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 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.