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
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.