WSU researcher finds future-oriented women most likely to fight global warming
PULLMAN, Wash. – Politicians who discredit global warming risk losing a big chunk of the female vote. A new study found women who consider the long-term consequences of their actions are more likely to adopt a liberal political orientation and take consumer and political steps to reduce global warming.
Jeff Joireman, associate professor of marketing at Washington State University, demonstrated that “future-oriented” women are the voting bloc most strongly motivated to invest money, time and taxes toward reducing global warming.
Previous studies have shown that women and those with liberal viewpoints are more likely to act to protect the environment than men and conservatives. Joireman’s model helps explain why this occurs and is the first to document the combined influence of gender and concern for the future.
The findings were published this month online in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Joireman (YOUR-man) said belief in global warming is positively linked to outdoor temperatures, so in light of recent record-breaking heat, people may have climate change on their minds during next week’s midterm elections, especially future-oriented women.
It just so happens that September was the hottest on record in 135 years, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projects 2014 will likely break the record for hottest year.
This year’s political contests are also heated, with environmental ads surging to record levels. More than 125,000 political spots cite energy, climate change and the environment – more than all other issues except health care and jobs – according to an analysis by Kantar Media/CMAG.
Social dilemma
Motivating the wider populace to engage and take action on global warming, however, is an ongoing challenge, said Joireman.
“Decisions that affect global warming pose a dilemma between what is good for individuals in the ‘here and now’ versus what is good for society and the environment ‘in the distant future,'” he said.
“Unfortunately, it can take several decades for the lay public and lawmakers to realize there is a problem that needs fixing. This is clearly the case with global warming, as the consequences of our current lifestyle are not likely to be fully realized for another 25 to 50 years.”
Live for today or tomorrow?
Hoping to clarify another piece of the global warming psyche, Joireman investigated how the time element contributes to people’s willingness to address climate change.
For the study, he focused on the personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”
Those who score high on the trait scale tend to be very worried about the future impacts of their actions, while those with lower scores are more concerned with immediate consequences.
Joireman and his team polled 299 U.S. residents, with an age range from 18 to 75. Forty-eight percent of the respondents were female and 80 percent were Caucasian.
Women scored higher than men on liberal political orientation, environmental values, belief in global warming, and willingness to pay to reduce global warming when their concern with future consequences was high.
But, it wasn’t a simple gender difference. Women scored lower than men on liberal political orientation and willingness to pay when their concern with future consequences was low.
Future-oriented women step up
Joireman said a specific chain of influences makes future-oriented women more likely to take action. First, they are more politically liberal and liberals are more likely to value the environment, which makes them more likely to believe in global warming. All together, these effects lead to a willingness to pay more in goods, services and extra taxes to help mitigate climate change.
“Future-oriented women, for example, might be more willing to pay higher prices for fuel-efficient cars, alternative forms of transportation and energy efficient appliances. They might also eat less meat, all to help lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
Appealing
The question for environmental advocates now, said Joireman, is to “figure out how to motivate all people to engage in behaviors that reduce global warming. To be effective, we will likely need to tailor persuasive messages to appeal to the consequences people value.”
“If people are not worried about future consequences, we have to try to appeal to their more immediate concerns – like encouraging them to buy a fuel efficient vehicle so they can instantly start saving money on gas.”
###
Oh brother, now we will see a gender squabble on WUWT.
Pamela, please come put a stop to this nonsense.
Aargh! I hadn’t realised that.
Please everyone, look at the values not the gender findings.
Even the report said the values were more important.
If you must look at the gender at least ask why each gender tends _on average, as dubiously measured – to lean that way.
I don’t think gender really matters in this debate – as soon as I saw “professor of marketing” my BS detector pegged…no science to be expected. I tend to concur with Dilbert on his assessment of marketing and the associated “perceived needs”.
CAGW marketing – getting us to pay money we don’t have for something we don’t need to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
The “medicine shows” of the 19th century are back, being run by the IPeCaC (apologies to Lord Monckton).
By the looks of the subject photograph, she’ll be voting conservative in about 10 years or so.
It’ll take that long to wake up to the constant government scams.
You know it’s a scam because they call in PR and Marketing when the answer should be to prove their case instead of market it.
Ms. Pamela Gray is at work right now. #(:))
… teaching her chemistry students to THINK. She is, indeed, the perfect person for you to be calling upon, M. Painter. Hope she shows up later.
Janice, I’m disappointed. I thought you were the purrfect person :))
Monsieur Richards! (blush) Thanks. #(:))
Actually, whispering in your generously kind ear, I don’t like cats too much… . Please pardon me, all you cat lovers. I love dogs, big dogs like German Shepherds, mainly… guess that makes me a just a wag… . No, GREG, I’m not THAT. Speaking of that pejorative… I saw a cute bumper sticker a couple of years ago:
“Bi ___. You say that
like it’s a bad thing.”
I like the sentiment behind that — very much.
btw: Did your lemon tree EVER recover from the “fleas” you were dealing with last year? I even prayed about it.
What I find most curious is that someone publishes a claim in journal, and people begin to talk about it as if it’s conclusions are valid— I haven’t read the article (yet) or seen the references to back the claim: has anyone else done so yet? Excuse me if I consider it as presented, in light of many such claims from people like our Alarmist friends, as unproven ipse dixit opinion, and decide it’s conclusions are not worthy of any discussion until all the evidence underlying the claims has been reviewed/verified. I’m reminded of a certain Sou who made many claims about a posting by Bob Tisdale, referencing a number of papers which did NOT support her contentions, and got very nasty with an inquisitive individual who had the temerity to ask her to explain the discrepancies between what she stated and what the papers actually said.
This, just from what I’ve read above, is not what I’d call a serious study. It appears more to be a political device, an attempt to influence people by stating something with an eye to stampeding the herd just days ahead of an election. This is like a lawyer in a court making a statement he knows is going to get an objection, sustained, and an instruction from the bench to the jury to forget that statement—but how can they? Who can retract what they’ve heard from their memories? And the attorney’s objective of stealth manipulation of the jury is achieved.
I’m minded to think this “study” is more of the same. Note how carefully the article is worded:
“…demonstrated that “future-oriented” women are the voting bloc most strongly motivated to invest money, time and taxes toward reducing global warming.”
“Previous studies have shown that women and those with liberal viewpoints are more likely to act to protect the environment than men and conservatives.”
The very clear subtext is that men and conservatives do not act to protect the environment. But note how subtly written it is: “those with liberal viewpoints” and NOT specifically “liberals” are more likely to act, allowing a greater number of readers who may lean towards liberal viewpoints without actually considering themselves to be liberals to be flattered by the article as ones who are more likely to act to protect the environment—but men and conservatives are excluded from thinking well of themselves here—unless they’re liberal men, perhaps. Am I over-psyching it? I think not. We’re days away from an election of great consequence, and the Spin Doctors will have seen more angles in this than a lawyer can see shades of grey.
Regardless, the view from the sidelines of the global warming wars still shows clearly that: a) Alarmists base their claims in GIGO computer “models” which only reflect the biases programmed into them; b) temperature databases which should be trustworthy have been proven to have been manipulated for political, not scientific, purposes; c) “scientists” have been proven to have manipulated the peer review process and even interfered with publishers in order to prevent publication of papers which tend to cast the slightest doubt on their pet theories; d) “scientists” have been proven to have manipulated the presentation of data and cherry pick that data in order to support pre-selected conclusions; and e), and most damning to me, Alarmists all seem to support Tim Wirth’s deliberate abuse of the Precautionary Principle, a means-justifying-the-ends rationalization that manipulation of the facts and even out-and-out lying is justified in support of their (un)holy cause—which is clearly a complete abandonment of the scientific method. The Science IS settled, in a manner of speaking: they’ve jettisoned it completely in order to pursue political agendas.
In keeping with the Scientific Method, however, I believe the conclusions of the article and any references should be treated as incorrect/unproven until they are verified by multiple, independent, corroborating studies (without regard to the gender or choice of pet of the authors—). As such, they’re not really worthy of debate yet.
P.S.: Full disclosure: I have three dogs and a feral cat (seriously: Pixel is a feral rescue. The reality is that he moved in, looked around, said, “Nice place ya got here, mook. I think I’ll stay. Oh, and you can feed me…”).
P.P.S.: G’day Janice Moore!
p@
@ P@ — Hi! How ARE Einstein, Cassie, Jack Russell (and what’s-her-name)…. and the cat? Hope they and you are well. In port for the season? Hope the landlubber job is more to your liking, this time.
Thanks for the shout out and …
take care, valiant P@ … still praying you will find “her” (NO I realize you never asked me to pray for that, but, for you and Alan Robertson and Patrick, I am anyway — gratis!)
#(:))
Janice
As a woman, I cannot fathom how this spectacular piece of garbage study could possibly start a gender squabble on WUWT. And even if it did, all one has to do is point out that this spectacular piece of garbage study was conducted by a male. 🙂
Garbage draws flies, even spectacular garbage.
Heck with all that, who’s the babe?
Aphan, the study was carried out by a shemale.
lol — you go, girl!
#(:))
’m not Pamela, and I can’t speak for all women, but I don’t personally know a single female who buys into this “climate change” hysterical nonsense. Our checkbooks tell us that the price of everything is going UP, and those who are wise understand that is in great part due to increased energy costs as well as inflation from insane government meddling with the economy.
Personally, I’d love to have some warming. We had a late, too cool spring and summer, and now an early too cool fall. Looking for another cold winter in NE Wyoming. Don’t know who is getting all this “record” heat, but we’d darn well like to have our share of it. Especially next March when we’re out in the deep snow looking for early calves before they freeze to death.
It’s us in NW europe. Temps in the 70 – 90F range since the beginning of september. Maybe we will all pay for it later. The north Atlantic and N. Pacific are anomalously cold at the moment.
lol, Mama. AS IF such mental midgets (who “need” the government to help them) could make it through even one NE Wyoming winter — no wonder you’ve never met any. 🙂
Take care, out there!
And yes, Joe, she is very cute — that’s why she doesn’t need to think, hm? (smiling)
Just a little more music to embellish this thread… .
Inspired by Joe Schmoe (lol, great name) above.
There is no need for a beautiful woman to think, IF she can find a loving husband who will take care of her … . Of course, some, like Hadassa (in video below), CAN be educated and ARE.
Sigh…… if the incorrigibly dumb ones just — wouldn’t — vote.
(her politics stink, but her voice is delightful) Barbra Streisand
in “Yentl” singing, “No Wonder” — kinda sums up the way it is for non-Hadassa women like I who are not dressed as men, but, for all the male attention our appearance attracts (in the Schmoe vein), we might as well be. We do, at least, most of the time (when we’re not being very silly JUST FOR FUN!), get respect, though… . And that’s something. That is something.
{Note: ANSCHEL DID NOT WANT TO BE A MAN or a “man” — she just wanted to learn}
Youtube video
*********************************************
(and, to make my position, once again, clear — THERE ARE A LOT OF DUMB MEN VOTING, TOO — they just aren’t the topic of discussion … and that in itself is a topic!}
***********************************************************
I must also add this note: For those of you who think this post is ridiculously low-value, I realized some of you would think that. I went ahead and wrote it because there are a lot men reading this site and I think some of them will find a particular woman’s viewpoint/experience intriguing. No? No! Okay! Interesting? No? Oh? Amusing!! Got it — lol.
#(:))
Journal of Environmental Psychology – amazing that such a thing exists.
The next question to ask is whether such a journal would pre-judge the values that are important. Specifically, caring about hypothetical impacts half a century away or caring about our responsibilities today.
Clearly, the nature of the field and the editorial policy would influence the relative value judgements.
And wouldn’t that influence the outcome? Just by the choice of subject matter, if nothing else.
I too was amazed, particularly by 40 volumes since 1980, SNIP 2.648 US$155 a^-1
Who knew it was possible to study the psychology of the environment? Do they have “tree whisperers” and “ocean therapists”?
The challenge for those of us who do not think that CO2 is a major factor in much more than plant growth and soda pop is to make everyone understand that it is not a matter of if resources are going to be allocated, but where they are going to be allocated. IF, as I feel, we are approaching a period of decreasing global temperature in the next several decades, allocating resources to the the efforts that are of the type this person desires are exactly the wrong thing to do. Perhaps, there should be some concerted effort to make people understand that throwing money at a problem that does not exist is not at all efficient and will leave the world worse off for their kids and grandkids.
Those ‘future-oriented’ liberal women should start by turning off all fossil-fueled power to their homes, to prove their point. Starting the beginning of December.
If they’re leftist greens, they won’t. They’ll tar and feather everyone but themselves in their crusade to be right, as well as air-conditioned in their SUV’s carrying their 2.1 yuppie larva to sport practice, comfortable in their fossil-fuel heated homes with dish-washing, clothes-washing and drying machines, televisions, cable, XBox, Wii exercise and Tasmanian Oak dining setting and bookcases cut from virgin forest.
Will they deny their 2.1 larva the things they now have to “save the planet”? Nup.
Hypocrites.
But I wouldn’t be too concerned about the female side being more concerned. This site:
http://www.1millionwomen.com.au
is “dedicated” to enlisting (recruiting?) 1 million women to the Climate Change ©®™ cause. Some guff from their site:
Since their launch in 2009, have amassed only 134,401 registered alarmists.
From my point of view, if their followers have paid a registration fee, that’s a lot of moola so far for nothing more than feel-goodery.
he hit the nail on the head….”Joireman (YOUR-man) said belief in global warming…..” it’s a religion alright. Get your indulgences here, only $35 per tonne.
Amen.
Nonsense!
No PERSON (male or female) who is THINKING about anything, especially science or economics, in a logical, rational, INFORMED, manner would buy into the bogus human CO2 fantasy conjecture to the extent that he or she would invest ANY money in “fighting” such a bogeyman.
“Future focused” is simply another description for: women with young children. For SOME reason…. such women as a class DO tend to be misinformed and ignorant about science and economics. I don’t know why, except that it may be that more of them work solely in the home and do not have the time or energy to learn as their husbands do whose job requirements and or peers provide the motivation to look at these issues more closely.
Yeah, women in general have a higher “emotional IQ,” but, that does not NECESSARILY lead to their emotions CONTROLLING their rational thought. I have many pieces of anecdotal evidence to support this including (I’m quite certain that my friends and family would firmly support me) myself, but…, alas, no “study,” lol.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
#(:))
Dead wrong. Single women tend to be liberal and vote for Democrats, married women with children tend to be conservative and vote for Republicans. Those liberal women do tend to vote emotionally.
I think it is simpler than that. Just a tautology masquerading as some deep psychological finding. The finding is that people who believe the sky will fall in the distant future because of our actions today worry about that happening. Of course they do. And people who do not believe we are causing the sky to fall are less worried about that happening. But ask me if I worry about the sun ceasing to support life on earth in 3 or 4 billion years and I will say I would support working on finding a way to get humanity off of this planet at some point in the distant future, even though I will be long since dead anyway.
Agreed Tom, but we might only have about 1 billion years max. IIRC that the Sun currently gets maybe 10% hotter every billion years.
Janice of all people, you have started the gender squabble! Regarding liberals, they have hijacked the institutions of learning, made no-turning-back polices and all their policies are designed to make the world a “progressive liberal one” and to undermine the individual, one that has been successful in moving Repubs toward the center. For example opening the southern border was to let in hordes of new Democrat voters on whom they lavished healthcare and all other forms of care, and Republicans pretty much have to dummy up and try to court these illegal aliens or lose at the polls. A screwed up health plan will be fixed by Republicans but it is now part of the permanent landscape.
If anything puzzles me about it all, it is that we aren’t all socialists marching together by now. The last 40-50 years, education JK to graduate school has been an intensive leftist propaganda exercise with homogenization of thought, banning of books, eradicating thinking deemed not to be “politically correct” by the left, revision of history, changing of the meaning of words (example “mistake” – robbed a bank, started using crack coke, stabbed someone) corruption of the humanities – particularly sociology (totally broken – blames the healthy, the productive, the well-to-do, corporations, Republicans…. for all problems in society. ‘Rights’ are paramount, ‘Responsibilities’? – only mean people point the latter half of the social formula out).
And now science is subverted, more than ever (it was used, of course to support Malthusian, eugenic**s, religious and political goals in the past) but now it has become even more malleable – one could ask one’s ‘client’, “what result would you like to have?” Hey, and the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker are encouraged to have an OPINION on quantum mechanics, climate science, bridge engineering…I believe we have a perfect situation to determine what percentage of the population thinks for itself. My conservative estimate (soviet dissidents, etc.) is that 1-3% can’t be coerced to relinquish their critical thinking faculties. The anti-global warming contingent of course contains self interested types and those against everything so there are more than 3% of them in this ‘camp’, but even they weathered their JK to graduate school ‘gauntlets’ (as in ‘running the gauntlet).
Hi, Gary Pearse! #(:))
Glad to see you remember who I am.
I think…. you and I agree on about 99% of what could be said on this topic.
lol, the latest skirmish in a war that began (in my view — NOT yours, I realize… another topic for another thread…. aaaaaaa, I can hear Milodon H. stomping over this way — gotta hurry up, here) about 6,000 years ago…. and will not end until
the End.
And that would, if this were a completely different site, lead me into a little presentation of the gospel… for many here are not READY for the End… .
#(:)) But, I refrained!
Your WUWT pal (still grateful for your very encouraging comment about “older” women being beautiful on one of the most disgusting threads in the history of WUWT),
Janice
Janice,
Don’t know if you are still monitoring this thread but I have to agree, raising children is a distraction and your focus is about teaching them rather than learning yourself with an emphasis on being consistent with the Educators that are teaching a curriculum that treats the hypothesis of CAGW as gods own truth. It’s easy to come to accept what is brought home from the teachers as fact given that our education (experience) was a largely fact based education even though our children’s education is not.
Also another point I’d like to make, lots of undertones of femanism in this thread, femanism should be about choice. If a woman’s choice is to be an outstanding wife and mother then she should not be demonised for that choice. Just as men should not be demonised for being outstanding providers, fathers and husbands (which is also happening, good traditional husbands are emancipators apparently). If she chooses to be a nurse instead of an engineer that is her choice also. Forcing women to take paths that are not of their own choosing is not helping anyone. Families are a team effort, we in the politically correct west forget that single important fact!
Hi, Bob L #(:))
If you and I just had a piano…. pretty good two-part harmony, there, hm?
Thanks for the affirmation. Choice, i.e., FREEDOM to serve humanity based on giftedness not gender, is, indeed, the key.
Take care,
Janice
Definitely agree, my wife and I live life as a team, we work for each other. Thats important to us!
Never underestimate the destructive power of a misinformed electorate.
Yes, a misinformed electorate is our issue.
Of COURSE women–and men–who think the world is warming dangerously will be more willing to throw taxes at it if they are future-oriented.
I think we can get these women (and men) on our side by making friends with environmentalists. The TRUTH is that living things BENEFIT from warmer temperatures AND from carbon dioxide. They all know that the tropics are far more biologically diverse than temperate zones which have far more living things than the Arctic. They’ve all heard of photosynthesis and know that carbon dioxide is one of the reactants, even if they can’t define reactants.
People cannot deal with an issue unless they are more than half right. Now, I may say that I hate environmentalists because they’re so hard on the environment. But in dealing with them, we can focus on their very rational desire to be a benefit to the biosphere. The issue they need to fight is poison-based agriculture. There are organic growing methods that may boost long-term productivity considerably, restore carbon to the soils and increase the carrying capacity of Earth for all living things, people included. Poison-based agriculture seems to have increased farm yields many-fold, but it has sterilized our soils. That is simply not sustainable. Also unsustainable is the use of increasingly dangerous pesticides. Just 10 years ago, the then-latest generation of herbicides and insecticides were very effective. Today, we have lost 90% of monarch butterflies and the bugs and weeds are already resistant. A month ago or so, the USDA approved an agent Orange like herbicide for use on American farms. This path will kill a large percentage of us, and cause extinctions or near-extinctions if it is not reversed soon.
This issue has all the urgency those people love. Arm them with the facts and they will get somewhere.
Of course you are a farmer who can attest to the effects of the chemicals directly? Not someone else’s opinion who has never grown crops?
An agent Orange type? Arsenic based?Are you_sure_?
You started off interestingly but you became that grand majority that can be made to believe what is required. Organic gardening is fun and I’ve done that, but when it comes to feeding 7B people, it is the ‘windmills’ of agriculture.
Is this subject group also more apt to fall for propaganda, less knowledgeable about science, and are their beliefs dictated by their Democratic alliance? I’m not sure, but I think the answer may be yes, yes, and yes.
Democrats and Progressives are completely dependent on gullibility, in both males and females. They depend on either an ill-informed population or one willing to not think critically, and willing to suspend disbelief.
At risk of angrifying the blood of several women here I respect, I think it is generally accepted idea that men tend to be more analytical, women tend to more heuristically oriented. We see this play out in school in engineering and math programs across many nations and cultures. The generalized differences in brain structures and organization between sexes is real and documented, and likely hormonally influenced from the first shot of testosterone in the male in utero.
The real war on women is to consider them ridiculously malleable as does this liberal author.
But he doesn’t.
What he is actually saying is that “concern with future consequences” is a trait that is easily manipulated and that trait is more prevalent among certain women.
(He also seems to want to manipulate it but that might be the tome of the article.)
Janice Moore at October 28, 2014 at 8:40 am suggests the “certain women” are those who are partially isolated by childcare responsibilities. To me, that makes sense.
From my left-wing perspective that seems to suggest that gender-defined opportunities need to be confronted. From whom according to their ability; to whom according to their need. Those isolated by childcare responsibilities need wider social support.
Thank you, M. Courtney, for that affirmation.
With all due respect to your political belief system, from my personal liberty — limited government perspective, women (or men) who are “isolated by childcare responsibilities” should take personal responsibility for educating themselves and making informed decisions.
Proof that this is the key: many, many full time homemakers do just that every day — and those who are well-informed about science and economics and history tend to vote pro-personal responsibility and liberty (in the U.S., that is usually Republican), i.e., AGAINST CO2 conjecture, Enviro-stalinism generally, and other Big G programs.
*****************************
Here’s a thought…
Taking it as a given (just ad argumentum) that in the general population of the set: {Ignorant, Emotional Voter} there is a large subset of {Ignorant Women Homemakers} who need support to be better informed, what is the solution to that problem? How can we help them learn?
Who better to help them than their own husbands (assuming he is a thinking, well-informed man), right?
Right, but….
… she will listen to him ONLY IF he has been in general a loving husband who respects and values her. If not, she will, out of natural human pride, discount a message coming from sneering or generally thoughtless or cold and uncaring lips.
So! The KEY is… husbands consistently LOVE your wives, deeply, from the heart — then, they will listen to your message of science and or economic truth!
{Note: And if you’re the husband of a harridan, well… fuggeddaboudit; put a good lock on that Man Cave and just survive… or get out…. (just said this to acknowledge the fact that there are many wonderful men (I know some personally) living with some small-minded, vile, women)… in case one of you is reading this…. you have my deep sympathy.}
Yeah, yeah, I suppose women like me can also try to tell our friends… . Believe me, I HAVE tried …. . Hm…. the more I think about it….. it’s going to take a lot of prayer……… the unthinking, “future oriented,” woman is usually also very insecure about her mental abilities and shuts down when you try to persuade her, clamping onto her emotion-based (Dad was in the union, so I will always vote Democrat; Republicans hate blacks, so I’m voting Democrat) error. Sigh. It takes a LOT of patience and time… which most of us simply do not have. Thus, I say, PRAY! God will have to lift them out of the gutter of ignorance where they are taken advantage of every fall by any liberal politician or windmill or solar investor who comes along. These pitiful wretches refuse human help.
***********************************
Addendum:
Just to make my position perfectly clear (ahem) — the set {Ignorant (of Science and or Economics), Emotional Voter} I referred to above has a LOT of males in it, too… .
And they are JUST as hard to reason with… .
I really didn’t expect Karl Marx quotes on this thread.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. So this is what you get when you combine two junk sciences, neither capable of predicting anything. And research for same carried out by a marketing professor. He approaches global warming as a marketing, not a scientific issue. Another word for “future oriented women” is “anal neurotic/psychotic women,”
or women deathly afraid that they might get blamed for something, even for things they have no possible control over.
He was clever enough to tap into the CAGW research funding machine from the marketing discipline, I’ll give him that….
Okay. Here’s a nice (dramatized) example of how a very emotional woman** can be BOTH well-informed, precise, and accurate:
Marisa Tomei in “My Cousin Vinny” from YouTube vid
Yes, yes, this is fiction, however…
think about it.
*******************
******************
lol, this is such a FUN topic (and mostly pointless nonsense) — more fun below!
** see my post below for Tomei being “very emotional”
A rational, well-informed, disciplined minded woman being “very emotional” —
#(:))
“My Cousin Vinny” — biological clock scene on YouTube
My oldest daughter graduates in December with a Master’s in Environmental Engineering. She doesn’t buy into the catastrophic man made climate change bunk.
Does she care about the future?
As an engineer, I not only cared about the future, but all engineers are “mandated” to care about the future and the public good through their code of ethics. Yeah we care. Sad what has happened to the “science” we depend on..
the key word here is “engineering”. As a professional engineer, I find engineers to lean to skepticism much more so than those of alleged scientists. Perhaps it is because there are dire and direct consequences to failure in their work. The flights of fantasy as displayed by some “climate scientists” would generally be condemned in the field of engineering.
I like this chart from Scottish Skeptic: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/13/why-climate-engineers-beat-the-climate-academics/
So, in other words, although it was published in Journal of Environmental Psychology it was not a psychology piece but a global warming propaganda piece.
YES!
This is also a get-out-the-liberal-vote piece.
For the study, he focused on the personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”
Those who score high on the trait scale tend to be very worried about the future impacts of their actions, while those with lower scores are more concerned with immediate consequences.
————————-
Well now, there’s a really keen insight
You know, every time I scan past this comment I like it more and more.
The study findings are a tautology.
And yet I found it stimulating enough to fly off on self-made castles in the air, all founded on this feetless wonder.
Good spot.
A ridiculous statement, unless you are focused on a trait called “consideration of pas consequences”. Actually, there is some meat in this consideration. Especially for dealing with future academic-government industrial complexes.
Someone needs to take a poll of men.
Find out if they prefer a woman that would boink them right now, or boink them sometime in the future.
…
Then correlate this with their views on AGW
Stupidity is equal in both sexes. Women tend to be stupid in an overprotecting care-way, while men show stupidity in a reckless dont care-way. I also think both stances are equally dangerous.
Therefore, in general they seem to cancel each other out.
Oh, you Swedish daredevils.
The full paper is not yet available for critical review, but the methodological flaws stated in the press release make it likely to be junk research. Only 299 subjects and less than half were women so the confidence interval will be large. They were surveyed and not actually measured in their behavior in response to actual “global warming.” Opinion, especially about vague subjects is not the same thing as behavior. Global warming is perceived as scary so there may be priming in the questions that influence the responses in a particular direction. What defines “future-oriented” and how many of the small number of women were in this category.
Yes, yes, Gary. Such a study will have big problems with controls. Young people tend to be “idealistic”, both sexes, so how does the researcher isolate such a trait in this particular segment? Studies like thus fail to convince, it looks like “spin” on a characteristic shared by both sexes.
Yes, yes, M. Painter — and it brings to mind a famous Winston Churchill thought (paraph.): If you are not “liberal” when you are young, you have no heart; if you are not “conservative” when you are old, you
have no brain.
Being a November get-out-the-vote piece, let’s have a critical look at how “blind” the study was. Remember Cook of sks reverse engineered the 97% in his study. This is definitely a technique in the Gov-Acad industrial complex.
What he is saying is that the CAGW futures propoganda is most effective with women that are concerned with the future and not so effective with others who living in the present. A politician would like to know how many votes each group represents. .
“…who consider the long-term consequences of their actions are more likely to adopt a liberal political orientation…”
this statement is inherently contradictory. no one who is honest about long term consequences can possibly be politically liberal.
Excellent point from redc1c4. Liberals tend to put too much weight on familiar or anecdotal recent examples that elicit strong emotional sympathies (e.g. pictures polar bear), without regard to the long term impacts on, or trends in, the larger systems. Think of both economic systems (e.g., impact of subsidies or “guaranteed incomes” for businesses or individuals) and environmental systems all with many influences, random fluctuations and complicated feedback loops. And Liberals tend to think those systems are easily understood, controlled and fixed by the “smart people” and “good intentions” of government.
Protecting the environment and being stupid are two different things. Protecting the air quality and water quality is fine. But, CO2 is plant food and it cannot alter the climate in any detectable way, AND the has not been any global warming in 18 years and none in the atmosphere for 22 years, protecting the environment from nothing and sacrificing a lot to do it becomes a fool’s mission.
It is a betrayal of the public trust to push junk science that seeks to support a political agenda that does not have the welfare of the people in mind. The goal of the global warming scam is to bring down our economy, deindustrialize the Western world, lower our standard of living by making it simply too expensive to maintain, and eventually create a one-world government that would of necessity be totalitarian and socialist. The false science of manmade global warming is the tool of evil being used against the people of the US and the World.
Actually CAGW propaganda and Feminism share the same platform. It was about time they merged.
Unfortunately, it is also the end of an illusion that either CAGW, or feminism, can be reasoned with. You might apply bricks of logic and educate those with capacity to learn.
Neither CAGW propaganda, nor feminism are about global warming or equality. They are about money.
You mean like equal pay for equal work, right?
Feminists never mention the “equal work” part. They stop at “Women earn less than men.”
Excellent point, Herr Dirk! Ceteris paribus, women earn the same as men. When the danger of the work, the education required to do it, the travel required for the job, the hours per week, and all other job-related factors are EQUAL, then, women are paid the same as men are.
Economist Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow agrees with us:
(youtube vid from 2008)
And no one is forcing the American women who do so to take a few years off for childcare … . Many just want to. It is simply their choice, not any oppression that creates the disparity (so far as that disparity is based on taking time out from a career for a few years to raise children).
Another choice women commonly make is to pursue a career that they enjoy even though one they COULD do would earn more money. Many women with an aptitude for engineering just prefer to be in the more nurturing role of nurse or teacher or homemaker or the helping roles of lawyer or doctor (none of these are, with few exceptional specialites, among the highest paid occupations — technical jobs yield higher value per hour worked on the average. That’s just basic Cost of Production fact.) To such women, engineering is boring. AND I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR THE MANY BRIGHT MEN (and women, there are fewer, so smaller letters, here) TO WHOM ENGINEERING IS NOT BORING!
I love you, Engineers!!!
The key is: Equality of opportunity in education and employment. We have that, now.
“You’ve come a long way, baby!” Yea! We — are — there. (in New Zealand, Australia, the U.S.A., the United Kingdom, Ireland, Scandinavia, Europe and elsewhere).
Barry, it is never equal work. It is your work that is equally distributed to several parties, CAGW and feminists included.
As Dirk and Janice already mentioned, men and women of the equal career paths earn the same money. It is proven over and again, yet when entering the domains of feminism or CAGW you are required to part with reason. The only kind of reasoning allowed there is circular reasoning. Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation is the only kind of evidence ever needed there.
Janice got it, and increasing number of other women got it as well.
Just to give you a whiff of what’s going on there, I’ll give you a few examples of the feminist agenda.
Equal rights to education for girls. It sounds as if girls get less education than boys, but in reality the total undergraduate enrolment is in favour of girls from 1980 onwards. Furthermore, female only scholarships, White House Council for Women and Girls, Title IX grant program for women in STEM, and the Women’s Educational Equity Act are the known Federal level programs for EXCLUSIVELY women and girls in school.
And now comes the big one. Take for example rape. It is awful and rapists should rot in jail, no question about that. A small problem is that the feminist orthodoxy blows up the rape rates waaaaay out of proportion saying 1 in 4 women will get raped in their lifetime. In reality it is several orders of magnitude off. The author of this nonsense is Mary P. Koss. By Woozle effect this horrible nonsense lives on, and was blown from Koss’ original and overblown 1 in 8 to nowadays 1 in 4 – despite all evidence saying otherwise. As a consequence, the whole of male sex is somehow responsible of rape, while true rapists walk scot free. Minding their own business. Raping here and there. It somehow is not their responsibility, but ours.
In effect the feminism is a guilt mongering ideology. By definition you did something wrong, and you must pay for it in hard ca$h.
Sound familiar? If not – get used to it! CAGW propaganda is equally a guilt mongering ideology sucking hard ca$h out of life itself.
As a sidenote, please don’t use “gender” in everyday discourse. It is completely meaningless outside feminism or languages that have genders for everyday things like bicycles. In modern English it does not exist. Being forced to use “gender” for the sake of political correctness says it all.
1) 48% of 299 people=144 women. Is 144 women enough to be an accurate representative sample of US women? Um….no. As of 2013, a Gallup Poll showed that only 23% of the US population self identified as “liberal”. If HALF of those people were women, that makes a whopping 11.5% of the US population.
2) Enormous assumptions and simple correlations are NOT scientific findings-
“Joireman said a specific chain of influences makes future-oriented women more likely to take action. First, they are more politically liberal and liberals are more likely to value the environment, which makes them more likely to believe in global warming. All together, these effects lead to a willingness to pay more in goods, services and extra taxes to help mitigate climate change.
“Future-oriented women, for example, might be more willing to pay higher prices for fuel-efficient cars, alternative forms of transportation and energy efficient appliances. They might also eat less meat, all to help lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.”
“More likely” and “might” are qualifying words that indicate doubt or uncertainty. It’s called “hedging”. But what did you expect from an associate professor of marketing? LOL
Aphan
October 28, 2014 at 9:18 am
““Future-oriented women, for example, might be more willing to pay higher prices for fuel-efficient cars, alternative forms of transportation and energy efficient appliances. They might also eat less meat, all to help lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.””
It’s interesting that they didn’t ask the future-oriented women whether they would be willing to pay more to keep their homes warm, and to prepare food.
Wouldn’t matter, how much you say your willing to do something is irrelevent if you never actually do it; and people with this mind-set always seem to have some rationalization as to why you should do it, but they don’t have to because they actually have good intentions, vs. you just going through the motions to look good.
A good example is how Al Gore can fly all over the world in a private jet but is a good guy AGWwise vs. Anthony Watts who has solar PV on his home and drives an electric car but is a “denier”.
Hmm… In my experience women DREAD the idea of freezing at home. For their entire future.
And heating is onethird of all energy expenditure (at least here in Germany) so it is just as important as the much-vaunted Green transportation.
But, I forget, we won’t have to heat that much anymore because Global Warming will reduce our heating bills.
Basically through Global Warming we will automatically get more efficient AND save money AND reduce CO2 emissions.
” Journal of Environmental Psychology”?
Pray does anyone know what “environmetal psychology” is (or “unenvironmental psychology” for that matter)?
What hogwash! I know plenty of VERY conservative men. They’ve taught me a deep respect for Nature and how to – gulp! – conserve it for future generations. They’re very much environmentalists. Don’t litter. Leave it better than you found it. Don’t pack in anything you don’t pack out. Don’t take stuff. Shoot only what you’re gonna eat. And it’s not just on the trail. They have LED lights. That have home solar and/or wind. They recycle, yada, yada, yada. No lip service, true environmentally friendly action. To equate “more likely to act to protect the environment” with buying into the glowball warming hoax is a purposeful (and malicious) rhetorical stretch.
Not only fighting, but it looks like they’re winning: There has been no indication of warming for the last 18 years.
This gender gap seems plausible, since most studies have shown women being also more prone to superstitiousness.
This makes me wonder why there hasn’t already been a feminist campaign against MEN-made global warming.
I wish I knew how to measure future orientation. Is it directly proportional to how much stuff is on your plate? ie.
Married with children + morgage = low future orientation
Student loans + complacency studies at indoctrination U = high future orientation
I guess one will never know.
Well, you could count the number that are oriented toward and focus on past considerations and subtract them from the whole.
So, for the sake of the planet, all future-oriented men should undergo sex change surgery, as their sense of responsibility will be greater when contained within a female body. By the same token, all females who are not future-oriented should transformed into men.
Save the planet – change your gender!
On the other hand, if you are a man and are so selfish as to want to remain one, you must stop worrying about the future now. If you are and want to remain a woman, start worrying, please.
Shhhh! You’ll have “progressives” giving out grants for this. Anything for policy support.
Seems like another case of confirmation bias. The “researchers knew the conclusion they wanted and tailored the study appropriately. For cryin’ out loud, the name of the journal is “Journal of Environmental Psychology.” That doesn’t sound like a serious scientific journal to me.
OK, as a WSU alum (BSME 1992), I am sad to see them produce this tripe. More of what I’ve come to expect from the UW! 😉 But since the gov is giving free money away to study a problem they defined and to come up with the answers they are looking to get, then I guess it is no surprise that everybody and his brother are lining up for it. PS A little global warming would do some good in Pullman, WA. I remember a Siberian front that settled in the area my first winter there, the daytime highs typically were -10°F.
Claim: Future-focused women stand up to global warming with taxes, checkbook
WRT the “future-focused” carbon taxes initiated over the last 15 years or so: Republicans who assume both houses of Congress next year should aim for clawbacks with interest for any carbon taxes designed to reduce increases in warming. They haven’t happened. Perhaps SEC can extend provisions of Dodd-Frank from executive compensation in business to this massive fraud in government:
— Wiki on “clawbacks”
“Joireman (YOUR-man) said belief in global warming is positively linked to outdoor temperatures, so in light of recent record-breaking heat,…”
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
In the immortal words of Gabby Hayes “gol darn women”.
Remember, this was a marketing study on how to change people’s behaviors. How to separate women from their income through taxation.
Any study of sex differences should be careful to control for culture-based sex differences — not all differences between the sexes are genetic. Girls, women, boys, men, most conform to what their culture expects of them. There are huge differences between cultures.
“not all differences between the sexes are genetic.”
True that. Thinking of clothes.
It is clear that Janice Moore needs some remedial education.
Oh, D. B., that was SO FUNNY.
So THAT is what I’ve been doing wrong all these years … . lolololol
Thanks for the laugh!
#(:))
It is not only a very small group of people that was interviewed for such an assumption. The above does not tell us at all how many of the small number were actually more concerned about climate. Where was the poll taken, that in itself can skew the numbers.
Nothing in the above to conclude anything. Even if there were 70 women showing no concern and 74 more concerned with AGW, that is a majority if you wish to report it like that, but meaningless.
Who funded this? That can tell you a lot about the result too.
But what percentage of women were deemed to be “future-oriented women?
This tells me that the researchers were forced to data mine in order to generate a headline. I bet the raw data reveals that women weren’t significantly different than men – which is why they broke women into two different categories.
Does that include all the thousands of Future Focused women living in the 3rd World killed in their own hovels by Carbon Monoxide poisoning with no access to Proper electricity and Heating making do by having to walk miles everyday to collect local firewood.
PS was this survey peer reviewed then.
liberals are more likely to value the environment, which makes them more likely to believe in global warming.
1. I’m not a liberal and I consider the notion that this makes me less likely to value the environment nothing but a naked smear and poorly attempted guilt trip.
2. Valuing the environment makes one more likely to believe in global warming? Let’s re-word that a bit. I think it is important to protect the environment, therefore I believe global warming is happening? There’s such a disconnect in that logic chain that it is tragic.
As someone upthread already pointed out, this is just a global warming propaganda puff piece.
From the press release it looks to me like the gist of the research is that women in a certain collective (group) are being targeted in order to extract their votes and resources by a researcher using collectivist ethics who advocates the failed theory behind the climate change cause.
Women are being set up to be treated as purely manipulatable assets by this researcher.
To collectivists, humans are just herd animals to be manipulated into some sacrifice to the collective.
John
“Politicians who discredit global warming risk losing a big chunk of the female vote.”
Politicians need to look after their core supporters before they court those who wouldn’t normally vote for them anyway. Both left and right voters are being leeched from their traditional parties in the UK because the politicians have been expressing their own niche interests rather than those of their voters. AGW has been shown to be a very low priority for average people on both sides of the political divide and only wealthy individuals can afford to indulge their worries about CO2.
It’s trying to get Republicans to back off by telling them they will lose votes at the upcoming US election.
Most of the women I know in Soooooouth Lundon are all voting UKIP
The irony of someone”future focused” determined to destroy said future with idiotic”present policy”is almost too much to be believed.
This so much hogwash I don’t know where to start. But there really isn’t gender gap in voting. There is a married gap in voting. Married people of all three genders (I say three to be politically correct.) Tend to vote more conservatively than unmarried people and the reason is because married people are more future oriented they know what we do today will affect their grandchildren, unmarried people often don’t have children, and so don’t care about the future as much. Married people want to leave money to their children, they don’t want to have it taxed away by a government doing stupid things. Fighting global warming is about as stupid as it gets.
I would extend that thought slightly.
(US observation.) Today’s liberal woman has been brought up and indoctrinated very carefully in an extreme anti-masculine, anti-male, ultra-feminist, anti-child, anti-capitalist, anti-energy, anti-male-role-play (all tieing back into the previous) … “She” – this ideal indoctrinated female has been taught and indoctrinated AGAINST what her 250,000 years of breeding have bred INTO her body, her mind, her genes, and her instincts. Darwin ain’t stupid.
But, at the same time, today’s uber-socialist, uber-liberal women’s groups (particularly on the sheltered habitats of university campuses, government bureaucracies, and female-dominated industries) KNOW that they MUST gain the mental, physical, emotional support and financial security that 250,000 years have always required.
They have been taught that they cannot marry, that the should not marry, that males are despicable rapists and pigs. They have been taught that they do not need children, should kill (abort) their children that are accidentally or incidentally conceived, and should turn the the children that they do allow to live to be sent immediately to government day care, government schools, government social programs, and government supervision and “love” … All of which are opposite the genes they are mentally fighting.
They have no family and so they can only turn to the one group they have been taught to love and trust for their life, their money, and their security: Their government!
Thus, the government – at least the liberal-progressive-socialist democrat party in the US – trains their women employees and dependents (elderly and sick and permanent welfare class) to become dependent on the government for their money. Then the liberal women’s love and affection and votes comes back to the government party that promises more support.
Life of Julia.
So, it’s a myth that a significantly larger percentage of women vote for liberal candidates, consistently, than men? Sorry, folks, but the PC gibberish is getting a little deep.
Wait till the Winter Power Cuts More votes for Nigel .more Tory defections.
Interesting survey to do .
Find out from Ebay Amazon Homebase B and Q Screw fix and all the main DIY retailers how many people have started panic buying Generators and fuel cans
He insults the reasoning ability of women and men when his claims there is a personality trait called “consideration of future consequences.”
There are ideas held by men and women about the nature of reality and what to value in human life, they are not personality traits. The researcher needs some fundamental epistemic training.
John
Uh-huh. Wouldn’t one concerned w/such think a soaring U.S. government 17 trillion dollar deficit is the immediate “consideration of future consequences”? That’s $55,000 for every man, woman & child.
I find it fascinating that alarmists care about the future but skeptics don’t . I actually think it’s the other way round. What world are we leaving our children if we impoverish the current generation with meaningless policies.
Global warming alarmism is the greatest moral dilemma of our time
Most women tend to be liberal, and vote democrat. So any good conservative Republican is wasting his/her time and money trying to curry favor with them. The best thing to do is tell the truth (and I know that is a rare thing for a politician to do).
Should’ve never given them the vote. 😉
I jokingly tell my wife that all the time. But I’m only half joking – without the women’s vote, Obama would not have been elected once, let alone twice.
Here is a pdf containing a PowerPoint presentation by the authors of the paper:
http://www.cbe.wsu.edu/~jjoireman/Joireman%20and%20Liu%20-%20CFC%20and%20GW%20-%20WarsawTalk.pdf
o
What hogwash.
I love the alleged difference between “immediate consequences” and “future consequences” bit. It is strangely similar to the “temperatures are currently stable” vs “we’re all gonna fry – sometime in the future” dichotomy.
IOW, sceptics are, by definition, uncaring about future consequences in their paradigm. You know, irresponsible, selfish, grandchildren-killing, planet destroyers. Whereas, those who fret about something that might happen long after they are gone are the good guys.
The entire construct is a tautology.
Their thinking will change 100% when the lights go out.
Recall the film “Three Days of the Condor” in which the CIA spook (Cliff Robertson) says “What happens when we run out? They’re not going to care how we get it, they’re just gonna want us to get it. [food, water, electricity]” To which Robert Redford replies “Boy, have you found a home!” Moral: The ends never justify the means, apparently even when survival of modern civilization is at stake.
Liberal environmentalist Gaian hogwash.
“First, they are more politically liberal and liberals are more likely to value the environment”
So, conservatives that actually spend time in the environment fishing, hunting, camping, etc. and typically wish for their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy those same activities don’t value the environment?
The other evening there was a programme on the BBC regarding the Polish guy who could not walk after a serious knife attack. A British scientist who had been researching a possible treatment for reversing damage to the spinal chord for thirty years collaborated with a Polish surgeon and used a start of the art surgery and treatment appear to have brought life back to the lower limbs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29645760
The amount of research money is a pittance for this field which relies on charity.
Imagine if the funds wasted on punching at the shadows of catastrophic man made climate change had been used for good purposes?
I think that most people of what ever political hue or gender when presented with cold facts supported by evidence will make the right decision, except of course in politics and religion, and there’s the rub:-)
Women and closed minded Liberal progressives are more easily frightened and cAGW is a narrative of unsubstantiated fear, ergo herding/stampeding the fearful with cAGW is a nobrainer.
BTW I do no some open minded progressive thinkers, both Conservatives and Liberals, they are not easily cowed.
“Future-oriented” is defined to arrive at the required conclusion. Someone who is future-oriented in that they worry about whether closing cheap reliable power generators and loading the grid with expensive unreliable renewable energy will adversely affect their children and grandchildren are excluded from the definition.
There are two kinds of people in the world,
the progressives,
and those who understand reversion to the means.
Now that may not mean much, but then neither does this study.
The information gathered by the researchers seems pretty naive. From the paper:
Political orientation is the answer to a single self-assessed question.
Environmental “values” are determined from three airy-fairy feel-good statements which are uninformative on a practical level.
The “Belief in GW Index” is determined by the unscientific opinions on whether it seems warmer now then earlier in the respondent’s lives. Note that none of the statements ask whether the possible warming was human-caused nor whether (particularly in the case that the warming might have a substantial natural component) any action might be effective in mitigating the effects. Nowhere do the authors try to determine how knowledgeable the subjects might be about the GW topic.
Willingness to take action is measured solely by whether they would agree to spend some money. The “willingness” of accepting serious changes to one’s lifestyles as advocated by environmental activists does not enter into the equation.
Concern with future prospects is measured by a set of 14 questions which can be found at the link here.
Finally, the data are analyzed with SEM methodology of the type used in the Lewandowsky conspiracy paper fiasco. The results from the whole business do not seem to have any practical value which might be relevant to reality.
Funny. Most of my answers to those questions would have put me into “Future-oriented” category.
But I’m a guy. The CAGW “science” might be even better plant food than CO2. I will hardly be voting as he would like me to do.
“Future-oriented”? I’m a Christian and I take that seriously. Tough to be more “Future-oriented” than looking at Eternity.
Hey, Gunga Din — me, too (as you already knew, smile)!
Thus, although I may not get to meet any of the other wonderful WUWT bloggers, YOU I will meet someday.
And that’s nice to know.
#(:)) (still grateful for all your support over the months…)
I wonder about Greg…. how about it, Greg? Will I meet you someday for sure? (in heaven, I mean, lol)
I wonder how the responses would have changed if the asked;
“I would be willing to pay an extra $1,700.00 per family memeber in taxes to reduce global temperatures 0.003K”,
“I would pay an extra $15,000 dollars for an electric car”,
“I would pack my kids into a Smart Car instead of a SUV to take them to soccer practice”
“I would gladly allow the electric company to shut off my air conditioner in the summer or furnace in the winter any time they needed to to fight global warming”
It’s easy to agree to something nebulous, let’s make it reality based.
Sorry, but I am a future-thinking woman – thinking about the future my son will have to live in, and how on earth is he going to make a living if I’ve been busy undermining his ability by voting for the government to steadily take away anything he might hope to make to throw large amounts of other people’s money at problems that may not even exist and certainly couldn’t be adequately fixed by gobs of government money if they did?
These are the same people who just spent over a decade spending gobs of other people’s money building an agency to respond to domestic security threats, including biological ones, and they don’t even know how to handle a single deadly disease when it finally gets here after over six months of being a large scale problem elsewhere.
Isn’t it odd how a US liberal will be the first to call for equality yet also be the first to divide people into groups and then pit those groups against each other?
While claiming their group is superior.
It’s the natural order taken to its logical conclusion. Too many women and men seem blissfully unaware that fitness is not a species function. The minority which denigrates individual dignity and devalues human life is not their ally. It is grand promises of dissociation of risk which are the opiate of the masses and elites. Well, history repeats itself. It seems there is at least one known perpetual motion process.
Money, sex, and ego. It’s ironic that liberal-oriented women are also most likely to abort their children. Not exactly “future-focused”. They’re probably concerned about saving their “souls,” or something. The end is nigh! Donate, vote, and pray. Yeah, it’s a cult.
These are the same women who maintain a faith that evolution of a human life following conception is equivalent to evolution approaching a natural, accidental, or premeditated death, in order to rationalize an extreme “present-focus” on money, sex, ego, and power. I am more than a little skeptical of their intentions and motives. They will not even acknowledge that spontaneous conception is not an article of faith, but a fraudulent myth told by “future-focused” people choosing relief from the “burden” and personal responsibility.
Climate is not weather, but temperature even more so than politics is local. New England has had a gloriously mild summer, followed by a gloriously mild Autumn. So in this region at least, I do not know where this record-breaking heat is other than in the tortured, strangled, averaged, extrapolated temperature collections of various agencies which is beyond anyone of either gender to “feel”. The masses are being told that it is getting hotter and hotter, the reality in everyday lives is quite different.
Even in regions that may have had wamer than usual summers, has it been noticably so? I don’t think anyone keeps vivid memories of temperatures unless it is an extreme. About 20-25 years ago I remember a horribly hot summer that for where I live has not been matched since. I have no clue how the intervening 20-25 summers were temperature wise.
There is a quite disturbing social psychosis cultivated by political agendas and propaganda such as this study. A study as usual that is extremely poorly executed but unfortunately effective as a piece of propaganda with it’s ingrained assumption of climate doom.
Climate propaganda continually warns people it has been and will be getting hotter and hotter and then puts in their heads that if they do not want it to get worse than the hottest summer they could ever remember, they need to pay more taxes. Only social psychosis explains the idea that more taxes could possibly affect climate in any realistic, measureable or remotely significant way.
The “record breaking heat” reference is probably from that recent NOAA announcement from an isolated data set which conforms to no-one’s experience. It speaks to the doomsters’ desire to stampede people in the desired direction. On that topic, we’ve recently had an election here in New Zealand — the format here is to have one month of campaigning before the election (eat your hearts out USA). So this year at the outset the Left hijacked the campaign with hacked emails and painted the National party (i.e. Republicans-like) as unethical and so tried (with the full co-operation of the complicit MSM) to stampede the NZ public into voting left-wing. However, the NZ public completely ignored all of that and returned the National government with as good a margin as before. So the quote comes from another left-wing wet dreamer.
This is hardly a gender issue. Mr Pentti Linkola has supplied the strongest evidence so far on the mutual exclusivity of conserving the environment and protecting the civil liberties.
“Politicians who discredit global warming risk losing a big chunk of the female vote”
We’ll see if that’s true in about a week on election day.
Don’t know about all women, but there is no need to underestimate ladies. A wind electricity salesman’s argument was that wind electricity can be supplied from the grid separately and ordered exclusively for an extra charge. Wonderful, my 80-year old mum replied with her disarming demeanor, then may I have nuclear only please.
+10
This is the kind of “research” you get when science has turned into religion. Hard to read without getting sick.
Other studies have found that single women tend to look to big government to provide for them. Sorry, that’s a paraphrase and not an exact quote and no, I don’t have a reference. Other studies have shown that liberals in general believe global warming (meaning AGW, I presume) believe it’s a big problem that needs immediate attention.
In other words, nothing new to see here. Move on.
The outright lies in that article are rather startling even for the warmunist crowd. It will be interesting to see if the last man standing in theCAGW hoax will actually be embarrassed at the end.
So if the stories premise is that “Forward Looking Women” are most concerned about Global Warming, then would it be fair to say that “Backward Looking Males” are least concerned about Global Warming?
Progressive (Forward Looking) women vs Conservative (or Reactionary) men? 🙂
“To be effective, we will likely need to tailor persuasive messages to appeal to the consequences people value.”
Oh heck, I know how to do that – lie to them! It’s funny to see this coming from a marketing professor. Let’s look at the corollaries over the years:
‘New and improved’
– our latest computer models show
‘More dentists (doctors etc.) choose brand x over any other brand’
– 97% of climate scientists agree
‘According to most surveys customers prefer…’
– passed more peer review
I wonder if what is going on in this study is similar to what Briggs recently described in a recent blog post of his;
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=14336
how does he know they are “future oriented” now?
Ive recently had 2 women separately remark they can feel the effects of Global Warming.
This is in San Francisco where temps are cool most of the time.
My thought is that both of these women are feeling the effect of being menopausal.
Next time my response will be
“Global Warming doesnt cause hot flashes.”
Politicians who push global warming propaganda risk losing an even bigger chunk of the thinking vote and Independents, regardless of gender.
I’ll withhold judgement on this topic until The Lewandowsky weighs in.
Now we have a misogynist marketeer telling us that women are less smart than men. That only happens when the man on the other side is cute…
People – men as well as women – who are concerned about the future are likely to vote for policies that they think will bring about the future they desire. It is perfectly rational behaviour, even for those of us who know there is little chance of any politician or party delivering on the promises.
Since the overwhelming weight of the propaganda has been on the dangers of CO2 production, it is not surprising that people who are concerned about the future tend to want a reduction in CO2 production. They are not irrational, merely misinformed.
The “study” does not seem to establish that women are, in general, more likely to be “future oriented” than men. It does seem to swallow the AGW story holus bolus.
There is nothing important here. Just the usual ventilating about American parochial politics and the American paranoia about “liberals” and socialism.
I think after this and no shortage of other things that Susie-B and EKStanton would be for the repeal of the 19th Amendment.
299 US residents, stratified by gender, age and political orientation.
This survey samples 350 million people?
You gotta be joking!
And libertarian, ineffectual, middle aged males with dubious social skills are less likely to?
Moderators, this poster needs to be kicked off of this forum.
Second the motion.
Garymount,
Why?
John
John asks why. Because you haven’t seen this persons other worthless posts that add no value, but I have.
garymount,
Thank you for offering your reason to have her/him blocked.
I have seen many of her/his comments and recall seeing them largely because of the catchy handle ‘Siberian_Husky’ and do recall somewhat that he/she has quite a bit of edginess to his/her comment style and starkly differing content. Does she/he violate site rules? I sincerely ask.
The article that is the subject of this post stated “WSU researcher finds future-oriented women most likely to fight global warming”. As to Siberian_Husky’s rejoinder “And libertarian, ineffectual, middle aged males with dubious social skills are less likely to?”, she/he offers a different collective to consider than the article’s collective. Both are stereotyping, so there is noteworthy irony to posit a conversely different and controversial stereotype.
How does that comment justify blocking her/him?
John
…paint with the same broad brush you do. Stereotype much?
M Courtney
October 28, 2014 at 8:36 am
says…
“Journal of Environmental Psychology – amazing that such a thing exists.”
Should be Environmental Psychiatry, or perhaps Pathology.
They are sick, you know.
Liberal women are lousy at science, but they are very good at conforming to cultural marxism.
I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative. And am not very good at conforming to cultural Marxism. Explain me.
This is a political check list of groups and message targets and not real research.
What!!! You mean Liberal women are more likely to believe dogma that that encourages government control of everything? You don’t say!
The only common denominator is Liberalism. Liberals will buy in to anything that spends other peoples money, and allows them to gain social control over the rest of us. There is zero evidence of measurable AGW. Everything we have seen to date is within the range of natural variability. Computer models have gone snake-eyes, and are predisposed to show massive warming where none occurred. It is not science, it is politics.
Reads article…
http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/6851863/3/stock-photo-6851863-woman-looking-over-her-glasses.jpg
Is that Gail? Check in…Happy Halloween Gail, wherever you are?
Maybe leading the werewolves and zombies to the truth in this world of mythology
Based upon what I have been reading, climate change polls at the bottom of most issues as a concern for voters, both men AND women. Consequently, I doubt that a candidate’s being anti-AGW will be a decisive issue for many women.
This is what I have learned so far. The horse was let out of the barn before daylight. More to come from the wicked pen of said Pamela Gray. The rest below are in quotes.
Abstract
The present work addresses calls to clarify the role of gender in climate change mitigation and adaptation by testing a theoretical model linking gender and concern with future and immediate consequences to mitigation actions through political orientation, environmental values, and belief in global warming (gender x time orientation → liberal political orientation → environmental values → belief in global warming → willingness to pay to reduce global warming). Drawing on a sample of 299 U.S. residents, structural equation modeling and bootstrapped indirect effects testing revealed support for the model. Interaction analyses further revealed that women scored higher than men on model variables among respondents who routinely consider the future consequences of their actions, but the gender difference was reversed among those low in concern with future consequences (on liberal political orientation and willingness to pay to reduce global warming). Practical and theoretical implications are considered.
Keywords
global warming;
climate change;
concern with future consequences;
environmental values;
political orientation;
gender
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (509) 335 0191.1
Tel.: +1 (509) 339 4144.
Copyright © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Note to users: Accepted manuscripts are Articles in Press that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of this publication. They have not yet been copy edited and/or formatted in the publication house style, and may not yet have the full ScienceDirect functionality, e.g., supplementary files may still need to be added, links to references may not resolve yet etc. The text could still change before final publication.
Although accepted manuscripts do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI, as follows: author(s), article title, Publication (year), DOI. Please consult the journal’s reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.
When the final article is assigned to an volumes/issues of the Publication, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published volumes/issues of the Publication. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.
These are functionally equivalent statements:
As stated above:
The article does not show skill for guessing what women of any stripe might do.
As soon as this article actually gets published instead of just accepted, I will compare it against his own recommendations on how to get high quality research published. Should be interesting. Why? His number of surveys completed defies the number of variable involved. Surveys often need thousands of responses to be valid. His survey has less than 300 responders. Must not have budgeted for a statistician in that grant. Funny that. These surveys often do not have that in the budget. I soooo wonder why. Maybe Lewandowski can answer that question.
http://www.cb.wsu.edu/~jjoireman/How%20to%20Publish%20High-Quality%20Research%20-%20Workshop%20PPT%20-%20for%20web.ppt.pdf
Call me fricken unimpressed.
And to be forewarned, I just fixed my sis’ computer issue, had a hand in a few academic leaps and strides today, and am in love. Not to mention that I have had two hot toddies. You had better bring your A game.
Pam…You don’t make any sense, you call yourself ‘fiscally conservative’ but you say you vote for the people who burned the house down… and will again and again.
My votes have been with regard to individual equal rights and freedoms under the law. Those freedoms have been restricted from both sides of the political divide in the past, now, and likely in the future, and I WILL vote my conscience on those issues. Thankfully we are finally beginning to see scientific sense over-ride religious dogma about such things. As for fiscal responsibility, I will vote for whoever wants me to keep more of my hard-earned paycheck. And let’s hope that person, if put into office, will NOT roll back the individual rights and freedoms that are in place and gaining ground.
I would prefer to see the test done on technological education not gender as unfortunately retarded social attitudes also correlate this gender difference. Like so many statistics they are rubbish because the people, often deliberately, ask the wrong question or divide the sample on the wrong basis.
Would the study have the same impact if it said techno retards believe in AGW? I know in the women we know this is 100% true. Those who I know and understand the use of Fourier have 100% contempt for climate scientists.