Does Bob Have a Problem With Gender Equality?
by
I only ask because, as a female sceptic myself (and very much not alone in that respect) it would seem from his comments that he likes to think that a vast majority of climate sceptics are male; even worse, crusty old white balding men not dissimilar to himself. As principal evidence for his theory, he points to the predominance of old white men at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which Bob also appears to have a problem with, probably not entirely related to its supposed glaring gender imbalance. But hey, that’s as good a reason as any to have a go at them, so Bob dutifully decides that he’s going to report GWPF for the crime of being dominated by old white male climate sceptics – and gets short shrift from the Charity Commission who tell him:
there are no legal requirements around gender balance in governance and that under s20(2) of the Charities Act, the Commission is precluded from interfering in the administration of a charity.
Bummer. Never mind. Bob is many things, including some which rhyme with his Christian title, but he is never daunted, no siree. Bob is the self-appointed slayer of ‘sceptics’, the Chief Holder to Account of Deniers and it is no problem whatsoever to re-appoint himself to that role even when he suffers the odd catastrophic set back.
Thus, he drones on,
The Foundation may be dominated by older men because climate change denial is simply not popular among women and young people. Numerous studies have suggested that climate change ‘sceptics’ are usually older and male, with political views that place less value on the environment. However, recent polls of the UK public suggest that there is little gender difference among the small proportion of the population who are hardcore ‘sceptics’.
A tracking survey commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy showed that, in March 2017, 7.6% answered “I don’t think there is such a thing as climate change” or “Climate change is caused entirely caused by natural processes”, when asked for their views. Among men the figure was 8.1%, while for women it was 7.1%
So Bob advances a reason why old men might dominate at the GWPF then shoots down his own pet theory in the very next sentence by quoting a survey which shows that, in the population in general, there is not much gender difference among those people who seriously question whether man has dominated recent changes in climate. Having failed to validate his supposition, he then weakly suggests that “it is the men who are most vocal about their [climate scepticism] views” and that those men “tend to lack any training or qualifications in climate science, but still appear to believe that they know better than the experts”. Which is odd really. Because this describes Bob to a tee, barring the minor detail that he is not a climate change sceptic but an avid believer in the unquestionable authority of The Science.
Notwithstanding the fact of Bob’s oldness, his maleness, his lack of expertise, his apparent chauvinistic and dismissive attitude to female climate change sceptics, he then launches into a tirade of accusations about the chauvinistic attitudes of old, white, male climate sceptics, whose bigoted views apparently are directed at women climate ‘experts’ in particular, suggesting that these old, white, male ‘non-experts’ may be resentful of the fact that cleverer women in the know are telling them things they don’t want to hear. He really is a card is our Bob.
More:
Does Bob Have a Problem With Gender Equality?
Josh is on the case:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Aren’t climate alarmists mostly old, white, angry males? Is this yet another case of projection?
Yr: “…old, white, angry males…”
Well, judging by the public face of the Gaia hustle–Al Gore–I’d say there’s a little more to your typical “alarmist” than their inevitable, privileged-white-dork, mummy-centric, can’t-get-a-date, testy-milquetoast, superannuated-platitude-mongering-party-line-hack-goin’-through-the-motions personal qualities. In particular, based on a close examination of Al Gore, we can also say that your typical, lefty-puke Gaia-freak is:
-a brazen-hypocrite carbon-piggie
-an in-your-face, greenwashed money-grubber
-an alpha-cad who dumped Tipper, but kept his newly-acquired, Hollywood air-head circle of private-jet, jet-set, fairweather friends.
-a truly strange weirdo who paid Naomi Wolf really big-bucks to publicly call him out as a “beta” weenie, while in the midst of a Presidential campaign.
And, oh by the way, Bob Ward, hasn’t it been the hive-chekist bully-boys, and not us “good guy” Lovers of Liberty and ethical science, who have been beating up on extraordinarily accomplished women–Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Susan Crockford, come immediately to mind–for the “sin” of courageously buckin’ the hive’s psuedo-religious, Lysenkoist, Gaia-cult, flim-flam orthodoxies?
And, oh by the way, did I mention that Al “Stretch Marks” Gore (talk about an ol’ fart!) is a horror-story mass of impacted, male-pattern cellulite-deposits?
And, finally, Bob, could you do your readers a favor and, in the future, employ both hands at the keyboard when you peck out your little gibbering-geekball, “PC”-gotcha!-wannabe diatribes? Thank you in advance–you disgusting little wanker! :
@Mike;
You need to learn how to express yourself more forcefully and directly. You are excessively subtle. There’s no room for timidity in the climate trenches! 😉
James Schrumpf:
That’s rich coming from a denizen of den___ism! OK, if you want to attack “al___ists” [realists] for their anger and other traits they have no control over, then let’s examine your “side.” I wonder if it’ll look quite so white-as-snow under scrutiny, hmm?
Turns out it does. White and male as snow. It only took five seconds of googling to find this Anatomy of Den___ism, the very first line of which is:
You forced me to go there, James.
I know I am but what are you?
D J Hawkins,
@Mike isn’t alone. I have that problem (being too polite for my own good) too, I’ve been told.
After five minutes straight of what to me seems like spittle-flecked hate-invective, I’ll finally pause to check my temporal artery pulse and my friends will just gently laugh and say, “Tell us what you REALLY think, Brad!”
I’m trying, I’m trying.
Hey D. J.!
Kinda see where you’re comin’ from. So, like, I’ve been doing some real thinkin’ on how to up my game, and everything, and the best I’ve come up with, so far, is a little zinger that, I hope, inflicts a sting, but in a high-toned intellectual vein that is, at once, both sciency and chemical-formula-like, and, therefore, sure to impress–indeed, flummox mightily–all those ivory-tower, hive-bozo, Mr. Smarty-Pants spouters of phoney-baloney, B. S., hive-science jargon and cant, who are envious, agitpropper-wannabe, dismissive critics of my little act. Here goes:
“Bob Ward is a de-oxy oxy-moron!”
Whaddyuh think, D. J.?
I, for one, would like to express my profound disappointment in the fact that Brad Keyes neglected to point out the most obvious failure of Ms. Jessop’s analysis above. Namely, that her assumptions about gender identification apply to Bob Ward. Just because Ms. Jessop is enslaved to the cis-normative, biologically-determinant gender identification paradigm of the patriarchy, does NOT mean that Bob Ward is as well.
“She” (one must assume Jessop identifies as “she” based on her comments) deigns to conclude that Mr. Ward’s statements are about the false socio-hierarchal construct of parternalistic gender-, racial-, and senesce-identity. And from this she believes she has a platform to disagree, simply due to her biological privilege.
Well, Ms. Jessup, Bob Ward is clearly talking about the problem with climate skeptics who IDENTIFY as white, male, and old. Since no one has any input in choosing their own biology, clearly it follows that Mr. Ward is not gender-shaming, race-shaming, or age-shaming people for something they can’t change. No, he’s calling out the climate skeptic community for CHOOSING to identify with the progenitors of all that’s evil and wrong with the world today.
Seriously. This is so basic. How could she have missed it so badly?
rip
Mike please don’t hold back on your next comment! Just let it out and express yourself.
Mic (Mike) drop….
that will be one of the posts of the year for me mike, love it 🙂
I think part of the reason old white men are denialists is that we had to work out in it in the 50’s and 60’s. We had to put up then with all the “new Ice Age is coming” drivel. We heard our dads, uncles, and grandparents laughing about how this reverses every thirty years or so.
Made us a little more skeptical about all these catastrophic tales of the future – because we heard them so often when we were young.
Oh, note: my grandparents and uncles were all farmers. Climate and weather were critical. And 110 years later, they’re still in the same places, planting the same crops. And asking me (the only one with an advanced degree) if I believe in CAGW. They assume it requires an advanced degree to be that stupid.
Bollocks !
I have always been concerned about the environment, clear air and clean water. The trouble is the alarmists do not even know what the word “clean” means any more. They think it is something to do with the amount CO2 something contains.
The problem is it is now impossible to identify myself as an environmentalist because of all the unscientific, irrational BS that word now implies.
The fake alarmism means that many decisions are being taken of totally skewed and misplaced priorities. This is often counter to the best interests of the environment and many other factors.
Mr Keyes, you reminds me of the old line by Dan Ackryrod(another great Canadian eh): “Brad, you ignorant slut”.
And when they say, “We must get-by using less” what they mean is “Everyone else must get-by with less.”
So we can have more.
Their unofficial motto:
“One for all, ……and the rest for us.”
You forgot … “Christian” … which is another label applied to we AWFUL skeptics. You know, anyone who believes in a “sky daddy” is a denier. Is clearly anti-science (like in the Middle Ages,before books were mass printed) . And should be burned at the stake … like they tried to do to Galileo [sarc.]. Yeah … ya got me. I am just like Oprah … waiting for a sign from “God” before making weighty life decisions … like whether to put solar panels on my home. Hey! d’ya wonder whether this UUuuge winter storm is a sign from “God” that CA’s “never ending drought” is STILL over? Did our Jesuit Gov. get the “message”?
Now Kenji, I have to disagree with you on they Climate Faithful’s (and Leftists in general) attitude towards those who profess a belief in a god. After all, the Left positively revere and will tolerate no disrespect directed at the followers of Allah. And this attitude goes for nearly EVERY religion… except Christianity.
That reminds me. What do you think the GOOGLE doodle will celebrate this Easter instead of the Christian Holiday?
How about Eostre, the namesake of the appropriated holiday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre
It’s the internet to blame.
Almost all the commenters on the internet are mostly old, white, angry males.
Even on Autostraddle, probably.
It’s a known fact that 97% of Sceptics / Deniers are old, white, bald, men, who have no expertise in anything to do with the real world (eg. science). (Do I need to add ?)
Josh, as usual, sums it up so succinctly.
Josh is the MAN!
Another example of playing the man (in this case men) and not the ball.
Mark Maslin, who never stoops to ad hominems (God forbid!), once said something wise enough to validate the old adage about “from the mouths of complete and utter mora…”:
Boy, talk about incoherent and rambling…I tried to read his article, but couldn’t get through it. Seems to think an awful lot of himself, though.
Ha ha ha … that’s FUNNY! and actually quite insightful.
Bob has many problems.
I’m not a therapist, but I play one on the internet. How can I help you with your myriad psychological problems, Mr. Ward?
Props for Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink. a 123-page exposé-extravaganza of climate alarmist goopthink gorgonzola.
AGW is total groupthink.
Except for the think part.
LOL. +2
groupdumb would be more apt.
‘ISH’ LOL.
Did Judith Curry have a sex change operation?
If she had, it wouldn’t be any of our business to pry anyway.
Make a joke and there is always someone that doesn’t get it!
Sorry if dry wit doesn’t come across to well in a pithy text reply, RAH.
My apologies for the misunderstanding Ben. Bound to happen at times in this medium and sometimes I can be a bit myopic when I get involved before I have adequate caffeine in the system.
Or Susan Crockford.
Crockford is not a ‘skeptic’, rather a evolutionary biologist who has compared polar bear activists’ prognosis and the reality.
A lot of projection there it appears A good article Jaime.
Annie…Old, White, Female…Grumpy old Woman!
Kathleen… Old,Red,Female…Grumpy Old Squaw
Ally…Thirties, White, Female…Grumpy. 🙂
Well, isn’t AGW theory known to cause gender confusion?
Allegedly, global warming is going to turn all sea turtles female.
And with a few males to service them the population will explode.
Please, let’s use the correct psychiatric term as listed in the APA, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders;” gender dysphoria. Used to be called gender identity disorder, until the post-normal social theory progs got involved.
Bob ward works at the lse in London. After four days of snow wothmain line stations and airports closed plus many roads I doubt if he has even managed to get into work recently let alone been able to travel to an international conference
http://www.cityam.com/281468/paddington-station-has-been-closed-due-weather-conditions
Tonyb
“The other side has a lot of old white males so our view on global warming is correct” argument. How very scientific, Bob
Poor old Bob. He has to keep his non-job somehow. Old white male Jeremy Grantham needs his ego fed.
Remember Bob , fast fingers, Ward is actual paid to hold and promote such views. He is the very thing has called others, a professional troll.
Pot -> Kettle = Black
This is fun. Check out the contributors to RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/
All 8 of them. 100% White. 100% male. And I’m pretty sure 100% over 50, at least two over 60.
The most promenent female climate scientist I know of is Judith Curry.
Ward is engaging in the cliched progressive litany on those they disagree with–racist, sexist, homophobic. . .all without any real reason why their opponent actually fits any of those categories. Are there more men in climate sciences? Is it any different than the issue that sciences tend to have rather more men, generally?
Well, I am old, I suppose, white, and male, and if anyone asked me, I would say that I don’t ‘believe’ in climate change, I know that it happens….
Want to know people’s faults? Listen to what they complain about. So often they believe they see in others what is glaringly obvious about themselves — to everybody except themselves. Bob Ward is a perfect example.
One gets that same question about evolution, too: “Do you believe in evolution?” Funny no one ever asks “Do you believe in gravitation?” or “Do you believe in thermodynamics?”
When you’re involved in a career, you go along to get along. When you’re older you have the opportunity to think independently, and you begin to parse the bulls^^^t. Glad to see that the women get there too.
If women are to be taken seriously in STEM fields they are going to have step up more to question obvious political/advocacy bias campaigns like climate change manipulation and stop being used by such schemes. That means more visibility than Judith Curry by the way.
Since I started to take donations on my site
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/shameless_plug.jpg
gridwatch.org.uk/donate.html
I was amazed at how few donatees were clearly identifiable as female. 1% or thereabouts.
Make of that what you will.
Maybe they’re offended by your “shameless plug.” 🙂
“I was amazed at how few donatees were clearly identifiable as female”
I thought you were the donatee.
Jaime, I’m an old white guy who is a scientist and engineer and actually happens to have also studied paleoclimate some 60 yrs ago before it was taken over by the marxbrothers.
You picked up on the smaller picture of gender (which today is a more complex matter than mere boys and girls) but missed the much bigger picture of old white men and “diversity” that excludes this leperous category from the club. This, if I may wade into shark infested waters, is probably because you are a woman, comfortably snuggled into the fold. You only have a glass ceiling to break through. Even my pointy hard head would have trouble with the newly constructed reinforced concrete ceiling old white men have to contend with. This is why all the likes of Ward have to do to deligitimize a viewpoint is to note that it is held by old white men. He was actually kindly making sure that you were considered part of the club. That he will one day be an old white man himself is what he doesn’t seem to realize.
Analyzing the indictment of old white men, it seems we are being blamed for creating the nefarious Age of Enlightenment, Modern Science and Technology, the Industrial Revolution, the World Economy, Capitalism and Prosperity …I thought I had argued quite convincingly that I’m not THAT old.
Gary,
I resemble that remark….
Gary, notwithstanding the fact that I didn’t specifically make the case for ‘old white men’ in science, I’m very well aware of the increasing discrimination that they face courtesy of the progressive liberal agenda which is now sweeping through academia, tearing down barriers for all manner of ‘disadvantaged’ groups (including the intellectually and academically challenged) whilst busily erecting brick walls and concrete ceilings for the despised social grouping labeled ‘privileged white male’. The hatred runs deep. Science itself, originating overwhelmingly via the efforts of old white (now dead) European and American men presents an ideological challenge to the post-modernists. They want to ‘own’ it by making it more feminist, diverse and inclusive, but when they get close to it, they begin to retch at the foul odour given off by its privileged white male colonialist roots and lower branches. Climate alarmists in particular love quoting the ‘overwhelming evidence’ upon which rests The Science of AGW, but they are blissfully unaware that much of it is not ’empirical’ or that the ‘data’ (raw, directly observed, unprocessed) which might constitute such empirical evidence is so often discarded in favour of alternatives (like model output, ‘adjusted data’, statistically generated probability distributions etc.). Perhaps this is just as well because ’empirical’ is far too suggestive of ’empire’, as in British, as in racist, as in colonialist, as in patriarchal.
SCUM don’t get invited to the diversity club.
(Straight Conservative Uncolored Males)
I stand by Marx (groucho’s flavor):
” I DON’T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER”
Not to mention that as far back as Francis Bacon, “empiricist” was often the same as anecdotal. Bacon himself ranted against the “empiricists” because they would generalize from some single observation. Modern “post-mordernism” and all the associated “post(s)-” are comparable to the scholastics, who Bacon also despised. The irony is that despite his work, science has become largely “scholastic” – i.e. academic. A scientist attached to a university – an official “academic” – gets special considerations in many areas simply because of the claim to be “academic.”
It’s tough being a grumpy old white male sceptic, especially when you have two physics degrees and you fail to have gone bald.
Weird how people who claim to care about gender equality constantly judge other people by their gender and not by their views. It’s the same when supposedly “anti-racist” people judge others by their skin colour and not by their character.
Maybe i’m a bit too radical here, but in my opinion if women have less representation in a workplace or somewhere, it’s only a problem if those women were unjustly held back by force. If however women in general don’t want to work there, then there is not much you can do except encourage them. But it would be unjust to forcibly try to hold men back and choose women just because of their gender. Only personal skills should matter. Today we however seem to be obsessed about having exactly 50%-50% presentation, and if that does not happen, the world ends.
I’ve always found it fascinating that the people who shriek the loudest that they aren’t sexist, will turn around and declare that if you are a woman, you must think like this.
Likewise those who proclaim themselves not racist, will turn around and tell minorities how they must think and act, if they are to be true to their race.
Should minorities transcend their cultures and find success on their own terms, they stop being useful political tools for the so-called progressives, and might even *gasp* start voting conservative.
The pursuit not of equality, but of equivalence.