researchers in other parts of the world. CRU’s published outputs have been subject to expert peer review for more than three decades and remain open to scrutiny by anyone.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/199607/Climate-change-Failures-of-global-warming-probes-let-down-public-
UEA using an anonymous spokesperson now!
Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. Those that can neither do nor teach, go into sociology, where they spend the rest of their lives making up little stories about why they can neither do, nor teach.
Basically a study on how to further fine tune the propaganda machine, by some one who is on the grant wagon already. Sounds just like a presidential campaign storming session, we needs ta bring the ignorant, religiously biased, weaker sex, on board to help fuel the PR campaign, to attract the single / horny male voters.
Meanwhile the truth still gets out to the masses, most of whom are too busy trying to keep ahead of real economic problems, to care about some supposed soon to happen problem, no body can prove even by fudging data.
OK, it’s official: The US has definitely passed kadaka’s “peak intelligence.”
What’s that language software I keep seeing on TV? “Rosetta Stone”? I need to learn Chinese, quick!
All this demonstrates is women are more willing to accept faith based and emotional explanations than men.
Divide and conquer. Al’s been spending his evenings home alone reading Lysistrata and thinking deep thoughts. If he’s not gettin’ any, he’ll fix it so none of you guys gets any.
Me, I’m keepin’ my mout’ shut.
It would be nice if news providers refused to publish stories based on this type of press release UNLESS the source of the funding is identified.
McCright has it almost right, try the ” most expensive…”pseudo science. His desperation gives me great joy,this “social scientist” is a classic ,scientifically illiterate, believer in the “scientific concensus”. Indeed a most worthy rep for MSU.
It wasn’t an assessment of actual skepticism, just belief in AGW or not.
This is an excellent pre-condition for skepticism. Feeling confident that you “understand the science” is a recipe for ignorant close-mindedness for most lay people.
That has always been a load of old bollox.
“…even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,”
All this indicates is that women are more gulluble or more easily conned.
That is one of the reasons for the push to get women into posistions of power by the elitists. They are more easily controlled.
The Dead, “The Women Are Smarter,” at The Gorge, May 16, 2009
I think it is highly interesting and relevant to list the number of comments from men who readily believed this pile of horse apples.
Hunh. I would have postulated that people that believe in global warming are too young to know that temperatures fluctuate over time, don’t know much about geological history, haven’t spent much time in the actual outdoors, and are too naive (or stupid) to realize that they are being deliberately lied to by people making a great deal of money in the whole “global warming” shtick.
How’s that for a female point of view, McCright?
I don’t think much of sociology professors, either.
“McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.”
“Environmental Science and Policy Program”
This dunder head designs a study to show that every one that agrees with him is smart, and everyone that disagrees with him is stupid.
“A feminine identity, on the other hand, stresses attachment, empathy and care – traits that may make it easier to feel concern about the potential dire consequences of global warming, McCright said.”
I hope he’s not saying what I think he is…………
Who paid for this study? I bet it was the taxpayers. Why?
Maybe semi-OT:
Report: More women than men in U.S. earned doctorates last year for first time
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091400004.html
Followers of this site should applaud Anthony for “Truth in Advertising”.
He promised a paper “sure to rile almost everyone”.
He has delivered exactly that.
Well done, Anthony!
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:33 pm
> I think it is highly interesting and relevant to list the number of comments from men who readily believed this pile of horse apples.
Let me guess – they didn’t ask you to answer the poll. 🙂
“The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.”
Doesnt this actually CONFIRM men ARE more scientifically literate?
Considering the preconceptions of the authors of the “study”, it is no wonder they came to the conclusion they have.
Why would Aaron M. McCright be a source for a list of climate change skeptics?
For wiki??
1. Derive list of climate change skeptics.
•Locate reliable lists of climate change skeptics, and triangulate, noting which names appear on at least two lists. The list of climate change skeptics is derived from four sources: sourcewatch.com, motherjones.com, wikipedia.org and the sociologists, Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap
http://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/ClimateChangeSkeptics
HEY JJR Canada. I take exception to your derisive remark about MSU. True, it started out as a cow college (Michigan Agricultural College 1855), and sports seem to be an integral part of the curriculum. However, MSU is the home to the very best Cyclotron in the world; its Astronomy Department hogs the double mainframe comupter all night long computing size, distance, and composition of the universe; it provides a foundation of agricultural research used to feed the developing and developed part of the world; and yes, it does have the social sciences which studies gender as well as ethnic differences. But, inspite of concerted efforts to encourage women into the basic sciences, no go. My take home message: there is a difference in the sociology of women and men and this is reflected in how the two groups think and can be seen in various polls. Nothing to complain about. Just what is, is.
Now I understand why Princess Charles is constantly getting her knickers in a knot.
Taken in, taken in again
Wrapped around the finger of some fair-weather friend
Andrew
Not my wife- and she’s the one with the Master’s-From Michigan State, Btw…
So, here we go: 1) assume the consensus (must be correct, right? (doesn’t make an ass out of you and them, right?)). 2) measure against the consensus (especially using the less informed (please notice I didn’t say less intelligent!)). 3) report results. All this from a peon professor at a school that would hope to be lucky to scrounge the scraps from the likes of Penn State. Oh! Penn State has Michael Mann!. Go Sparty!
Jimash says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“These weenies are weenies for trying to get [it] over on women, or assuming that they can.”
Social engineering is dangerous, I was very surprised when Al Gore recommended training [brain washing] children.
I am wont to remark thusly:
There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics.
There are sinners, damned sinners, and then there are the heretics.
There is science, pseudo-science, and then there’s just plain BS.
Lately, reading between the lines has become something of a ‘knee boot’ affair …
I should have worn my ‘waders’ before reading that article!
latitude says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:25 pm
“Will not go there…
….except to say I find this study insulting”
I agree
Despite my wife’s anxieties we have avoided bird flu , swine flu , West Nile Disease , salmonella , the Gulf oil spill getting caught in the dread loop current and polluting the beaches of South Georgia and a host of other miseries . She still hasn’t learned to take alarmist headlines with a grain of salt . I can say this because she does’t read this blog .
According to religioustolerance.org, (sorry, not sure how to link this up- just google belief in creation) 53% of women believe in biblical new Earth creation versus 39% of men. Wonder what conclusions the sociology prof would draw from this? Could AGW be similar to religion? Hmmmm
So that’s why Tipper kept with her Sex Poodle for so long.
Back to the topic – sociologists are still trying to make themselves look like a ‘science’. A hot, intelligent skeptic is still a hot, intelligent skeptic no matter the sex. Quit trying to pigeonhole me.
[REPLY – Much as we might not enjoy it, I really think we have to give the so-and-so the benefit of the doubt on this one. ~ Evan]
latitude says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“I hope he’s not saying what I think he is…………”
lol, maybe, maybe not. He’s making it impossible to argue with his assertion. He’s simply framing the question to make it almost impossible to argue. He’s assuming people won’t take time to question the methodologies of his study. I won’t, because I don’t think its worth the time. But who knows, it may be on CNN tomorrow.
If the numbers are correct, how would a male skeptic respond without appearing sexist? If a male alarmist reads this, it validates his concern. If a female alarmist reads this, it validates not only her caring but also her feminine insight. The only possible persons to be able to voice concerns without looking cloddish and sexist are skeptical females……….if one was to worry about the political correctness of the statements.
I like his style, though, in the way he frames the discussion. An act of beauty. Of course, it wouldn’t pass any mustard in any scientific communities I’m aware of, but then, most simply make fun of sociologists anyways.
Anyone with half the sense God gave them would see that this is simply desperate alarmist tripe attempting to move the discussion. Skeptics are turning the tide and it is thanks to men and women alike. The fact is, I don’t really know the gender of most of the people that post here. I can make assumptions, and I do, but I don’t really know. And neither does anyone else here.
The good prof is just trying to get lucky.[snip]
Men love the company of women. I put them on an elevated pedestal. Any Prof who tries to play with that equation is dumb and probably lonesome tonight.
‘Vive La Différence!’, in its original context.
What load of insulting rubbish!
I am a woman who never believed in this “warming” religion or it’s
high priest Al Gore and I am very worried about his preaching to our children
Unfortunately politicians found a good excuse to squeeze as much money from us as they can under the disguise of sanctimonious “doing the right thing for the planet”
As an example of being scientifically illiterate…
I had Inside Edition on for background noise tonight when I heard this. (I’m on antenna and only get a few digital channels, okay?)
PETA released a statement saying the “meat dress” Lady Gaga wore to the VMA’s couldn’t have been real meat. I found the statement here:
The designer said it was real meat, 6 pounds of flank steak. Took three days to make and was stored in a refrigerator.
Wow, TV lights cause fly eggs to spontaneously appear in raw meat and promptly develop into wriggling larvae within mere hours. Who knew? Those TV lights are unnatural and dangerous!
To toss it in from the link because it sounds cute:
When she goes up to the Arctic, personally confronts the polar bears face to snout, and convinces them to give up meat because it “represents bloody violence and suffering,” then I’ll consider giving it up myself. I’ll also consider if this is evidence too much Coca-Cola causes brain damage in polar bears.
Well… women tend to vote left of centre more than men which shows they are also more politicaly astute than men. They are more likely to want children than men, showing their interest in continuing the human race is superior to that of men. Women are more likely to be stay at home parents than men, proving their superiority in maintaining the family unit which is the cornerstone of society. When it comes to breast feeding infants, women are so vastly superior to men that the ratio of competant women divided by competant men is infinity, proving that women have boobs.
Of course these are just studies, and at the end of the day, the fact is that men are more likely to want to check for themselves. That last one in particular…
I pity the idiot who might suggest this is gender specific. My girlfriend would probably bite the head off of an AGW alarmist. My ex-wife, on the other hand, is a professional eco-geek for the DOE and probably believes this crap (one of the reasons she is an EX-wife). This issue has to do more with common sense than book learnin’.
One of my best friends is a mechanical engineer with a degree from MSU. I can’t wait to send him this link. He’ll go ballistic!
Mike:
Report: More women than men in U.S. earned doctorates last year for first time
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091400004.html
Looking at the research paper which this article is based on tends to re-inforce the thrust of many previous posters on this topic. From Table 2.16 (Total Doctoral Enrolment)
Men strongly dominate in:
Engineering – 76.8%
Mathematics and Computer Sciences – 74.8%
Physical and Earth Sciences – 65.5%
Women strongly dominate in:
Health Sciences – 70.7%
Education – 68.6%
Public administration and Services – 62.1%
Social and Behavioural Sciences – 60.3%
“John from CA says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Jimash says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“These weenies are weenies for trying to get [it] over on women, or assuming that they can.””
Just for the record, to “get over” on someone is to con them. The “it” is not necessary to the expression.
Correction to last post:
That was FIFTY pounds of flank steak (beef, of course). Fire up the barbie!
Unfortunately, Aaron M. McCright, associate professor of sociology, is a buffoon. I am completely unsurprised that a sociology professor does not understand people.
Why are women more likely to believe in global warming? McCright’s answer is that they are more scientifically literate than men but simply don’t know it.
The real answer, politically incorrect as it is, is that women are 1) more gullible than men and 2) defer to men/authority on issues of science (and maths etc) while men are much more skeptical because that’s what has kept the species going for millenia.
My highly intelligent wife speaks three langauges fluently and in each tells others that CAGW is total B/S
This one’s simple. The gender or any individual who realizes that global warming is a scam and that “consensus” is meaningless in science knows more science (real science) than the other(s).
Women might be more likely to do or buy things that would counter warming, but that does not obviate the fact that their basis for these decisions is centered on a false proposition.
This explains why my wife keeps telling me I’m “in denial”.
I guess there’s no reason why humanities professors shouldn’t also have their turn at the CAGW trough. But as to whether women are better able than men to critically analyze the multitude of scientific reports that address global warming, this I very much doubt. Could it be perhaps that males are much more likely to have had an eduction focused on science and technology, leaving them better placed to sort the wheat from the chaff?
I’m not going to dengrate women. I think the study is probably flawed. However, it isn’t accidental that in Australia the womens magazines have pages and pages of adverts for the “worlds greatest psychics – call now!”, and a bunch of other woo-woo, along with the nonsense articles and astrology, feng-shui and the like. It isn’t accidental that you can walk into a newsagenbt and buy “Witchcraft” magazines, complete with “spells to snare your man!”
I will point out that neither my wife nor daughter read such nonsense, and they read this blog, question AGW, dissaprove of the Greens, laugh at “crystal gazers” and the like, beleive in Evolution and understand it, and understand a multi-billion year old universe.
Obviously they aren’t unique, but I worry they are in the minority, considering the popularity of “womens magazines”. Oh, and by the way, the marketing of this crap starts early. Look at a girls teen magazine. Sad really.
Of all the tripe and rubbish I’ve seen related to climate alarmism, I find this one is the most offensive. I agree with Sandy’s comment that it trivializes both genders.
More to the point, we have seen this psychological tactic used before. Remember (was it a few months ago or a year ago – can’t quite remember) a similar study that tried to float the idea that skeptics are somehow mentally hard wired to not believe the in global warming? So in other words, its not our fault for being deniers, we simply need “help” because we are born defective. This method is nothing new, so pay close attention to the underlying intent to insult intelligence on both sides and most important of all, do not allow alarmists like this to divide us.
In Australia, during the election campaigns, it is common to have the Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition in a televised debate. Over the last few years, they have been using a ‘worm’, a computer generated plot that tracks the reactions of the audience. There is also a question time in which the worm is active. There is usually more than one TV station and more than one worm monitoring the debate. This year, they employed three worm traces on the graph, one for women, one for men and one combined. The result was staggering, if not frightening. During the debate, when our female Prime Minister was speaking, the females’ worm would soar and would never go into the negative, no matter how badly she was delivering or answering a question. The males’ worm was much less biased. This contrast was the case with more than one TV station’s worm plot.
With the worm, an individual turning the vote control knob hard one way, will score a lot more than if he/she turns it slightly that way. Therefore the dedicated knob cranker will have a lot more worm voting power than will someone who is more reasonable. With an election, though, you essentially can only select ‘1’ for your chosen candidate, so there is less opportunity for an individual’s passion or emotion to override the majority.
Interestingly, there have been years when the worm has clearly favoured the left side of politics, but the right side has gone on to win the actual election. This observation generated charges of the leftist media cherry picking with the audiences. I would suggest another possibility is that female wormers are more likely to favour the kumbaya side of politics and will gratuitously hard bias the control knob as described above. I would also suggest that male wormers are more likely to find their feminine side, when using the left side of their political brain.
So yes, I am not surprised that woman more readily buy Global Warming.
I can assure you that McCright is an activist, not an academic.
well, he proves his point that men aren’t more scientifically literate – he’s NOT a hard scientist. He accepts everything the climategate community tells him without any skeptisim. He’s certainly showing his “faith” in AGW, which is pure emotion, since it cannot withstand genuine scientific scruntiny.
I’m a woman, and I think he’s the illiterate. (but then, there are certain majors I wouldn’t let my daughters, or sons, go anywhere near. His is one.)
David70 says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm
According to religioustolerance.org, (sorry, not sure how to link this up- just google belief in creation) 53% of women believe in biblical new Earth creation versus 39% of men. Wonder what conclusions the sociology prof would draw from this? Could AGW be similar to religion? Hmmmm
======================================================
Sis, these are almost diametrically opposing views. Gender or no, people that believe in the biblical version of creation, in general, don’t believe in man’s ability to control Nature.
That being said, your word “new” in between biblical and Earth isn’t understood by me.
latitude says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm
“McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.”
I hope he’s not saying what I think he is…………
And what might your thought be on what he’s not saying?
What riles me most is that unshaven chap McCwrong is drinking his beer on my tab.
Jack –
I am a woman. Women are taught to use “emotion” when making decisions. (this is why leftist politics – the government nanny state – tend to attract women voters.)Therefore, if it “feels” good, they are taught to “support it”. Rationality and logic (re: cold, hard facts that stand up in the light of day. Those pesky facts, they can be soooo unforgiving.) are deemed beyond a woman’s ability – who you ask is teaching us this? why, our mothers, grandmothers, and aunts. Incidently, they are WHY I ran from the leftist politics they supported.
They had women as soon as they said
“think of the grandchildren”
We know what the majority of men think with.
Most women think with their hearts.
If women knew what was being done to some of the children today,to supposedly benefit their grandchildren in the future,they would change their mind.
You cannot watch tv,read a book,listen to the radio,read a newspaper,go shopping without green policy,and planet destruction being mentioned these days.
Most women are too busy socialising( socialising online-facebook)and tending to families to realise where the real threat to their grandchildren is coming from.
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:33 pm
========================================================
See what you started!! lol
Believe it or not it is possible to be a female CAGW skeptic, a church-goer and a Darwinist, all at the same time. ‘Speaking’ as one. (Bah! to some of you) I suspect the high level of acceptance of CAGW amongst females is due to the fact that most are not paying any attention to the matter beyond what they see in the mainstream news. Most of my female students are not even aware that there’s any debate. I’ve not encountered a high level of skepticism from my male students, either, for that matter. Were this report not complete rubbish to begin with– because of the assumptions made by Prof. McWrong– one criticism would be that there should be some break down by age group, education, and professional groupings.
Women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men, according to a study by a Michigan State University researcher.
The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate
Um . . . er . . . ah . . .
Bye!
[Hasty exit, stage right.]
Dan in California says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm
This sociology professor obviously believes the “scientific consensus,” and anyone who agrees with him is “more scientifically literate.” I think it’s interesting that the alarmist party line is bought by sociologists, psychologists, liberal arts graduates, and some climatologists. On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.
So if you grew up on a farm and became a computer programmer – double dose of sceptic powers.
Sad this, posts, not only here(this particular thread), which is of negligible value regarding the climate debate, but through this entire blog has slowed to a trickle after a seemingly terminal amount of time.
The real effect that this so called sociaologist missed is the plea to authority, which women respond to more than men.
i consider it a travesty that folks get paid to sit around and manufacture this kind cr*p
Oh, c’mon! In terms of pure enjoyment delivered, I figure he isn’t getting paid half enough!
My wife, god bless her, thinks that I’m wasting my time on all “that climate change stuff”.
Three years ago we both had the usual MSM pro-AGW view, then I came across the fact that the 2008 arctic ice was rebounding (at climate audit) and that this was not being reported in the MSM – which “gap” started my questioning. After being exposed to sceptical material, now we are both sceptical, me more than she.
The key thing that I noticed was that she believed that those in authority positions in academia, science, and government were generally good, honest people, and it’s been a big and frightening step to acknowledge that there are people in such positions who are outright hostile to the welfare of the common people and will lie at will to attain their agendas.
If this anecdotal observation has anything to say it is that for many people, “climate change” is an esoteric business, and they don’t involve themselves in questioning it or the authorities too closely.
Perhaps women on average are “too busy” to pay attention to a subject that is deemed to be “important” (i.e. need to save the planet), but “esoteric” (i.e. the experts are looking after it).
The other observation is that it was my use of computing/internet that led to exposure to sceptical material. I would suggest that males spend more time infront of computers/internet than women do, and will therefore be more likely to come in to contact with sceptical material.
So it’s not a case of women being gullible, – they are not being innoculated by sites such as this one, from the MSM drivel.
A cunning argument. If you disagree because you believe the AGW – fraud theory is for the gullible, uninformed or power/money-grubbers, then you’re a sexist denigrator of women. He should be in politics…oop’s, he probably is by association!
Oh darn, had to clean my keyboard.
From the paper: “While women exhibit greater assessed climate change knowledge than do men” seems to translate to “Women were more likely to believe what they were told to believe than men”.
I wonder where his funding came from?
Well, given that women keep getting told that something 7cm long is 6 inches, I guess they’ll believe anything!
Somehow in this desperate need to get published, to somehow remain relevant amongst your buddies (oh, i’m sorry, *peers*), so you can keep your (teaching) job (because, God forbid, you might have to find a real job), you just have to go with the concensus (the concensus knows that most women are blitthering idiots when it comes to science (just ask some, oh! you did). QED! Go Sparty!
“CRU’s published outputs have been subject to expert peer review for more than three decades and remain open to scrutiny by anyone.”
Yet I think we would be more interested in their unpublished inputs . . .
David70 said on September 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm:
Found it.
Got anything that’s not nearly nineteen years old?
As the late Michael Crichton pointed out, if its consensus it isn’t science, and if its science, it isn’t consensus.
Somehow science appears to have been post-modernised by the academic liberals so their definition of science ‘must be true’ because that’s what most believe it to be.
Of course when they say “gender” they mean sex, since they’re talking about the sexes, and not about masculine, feminine and neuter nouns in certain languages, nor are they talking about roles (masculine and feminine roles).
Yaa, that’s another thing I forgot about. Let’s not frame the question if it is correct or not, let’s frame it to a gender dispute. Wonderful.
I’d like to drag the persons responsible for this study to this forum, except, we’d probably all fall asleep waiting for the other’s response to be posted. As I’m going to do now.
So, uh……. does it follow that the males who believe in AGW are girly men? 🙂
Plus, I don’t know who is moderating -Evan? But this was hysterical:
Fred from Canuckistan says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm
So in summary, women are more gullible than men.
REPLY: and we have ignition…
[REPLY – I can’t take credit for another man’s work. The blame lies elsewhere ~ Evan]
Well, they didn’t ask THIS woman. Or my mother or my sister or my daughter.
Some of us actually think with our brains and not just our hearts.
As a side note, I happen to like energy-efficient appliances and CFLs (hybrids are a joke), not because of global warming but because I believe in saving money, you know, like the old days, waste not, want not, etc.
Women will CONSTANTLY tell men that they are emotional creatures. That means, rightly so, that they respond to emotional arguments much more than they tend to respond to arguments based on logic and reason. (I am NOT generalizing, I am saying the basic tendencies).
So then, is it really all that surprising that women would tend to accept the AGW arguments which are more firmly based in emotion (making you feel guilt for killing all those cuddly polar bears) than the arguments falsifying the emotional non-evidence?
Doesn’t surprise me one bit! What does surprise me is that, had this paper been written from the other obvious opinion (women actually believe the unscientific stuff being promulgated as truth), this paper would have been blasted by ALL the major media as being sexist. Yet as a male, I clearly feel this paper is sexist against males! Go figure… no one will care about that.
They lost the argument with me at ‘scientific consensus’.
As usual, take women out of a Church and it will collapse. And if you don’t want to know anything about science, ask a sociologist.
Got anything that’s not nearly nineteen years old?
It keeps getting stuck in the spam filter.
Let me tell you a secret.
All women, from the age they realize they are women, and it might be as young as six or seven, treat men as boys. Even if those men are decades older .
It means “boys will be boys”. They will make noise, they will fight, they will dirty themselves, they will obsess over a piece of machinery, they will get out of bounds on football or other sports etc etc…, but we still love them”.
I am sure the majority is treating global warming as a “boys game”. If they had asked the same questions about football they would have gotten similar results.
Do you know the joke:
” I make all the decisions in our house” says he.
Like what?
“I decide who will be president, I decide who won Vietrnam and when we go to war, I decide about the need for new bonds, getting a mortgage, etc.”
And what does your wife have a say on?
“What school the children will go to, how large the house will be, which area the house will be, where we will go on vacation ….”
That is the way they treat “global warming”, a men’s preserve , let them play happy.
On top of that come the other reasons: religious tendency, indifference to science stuff and follow the leader group think; that last both men and women have.
I think we should put Aaron M. McCright alone in a room with Lucia, Lucy Skywalker, and Pamela Gray. I’m guessing he’d suffer an epiphany.
All one has to do is watch one episode of Oprah, and you know this study is bogus.
I think we should put Aaron M. McCright alone in a room with Lucia, Lucy Skywalker, and Pamela Gray. I’m guessing he’d suffer an epiphany.
And perhaps other injuries.
I think it is clear that women do tend to be more educated in softheaded subjects, as the author is. That leaves both he and they less able to understand the issues. Women and sissy boys like the author do tend to seek consensus more than real men, as well.
Muck Fichigan!
Women tend to be more risk averse than men, as a result they will err on the side of caution and reflect the “pro” lobby in this more than the “sceptic” one.
As for the conclusion “Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,”. This translates as “I am clever therefore people who agree with me are clever, people who disagree with me are stupid.” The logic is swamped by the ego involved in such thinking.
They’ve put “beliefs” and “consensus” in the same sentence. Say no more.
I rest my case.
Observed versions of the remainder of that comment seen during page reloads:
(someone’s playing with their admin privileges…)
1. They get stuck in the spam filter.
2. Only in the spam filter.
3. It gets stuck in the spam filter.
Please, give it up now before you hurt yourself.
😉
And to think I held back on saying back here:
Fire up the barbie (doll)!
☺
[So, when you refresh, it gets fresher. What’s the problem? ~ Evan]
I find women to be pretty much ok about climate.
But for long range driving and navigation…
Pack a chainsaw and a winch in the back!
No assumption needed. The descriptor was ‘scientifically literate’. Understanding the consensus view is sufficient for that. It’s astonishing how often contrary views are completely ill-informed about the mainstream view.
For instance, anyone espousing absolute confidence in the outlier view that HIV and AIDS aren’t linked, and who is not conversant with the science establishing that link, is not ‘scientifically literate’.
For a different example, there is nothing scientifically literate about conspiracy theories or making determinations about science based on a bunch of emails. Also, it is not scientifically literate or even rational to base alternative hypotheses on mutually contradictory lines of evidence. For example:
The temp record is unreliable/The temperature record proves the globe is cooling
The hockey stick is wrong because proxy data is unreliable/Loehle’s reconstruction shows the Medieval Warm Period is warmer than today
Weather stations have siting issues, like UHI, which infect the temp record/Only raw temperature data are valid
We are not yet able to predict the future with climate models/It will not warm much in the future
There is not enough coverage for global temperatures, so the temp record is probably wrong/Wine-growing in England and Vikings in Greenland tells us that the globe was warmer in medieval times
Alarmists point to any hot-weather extreme and fallaciously extrapolate about global warming/It’s cold in Texas today – so there is no global warming
A 30 year time period is too short to establish a climate trend/The globe has been cooling for the last 12/10/8 years
CO2 effect is too insignificant to make much difference/CO2 increase will save us from the next ice age
The sun is responsible for most of the warming in the last 100 years/Climate sensitivity is low
We must have more research before we determine anything/Climate scientists asking for funding are robbing tax payers
Climate scientists that don’t respond to criticism are hiding in ivory towers/Climate scientists that respond to criticism are circling the wagons
etc…
Fred from Canuckistan says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“So in summary, women are more gullible than men.”
I think that it’d be more accurate to say that women tend to seek compromise and accommodation. And men are more apt to seek out opportunities for being competitive. Each approach carries with it a bias towards a certain type of error.
The sad truth: The vast majority of adults have precious little in the way of critical thinking skills that they can focus on scientific issues. Initially they tend to rely on their favorite ‘opinion leaders’.
In the long run, common sense sometimes carries the day. Example: Brits in Hawaiian shirts, freezing their tail-feathers off in the Summer of 2009, after reading their “barbecue Summer” forecast. The predictable outcome: decreased belief in the Flying CO2 Monster.
It’d be interesting to step into my tardis, travel back in time, and do a public opinion survey about lobotomies, shortly after the Lobotomy Nobel of 1949. Would I find a gender differential? If so, would it be similar to the current one vis-à-vis AGW?
And this paper came from a learned institution?
Tell me it’s not April 1st.
A sample size of people you know should give an idea if this study is bogus.Every woman I know believed in AGW.Not all the men did.I have caused some to doubt,but they would rather action be taken.
I suspect it will be years before they realise what those actions have cost them,for no gain.
I believe Jo Nova covered this issue before.She seems to think the same as the author of this article.
I don’t see it as meaning women are dumber than men,as some posters seem to think.
Jeff Alberts
Oprah promotes AGW,I stopped watching after she told us all how to go green.
Women have turned off in droves,but I don’t think it was her hypocrisy on green living,Ellen promotes it too,but women are turning to her in droves.
I don’t watch either now,but Oprah definitely had the most educational show,pity she ruined it by espousing causes and politics.
davidmhoffer says: September 14, 2010 at 7:41 pm
When it comes to breast feeding infants, women are so vastly superior to men that the ratio of competent women divided by competent men is infinity, proving that women have boobs.
I would remind you that correlation does not prove causation. On the other hand, it does prove that Michigan State has at least one boob.
Here’s a link to Gallup’s Enviro survey –
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx#1
1 Clean garage
2 Mow lawn
3 Fix CAGW
Yes Dear!
Bottom of the 6th, Dodgers up by 2.
“Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus”
Well, it seems women are also more racist in their personal choices. Does it make racism somehow superior? Is there a hidden correlation between racist attitudes and AGW scare? I am afraid these gender studies have a strong tendency to get silly…
Review of Economic Studies (2008) 75, 117-132
0034-6527/08/00060117$02.00
Racial Preferences in Dating
RAYMOND FISMAN and SHEENA S. IYENGAR (Columbia University Graduate School of Business), EMIR KAMENICA (University of Chicago Graduate School of Business) and ITAMAR SIMONSON (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University)
First version received August 2004; final version accepted May 2007 (Eds.)
“Our results are as follows. First, we observe a strong asymmetry across genders in racial preferences: women of all races exhibit strong same-race preferences, while men of no race exhibit a statistically significant same-race preference.”
Noelene says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:52 pm
One should separate CO2 AGW scares from “going green”. Unfortunately the AGW crowd has been used as a green battering ram.
The move to conserve, feel like custodians and not like tourists on the earth, make frugal energy decisions in my opinion is a good move. In the millenia that humans exist that is the way they lived in hovel and castle and tents. Well there were some castles that were profligate and spend thrift , its true. It is the meaning of the verb to “husband” that has to become fashionable once more.
Fanaticism is the thing that has to be avoided, on all human endeavors, because it crowds out reason.
Why isn’t Aaron M. McCright here to answer his critics?
Should it be Aaron M. McCwrong?
REPLY: He probably has no idea on the existence of this blog. Generally when a press release is made, you have no idea where it lands. – Anthony
As a convinced coolist and all but convicted MCP all I can say is “Yep, Yep…Yep”.
Tom in Florida says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm
We all know why, men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
and Why Men Don’t Listen & Women Can’t Read Maps – A & B Pease
DesertYote says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:34 pm
So being fooled by propaganda equals scientific literacy?
That’s what educashun is for these days… and older men are in need of re-educashun – preferably in Siberia where they will freeze their nuts off…
INGSOC says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“Beta male finds unique method of removing self from gene pool!”
Where you searching for the phrase: Mental Masturbation?
Sandy says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I’m not sure which gender this report trivializes more, the Women ? Or the Men?
Doesn’t this just trivialize sociologists?
Gary Hladik says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:21 pm
OK, it’s official: The US has definitely passed kadaka’s “peak intelligence.”
I reckon dumbing down is more of a Western World problem…
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:24 pm
All this demonstrates is women are more willing to accept faith based and emotional explanations than men.
Sounds about right… but women and children is probably more accurate.
barry says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:30 pm
That has always been a load of old bollox.
I think Climate Science and Sociology proves the old adage is correct…
Layne Blanchard says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:24 pm
does it follow that the males who believe in AGW are girly men?
Heading in the right direction… more emphasis on Team Players and Consensus… less emphasis on cojones… and falling male fertility rates seem to support your view.
“The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.”
Or maybe not….
Why is it that the preponderence of AGW agitators are mainly of the MALE persuation? Gore, Hansen, Pachauri, Jones, Briffa etc. etc.?
It’s just that this enquiring FEMALE AGW sceptic would like to know…
“women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,” said McCright
“Here is yet another study finding that women underestimate their scientific knowledge”
An adroit leap from belief to science.
McWrong
UK Sceptic,
Good question.
Perhaps, they were not persuaded convincingly in their formative years.
Astrology.
BAD EMAIL ADDRESS, TRY AGAIN WITH A REAL ONE ~ CTM
[SNIP]
Jimash says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“We call this one the “Good Locust”
Good job, not many people get the reference. I’ve used this nickname since the 90s – even then people were making names with numbers and odd spellings, which I don’t really care for.
I’m guessing that these questions merely measured awareness of alarmist claims about potential impacts and gross data trends in temperature, ice extent, sea level rise, etc. I’m sure (almost) that there have been surveys that asked deeper questions about climate change knowledge. Were the more knowledgeable respondents more skeptical? More male?
If so, why didn’t the prof. mention it?
(If not. the prof. would surely have mentioned it.)
UK Sceptic says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:59 am
“Why is it that the preponderence of AGW agitators are mainly of the MALE persuation? Gore, Hansen, Pachauri, Jones, Briffa etc. etc.?
It’s just that this enquiring FEMALE AGW sceptic would like to know…”
Think about those guys on a handsomeness scale from 1 to 10, okay? Now think about the type of guy who take girls to scary movies on dates because he hopes the girls will cuddle up and hold on tight when the boogeyman appears, okay? Are you getting any connections out of that?
Still need help? ‘Sex poodle’, trashy novels? Anything coming to you yet?
Do I have to spell it out that these guys think laying on a thick dose of CAGW scaremongering increases their chances with the babes? ;o)
The logcial flaw is clearly the premise in the paper that “belief in consensus” = “scientific literacy”.
When of course they needed to interogate people on their understanding of the consensus and for completeness the basis of objections to the hypothesis.
But as someone elese noted, it was a sociology paper.
What a sad, pathetic excuse of a study. 😛
It just so happens that the vast majority of women I know (which, granted, isn’t a very large number – I don’t tend to get along very well with my fellow females) do believe in AGW. Some don’t and some are on the fence. The majority of men I know tend to be skeptics, but a couple are also believers.
There is one things these two groups have in common, and it isn’t gender. It’s politics. All the people I know who are AGW believers, male or female, but mostly female, are liberals. The farther to the left they are, the stronger their belief in AGW and the less likely they are to even discuss the science, never mind accept that there might be scientific views contrary to their beliefs. They are also the most likely to be anti-American (especially the ex-pats), anti-Christian (but pro-any religion but Christianity) and extreme Feminists (the male hating, women are superior kind, not the old school, women are equal to men kind) and think that 9/11 was Bush’s fault. The “skeptics” I know tend to be centrists or slightly right of centre. I can’t say much for the extreme right, since I know only 2 people that could be considered extreme right; one of them is an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic and the other is a 9/11 Truther who thinks it was an inside job. With the exception of those two, the folks I know that are centrist or right of centre will at least look at the science before drawing conclusions, and are far more tolerant of those who hold opposing opinion.
What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Kinda of like the conclusions drawn by the folks that did this study!
The local Chico Council carbon action plans and this article in Population and Environment today surely deserve further thought by the WUWT bloggers. It seems city councils are planning [or being directed] through the research interests of their universities, both Michigan and Chico are ?sited in Charter towns. If so, that’s interesting public policy and finances. If not, the demographics of local employment [industries] and also [student] voting of these particular sites.
First to clear the table…………………..
Wilky says: September 14, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Well, given that women keep getting told that something 7cm long is 6 inches, I guess they’ll believe anything!
_____________________________________________________________
Like the IP Carbon Corpus Cavernosum, well, that sure filled those seven centimetres into a massive six inches. Sheilas here in Oz, well, we use metric not imperial and add circumference to our time/ratio or case control studies.
_____________________________________________________________
[post small excerpts and links not articles ~ ctm]
This paper is a confused and nonsensical confection of misunderstandings, non-understanding, social, gender and experimental bias. ‘Consensus’ and ‘science’ cannot conceptually be paired. He sounds like a follower of Margaret Meade and her fabricated and firmly-debunked nonsense about Samoan society that was accepted as gospel by sociologists for so long.
The entire thing is really, really funny and a brilliant parody on published academic papers. But the funniest statement appears in what I take to be the university mission statement – ‘combining education with practical problem solving’.
The only sad element is that taxpayers foot the bill for this horsepuckey.
Anthony: My question was rhetorical. I would expect, from his background, McCright would know of this site, but I wouldn’t expect him to come and engage with hard scientists.
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I think it is highly interesting and relevant to list the number of comments from men who readily believed this pile of horse apples.
Pamela
I can’t say that I really believe the nonsense in their study, but your vivid comment did evoke a strong image that suits the entire CAGW theory. A big pile of horse apples, steaming after passing through the Horse!!
PS: A few posts up I wrote, “I’m guessing that these questions [of Gallup’s] merely measured awareness of alarmist claims about potential impacts and gross data trends in temperature, ice extent, sea level rise, etc.”
IOW, a respondent would score high if she’d seen Al Gore’s movie. That doesn’t really measure awareness of the facts of the matter.
*Puts extension on 10′ pole
That said, I have a scientific or skeptic mind, has to be grounded in real data and proven by experiment. Always questioning and looking forward to new science, revisiting the old areas of science connected to AGC/CFC from my past, ozone depletion, acid rain, polar bears, ice ages, physics and laws of thermodynamics showing the earth was not a greenhouse, CO2 being a major driver for cooling in the past and then being used as a factor for AGW(whilst studying rain drop formation), etc.
Before having to leave my house selling it to my ex(long story) and just finding WUWT, I was chasing down AGW misinformation dailey on the net for 5 years, putting real links to data and building up a catalogue of write ups depending on the site and junk science being spewed. It was constant comment removal, barrages of Ad Hominem and yes, death threats. Some fallowing me as I googled news releases everyday placing my links/papers to counteract the insanity. At first I thought it was just over zealous econuts but realized after the $600,000,00 infusion of funds by Soros to Al Gores ideology creating desmog, moveOn and a PR firm releasing/pushing AGW news. Hitting close to home with University of Victoria Prof. Andrew Weavers book “Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World” financed by they same money along with David Suzuki, I realized they were very well organized.
All my finding and realizations I told and explained to my wife and daughter or more like obsessively forced them to listen day after day. JH control/adjustments/falsifications of data and MM tree ring BS(all used back in the 70’s) right up to what I thought would be the end(I learned that there will never be a end)climategate. I needed to share and had no people/friends to discuss with(before CA,SS,SC24 and then WUWT) but my family.
All this info and knowledge for years and years, explaining and showing real data from real science sites to my family. Trying to counteract the CO2 misinformation, doomsday predictions, ecoguilt, and eugenics bombarded from every media, politician and taught to my daughter in school.
One day I saw some dvd’s that the wife and daughter were going to watch that weekend and found the Al Gore sci-fi doc. It was like a christian finding the satanic bible in their house that the family was going to read….. at first I took it and tried to return it, but the library was closed. I got a call from home and was accused by my ex of controlling information to my kid and she should make her own choices. It was very hard to except that they didn’t really listen to anything I’d been so openly impassioned and vocal about. In a twisted bizarro world way my ex was right about my kid hearing both sides to understand, critical thinking is the only way to truth. I brought the DVD back and told my daughter that if there were any questions after to come talk.
Yeah, a long story to make a point I know.
Point is, it doesn’t matter if you are male or female when it comes to belief in a tribe beleif, religion is like this. Males have been through out history the proprietors of most belief systems and by saying that woman are more susceptible to belief is really a sexist thing to say. Really, on the other side you could say that woman have more understanding and faith then males.
Even though I don’t believe in AGW(just natural cycles from our sun), I still respect those who do have a passion for their beliefs. Of course when you let a belief blind you from the true then all respect goes out the window, you’ve become a religion.
horoscopes
crystals,
tarotdecks,
incense,
angel cards,
rising signs,
wands,
spells,
medicine wheels,
pendulums and lottery tickets.
feng shui
dreamcatchers
CAGW
An endless appeal to authority,and a denial of science
Mostly not the domain of the male.
The only blokes i know that pretend to buy into this nonsense are trying to get their leg over various slightly crusty hippy chicks……and it works!
(so i`ve been told;)
The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.
“Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,” said McCright, an associate professor with appointments in MSU’s Department of Sociology, Lyman Briggs College and Environmental Science and Policy Program.
This buffoon is an associate PROFESSOR???!!! I’m sorry for the ad hom, but it really beggars belief that such crap can come out of the mouth of a supposedly intelligent man – even if his subject is sociology. So according to this moron, because women are more likely to believe in the relevance of “consensus” in the CAGW hypothesis, that somehow equates to being “more scientifically literate”??? Duh? I mean… DUH??? It might be worth noting also, that women are more likely than men to believe in feng shui, acupuncture, ghosts, and a whole load of other unsubstantiated bull. That’s not to put down women – there have been many great female scientific minds in our history – I’m just saying that statistically women ARE more gullible than men when it comes to an openness to accept scientifically unproven crap. However, of course there are plenty of gullible and scientifically illiterate men out there too – as this associate professor demonstrates.
Women are also more likely to rub crystals and believe in astrology and homeopathy.
More women believe in astrology. I rest my case.
The recommendation to step up the propaganda to sell the alarmist agenda to the public is outrageous.
I have not read the study and I am not going to. The WUWT article on the climate poll convinced me that the questions in such poles are too bad to be true (e.g. do you believe the earth is warmer than pre 1800?).
“Women tend to believe the scientific consensus on global warming more than men…”. What on earth is this supposed to mean? First of all, what is the scientific consensus: is it that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (non controversial for over a century)? Is it the likelyhood statement in the IPCC report concerning the influence of humans on the average temperature on the planet? Do they believe that there is such a thing as scientific consensus? Let them scroll this blog -as well as the alarmist blog linked on the home page for that matter- for a couple of hours and any perception of scientific consensus will be cured.
In my interactions with females I feel a strong resentment on their side when I try to force them to express themselves in an unambigous precise manner. They tend to have a more intuitive approach to understanding the world and do not insist on rigourous reasoning which is a productive approach in many areas of life and society but it is detrimental to science.
It is truely a perverted world: the climate science misinformation becomes the object of social science “research”.
“The findings, published in the September issue of the journal Population and Environment, challenge common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, said sociologist Aaron M. McCright.”
This is contingent upon whether the CAGW hypothesis is wrong or right. If wrong it reinforces the “common perceptions”.
Regardless, we know that belief in CAGW to no small extent is determined by the political persuasions of the beholder. It’s a political fact that men and women have statistically different political persuasions. Women are more likely to be democrats than men and democrats are more likely to place their faith in CAGW. In academia the paucity of conservatives is even more stark.
So rather than focus on whether men or women better understand science and how this relates to faith in CAGW why not explain the disparity by political beliefs rather than science literacy?
I hadnt thought I could hold the Social Sciences in deeper contempt. It seems I was wrong …
Would it be a fair to restate the title of paper:
“Girly men more likely to believe in CAGW”
???
I think so. 🙂
Dan in California says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm
(…) On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.
——–Reply:
You can add geologists to that list of skeptics; they’re probably the most skeptical of all.
Alex says:
September 15, 2010 at 3:54 am
More women believe in astrology. I rest my case.
Men also have a very irrational belief system… a bigger problem is that men are far more likely to become evangelical about their irrational belief system… but the biggest problem is that men are far more likely to form special interest groups that fight for the supremacy of their belief system.
Just think about the testosterone that drives men to create: Religions & Churches, Political Parties & Governments, Professional Bodies & Examinations, Sports Clubs & Competitions, Action Groups & Lobbyists, Academic Ivory Towers & Schools of Thought, Media & Propaganda, Guns & Hunting, Laws & Policing, Imperialism & Warfare… all based upon the irrational belief that they know best and are always right.
Let’s examine this:
Aaron M. McCright “…calls climate change “the most expansive environmental problem facing humanity.”
Women agree with him.
Men disagree with him
Therefore, women have a better sense of _science_ than do men.
Hogwash. How do these people get published? I guess it is OK to make that leap since “the science is settled”.
By the way, as flawed his conclusions are, the opposite conclusion doesn’t hold water any better.
Alexander Vissers says:
September 15, 2010 at 4:11 am
It is truely a perverted world: the climate science misinformation becomes the object of social science “research”.
And the Sociologists, Psychologists and Psychiatrists just lap it… they classify you as an irrational nonconformist is you don’t accept the consensus… then they can study your delusional antisocial behaviour… before they design treatments to cure you of your mental problems by force of law. Welcome to the new dark ages…
As i tell her everyday…..It`s not MY fault i`m always right.i just cant help it.
LOL .. can’t even get past the title without stating the obvious.
The AGW story has been an “emotional” story. Women are Ph.D. as birth when it comes to emotion. Men … not so much!
I’ll agree with Fred from Canuckistan. More women accept Young Earth “science” in my experience. The warmists are the same as the young earth creationists.
I’m a woman and I find it insulting that I am presumed to believe in this AGW crap. Instead of putting our money, energy and time into trading “hot air” – let’s give the women of the world who are steeped in poverty, loans to uplift themselves, their families, their villages, their countries. That is world-changing.
Well, women are different than men in a very obvious way : ) and viva that difference.
Doing my list thingy:
1) Men=Women in intellectual capacity. I find it is interesting whether there is a preference for either gender to focus on one area of knowledge or belief.
2) Men=Women in ruthlessness. I think the tactical plans tend to differ significantly.
3) Men=Women courage. I think different kinds of courage may be in the mix.
4) Men=Women in emotion. I think different levels/kinds of emotion may be in the mix.
5) Men<Women in lifespan in USA. That is : ( for me.
6) Men=Women in the ability to make errors, mistakes & bad judgments. I think different levels/kinds are in the mix.
Here is the "here we have ignition" part of my comment. Men love women, women love babies, therefore babies, babies grow up, repeat as necessary . . . .
John
I don’t have time to read all the comments, but speaking as a woman, I have to say I’m not gullible, I have never listened to the bull about CAGW. In fact the lies about it caused me to dig deeper. And I’m writing a novel based on what we’d have to do if we slipped into another Major Glaciation. (My writing mentor who’s a women too, had questioned me about going against the status quo and that I could alienate science minded people. I’ve written her a letter, which I haven’t mailed yet, since I want to make sure I don’t sound to angry in it. But I let her know that I’m very science minded and have been all my life and that’s the reason I’m writing the novel and that my science is very sound. Besides it’s a SF/F novel so I should have all the leeway in the world to write the novel any way I’d like too, but even in a SF/F novel you have mentors worrying about CAGW.)
Hardly new. Have to wonder if this was funded by a BIG federal grant. Let’s see, what’s the basic question agian? “Is there a difference between boys and girls?” Hummmmmmm………………. yes! Does this ‘difference’ exist in every way, shape, form across the known universe? Hummmmmmmm……………….. yes!
Ahhhhh……. seems there’s lots of ways to save money in the federal budget. Anyone else getting the same impression?
Or perhaps women are just more susceptible to propaganda. They sure get sucked into advertising and this is no different.
When you watch something Like Oprah and watch the vacant grins of many of the women in the audience, you know many are easily misled.
Fred from Canuckistan says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm
So in summary, women are more gullible than men.
REPLY: and we have ignition…
Hillary, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies.”
But there’s obvioulsy a big difference between conservative and liberal women with believing AGW.
I wonder if this study asked more liberals? That would have skewed the results.
Lonnie Schubert says:
September 15, 2010 at 5:52 am
“The warmists are the same as the young earth creationists.”
Lest that be misunderstood – vanishingly few young earth creationists are warmists.
I’d tend to agree that they’re both the same in the way of believing in things despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Both groups wear blinders but are generally only blind to things that dispute their beliefs and have no problem accepting things that don’t.
This paper is being reported today as serious and valid science by jounalist Leo Hickman on the Guardian blog!!!
How the mighty have fallen!
Thoughts:
Men have posted here that women tend to belong to left leaning parties. If true, it is understandable. Historically, the imposed “veil” comes in many different forms and is, in my experience, the reason why women gravitate towards the party that offers that gender the greatest amount of individual liberty, laws against any form of discrimination, and seeks to protect our reproductive decision rights. Men would do the same if their rights were constantly being threatened. The fact that I am no longer a registered Democrat and have chosen the Independent party instead of the Tea or Republican party is primarily because of the Democratic Party’s plank on global warming but also because the conservative right continues to believe in and would seek to re-enforce the “veil”.
A proper review of history would demonstrate a clear and convincing tendency for women to fight AGAINST consensus in many fields of study, including and especially the medical field, siting just one example among many: autism.
The field of sociology is not a soft science at all. Previous to its advent, scientists would not touch anything having to do with mental issues, believing them to be unmeasurable. This meant that emotional disorders were completely disregarded as an area in need of medical consideration. Sociologists attempted to measure mental and emotional processes, demonstrating it could be done. With reluctance, the science community eventually recognized this field of study and began scientific inquiries into it’s disordered forms. Therefore history refutes the notion posted here by several commenters that sociology, as a field of study, has no merit.
However, this particular study’s only redeemable value would be as a fire starter on a cold weekend morning.
This is a sexist discussion, by definition. So why not make it more obvious? AGW is hysteria. The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the greek word ‘hystera’, meaning ‘uterus’. QED.
“so in summary, women are more gullible than men”
REPLY “and we have ignition…”
Priceless. A true LOL moment.
I have yet to see hysteria from women commenters. It appears that men however, are having a free-for-all good time at the expense of the opposite gender. We do that too. By the way, the uterus was thought to be the only female organ involved in re-production in terms of making a baby. In every sense of the word, it was considered to be just the oven. It was the man that gave birth to the fully formed baby for safe keeping in the oven till it got bigger. QED.
The credibility of any research rests on two things. One is the the sample methodology and the other is interpretation of results. Without a close study of how these were accomplished, the author’s conclusion that women more readily accept the AGW theory can only be viewed as wishful thinking. Indeed, the statement that women’s beliefs conform more to the scientific consensus already includes the falsehood there is a consensus so why not add another and say women are also more inclined to believe it? These researchers know which side of the bread needs buttering in order for them to access research funds.
Among the people I know, far more men believe in the AGW theory and they’re very aggressive in promoting and defending that belief.
anna v says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Being genetically compelled to become a serious adult must really suck. It’s a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it. You have my deepest sympathy and utmost thanks.
Dan in California writes,
“I think it’s interesting that the alarmist party line is bought by sociologists, psychologists, liberal arts graduates, and some climatologists. On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.”
An “alarmist party line” does not exist among scientists, social or otherwise. But virtually all major US scientific organizations (and internationally, many more) have made statements agreeing with the scientific consensus that human activities including greenhouse gas emissiona are changing the climate. These include the American Chemical Society, American Statistical Association, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, along with many others. No sign whatsoever of the division Dan mentions.
I can state with unmitigated certainty:
1. My wife is an optimist compared to me,
2. My wife likes her environment warmer than I.
Therefore, put the two together and women believe because they want it warmer. ;~P
I got a HUGE chuckle over the comment made regarding the dazed adoring look on the female faces of audience members attending an Oprah taping.
Gosh, never seen that before in men, this staring with a dazed look at anything.
Pamela ,
Please explain why the left leaning media launch such vicious attacks on sucessful women who happen to have a conservative point of view .
Dave Springer says:
September 15, 2010 at 4:27 am
Would it be a fair to restate the title of paper:
“Girly men more likely to believe in CAGW”
???
I think so. 🙂
ROFLMAO
“Boys in the United States learn that masculinity emphasizes detachment, control and mastery. A feminine identity, on the other hand, stresses attachment, empathy and care”
So parents do not teach their boys attachment,empathy and care?
When a boy scrapes his knee a mother does not kiss it better, and supply a bandaid? When a boy comes for a hug and attention, he is pushed away?
Boys are babied as much as girls, until they reach school age in most societies, and according to researchers a child’s personality is shaped in the first 5 years, therefore a boy learns to emphathise and care by the time he reaches school age.
Alexander K says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:45 am
How the mighty have fallen!
I didn’t think the British gutter press could really fall any further… guess i must have forgotten about the drains and sewers fed by the effulent from the Street of Shame…
If you are talking about the Tea Party candidate who won the primary in Delaware with Palin’s endorsement, I have this to say, regardless of her gender, mine is important and as a woman who cherishes her individual freedoms, the criticism pointed at her is valid.
So when do we start the truly free “Freedom Party”? At the very least, it is a better title than “Tea Party”. For Gawdsake, it sounds so whimpy ;>). My local rifle range was going to sponsor a Tea Party shoot for women. I was ready to sign up till I found out we weren’t shooting tea cups and plates, we shooting at the plain old plinking targets and then having tea afterwords!
Many women are critical thinkers, I for one and I’m pretty critical of some of the generalisations offered here tonight!
Dear Pamela Gray, may I illustrate my point? Here is an old joke:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: (Woman’s voice) That’s not funny!!!
My original post was intended to be critical of the thread itself. We are all getting way too serious. I wish we could lighten up. But that’s hard to do these days.
Our society is too fractured and ready to explode. That is largely due to manufactured crises like AGW, and our economy. There is always somebody else to blame. We are being pushed to the edge of what we can tolerate so we will accept ‘solutions’ that will give government greater control over our lives. We need to realize we all need each other, stop being afraid, and solve problems together. The more government does, the less freedom we have.
If we can laugh, we let off steam, and that allows us to work more effectively. Humor can be team building.
Humor can ease tensions. Women and men use it to express frustration. There often is critical truth embodied in humor, even if it is frequently stereotypical. That means individuals may not be accurately depicted in the joke, but a recognizable issue must be present for the joke to be funny to the listener. If someone laughs, it shows they understand you.
What was the critical truth in the to joke at the top? Stereotypical feminists seem to be too angry and can’t take a joke.
Men are the butt of jokes in virtually all media, so I’m not sympathetic to women’s complaints about jokes here. For example, dads are usually dumb on TV and in the movies. I’m tired of it, but I don’t make a big deal out of it.
There are differences between men and women. We are not the same, and we should not be the same. Our society puts pressure on us to conform to some theory of how we should behave. That sexual homogenization ignores our nature, and may even weaken our civilization. In my opinion, the feminization of boys as currently practiced in schools is dangerous. A feminized society that wants everyone to get along at all costs may not be able to defend itself.
Honestly, I hope you have a great day, Pamela.
[Notes to self: Pamela has a weapon. Pamela has shot that weapon in public. Be nice to Pamela. Be very nice to Pamela in public. 8<) Robert ]
“For Gawdsake, it sounds so whimpy ;>). ”
Hey Pamela – watch out, with talk like that you’ll be labelled the exception that proves the rule!! 😉
It is interesting that so many commenters seem to accept that this study can say anything whatever about scientific literacy. As far as I can tell, it did not address the occupation or education of respondents. Belief in a premise doesn’t require scientific literacy, and neither does scepticism. I’ve known people who can’t add single digit numbers who “believe” in evolution. You can be sceptical about global warming, just because you are a disagreeable, macho, beer-swilling, know-it-all who thinks Al Gore is a pansy. You can be sceptical without having read one single scientific study or even without visiting this website!
Maybe there is something gender specific that makes women more apt to believe in global warming. Maybe it is because women are the ones who get stuck with the mundane activites like keeping the family washed and fed, so they don’t have time to ruminate about whether or not what they are told on the morning shows is true.
At any rate, the number of women obtaining scientific/technical degrees is very close to the number of men: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/content.cfm?pub_id=3634&id=2
Gullibility is a male concept. Men spend hours trying to devise ways to get someone else to believe something that isn’t true. My husband has hilarious stories of such pranks from his Coast Guard days. He once sent a seaman to the hardware store to purchase “fallopian tubing.” For the most part, it wouldn’t occur to women to do something like that to another woman. Since they aren’t expecting it, that may make women more gullible.
Beth Cooper says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:30 am
Many women are critical thinkers
I thought ALL women were critical thinkers when it comes to men 🙂
but do they have a better understanding than sociologists??
Pamela – If your post at 9:26 was in answer to my question , no it was not in reference to any specific individual . As far as the candidate in Delaware goes , I know little about her except that she defeated Mike Castle . Mike was one of the few Republicans who voted for the climate bill in the House last year and deserves my scorn . Ditto for the other six or seven others who did likewise .
Joseph Day says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:37 am
Honestly, I hope you have a great day, Pamela.
Great post… totally agree.
But honestly reckon a bit more grovelling was called for ☺☺☺
And honestly I nearly believed your last sentence ☺☺☺
Jack Lacton says:
September 14, 2010 at 7:50 pm
“The real answer, politically incorrect as it is, is that women are 1) more gullible than men and 2) defer to men/authority on issues of science”
And yet…the media message is geared towards women…indicating that the women are the real policy drivers….
Oh, the power!!!!!! The limitless power, mhuwahahahahaha!
John Luft says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:02 am
“When you watch something Like Oprah and watch the vacant grins of many of the women in the audience, you know many are easily misled.”
Actually, I think most of them are just there for the free stuff she gives away. The glazed expressions are due to Oprah’s topics. 🙂
@David70 said on September 14, 2010 at 7:30 pm:
Anti-Religion bigotry by David et al. Why are people always grinding this Dawkins militant atheism axe ? Shouldn’t there be a seperation of science and religion.
As to the relative superstition of women, I would like to offer up the example of men and sports. How many professional athletes have “lucky” hats, or don’t shave during the playoffs, or follow some other loony ritual so as not to anger the sports gods.
My husband knocks on wood every time a commentator says something favorable about one of his team’s players. Obviously, scientific evidence shows that if he didn’t the player would be irreparably jinxed.
Getting a little edgy around here. So, on a lighter note.
Hell hath no fury as a:
a) climategate scientist scorned
b) WUWT blogger scorned
c) female of species “x” scorned, where “x” is any species on earth
d) ” male ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
e) AGW religious leader scorned in a Seattle hotel room, when refused by a masseuse
f) mother earth scorned by AGW theory’s disrespect for her
g) and so on and so on . . . .
John
A terrible, but warranted, slur on the reputation of “Climate Consensus” .
I’ve really enjoyed this thread, but I think the bashing of sociologists as a group is unfair. Like any other profession, there are good ones and bad ones. This article is an example of not just a badly done study, but one that was clearly done for the purposes of supporting a political agenda under the guise of scientific study.
I recall a fascinating study (by sociologists) I read some years ago about the way men and women navigate. If you bear with me, this circles back to the issue at hand.
The study began with researchers standing on a downtown street corner and asking strangers for directions. They noted that in general, men provided directions through direction and distance. “take this street north for six blocks and turn west…” while women were more likely to provide direction via landmarks. “keep going on this street until you see a white church with blue trim, that’s the corner where you turn left…”
Ever since reading that study I have taken anecdotal mental notes. When asked for directions by my wife or daughter, I try and use landmarks, and believe me it works much better.
This doesn’t mean that women can’t tell direction or that men can’t recognize landmarks. It means they think in different terms. The theory proposed by the researchers was that primitive societies were hunter/gatherer most hunting being done by men and most gathering by women. Women needed to navigate short distances and very precisely to get to the exact same berry patch as they did the year before, hence the use of specific and detailed landmarks as their core navigation construct. Men needed to range far further to find game, and while finding the same berry patch time after time was a good thing, in hunting that is a bad thing because a given area becomes “hunted out” as the prey’s population declines and their sensitivity to the presence of humans goes up. As a result, men needed to navigate larger distances in order to vary their hunting territories, and the shortest path home after a hunt might well not be to retrace ones steps, so direction and distance became their core construct.
I see no particular flaw in this line of reasoning, so let’s extend it to the matter at hand. Gathering was most likely a group activity. To be effective gatherers, the group would be best served by working together to harvest that berry patch. The primitive hunter however, was a solitary effort. One hunter might get close enough to a rabbit to stick it with a spear, but not 20 together.
So it seems to me that our primitive roots geneticaly favoured societies in which gatherers were predisposed to accepting the consensus and cooperating with it, while hunters were predisposed to a more individualistic and self reliant approach to their primary task, their goal being to proceed unubtrusively, and on the basis that the valley that produced good yields last month would have to be shunned in favour of new ones possibly unseen and unexplored previously.
None of the above means that men can’t be gatherers or that women can’t be hunters. It is a matter of learning the skills and applying them. I find it far more difficult for example to teach a women how to aim a rifle than a man. I also find that when women “get it” they are frequently better shots than men.
So… it is no surprise to me that women accept the consensus more easily than do men. But if this politician in a sociologist’s cloak had studied men and women with equal knowledge of the relevant issues, I doubt that he would have found a significant difference. Just as I expect scientists with moral fibre stand up and say what needs to be said about the flaws in climate science, it would be nice to see sociologists with the guts to do the same. I know they are out there. Somewhere.
Gneiss;
the pronouncements you so tritely list are by the admin Head Orifice types. They have mightily riled their actual members by speaking falsely on their behalf.
Just a consequence of a “Macho” attitude toward women.
I can’t even find the words to express my distaste for this kind of pitting woman against men.
There are differences between men and women but stupidity isn’t one of them. That quality is shared equally.
davidmhoffer says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:02 am (Edit)
I’ve really enjoyed this thread, but I think the bashing of sociologists as a group is unfair. Like any other profession, there are good ones and bad ones. This article is an example of not just a badly done study, but one that was clearly done for the purposes of supporting a political agenda under the guise of scientific study.
I recall a fascinating study (by sociologists) I read some years ago about the way men and women navigate. If you bear with me, this circles back to the issue at hand.
The study began with researchers standing on a downtown street corner and asking strangers for directions. They noted that in general, men provided directions through direction and distance. “take this street north for six blocks and turn west…” while women were more likely to provide direction via landmarks. “keep going on this street until you see a white church with blue trim, that’s the corner where you turn left…”
Ever since reading that study I have taken anecdotal mental notes. When asked for directions by my wife or daughter, I try and use landmarks, and believe me it works much better.
This doesn’t mean that women can’t tell direction or that men can’t recognize landmarks. It means they think in different terms. The theory proposed by the researchers was that primitive societies were hunter/gatherer most hunting being done by men and most gathering by women. Women needed to navigate short distances and very precisely to get to the exact same berry patch as they did the year before, hence the use of specific and detailed landmarks as their core navigation construct. Men needed to range far further to find game, and while finding the same berry patch time after time was a good thing, in hunting that is a bad thing because a given area becomes “hunted out” as the prey’s population declines and their sensitivity to the presence of humans goes up. As a result, men needed to navigate larger distances in order to vary their hunting territories, and the shortest path home after a hunt might well not be to retrace ones steps, so direction and distance became their core construct.
I see no particular flaw in this line of reasoning, so let’s extend it to the matter at hand. Gathering was most likely a group activity. To be effective gatherers, the group would be best served by working together to harvest that berry patch. The primitive hunter however, was a solitary effort. One hunter might get close enough to a rabbit to stick it with a spear, but not 20 together.
So it seems to me that our primitive roots geneticaly favoured societies in which gatherers were predisposed to accepting the consensus and cooperating with it, while hunters were predisposed to a more individualistic and self reliant approach to their primary task, their goal being to proceed unubtrusively, and on the basis that the valley that produced good yields last month would have to be shunned in favour of new ones possibly unseen and unexplored previously.
None of the above means that men can’t be gatherers or that women can’t be hunters. It is a matter of learning the skills and applying them. I find it far more difficult for example to teach a women how to aim a rifle than a man. I also find that when women “get it” they are frequently better shots than men.
So… it is no surprise to me that women accept the consensus more easily than do men. But if this politician in a sociologist’s cloak had studied men and women with equal knowledge of the relevant issues, I doubt that he would have found a significant difference. Just as I expect scientists with moral fibre stand up and say what needs to be said about the flaws in climate science, it would be nice to see sociologists with the guts to do the same. I know they are out there. Somewhere.
—…—…—…
I dislike repeating another writer’s (excellent and inciteful!) words, but feel it is justified in this case. Let me add (but only with Pamela’s publicly armed permission and Tamera’s willing consent) an extension:
The consent-dominated “gathering and child-rearing” group MUST communicate. The more often and the more recognizable their constant communication, the more the “talkers” will survive to rear more children, and the more the “talkers” children will survive to breed more children. This is because omnivore predators (particularly bears, boars, pigs, and the like who eat the same food humans do) will be repelled and warned off by strange noises from the humans competing for food in the same area. Likewise, one talkative human in a group listening to other talkers who spys a predator will warn other humans, and those humans will be able to safely stay away from the predator.
A child wandering a few feet from his/her mother in a dense blackberry patch or vine-covered brush will only survive if he/she can hear his mother and return. Or a child who quickly cries out when lost will be heard by his mother (or other nearby “talker”) but not a predator. A child who stays quiet and hides is killed and cannot breed.
In all cases, constant speech (about anything) is a survival trait. For the gatherers. For the gatherers’ children.
Now, compare this to the classic – and never disproved – “male” as a hunter. Group or solo, the male who speaks scares away his prey. The male who talks and compares clothing styles or drapery selections rather than building weapons goes hungry and dies. His family, his tribe also goes without food, and they have a smaller chance to survive.
The “hunter” who talks socially while in a group hunting also goes hungry. (If he himself is not himself “killed” or punished by his hunting group who want silence for their survival and food. Social pressure and and his family’s survival requires silence during the hunt.
Now, an important exception to this “The strongest, quickest, most silent, most masculine hunter will survive.” theory.
Now, look at a time just a few hours later, when that same quiet, very focused masculine hunter is sitting by the fire after the hunt is over. At that point, his loud boastful talk about the hunt attracts potential mates (certainly something must make up for the lack of soap, baths, and deodorant and comfortable bedding), attracts future hunters into his group (and so improves his chances of succeeding the time they hunt), AND scares away any predators stupid enough to approach the fire. Then again, a successful hunt brings home the comfortable bedding helpful in avoiding headaches. (That is, successful breeding …)
Thus, boasting about their exploits around a fire after work is a validated male survival trait, and must be encouraged by all current and future mates of the true male.
Gneiss says:
September 15, 2010 at 9:02 am
An “alarmist party line” does not exist among scientists, social or otherwise. But virtually all major US scientific organizations (and internationally, many more) have made statements agreeing with the scientific consensus that human activities including greenhouse gas emissiona are changing the climate. These include the American Chemical Society, American Statistical Association, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, along with many others. No sign whatsoever of the division Dan mentions.
———————————————————-
My response: Of course CO2 emissions are changing the climate, the question is whether the effect is a measurable amount or a tiny amount. I am less familiar with the Statistical Association and the Meterological Society (You’ll have to ask Joe Bastardi), but I know that many members of the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society are indignant that the administrators of the societies wrote letters supporting AGW consensus. Both organizations have petitions from working members asking to repeal that politically inspired baloney. Members are also dropping out of the organizations for the same reasons.
And, yes, I forgot to include geologists in the ranks of skeptics. They know better than most that past wide swings of CO2 concentration (much greater changes than current) did not cause corresponding global temperature extremes.
In 1922 “HLM” came out with a book amusingly titled In Defense of Women,” which can be read online here: http://gutenberg.readingroo.ms/1/2/7/1270/1270-h/1270-h.htm Here are a few extracts, mostly OT, and many of them “arguable”—but awfully provocative. If you haven’t read Mencken, here’s what you’re missing:
Hmm, a lot appears to be hidden in this result. For example the business of confidence in one’s knowledge of climate science. Why not parse the data to correlate confidence of one’s knowledge (regardless of gender) with adherence to “consensus”. From what is revealed in this fellow’s results it would appear that those who feel confident of their own knowledge tend to buck the consensus.
Personally, I think it is nonsense to draw inferences from self-reported levels of confidence in one’s own knowledge. Why not include on the survey a mini-quiz to determine responders’ ACTUAL knowledge of scientific (or climate) basics? I guess that would be far too sensible for these pollsters to consider.
I place little stock in this business of socialization as an explanation of gender-specific behavior. We gave our daughter lego and our son dolls. The dolls ended up pilots in fighter jets and the lego would be assembled into “houses” and the lego people became mini-dolls that socialized all day. Eventually our son robbed the “girl lego” sets to augment his design of space ships and our daughter kept all the dollish stuff together. Sure everyone is influenced by environment, but nature and nurture both account for eventual behavior, and one cannot cancel out the other.
That said there will be a whole range of behaviors and traits exhibited by individuals of either gender, including those that defy the norms. I wonder about Judith Currie in light of this study, however. Does she defy the norm in one respect while falling squarely under the curve in another? Could explain a few things. Currently on her blog she’s trying to square tropical storm data that doesn’t fit well with “consensus” “science” (i.e., alarmist projections). She evidently sees that the alarmist approach is unsupported but can’t be brought to toss out the clearly flawed hypothesis.
One article about physicists being unhappy with APS leadership:
http://www.examiner.com/cobb-county-conservative-in-atlanta/prominent-scientists-push-to-revise-physics-society-climate-statement
A reference to Am Chemical Society members revolting about their executives bowing to AGW claims:
http://84rules.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/american-chemical-society-revolts-against-their-editor-in-chief/
Here’s a WUWT thread on Chemists not agreeing with their organization’s policy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/american-chemical-society-members-revolting-against-their-editor-for-pro-agw-views/
Another discussing dissent within the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Physical Society.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3905
I stand by my statement that working scientists in the “hard” sciences and engineers are skeptical that anthropogenic CO2 is more than a minor factor in climate. Skepticism is an integral part of science, and the burden of proof is on those who claim that mankind is affecting the global climate.
And to stay on thread, that’s engineers and scientists of both sexes. 🙂
I prefer landmark directions because I can’t often see the little green street sign hiding behind the overgrown tree on the corner. It has nothing to do with how I think. Now if all streets had big illuminated hanging street name signs on the overhead power lines, then I would prefer street names.
“Men still claim they have a better understanding of global warming than women, even though women’s beliefs align much more closely with the scientific consensus,”
Women are more religious too. I guess it escaped the author that concensus != science. But it does make good politics.
kasphar says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Sorry Kasphar, I jumped immediately to post a comment without reading and made the same point you did. great minds think alike.
Women prefer landmarks because you can use them to find berry patches year after year. They are not so good, however, for intercepting a herd of buffalo.
All I can say is, this ignerant perfessor dude hasn’t a clue what makes women tick, and I snorted a lung when Anthony said “We have ignition.”
(yes, the misspellings are intentional.)
Isn’t it amazing how much more response there is to this issue as opposed to the technical blogs. 219 hits for this as opposed to 54 for for water vapor feedback. As much as the study of sociology is derided, it seems everyone is interested.
Pamela Gray says:
September 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I prefer landmark directions because I can’t often see the little green street sign hiding behind the overgrown tree on the corner. It has nothing to do with how I think. Now if all streets had big illuminated hanging street name signs on the overhead power lines, then I would prefer street names.>>
Ah, but most esteemed Pamela, is not a street sign but a landmark? It signifies neither direction nor distance…
My anecdotal observation is that the rule holds true about 80% of the time. I myself however navigate by landmarks, but when asked for directions I automaticaly switch to direction and distance unless I make a conscious decision not to. Of course I grew up on the prairies where the question “can you tell me how to get to the Miller farm” can be answered with “its about 80 miles that direction. Look, you can just see the peak of his barn just past that tree… looks like they did laundry today, Martha’s got the whites strung up on the clothesline.”
Thanks Phil
The link between religion and AGW thickens. Another thought on an idea above.
Maybe women of the right take on religion, women of the left take on AGW.
This study’s results are not surprising as I have been following global warming polls that include gender and environmental issues and the woman are always a higher percentage in favor of “concern for”.
One major corporation I deal with has an idiotic “green team” which is made up of all women. I see more women driving around Priuses ect…
Global Warming, Al Gore and environmental doomsday nonsense are largely emotional issues and women on average are more emotional than men.
Is this not another study which makes the big fat assumption that what people say they believe, is what they actually believe? I think most post-vote polls fall into this category.
Let’s imagine: If a ditzy blonde came up dressed like a polar bear and asked if you believed in global warming – would you:
Lie?
Tell the truth?
And whichever choice you made, would you do it because:
a/ It made her happy.
b/ It made her sad.
c/ You always do and aren’t bothered by the reaction.
And finally, for all those hetrosexual males out there (though it could be formulated for anyone) if she was dressed an a fur bikini, and she bounced with excitement (and hence ‘jiggled’) every time you said how much you said you liked polar bears – would you change your answers? 😉
Helen Hawkins says: “There are differences between men and women but stupidity isn’t one of them. That quality is shared equally.”
Wonderfully said.
Pat Frank says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:01 pm
I think we should put Aaron M. McCright alone in a room with Lucia, Lucy Skywalker, and Pamela Gray. I’m guessing he’d suffer an epiphany.
That sounds painful – is that the one with the testicle up each nostril?
The various comments about how men and women navigate can often be traced down to physical differences in the brain. There’s been various studies done that indicate that the area of the brain in men which controls spacial awareness is the part of the brain in women which holds color gamut.
This means that statistically speaking, men have red, yellow, blue etc while women can tell the difference between green, jade, orange,amber, purple, magenta etc.
However, put both in a room where they know where the obstacles are, but can’t see them – women tend to hit them more often. The price for increased color gamut is reduced spacial awareness and vice-versa.
This is of course statistically speaking. Some men have more “womens” brains and some women “mens” brains – at least in this area (it’s not a general thing).
As with so many things, it’s more complicated than it first appears…
The Lady Gaga meat dress: Proper beef should be hung for at least 21 days. But 60 pounds is impressive, I didn’t think she was that strong.
wanglese says:
September 14, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I’m not going to dengrate women. I think the study is probably flawed. However, it isn’t accidental that in Australia the womens magazines have pages and pages of adverts for the “worlds greatest psychics – call now!”, and a bunch of other woo-woo, along with the nonsense articles and astrology, feng-shui and the like. It isn’t accidental that you can walk into a newsagenbt and buy “Witchcraft” magazines, complete with “spells to snare your man!”
What these things are to women, conspiracy theories are to men. A small minority are believers, many others are interested in them for entertainment only.
I think I’ve lost a comment…
Some one needs to check his model and his raw data. I detect a bias.
Folks you’re looking at this the wrong way.
Women are just hedging their bets, being pragmatic.
Global warming means warmer temperatures; means less clothing to wear; means more skin to show; means they’ll need to stay in better shape.
It’s all about appearance and competition with their fellow females. 🙂
#
#
Garry says:
September 14, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Ha ha. I wonder whether he asked any control questions about trigonometry, astrophysics, neurology, or machine language?….
__________________________________________________________
I doubt he can even SPELL those words much less understand what they mean.
—-
As a female chemist who graduated in 1972 (BS) I would like to add the following:
I was not allowed to take shop, I had to take Home Ec instead (I flunked it in protest) I wanted to be a Chem Engineer but my counselor in college assigned me to chemistry only classes and I was a sophomore before I figured out he had switched my major without telling me.
As a female we were pushed into the socially acceptable “nurturing” framework. Those females who were interested in math and science had a real fight on their hands so I am not surprised at the findings of this study.
I realize it is different now but there are still a lot of women around who were brainwashed into allowing others to do their thinking when it comes to science thanks to the subtle messages that “science and math is for men” from their teachers. This mind set is ruthlessly exploited by the use of cuddly seal pups and polar bear cubs designed to bring out a woman’s nurturing instincts.
The emotional message is going to have a much greater “win” with women compared to the “scientific” message “win” for men.
You might want to check your history on that. You then might be surprised abut which party has actually enacted more civil rights legislation, which one tried to block and filibuster it, which one formed the iconic hooded group, etc., etc. The other party talks the talk, but balks at the walk.
Groan And what do you suppose would be the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers on such a mini-quiz?
Self-reported knowledge assessments are far superior to the results of any quiz composed by McWrong.
Tsk. You still dung git it. Street signs are
landmarks. North-south and east-west are independent of such trivia!
>:)
This academic may be surprised by reality, as most of them would be, if they ever could encounter it.
I am certain there are more of the fairer, lovelier, more sweetly reasonable persuasion amongst the skeptics than he has reckoned.
Earlier I wrote a simple statement of fact,
“But virtually all major US scientific organizations (and internationally, many more) have made statements agreeing with the scientific consensus that human activities including greenhouse gas emissiona are changing the climate. These include the American Chemical Society, American Statistical Association, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society, along with many others.”
Brian H took umbrage,
“the pronouncements you so tritely list are by the admin Head Orifice types. They have mightily riled their actual members by speaking falsely on their behalf.”
No other content so I don’t know which major US scientific organizations he has in mind, where such pronouncements are made by “admin Head Orifice types.” Perhaps he will specify. For all the organizations I belong to, the presidents and boards of directors are elected by the membership, and we can vote them out if we don’t like what they do. They tend to be prominent scientists, and board members don’t work at any head office.
Dan in California is more substantive, writing,
“I stand by my statement that working scientists in the “hard” sciences and engineers are skeptical that anthropogenic CO2 is more than a minor factor in climate.”
then backing this up with some reports of dissent in APS, AGU and ACS.
But of course there’s dissent. These are large, diverse societies. AGU alone has some 55,000 members across many different fields, who don’t all think with one mind. But can you cite any evidence that most oppose the statements by their organization (and the research in their journals) to the effect that human activities including greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate?
In response to member comments, the AGU complexified its position by adding realistic caveats while keeping the heart of the original statement, that human activities are measurably changing the climate. You can read both the 2007 statement and 2010 caveats here, and spin that at will:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
Here’s a 2010 update from the American Chemical Society, where likewise there was some dissent including calls to replace an editor, but years later it didn’t shift the center and the editor remains:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/88/8835editor.html
It runs against the grain of this website to believe so, but there is a consensus among active scientists that human activities including greenhouse gas emissions are measurably changing the climate. Not unanimous, to be sure, but it would be hard to attend the meetings, read the newsletters and journals, or talk with a broad range of your colleagues in the organizations I know about without seeing the breadth and depth of the evidence, across many different fields. It’s their own evidence and knowledge, not some “party line” or “admin Head Orifice types,” that the consensus rests on.
This has inspired me to organize a $5000 annual prize for the most stupid, climate exploiting study – honors will be shared between the authors, the university and funding bodies.
The best way to find stupidity is to publicly laugh at them.
“It runs against the grain of this website to believe so, but there is a consensus among active scientists that human activities including greenhouse gas emissions are measurably changing the climate.”
Gneiss,
The problem is consensus doesn’t make any particular belief true or false. It’s irrelevant. You are appealing to authority, just like every other AGW advocate who has commented here. You aren’t presenting anything here that hasn’t been presented countless times before. You might think you have some fresh-looking appeal to authority, but you don’t even have that. Your take was old years ago.
Andrew
“New” Earth creation is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis which puts the age of the planet at less than 10,000 years. In order to believe that you have to have very little scientific training/interest or a willingness to put science aside and take it as a matter of faith. (Did you know there’s a museum just outside Cincinatti dedicated to creation “science.”) I was just trying to counter this sociology prof’s assertion. If women know their stuff when it comes to science because they are more likely to believe in CAGW, why do more women believe in new Earth creation? Another guy did a good job expanding on this asking why more women are involved with horoscopes, tarot cards, psychics, fung shui, etc.
Gneiss,
One would have to be a complete fool to believe that human activity has no effect on the planet, climate included. But what, exactly, does “measurable” mean? If I send Bill Gates one dollar, the change to his personal wealth is in fact measurable. Completely meaningless, but measurable. The question is not are we having a “measurable” effect on climate, the question is are we having a SIGNIFICANT effect on climate, and is it detrimental? The evidence suggests that natural variability is far in excess of our “measurable” effect, that both CO2 and temperature increases are in fact a mixed result with far more positives than negatives, and lastly, the scientists at the forefront of climate alarmism continue to use poor statistical analysis techniques and keep their original data and the manner in which it was adjusted and/or analyzed secret. I ask you, if you had knowledge of an impending earth quake, or a tsunami, or some other disaster that would result in a major loss of life, would you shout it from the roof tops to warn everyone? And when someone asked you to prove it, would you not produce every last shred of evidence you had in an effort to save lives? Of course you would. You wouldn’t respond with a condescending sneer that your evidence is proprietary and no one else can look at it, would you?
As for the societies, allow me this observation in regard to Roberts Rules of Order. When a society is operated in regard to the common interests and issues of the membership, it rarely steps outside of its own area of expertise. When a small group of activists with a specific agenda outside the area of expertise want to however, the nature of Roberts Rules of Order in the hands of a determined clique can easily hijack the society as a whole. Disgruntled members may leave, but more often they remain silent, the value of the society to them on the issues for which they joined it still out weighs their disagreement with the politics. Hence when I read an opinion by a scientist in their field of expertise, I focus on the science. When as society issues a statement couched in ambiguous terms with a political position inherent in the statement, I stop paying attention.
So tell me not about what the societies have said or not said. Show me the science, show me the data, show me the analysis and show me the real world results that confirm it all. I’ve been reading everything from IPCC AR4 to WUWT and frankly, I’ve not seen anything approaching science, data, analysis and results that would suggest anything extroardinary happening to the climate.
David70 says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm
“New” Earth creation is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis which puts the age of the planet at less than 10,000 years. In order to believe that you have to have very little scientific training/interest or a willingness to put science aside and take it as a matter of faith.>>
I had a professor in university who had a Phd in Geophysics, and firmly believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old. One day I asked how he could reconcile that belief while teaching us how to date the age of fossils that were millions of years old. He picked up some fossilized sea creature off his desk and said that when it was created less than 6,000 years ago, it was created millions of years old with a history to match, and it was of interest to him to study that history. If his interest was in “why”, he would have become a priest.
The two aren’t mutualy exclusive.
I am well aware of the histories related to party platforms and how they have changed over the decades and century. My dear grandpa (who raised me) was an old school racist Democrat from Missouri. When he first joined the party, women’s rights, real racial equality, etc, were foreign to the Southern Democratic Party. If it was liberty you sought as a woman, your closest bet was the Republican Party. By the time I was old enough to vote, party planks had switched sides. And so it goes with party platforms. They change as often as the weather does.
Im a woman and am skeptical of AGW, not necessarily in that order.
One thing that is obvious to someone from a science / health background is the obvious confounding factors in a survey based study of this nature: Women are less likely to create oppositional interpersonal situations, we prefer to get along and let discretion be the better part of valour. Any of you who have been on the recieving end of an ad hominen personal attack due to a skeptical AGW stance would have some insight into why women would be more likely to go with the party line in public, avoid rocking the boat and go away and blog irately under a nom de blog about shoddy science. Or is that just me?
Gail Combs
Nobody does my thinking for me.That includes feminist groups who tell me that I am as good as any man.I don’t care about climate science.When it comes down to it,climate science has no benefit at all.All those years studying and researching for a gain of what?I would have been happy to see the billions wasted on so-called climate science policies spent on medical research.
The medical research industry is rife with corruption,but I am sitting here today typing because of medical research.Real benefits I can see,like my mother kept alive for 15 years after heart problems.
I always read the latest studies on medical research,it has ended so much misery in the world.How much misery can climate scientists end?
It seems to me that climate scientists have manufactured or went along with the global warming hysteria to justify their existence,they get a free pass while drug companies are attacked from all sides.
Z says:
September 15, 2010 at 3:26 pm
“And finally, for all those hetrosexual males out there (though it could be formulated for anyone) if she was dressed an a fur bikini, and she bounced with excitement (and hence ‘jiggled’) every time you said how much you said you liked polar bears – would you change your answers? ;)”
Being a bit seasoned(older),my answer is ….. NO.
I know that this is a use of feminine attraction, or more to the point “sex sells”. There will ALWAYS be a young guy who will fall for this when it comes to spending a few minutes flirting and talking to a pretty girl they will never have but in their heads. No one really harmed except for ditching your principles, but thinking with our lower heads and letting it control our judgment is nothing new since the dawn of time.
We are only human, and the woman are the same as us(if not worse) when it comes to needing to want to be sexually attractive. This is what makes it the spice of life and creates so much conflict between the sex’s. Who am I to judge someone else for using what they were born with to make a living? Using looks and sexual attraction to get votes/signatures is as degrading as a person who lets it cloud their judgment. Sometimes doing the wild thing will take over and make you say and do whatever it takes, this is what it is and have more then a few times done things from it’s control. Oh and is her bikini made of polar bear skin? 🙂
Ok, I’ve changed my answer…YES!! hehehehe! :p LOL
These include . . . American Statistical Association
Hmmm. A statistical society that endorses a belief based largely on refusal to release statistical data. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
Brian H says:
September 15, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Tsk. You still dung git it. Street signs are landmarks.
I don’t know where you come from but in my navigational world a landmark is usually a building, structure or geographic feature – like Churches, Bridges and Rivers… on the other hand Street Signs in my world are tiny little plaques hidden from view in the urban landscape – like nailed to a wall 50 yards away, 20 feet above eye level and obscured behind the leafy branches of a tree… otherwise it is covered in spray paint or hanging in some kids bedroom as a memory of some drunken night out. So I still dung get it! Perhaps that’s why men like playing with their Sat Navs so much… and the irony is that the Sat Nav voices are usually female. Sat Navs must be male toys because they are so useless… they are great on the open road where you don’t need them… use Sat Nav in the city centre of Lisbon, Portugal and it tells you to turn left through the front door of a house that has been standing there for three hundred years… use Sat Nav on the ring roads around Madrid, Spain and you end up outside the entrance to the emergency department in a hospital somewhere on the road to Toledo… such is life… perhaps men should stick to 2D maps… while women can use 3D maps, landmarks or (horrors of horrors) simply ask for directions…
David70 says:
September 15, 2010 at 7:55 pm
It’s called Young Earth Creationism or YEC not New Earth Creation.
Reply: Can we please stop discussing any form of Creationism for any reason or comparison? This is generally a prohibited topic. I’m granting some leeway here, and not deleting a dozen comments, but this stops now. ~ ctm
McCright analyzed eight years of data from Gallup’s annual environment poll that asked fairly basic questions about climate change knowledge and concern.
Now the thing I hate about these surveys is they usually give you multiple choice answers but they NEVER have my answer…
SURVEY QUESTION: Will you vote for X in the next election.
SURVEY ANSWERS: a) Yes, b) No, c) Maybe
MY ANSWERS: a) I never vote – it only encourages them, b) It doesn’t matter who I vote for the government always gets in. c) My vote never counts because my choice always loses.
So I never trust polls… the questions and answers are both rigged… and people don’t always tell the truth… I remember when I lived in Wales (that large empty green field on Google maps) my local doctor got a backhander and released my personal details to some “doctor” performing government sponsored research into mental health… so the multiple page tick box questionaire duly arrived in the post… it was immediately obvious that the researcher worked in mental health ie: a total fruit cake.
QUESTION: How often do you think about committing suicide?
TICK BOXES: a) Once a month, b) once a week, c) once a day, d) once an hour.
When this post went up I posted a link to a blogpost from the always interesting Mark J. Perry about the growing female to male disparity in grad school enrollments, except in the four most Math dominated fields. Professor Perry had a further update to day.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/interesting-fact-of-day-coincidence.html
A couple of pertinent quotes;
“For the four most math-intensive graduate fields of study, which are the fields where men are over-represented, the male-female ratio for enrolled graduate students is 1.70 to 1 (322,516 males to 189,372 females).
Interestingly, according to College Board data released this week, the male-female ratio for 2010 SAT math scores of 700 or above is 1.69 to 1 (65,606 males to 38,728 females).
Coincidence?
Update: More women (827,197) than men (720,793) took the SAT test in 2010. At the highest test score of 800, the male-female ratio was 2.08 to 1 (8,072 males had perfect scores vs. 3,997 females). ”
Of course pointing out this kind of inconvenient data was what got Larry Summers run out of Harvard a few years back. Also, despite the large female deficit in these fields they still hold a more than 40% edge over males in overall grad school enrollments.
Pamela,
My mother was a Democrat until about 10 years ago. My Grandfather was also one of those old, racist Democrats. But, her generation of Democrats was the one of free expression and equality. She raised me to believe that the Democrat party was the party of women, and I bought into it right up until my first presidential election. It didn’t take me long to learn the difference between equality and privilege.
I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how the Republican and/or Tea Parties are trying to hold women back. I get the impression that you are basing this on the right-to-life/right-to-choose issue, but if I am mistaken please tell me.
Tamara, you would be right. It is very much like the 2nd amendment right to me. I find any infringement on our 2nd amendment to be a warning signal that a slippery slope lies ahead (I am a multi-gun owner and carry more than one concealed weapon permit – which irritates the hell out of me). The same is true in my opinion, for my right to choose. Once others find they can impose legal restrictions on what I can or can’t do in one area, these same others will find more and more areas they can impose legal restrictions on. Women fought a good fight (and without firing a single shot) to gain their freedom. Anyone who thinks it is okay to give some of it back is nuts.
If I could I would fish every day, and I try very hard to do that. I generate a map of the river (which has no signs and often bends North, South, East and West several times along its run) based on landmark topography. So when it suits the purpose, a landmark map is the way to go. And in this case, the only way to go. This type of mapping is common with all hunters and fishermen. Once you get to the starting point, it’s all distance and landmarks from then on.
And none of what David Wendt comments on has anything to do with the fact that until relatively recently, women were not allowed to study in any of these areas, much less attend a college program at Harvard that focused on these areas.
http://harvardmagazine.com/1999/11/womanless.html
A more telling statistic might be the speed at which we are catching up to you. Yes?
Bad Andrew writes,
“The problem is consensus doesn’t make any particular belief true or false. It’s irrelevant. You are appealing to authority, just like every other AGW advocate who has commented here.”
You’ve won an argument with a voice in your head, or maybe a whole chorus of them (“just like every other…”). I did not say that consensus makes a particular belief true. That’s inverting my actual point, which was that the consensus exists because most scientists, unlike most WUWT readers, see the evidence as persuasive. I wrote,
“It’s their own evidence and knowledge, not some “party line” or “admin Head Orifice types,” that the consensus rests on.”
The “admin Head Orifice types” Brian H invoked to dismiss this consensus exist in Brian H’s head, not in the actual science organizations.
Dan in California stands by his claim that “the alarmist party line is bought by sociologists, psychologists, liberal arts graduates, and some climatologists. On the other hand, the skeptics tend to be physicists, engineers, chemists, statisticians, computer programmers, other climatologists, and farmers.” Certainly there are differing views within every field, including sociologists etc., but Dan offers no evidence to support of his generalization. I don’t know about farmers but regarding scientists, there’s much evidence supporting the opposite: physical scientists have always been leading the way on climate research.
Has the American Sociological Association even made a statement about climate change? Perhaps they are working on one, but if so it will come out years behind the statements already made by the AGU, with its 55,000 members including 13,000 atmospheric scientists; and also by most of the other major hard-science and mathematical organizations with relevant expertise.
Paua, I hear you. Strife and contentiousness is not my preferred mode of interaction. But there are times when I have to draw the line and say, “kiss my grits”.
From: Tamara on September 16, 2010 at 6:26 am
I’m not Pamela Gray, but…
Because if you’re a Republican and/or a Tea Partier then you are a conservative therefore you are anti-abortion therefore against women’s rights, and if you’re a woman who is one or otherwise against abortion then you’re a self-hater in urgent need of psychological counseling at your nearest women’s support center.
I’m not saying any of that makes sense, which it doesn’t, and this is not a site for getting into “women’s right to…” issues. I’m just reporting the lines of reasoning I’ve seen, without regard to the amount of “reason” they entail.
Actually, most women I have met who value their freedom of choice, value the right of any woman to carry a baby full term if that is her choice. If, God forbid, we ever face enforced abortion (which has been the case in some countries), I would take up arms to fight for a woman’s right to carry full term as hard as I would fight for a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. And therein lies the difference between a woman who would vote to take away my right and a woman who would fight for individual freedom to make the choice that is right for her.
Funny thing I have learned about party platforms and candidates. While parties try to embrace and include all folks from all walks of life, a measure of that party’s voting record while in session is the telling measure. There are Democrats in office who would vote to rescind my right to choose and there are Republicans would vote to keep my rights safe. Within that variation, there are majority beliefs that paint one party one color and another party a different color. It is also true that these colors can change over time.
My Democratic party affiliation was terminated because of the recent plank added related to CO2 and accompanied with the majority vote by that party in favor of laws, taxes, and restrictions. That I didn’t then register as a Republican does not mean that I think the entire party is devoid of people like me (fiscally conservative and protector of my individual rights as a woman), it is because the majority of their votes seek to rescind my right to choose.
It is rather simple, really. I will vote for the candidate who rejects the notion that CO2 is to be capped, taxed, and/or severely regulated, who seeks to reduce the size, function, powers, and cost of governmental agencies, who promotes anti-discrimination laws related to sexual preference, and who is a defender of my right (or any woman’s right) to choose the reproductive program that best suits me. Why this list? Because these issues affect millions of people and to ignore them would squarely put us on that slippery slope towards massive loss of freedom, and a dictatorial, “taxation without representation” governance. In the US, it would be akin to having King George enthroned in the White House instead of just over the pond.
This has turned into a thread where a number of people are having a go at applying their own biases to figure out the results of a study for which we have no background how the results were obtained nor how they were analyzed. So, I thought I’d throw in my own observations.
Over the many years I’ve managed several work teams. Some all male, some all female and a mix of the two. First observation is that mixed teams are more socially stable, far fewer issues. I can only think that socialization/biology carries over to the workplace and men and women behave better in each others presence.
Second observation is men and women are equally emotional but the triggers and responses tend to be different. Women are more often triggered by hurt to the self, while men by hurt to their ego. Women’s responses are immediate and vocal while men stew silently and response physically (slamming things, pounding a fist on the table, etc.) When angry or hurt, women will often cry because they have no other physical outlet for the intense flood of adrenaline. Fist pounding, slamming things around are not socially acceptable releases for females. Imagine seeing a woman indulging in that behvaiour – we’d think she was having a nervous breakdown. Whereas a man doing that would just be presumed to be angry. Conversely, a man breaking down in tears would be construed as having a nervous breakdown because, like the chair throwing woman, he’d be crossing a strictly observed gender behavioural boundary.
My own experience as a people manager is that our socializing as males and females has a powerful influence both on the way we manage and on how those being managed perceive us. On some issues, women managers have more success and on others, male managers are more successful. I work cooperatively with my male counterparts to use those socialized perceptions to make us all more effective. That is, we cross over to each others teams to roll out workplace changes or deal with team issues. Neither one style or the other is right; it’s just different. You can use the power inherent in that difference. Or, you can ignore it and go it alone.
I’m an engineer by training, have worked in a large manufacturing organization and I’m now a building construction project manager. I’ve seen men and women at their best and their worst and neither gender has exclusive claim on nobility or villainy.
Computer crashed and kept sending me to the Washington Post after I tried to send an addendum to my voting preferences. I also require my politician to vigorously defend my 2nd amendment rights.
Back to the premise of the article. Much has been said anecdote-ally about the differences between men and women. Some of it flies in the face of double blind studies. For example, a commenter above mentioned that women have the baby wants but men by and large do not. Not true according to double blind studies of male preference for body shape without regard to facial beauty. Not only do men prefer wider hips, even if grotesquely wider (as in not possible in the female human shape), they prefer women’s faces during ovulation than at any other time. It also appears instinctive and not by choice. So regardless of what men say about children on an individual level, when studied under controlled conditions they prefer women who are capable, and immediately so, of becoming pregnant and delivering a baby.
All anecdotal beliefs are colored by individual lenses, meaning that stated beliefs and observations can many times be refuted by careful, gold standard color-blind studies.
I couldn’t figure out how to get this to the author of the study, so I place it here. Hope against hope that they or someone they knows reads it:
Sir,
The conclusion is based on a critical assumption, that climate change is indeed anthropogenic in origin, and that the consensus is correct. This is a problem central to the warmist/skeptic debate, i.e. that the data on which the conclusions or opinions are based are valid.
The fundamental argument of the skeptic side is not that the conclusions are incorrect, inso much as the conclusions flow logically from the data and internal assumptions but that the data and internal assumptions used as a basis of the conclusions are wrong or weaker than proposed. Should underlying assumptions be shown wrong or weaker-than, as, for examples, that water vapour does not create a multiplier effect to a CO2-induced temperature gain, or that the radiative forcing per se of CO2 is less than that proposed, the CAGW hypothesis and threat falls apart. “Normal” levels of temperature gain (of the 1.5 – 1.8K/100 years) are what is going on, regardless of our fossil fuel use. Should the temperature data be shown to be wrong, as in the “corrections” applied by NASA and HadCrut be excessive, the Urban Heat Island Effect be inadequately accounted for, or the (very important for NASA/NOAA) 1200km extrapolation across the Arctic be inappropriate, then the CAGW hypothesis falls apart. I am not saying here that the flaws in the data and assumptions exist, but should they exist to any meaningful extent, then the conclusions coming from the IPCC et al must necessarily be exaggerations or even terminally in error.
Neither men nor women on a large scale study nor understand the technical aspects of climate change. All of us to a large extent use common sense and the conclusions delivered to us by those we consider unbiased experts. We know that experts have a bias in the outcome of their work, but expect that when a “consensus” is reached, there was enough negative considerations given and discussed that the majority felt the situation is as it is reported. However, if you look to the reports in their thousands, you will see that the vast majority operate on the basis of the same data and assumptions. Of course the same conclusions are reached, and we’d be shocked if they weren’t. But that is not the point the skeptics are arguing.
What your study actually measures, in my opinion, is the difference by gender in the weight given to opinions and recommendations by authority figures and technical experts. You are seeing distrust in males and acceptance in females, both of which look strongly like gender-based characteristics you described as commonly observed. Secondly, the technial aspect of the male shows up in the distrust, as males are more typically in the analyltical fields, especially engineering and the earth sciences. It is a long outrage in the alarmist camp that the most vociferous of skeptics is the geoscientist or geologist, prone to thinking about the Earth in long swatches of time. As a geologist I understand. Data collected over 35 years (1975 to present) does not impress me at all, as I hardly consider 5000 years to have much meaning in terms of climate from my career. Engineers are familiar with what goes in and comes out of numerical simulations from their work, and the foolishness they have to discard on a regular basis due to incomplete, bad or erroneous data and assumptions. Suspicion and a desire to see the data itself is rampant in these types of professions. I hardly need to say that the non-social, analytical professions are dominated by males, as your discussion indicates you know that already.
In short, I suggest you rethink what your data tells you after careful consideration of the assumption that underlies your analysis, i.e. that there is no reason to doubt the supporting data that climate change, though real, is anthropogenic, fossil-fuel based, and catastrophic in result. Remember, if our 2ppm/year for the next 50 years doesn’t have any negative effect on the planet, the entire climate change anxiety and concern that your surveys measured are meaningless and artefacts of unreasonable alarmism.
It is not climate change people are responding to, but alarm and predictions of doom. It is not the science that is being supported and agreed to, but the conclusios and projections presented by a group of like-minded experts, politicians and propagandists. I asked for a position on the science of the David Suzuki Foundation. The reply was that they look to the results of peer-reviewed studies to what they believe. They, with all their money and technical resources, will not say that the IPCC is correct, reasonable and worthy of protecting. Which they shouldn’t, at the David Suzuki Foundation does not claim to have an adequate technical knowledge to audit the work of the peer-reviewed reports. But like the majority women in your studies, they choose to believe what authority and technical expertise tell them.
Of interest and pertinent to your gender studies would be how male and females support, are suspicious of or outright reject what authority and experts tell them. Who believes most with what the Church, the Government, the Unions, the teacher, the doctor, the scientist and newscaster says? I suspect you and I already know the answers here. Males are raised to challenge the structures and authorities in a bid to replace them. Women are raised to support the structures and authorities in place over them.
Yours,
Doug Proctor,
P.Geol.
“I did not say that consensus makes a particular belief true.”
Why the hell should we care about consensus then?
Andrew
Pamela,
Thanks for clarifying. I think that we would be pretty close to on the same page, except for that issue. (My 12th birthday present was a 20 gauge Winchester pump action, which still serves me well.)
I don’t consider abortion to be a reproductive program. If it were, we wouldn’t spay or neuter our pets, we’d just drown all the puppies and kittens.
Women are, perhaps unfairly, burdened with the responsibility of caring for the new life that they create. I believe that we have the capacity to manifest that responsibility be taking preventive measures, or finding alternative parenting arrangements if we don’t want to raise the child ourselves.
I do support abortion in cases of rape/incest, when the women did not have the opportunity to choose.
I think that you can find a lot more gray area among conservatives on this issue than you seem to think.
Pamela Gray says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:17 am
Tamara, you would be right. It is very much like the 2nd amendment right to me. I find any infringement on our 2nd amendment to be a warning signal that a slippery slope lies ahead (I am a multi-gun owner and carry more than one concealed weapon permit – which irritates the hell out of me). The same is true in my opinion, for my right to choose. Once others find they can impose legal restrictions on what I can or can’t do in one area, these same others will find more and more areas they can impose legal restrictions on. Women fought a good fight (and without firing a single shot) to gain their freedom. Anyone who thinks it is okay to give some of it back is nuts.
Pamela, this is a very touchy subject and I usually don’t get involved, but I would like to give you my opinion on this. Why? Because I’m as libertarian as it gets but with a different perspective than the usual religious zealotry. IMO
1. The issue should not have been considered to be about women’s rights in particular. The government has already usurped many of the rights granted to us. Is that good? Well you probably agree that non-segregation is appropriate regardless if some folks want to eat, live, or golf in a cloistered environment. But it is a loss of individual right to chose. Or drinking and driving. How about drugs, that can be construed as an individual right to self destruction. So there are many instances in which you might agree that the government counters individual rights (decisions) by the individual if that decision can have deleterious effects on societal behavior or safety.
2. Therefore, the decision on legal restrictions to termination should have been based on the relative merits of the individuals right and the effect on society in general. Then the question becomes can termination affect more than the individual involved. From my perspective as an individual with personal rights, the slippery slope in this situation involves euthanasia. If in fact we are terminating an (unborn) individuals rights in preference to another’s, then, as you state Once others find they can impose legal restrictions on what I can or can’t do in one area, these same others will find more and more areas they can impose legal restrictions on. the government may find more areas to regulate (as in the clause concerning end of life discussion in the new madicare bailout, or the reduction in life prolonging expensive surgeries). It’s becoming more evident that the government will pursue these issues.
3. The debate should have included a determination, based on science, of identifing when the blastomere took on some aspect of human cognitive thought. One could say that the “consensus” athe the time would have been sometime late in the second trimester. Otherwise, in the current state of affairs, dogs, cats, horses, and Ozark cave darters have more individual rights to existence than pre-adult humans. Do you see a fallacy in logic here?
Oh, and by the way, I have a fundamentalist religious background. Some have said science is my god, others logic. I prefer to be pidgeon-holed as an observationist.
I would also like to clarify that my position is not based on religion. I respect people who have faith in a higher power. I simply have not found that virtue in myself. My opinion is along the lines of Tim Clark’s point 3. The arguments that have been used to justify the time points at which abortion is “OK” do not have a basis in science and are largely arbitrary. My niece and nephew were born at around 26 weeks. They are now fully functional 9 year olds. Since birth they have been an extreme impediment to my sister-in-law’s freedom to do whatever she wants. But most people wouldn’t find it acceptable for her to rid herself of the inconvenience once they left her womb. Having done it twice myself, I know that pregnancy is the easy part. So, I don’t have much sympathy for the right to choose abortion over the inconvenience of a few months of gestation.
The social science theme here proved evocative, as Anthony expected, though perhaps in unexpected ways. A survey-based study finds that women are more likely than men to be concerned about climate change. Some WUWT readers dispute that finding, and some dispute the author’s interpretation. Lots of remarks about his sex life, I guess anything goes.
But I’m struck by how many posters above, maybe around half, jumped at the chance to proclaim their own “weaker sex” beliefs. I started to collect quotes but quickly ran out of steam, they were too many and more kept coming in (until things shifted to abortion). Maybe a sociologist will finish the job, for a case study of WUWT.
++++++
INGSOC says:
“My wife reads this blog, thus preventing any sort of comment from me whatsoever!”
Fred from Canuckistan says:
“So in summary, women are more gullible than men.”
Wondering Aloud says:
“No this tends to confirm the perception that men are more scientifically literate.”
thegoodlocust says:
“I’m not really surprised. This tends to confirm my experience and intuition. I believe men are also more confident than women, which I think would tend to make us more non-conformist about certain things.”
polistra says:
“No mystery. Modern news media (TV and newspapers) are written for a female audience. Modern college courses are aimed largely at a female audience. Males understand that they’re “not wanted” in those circles, so they find their information elsewhere.”
kramer says:
“That fact that men are more skeptical has to do with us looking into the science more than the women do.”
Tom says:
“We’re losing the proles! Fine tune the propaganda Target women and tell them to go with their feelings. Men are a bunch of troglodyte throwbacks who whouldn’t know what global warming was unless it wore a tight skirt!”
Greg says:
“You could take the same data and argue that women are, as the author puts it, “less confident in their scientific knowledge” and conclude that therefore they are less likely to challenge the “consensus” even if they see flaws in it or it doesn’t make sense to them.”
John M says:
“Weren’t women at the forefront lobbying for prohibition too?
How’d that turn out?”
Robin Kool says:
“Is that really a surprise? Hasn’t it been the case for centuries that courage is a capacity that more men than women strive to develop?”
Richard Holle says:
“Sounds just like a presidential campaign storming session, we needs ta bring the ignorant, religiously biased, weaker sex, on board to help fuel the PR campaign, to attract the single / horny male voters.”
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
“All this demonstrates is women are more willing to accept faith based and emotional explanations than men.”
Bernie says:
“All this indicates is that women are more gulluble or more easily conned.”
stumpy says:
“Doesnt this actually CONFIRM men ARE more scientifically literate?”
P Walker says:
“Despite my wife’s anxieties we have avoided bird flu , swine flu , West Nile Disease, salmonella , the Gulf oil spill getting caught in the dread loop current and polluting the beaches of South Georgia and a host of other miseries . She still hasn’t learned to take alarmist headlines with a grain of salt . I can say this because she does’t read this blog”
davidmhoffer says:
“When it comes to breast feeding infants, women are so vastly superior to men that the ratio of competant women divided by competant men is infinity, proving that women have boobs.
Of course these are just studies, and at the end of the day, the fact is that men are more likely to want to check for themselves. That last one in particular”
Jack Lacton says:
“The real answer, politically incorrect as it is, is that women are 1) more gullible than men and 2) defer to men/authority on issues of science (and maths etc) while men are much more skeptical because that’s what has kept the species going for millenia.”
Charles Higley says:
“This one’s simple. The gender or any individual who realizes that global warming is a scam and that “consensus” is meaningless in science knows more science (real science) than the other(s). Women might be more likely to do or buy things that would counter warming, but that does not obviate the fact that their basis for these decisions is centered on a false proposition.”
Joseph Day says:
“This is a sexist discussion, by definition. So why not make it more obvious? AGW is hysteria. The word ‘hysteria’ is derived from the greek word ‘hystera’, meaning ‘uterus’. QED.”
chris h says:
“An endless appeal to authority,and a denial of science
Mostly not the domain of the male.
The only blokes i know that pretend to buy into this nonsense are trying to get their leg over various slightly crusty hippy chicks……and it works!
(so i`ve been told;)”
REPLY: …and with this summary, I think it is time to close the thread. – Anthony