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
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]