From ScienceAlert and the “you knew it was just a matter of time before some misguided social justice warrior made the claim” department. h/t to WUWT reader “ozspeakup”
Racist Attitudes And Climate Denial Have a Disturbing Link We Never Knew About
Something is very wrong here.
The drivers behind climate change denial look to be even more complex than we thought, with new research finding evidence of a “racial spillover” – in which racist attitudes have become linked with skepticism over climate change.
A new study examining attitudes to climate change during the Obama presidency found white Americans became significantly less concerned about climate change during the presidency, and that white racist attitudes could be helping to fuel climate denial.
“I’m not trying to make a claim in the study that race is the single most important or necessarily a massive component of all environmental attitudes” the researcher behind the study, political scientist Salil Benegal from DePauw University, told Sierra.
“But it’s a significant thing that we should be looking out for.”
To examine the extent that racist attitudes might be associated with views on climate change, Benegal examined trends in public opinion during the course of the Obama presidency.
Not only was Obama America’s first black president, but over the course of his presidency he became a notable advocate of environmental causes, and Benegal wanted to examine the extent to which today’s fractured climate debate on climate might have been influenced by his time in office.
“There has been increasing polarisation on this issue,” Benegal told Think Progress, “and this is one thing my own research has been examining for a while – trying to figure out what are some of the root causes of this polarisation.”
Benegal analysed nationally representative surveys conducted by Pew between 2006 and 2014 in which respondents were asked, among other questions, to rate the seriousness of climate change.
After controlling for the expected effects of factors such as political partisanship, ideology, and education, the data showed that – compared to the views of respondents who identified as black Americans – white Americans became 18 percent less likely to see climate change as a very serious problem over the course of Obama’s presidency.
…
The findings are reported in Environmental Politics.
You can read the rest here
Words fail me.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course climate change denial is racist.
Why?
Because by pushing back on climate change ‘solutions’, we are hence pushing back on global socialism.
Racist Attitudes And Climate Change
DenialAdvocacy Have a Disturbing Link?Why sure they do! Consider these bigoted attitudes based on color:
1) Black listing climate realists, from publishing papers, conferences, debates, university professors/teaching, journalism, etc.
2) Yellow journalism, to suppress climate change realists contributions through ad hom attacks, ‘denier’ labeling, ‘big oil’ allegations, etc.
3) Red socialist agenda, which the climate change fraud serves so well with wealth redistribution through pseudo-treaties like the Paris Climate Accord.
4) White washing deliberate unethical changes to temperature data bases to ‘create’ warming where none exists.
5) Green laundering, by stealing taxpayer monies for grants to outright environmental scams (Solyndra!) and then recycling funds back into ‘green’ political campaigns.
“But it’s a significant thing that we should be looking out for.”
“…for which we should be looking out.”
There, fixed it for you, you (with all due respect) complete and utter moron.
I know it was redundant, but sometimes one just isn’t enough.
“This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!” – Winston Churchill
“After controlling for the expected effects of factors such as political partisanship, ideology, and education…” In climate change research they have a similar approach, changing the recorded temperatures either upwards or downwards depending on the effect they are trying to achieve. Much the same as “controlling” variables such as ideology and education. The end product in both cases is fiction.
It is amazing that people are actually paid to produce such unspeakable garbage.
I like to refer to it as “tripe.” Such an underutilized word.
Paul Penrose
Some people consider tripe a delicacy.
Just needs a lot of preperation to get it to an edible state. A recipe I have for Tripes a la mode de Caen calls for a total of 12 hours cooking time at 250F. Definitely not a short-order dish.
So, by extension, if you are a brother down with the struggle in the hood you need not deny the “truth” that the globe is warming and it is all down on “the man.” Easy peasy. That locks down 12.8% of the “consensus” vote.
More Democrats are openly starting to push the idea of “reparation payments” to help the brother. It’s really about getting the brother’s vote to acquire more political power because they realize under Obama, the brothers’ economic opportunity actually slipped further away.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29733/democratic-donor-network-wants-reparations-agenda-joseph-curl
joelobryan
Careful, you’ll have the term “the brother” condemned as racist stereotyping.
As far as I’m concerned anyone who owned slaves should make reparation payments to anyone who was a slave.
The tricky part is finding them.
As to reparations, how much do blacks who moved to this country after slavery ended get?
What if only some of your ancestors were here during the days of slavery, do you get a partial payment?
What if you are black, and your ancestors owned slaves, do you pay yourself? (There were blacks who owned slaves.)
It would be more true to say that the environmental movement has been hijacked by the promoters of this nonsense. The clever thing is that people think by supporting Greenpeace etc they are still saving whales and so on, as used to be the case in its heyday. If they understood where their money is NOW going… well, it makes the scandal of a few Oxfam staff visiting a brothel on company expenses look like nothing to worry about by comparison.
The fist step in discussing how one thing might affect another is to make sure all parties are clear on the terminology being used.
This fact is largely overlooked regarding the phrase “climate change”, as it is in the above article. If one cannot present a working definition of “climate change”, then how can one ever assert there are people that deny such a thing?
Is “climate change” what has occurred to Earth’s biosphere over the last 200 years, or the last 2 billion years, or what will happen in the future 1,000 years? Is climate change something only caused by humans, or is it due—in whole or in large part—to natural processes? Is climate change alarming at any level, say Earth’s average temperature increasing by 0.1 C per century, or is there a certain quantifiable rate in any parameter “x” whereby “change” starts happening (e.g., >3 C warming per century, or >100 ppm CO2 increase per century)? What are the full and complete set of metrics that are to be monitored for defining “climate change”? And what is the ideal climate at which humans should be satisfied such that no further change, upward or downward, is acceptable: is that state in the past, now, or in the future? And is there a, ahem, consensus among Earth’s population—from Eskimos to Polynesians to Sahara desert nomads—that the “ideal-climate-that-should-nevermore-change” is agreed upon?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.” — Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
“The drivers behind climate change denial look to be even more complex than we thought…”
He failed from the get-go. The only drivers of denial is the lack of evidence.
He’s searched hard to find anything at all. And whatever he finds will be some sort of poor correlation, not causation.
I just saw this too – off the deep end.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/sierra-club-climate-deniers-racists/
This is just further confirmation of how thoroughly the Sierra Club has lost all ability to be relevant in today’s world.
One clear, laughing-out-load example was when Senator Ted Cruz eviscerated Sierra Club President Aaron Mair back in 2015 with just a few simple questions about “climate change”:
Hi Anthony. Any particular reason why my earlier comment in reply to this thread has been in ‘moderation purdah’ for several hours?
Well, I’ve been on travel for all day, might be a reason. I haven’t been online in 12 hours
I’ve never met a single person on any position of the AGW spectrum that claims that the climate isn’t changing. When they quit using euphemisms for what they are trying not to say out loud I might give their semi-random utterings a response
Latest investment advice: Invest in boot companies. Steel heeled boots latest craze
Eric Blair aka George Orwell in his Final Warning (only 2 minutes long) said that the world will need more boots so that they can crush the skulls of the nonbelievers.
https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-rogers-rogers_001&hsimp=yhs-rogers_001&hspart=rogers&p=george+orwell+final+warning#id=1&vid=ef290521c6ec87415c3713154da6ec38&action=click
George Orwell has unwittingly written the climate alarmists manifesto. He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past. Orwell should have reversed those 2 sentences.
The problem is that in his final warning Orwell does not explain how we can stop them. Where is Lord Monckton when we need him in the earth’s darkest hours?
Alan Tomalty
To this day, I fail to understand why we read Orwell in English, at secondary school, in the mid 70’s. We were certainly never tested on it, that was reserved for Shakespeare.
And although I hadn’t a clue the difference between left and right at the time, I suspected my English teacher was some sort of liberal reactionary. He also had us reading Catcher in the Rye which at that time resonated with communism, although I hadn’t a clue what a communist was either.
Now, I’m not so sure and reckon our teacher might have been doing us all a favour.
The most chilling and prescient prediction that anyone has ever made. Even though it was done by an actor it would have been exactly the way Orwell would have said it. I am crying as I write this. Anybody that advocates to destroy capitalism is in fact a communist. The reason is that capitalism is the only system that works over any reasonable time frame except for monarchies and dictatorships and 1 party rule. 100 % socialism is impossible for reasons I have explained in many posts.
Calling people racists or claiming they are less environmental because they are racists is not a new ploy among the environmental left. They have been using it for at least three decades now. Dig into “social justice” and you will find the left talking about how pollution and other environmental problems are all due to policies created by obviously evil white racists men. Some will even argue that it is to punish minorities. Detroit is a good example. The leftist politicians which have run the city for decades originally blamed the terrible decline in the city over the past two decades on white Republicans, that is until it was noted that Democrats had long been in charge and in the last decade African American Democrats. It was clear that “progressive policies” implemented by Democratic politicians had ruined the city, driven off business, collapsed housing prices and therefore the cities tax base. Sort of a Venezuela in microcosm.
The left either doesn’t know how or cares to count votes. Obama didn’t get elected because all the minorities voted for him. Without an overwhelming, though not majority, white vote he would not have been elected twice. Yet the left calls all white people, including white Democrats racist. The trap many of those fail into that did vote for Obama was they wrongly believed that he would make race relations better.
Obama didn’t become environmental because he cares about the environment and certainly not global warming. Just look at his family carbon footprint. He did so to feed the base. Just like calling those that are skeptical racist connects the environmentalists and the socio-economic segments of the base. Remember elections are all about enthusiasm (or anger) and turn out.
Words fail me
One thing I love about this blog/site/whatever is that while you’re all such a load of right-wing a-holes, on the issue of CAGW you’re absolutely spot-on. That coming from a very left-wing anarchist. You all think the Democrats are the Left? You should get out more.
Most of my relatives & friends are far left progressives. When I try to tell them the facts about “global warming”, they close their ears, cover their ears with their hands and just “la la la la la la la…”
Most of them are white, one is Asian, and they all voted for Obama…both times…JPP
I thought it was poor, women and educated people, and Mexican illegals who voted for Obama. Now it turned out it is your friends.
How do you know his friends (bar the one who is Asian) aren’t “poor, women and educated people, and Mexican illegals”? (come to that, even the one who is Asian could well be a member of one or more of the above categories)
They have the same reaction when you try to point out all the problems with socialism.
EastTexasRed, Since like you I live in a state that was run by Democrats from Reconstruction until sometime in the 1980s, I worked for, around, and against Democrats since 1960 the first election I worked. Democrats have been moving ever further left since Woodrow Wilson, then FDR, then LBJ, Jimmy Carter and the latest nail, Obama. I live in a town whose population is only a bit less leftist than Berkeley. I met with a powerful Democratic politician in the late 1990s. We had become friends over an issue close to each of our hearts. I was the first to be told he was retiring and leaving the Party. He was a social liberal, environmentalist and fiscal conservative. Why was he leaving? As he said, he could no longer trust his fellow Democrats because they were moving to the left faster than he ever imagined. What had been his party for his 50 years had lost its way. So today after Obama we have now a reinvigorated resurgence of the old evil demons of the 1920s-30s, socialists, anarchists, National Socialists, etc all connect directly or indirectly to the Democratic Party.
How did the Reagan quote go?
I didn’t leave the Democrat party, it left me.
To the left, anyone who isn’t is an a-hole.
Doesn’t matter that capitalism is the only system that has ever managed to eliminate poverty.
Doesn’t matter that socialism plain and simple doesn’t work.
You oppose socialism, and you’re an a-hole.
It’s sad, really, the lack of comprehension that
somemost of these people exhibit. They look for causes of “denial” and can’t see what should be obvious if they would spend an hour on the internet: namely that we have looked at the evidence for cagw and found that it’s weak. Very weak. Ludicrously weak.OK, so I didn’t see this one coming… Now I am a Flat-Earth believing, Evolution Hating, Racist because I don’t agree with the extreme positions of Climate Alarmists. Never mind I am none of those things.
I wish they would just give it up – the argument seems to be stalling, they have nothing new in 20 years and all their testable claims have been falsified. Shrewd people are on to the data tampering, the propaganda, and the wild claims that no one in their right mind believes.
Leftists believe their stereotypes more than they believe reality.
They know, deep down in the core of their being, that all conservatives are religious nut jobs who are rabidly racist.
What they know, they know, and they won’t let anything as trivial as reality interfere with what they know.
“Leftists believe their stereotypes more than they believe reality”
And climate alarmist believe their models more than they believe reality. That lack of believing in reality is probably one of the reasons why there’s such a large overlap between leftist and climate alarmists
They are the Good Guys, the Enlightened, the Independant Critical Thinkers Who Seek Truth and Expose Lies. Their activist professors in prestigious universities told them so.
Anyone on the other side, therefore, must be the Bad Guys, the Sheeple, the Thick-Skulled Troglodytes who must be shown the Shining Light of Reason and be shunned if they do not accept it. Anyone who tries to introduce some nuance to the matter is hand-in-glove with the Bad Guys and implicitly consenting to their evil. Their Enlightened peers in fancy coffee shops told them so.
If they allowed nuance into their thinking, they’d be forced to entertain the possibility that the other side may not be the Bad Guys. Which would lead to the possibility that they themselves may not be the Good Guys. That would be unacceptable. They ARE the Good Guys! The virtue-signalling politicians they vote for told them so.
Science is dead.
“…respondents who identified as black…”
Really, this racial fraud again. I didn’t know it was being worked in America as well. Certainly in Australia, you don’t need to be actually black to claim discrimination, or social benefits meant for black people. All you need to do is identify as black. We have some of the whitest blacks you have ever seen.
I believe in Australia, one sixteenth aboriginal blood makes you full aboriginal entitled to all benefits.
It’s also true that things like University enrolments and the like, the forms have a little tick box “Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander”. They say it doesn’t affect your enrolment, but I know people who failed to enrol as white Australian, have resubmitted the form and ticked this box; Cha-Ching instant enrolment.
What, blood makes you entitled? That’s racial separation! Why not one seventeenth? Racism! They drew the fine line as if there was a difference between those. We are all humans, remember. For real.
Consistency has never been a strength of the Progressivists.
“Really, this racial fraud again. I didn’t know it was being worked in America as well”
well, America did give the world Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who identifies as black.
“white Americans became 18 percent less likely to see climate change as a very serious problem over the course of Obama’s presidency”
So 82% of white Americans’ minds were unchanged on the subject of climate change during his presidency!
That doesn’t sound like white Americans as a whole were racially motivated to me.
And how do the authors of this paper know that those whites who decided (during his presidency) that climate change was nothing to be concerned about did so due to racial motivation?
I imagine that even had Al Gore become president, 18% or more of white Americans would still have decided against CACC (Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change) being worthy of worry during his presidency. And in the case of an Al Gore Presidency, would those African Americans who did not fall for his GW propaganda have been called racist?
Seems to me to be some conclusion jumping going on.
SR
Such generalization and stupidity. Sure, even though many of us are actual scientists and engineers, we are supposed to be “anti-science” and “ignorant”. Now we’re supposed to be “racists” too?
Isn’t it amazing what one group of folks will believe about another if it weaves well with their misbegotten narrative? I’ve also heard we’re all “materialistic” and “evil” because we “don’t care about our children or grandchildren” to boot.
Warmistas are the racists trying to prevent developing nations from having decent energy sources which would allow them to help the poorest from poverty. The pope is in this category.
To make a statement one way or the other about “race” and use skin color to describe sides means you are by definition racist.
Correlation is not causation.
However there may be a casual relationship between the fact that the more I am accused of being a racist, the less I worry about whether I am one.
Sort of like when I was a child attending a very strict church. Essentially, from the time I was 11, it was apparent that I was going to Hell and that there was nothing I could do about it, so I quit worrying about what I did.
That’s a bit niggardly with logic.