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.
You could say, Bob is sofa king we taught it?
Good Lord, one never knows where one will find an Aqua Teen Hunger Force Fan, eh?
If a large enough bunch of old white men believe something then I’d say it is probably true. Say what you will about old white men, they have been around the block a few times and are not stupid. Old white men have a lot of experience, are generally calm and rational, think for themselves, and can spot a bullshitter a mile away. And since they are already social pariahs these days by the mere fact of being old white and male, they are remarkably resistant to social pressure. If a couple hundred old white men tell you something, you’d be a fool not to take it seriously.
If old white men are as stupid as they are portrayed to be, then why according to the complainers do they hold the all positions of power?
Very interesting question. I think it’s a tacit admission that not only are the complainers stupider, but that they’re even too stupid to realize it.
I don’t think the argument is that they are stupid. The argument is that they have ” political views that place less value on the environment”, that they lack moral sense, compared to young and women (supposedly), and will have interest prevail over the right thing (Remember “exxon knew”). This is fairly compatible with holding position of power.
I don’t trust old white male to be right.
However, I trust young whatever-color whatever-sex to be wrong.
They lack experience, are emotional, have no clue about the real outcome of good intents as they also lack historical and political culture, are prone to groupthink and radical simplistic views (i.e. black OR white, with no grey nor black AND white), etc.
On any issue, the side with larger youth support is wrong, but has time running on its side, unfortunately
Afraid I fit Ward’s profile all too well. At least it’s no longer fashionable to pick on the Irish…
Just wait, boyo. 😉
Along with the tired Communist play, that we are all oppressed by Judeo-Christian White males,
there is another piece of rhetoric being played, yet again. But this piece of rhetoric is a confusing two-step.
First: “everyone knows man-made climate change is happening; what is wrong with you?”
Then: “Who are these so-called skeptics? You must be a special expert to be able to speak to whether there is climate change or not, and the experts have spoken. so be quiet.”
Well, which is it?
Is it as plain as the nose on your face?
Or, does it take an expert to recognize and understand it?
we need to start calling out these various foolish pieces of rhetoric.
Sort of like “The children aren’t going to know what snow is” because of (supposedly human induced) global warming (when we were experiencing winters with relatively little snow) vs. “heavier snowfall is “consistent with” (supposedly human induced) global warming” (when we started having winters where we were getting buried with snow).
Logic and reason don’t apply, and contradiction is just fine as long as it supports the “cause.”
We indeed need to continuously point out the contradictions, hypocrisy, foolishness, and the like, until the less informed start to realize what a crock of steaming excrement it all is.
The alarmists really are in sad shape if all they have left is this sort of ad-hominem nonsense. It is a transparent attempt to change the subject and my sympathy goes out to them.
Then you are a better man than me. I have only contempt for conmen.
As I like to say, the wounded beast roars loudest just before it falls down.
Bob is far too busy popping off bottlecaps with his face to look at the science.
having personally dealt with him on twitter some time ago, I can say my own experience was that he is actually not only non credentialed, but utterly bereft of understanding on climate science, he’s a link spammer
Isn’t Micheal Mann also a balding old white male, the same policies should apply to him and his cohorts.
As a happy, old, white, male, I have a slightly different perspective. In the early 60s I was drilled on the scientific method, every year I was in high school (biology, chemistry, physics). After all these years, those fundamental ideas have stuck with me, skepticism, emphasis on replication of experimental results, and all the rest. To have someone say the ‘science is settled’ is anathema to the scientific method, unless you have refined things beyond theory in physical laws, and even then there is room for refinement. If other old, white farts were trained as I was in high school, it is no wonder that as a group we tend toward the ‘rational skepticism’ end of things.
+ many!
Hopefully, I am wrong in linking Retwarded with retarded. With that stated and as the brother of a developmentally disabled person I offer the following . . .
“ Everyone knows words can hurt. For people with Down syndrome and their families, the history of “labels” is not a pleasant one. People with Down syndrome used to be labeled “idiots, morons,” and “imbeciles” by both society and the medical profession. The label evolved into “Mongoloid, handicapped, mentally retarded, retarded,” and then for short, “retard.”
Today, these labels are considered politically incorrect, hurtful and dehumanizing. As award-winning actor, parent-advocate, and Global Down Syndrome Foundation International Spokesperson, John C. McGinley has said, there is no difference between derogatory words used to label ethnic or religious minorities and the words used to label people with Down syndrome. As with people advocating for ethnic or religious minorities, there is a movement (led by Special Olympics) to end the use of derogatory words such as the “R” word – ‘retard.’ “
“there is no difference between derogatory words used to label ethnic or religious minorities and the words used to label people with Down syndrome. ”
Well, the fact is, there is a difference. Most ordinary words can, and are, used as derogatory, too
Some people ARE retarded, or blonde, or WASP, or bald, which is not per se derogatory, just a description. It becomes derogatory when applied … well, derogatory.
Like, in the ret_ward rant. He just has to eat the food he meant for others, now.
“people advocating […] to end the use of derogatory words such as the “R” word – ‘retard.’ “ are just … progressives (and THAT was derogatory )
I could understand if people were were advocating the end of derogatory use of the ‘retard’ word, or any other for that matters. Strangely enough they don’t.
SouthPark is a show that almost always uses childish, crude, and sometimes disgusting humor to keep a portion of its audience entertained. Sometimes the show uses situational/story line humor to make an overall humorous point relating to their view of how societal norms are used/abused/misunderstood.
The evolution of specific descriptors, as you noted, is real; it will keep happening. SouthParks “Fags go home” parodies this reality and ties it into current society. Please take the time to watch the “Fags go home” episode of SouthPark. Myself, and the people that I know best are analogous to the fags (totally clueless bikers). You (Jim) are analogous to the principal and the community leaders that are looking for a good reason to be upset.
DonM: Hardly.
c’mon,
so you don’t think I could hang with the clueless bikers?
Rob, catch the perspective. no one said ALL bikers are clueless. seems you are saying NONE are.
(and jee whiz, you must think it is O.K. to spend $15 to 45K on a carbon dioxide spewing hobby toy. I think that it is O.K.. Others don’t. I think the others that don’t are generally hypocrites. Which side of the line (at this point in time) do you stand on?)
I thought , given his enormous influence on the debate (in the UK at least ) that I ought to find out more of his credentials as a scientist . The profile from LSE is interesting :
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/bob-ward/
“–Bob joined the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in November 2008, shortly after its launch.
He also holds the following positions:
Policy and Communications Director for the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy;
Background
Bob joined the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) from Risk Management Solutions, where he was Director of Public Policy.
He also worked at the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science, for eight years, until October 2006. His responsibilities there included leading the media relations team.
He has also worked as a freelance science writer and journalist.
Bob has a first degree in geology and an unfinished PhD thesis on palaeopiezometry.
He is a fellow of the Geological Society, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and a member of the American Geophysical Union. Bob is also a member of the board of the Association of British Science Writers and a member of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Public Relations Association.–”
Not much evidence of actual relevant scientific expertise there, in the sense of occupying academic positions teaching science, but give the fellow the benefit of the doubt : what publications can he claim?
A reasonable number , but mainly , as his job title suggests , in the field of public relations and renewables advocacy.
There was one paper in 2013 in Climate Change which discusses the application of modelling to the prospects of staying below 1.5C and it is an interesting paper with a model that appears to work well up to 2000, however Ward is not the lead author and seems to have been tacked on the end because the funding was partly from the Grantham Institute. Although the paper is paywalled you can download the supplementary details and might be worth looking at more closely – although no doubt out of date by now.
Incidentally why is it OK to publish papers that have been funded by the proceeds from a hedge fund manager who expects to earn greatly from the taxes on emissions but totally illegitimate to publish research part paid for by , say , an oil company ? Either all or none would be fair would it not?
MikeWaite, Ward isn’t a scientist he’s a PR guy
Bob Ward is paid handsomely by the Grantham Foundation- an Alarmist group.
He is simply a puppet, parroting his master’s bidding.
He is a brainless troll.
Bitter: Now I’m with you. He’s just another communications major who thinks he looks great in a white lab coat. Hey, now that I think of it, ALL those lab coats are white. CliSci seems to have plenty of money to keep communications majors on staff, yet the problem with climate science (so I’ve heard) is failure to communicate. What’s up with that (to coin a phrase)?
They leave the Comm majors to do the wet work while they go off to their next paid vacation, er, climate convention!
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” SOP – Alynsky’s Rules For Radicals
Deplorable Climate Scientists Have Destroyed Credibility of Science
Here at CO2isLife we have always maintained that CAGW isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Science is an unbiased, impartial, objective, blind and unbelievably politically incorrect process. Science is the search for truth, no matter how ugly, racist, sexist, homophobic or politically inconvenient it may be. The facts don’t give a damn if … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/deplorable-climate-scientists-have-destroyed-credibility-of-science/
Can You Spot the Racist?
Where were the 500 Women “Scientists” when we needed them? The above videos highlight just how dangerous it is to entrust a Nation to Progressives. They have no principles other than those that gain them power. One day they are creating the KKK to terrorize the black community, the next day they are offering addicting … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/can-you-spot-the-racist/
Maybe its because old white males are the ones who actually got to study science PROPERLY
So, does old age cause climate denialism? And only males are at risk? The CDC needs to get involved in this.
Climate denialism — the next major health crisis for aging men. Drug companies, welcome aboard the money train here. Does my health insurance pay to treat this? Can I claim disability because of it?
Just thinking outside the box. Did I say “thinking”? I meant “joking”.
I love your point.
Does baldness increase the risk?
Bob’s convoluted, irrational “thinking” is indicative of the same characteristic malaise that all Believers have: an inability or unwillingness to use logic, and favoring the irrational. It is the old classic/romantic split Robert Pirsig talked about.
If someone tries to use the age, gender or race of an opponent to convince you that their opponent’s arguments are wrong then beware. It means that the opponent has the stronger arguments. What they are asking for is that you not give that person justice because of their age, gender or race. Just like in the novel To Kill a Mocking Bird where a black man was convicted on the word of a white man even though it was clear that the black man could not have committed the crime due to a physical disability. Why did the jurors not acquit? Because he was one of ‘them’. In the book the jury deliberated a long time implying that some of them wanted to acquit.
Don’t forget Bill Nye. He was attacked for being white and male. Funny how those he supports turned on him.
Bill Nye “Is Not The Right” Guy Would Prefer an Ice Age Over the Current Warming
The liberal crocodiles are continuing to circle Bill Nye, as the campaign to undermine him from the left continues. First the “March for Science” was displeased that he was too white, male, rich and presumably heterosexual, and wasn’t the best face for their “progressive, inclusive, diverse and nondiscriminatory” march. Now the ultra-liberal New Republic Magazine has their knives … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/bill-nye-is-not-the-right-guy-would-prefer-an-ice-age-over-the-current-warming/
Deplorable Climate Scientists Have Destroyed Credibility of Science
Here at CO2isLife we have always maintained that CAGW isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political issue. Science is an unbiased, impartial, objective, blind and unbelievably politically incorrect process. Science is the search for truth, no matter how ugly, racist, sexist, homophobic or politically inconvenient it may be. The facts don’t give a damn if … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/deplorable-climate-scientists-have-destroyed-credibility-of-science/
Pure science is on nobody’s side, else it’s not pure science.
Pure science is on the Data’s side. The numbers speak and the scientists listen.
Pure science is on the side of those siding with pure science; sure, that’s a tautology.
At science shop the sign reads:
“in god we trust, all other bring data. Guess and model not accepted”
Group Think does not have all that much ‘think’ involved in it.
I’d really like to believe that global warming, IFF it exists as described in popular literature on the subject, has discrete and scientifically discernible causes and effects which can be clearly discerned, logically described, successfully and in some measure addressed. I’ve spent many years doing real, useful, rigorous science for a living, and I’m not alone. Why, I wonder, is discussion of this subject so deeply shrouded in sanctimony, hyperbole, and outrage? What could be more likely to turn off rational citizens than that?
Hmm – I’m a female and hard core skeptic (PhD in earth science). I must be incapable of understanding the subtle arguments of the opposition, or weak and bamboozled by old white men, or be a self-loathing male supremicist, or whatever…. (sarc off).
I’m an old white guy .
(Well, mostly white. I do a few spots and patches that aren’t “white” that my wife would like a doctor to take a look at.)
I’ve never met “Northern Eye”.
From her comment, I can only surmise that one of my minions has failed in its mission.
I will toss more Twinkies with eyeballs at her.
She will succumb!
(Am I supposed to turn “sarc on” before I turn “sarc off”? 😎
PS Does a “8-)” qualify as a “sarc tag”? 😎 …er… 8-( … uh … OK. I give up.
(Double negatives, double positives, not sure how they apply to sarcs 8-)(
When gender or race politics is all the left has they are out of ammo .
Actually a growing number of young people have figured out the global warming con – game
so all those white mammas and papa’s can hand off the truth torch knowing it’s in good hands .
One thing is for sure over 99.99 % of all people have no idea or care who Bobby Ward is .
This is all a bunch of juvenile name calling.
Grow up people.
Sometimes ridicule is the only proper response.
You party-pooping ageist, you! 😉
They started it.
oo er u calln a joovenile?
gr’p yerslf….
At least the Texas school system has the gender thing all figured out. Now they can cancel all girl’s sports and save a lot of taxpayers money by simply calling it the Wrestling Team.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-transgender-wrestler-texas-20180226-story.html
In my day we filled out forms to participate in sports that asked what sex we were. Then they changed it to gender. Are they even allowed to ask for that?
Oh, what a shock. the person won two years in a row!!
When I was in high school, I was assigned to the boys team, I wasn’t given a choice.
I was definitely born too soon.
Just outlaw this sexist system of by gender/sex competition, and everything will be fine. Well, except of course women will be wiped out of most sports (and men from a few other sports) for all practical purpose. Few sports, like shooting, curling or diving, chess and electronic sports, could have no issue.
But, eh, that’s the price of gender/sex equality