Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Dana Nuccitelli, climate “denial” will end when the current generation of “deniers” die off. But Nuccitelli glosses over why older people are so skeptical of climate claims.
A generation gap, when it comes to climate change?
By Dana Nuccitelli, March 15, 2019(Editor’s Note: Judging from recent letters to the editor, there seem to be a lot of young people who will be skipping class today to go on strike against climate change. And a lot of older people who are accusing them of just wanting an excuse to walk out of school on a Friday. It seems that there is a climate change generation gap going on. So we thought this would be a good time to re-print this 2016 article by climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli, about this little-acknowledged angle to the climate change discussion.)
A record number of Americans now view global warming as a serious threatand blame human activities as the cause. But there is apparently a generation gap out there when it comes to accepting the scientific evidence. And an ethnic gap, a gender gap, and a gap in political leaning—along with whether one can be considered one of society’s “haves” or “have nots.” So, who are these climate deniers? What is their profile?
A June 2014 Washington Post-ABC News poll asked a nationally representative sample of American respondents several questions about their support for climate policies. Specifically, those surveyed were asked whether they would be in favor of government greenhouse gas regulations that increased their monthly energy expenses by $20 per month. Overall, 63 percent of respondents expressed support for the proposed policy, including 51 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.
Interestingly, there was a significant age gap among the responses. For Democrats under age 40, support for the policy proposal was 78 percent, as compared to 62 percent over age 65. Among Republicans, 61 percent under age 50 supported the proposed regulations, as compared to 44 percent over age 50. According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities.
The climate acceptance age gap. Unfortunately, there’s been little research that investigates the causes of this age gap. It is tempting to speculate that perhaps younger minds are more open to new ideas—such as the potential for humans to alter something as large and complex as the Earth’s climate, ushering in a new “Anthropocene” geological epoch. Perhaps our educational system is succeeding in teaching these concepts to younger generations.
…
Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men. As with global temperatures, American acceptance of and concern about human-caused climate change is currently at record levels, and is certain to keep rising in the long-term.
Read more: https://thebulletin.org/2019/03/a-generation-gap-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/
The cutoff at age 40 seems to be quite sharp – a 17% difference for Republicans, 16% for Democrats. Although Democrat belief in climate alarm is stronger, the difference is almost as pronounced amongst Democrats as it is amongst Republicans.
One possible explanation for the skepticism amongst older people is the 1970s global cooling scare.
In 1978, Leonard Nimoy‘s iconic documentary “In Search of – The Coming Ice Age” aired on TVs across the world. I clearly remember seeing it on TV in Australia, my parents were worried about global cooling, everyone was talking about it.
Nimoy’s “In Search Of” series was wildly popular at the time, the Ice Age episode was arguably the most talked about episode of the entire series.
1978 was just over 40 years ago.
Older people are more skeptical because we’ve heard this nonsense before – but with the plot reversed, with human induced global cooling the villain, rather than global warming.
Nuccitelli wonders why there has been “little research that investigates the causes of this gap”, why older people’s lack of acceptance of climate messages hasn’t received more attention – though Dana leaps to the conclusion that the the skeptic demographic is ageing, despite not understanding the reasons for their skepticism.
It seems implausible that the gap has received so little attention, given the strong political motivation to increase acceptance of the need for more taxes to save the planet. More likely researchers know what the problem is, and don’t want to draw attention to it.
What does this mean for the future? Given climate scientists’ track record of disappointment with their defective predictions, I suspect the younger generation’s “In Search of” moment is rapidly approaching, at least for the older members of that demographic. Years of watching corrupt politicians trouser political donations from friends who are recipients of government climate subsidies and loan guarantees, and failed scientific prediction after failed prediction, can wear at even the most accepting minds.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As an ageing white English woman, politically neutral, I think the ‘problem’ is that the oldies have seen a lot of extreme weather variations in our lifetimes and can’t get excited each time there’s a dry summer or a bit of flooding.
Can you imagine say a discussion about Quantum Mechanics being conducted in terms of nationality ,age,colour of skin?
This is what separates climate science from all other real science.
Climate Science is pseudo science and its practitioners are clearly quacks.
I did wonder if having lost his Guardian gig is his paymaster would be still willing to but up the cash. Well it seems they are still happy to write the cheques, but they are a very rich person so perhaps it small beer to them. But it is till largely wasted money because Nuccitelli is still working at well below his paygrade.
The words Danny is looking for are: life’s experience.
“When I was a boy of 33, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 40 I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
~Mark Twain [+19]
AGES IN QUOTE ADJUSTED from historical corrections to NOAA/NASA surface temp data.
Hocus Locus
Man, can I ever identify with that sentiment.
Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness.
The Works of George Santayana
First, I thought nuccitelli had retired the field. It has been so good not to have to read his nonsense for the last ten(?) years.
Secondly, if I was an old, black, sceptic, I would be offended that he thinks – subliminally – that black people are AGW believers and takes them for granted.
Thirdly, if he feels that his arguments will only come to fruition by the deaths of many millions of sceptics, why doesn’t fall back to the methods of his historical heroes: the Stalins and the Maos of this world. They could certainly inform him on how to speed up the demise of desenters.
Fourthly, he such an arrogant little sh…
The ones who are most skeptical is the suckers who are expected to pay for the changes. The young, unemployed and stupid don’t really need to think about because they have been told the fact they were born made them entitled to some percentage of the worlds resources. It will take a few harsh life lessons before reality sets in.
I also remember the ozone hole and acid rain. Both were going to end life on the planet.
“old, white, conservative, American men”
are a constantly renewing resource.
“When I was 18 my father was so ignorant I could scarcely bear his company. When I was 25 I was astonished by what he had learned in those few years”, attrib. Twain; yes, sometimes with age comes wisdom and understanding, if not of climate then of our fellow men.
“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men.”
I just don’t get how in 2019, it is ok to be ageist, racist, sexist and “xenophobic”as long as it is in the service of politics!
“ageist, racist, sexist and “xenophobic” only apples if you are an “old, white, conservative, man.”
An old article by Dana innit but..
Dana was behaving like a child throwing a tantrum – at his parents effectively.
Then, the group he’s railing at are surely (in the US anyway), in The Minority.
By definition, 50% are female, don’t count and how many Hispanics, Latinos, and People of Colour have you got in there?
But, you throw a tantrum at any one of those minority groups and you’ll get some kick back.
So Dana aims his raving at a ‘soft’ target = one that will take it.
(The behaviour of a flat-out coward if ever there was)
Does that make it a Soft Target – or …. what sort of target?
Discretion is the Better Part of Valour, etc etc
Meanwhile:
“Aggression and problems concentrating”
Sounds like Kwashkior to me..
And you want <b<*REALLY* scary – these kids are getting it in the womb
From here: https://inews.co.uk/news/science/why-milk-teeth-give-clues-into-your-childs-mental-health/
Pretty sad and horrible indictment of the health of the mother innit?
When they are actually delivered, what do we find if not formula milk makers pushing their product…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/18/nhs-accepting-money-milk-formula-industry-risks-babies-health/
Maybe the hapless brats do make it to some sort of adulthood, to be greeted by this…
From WebMD but before you go there, you’re looking for a Cause & Effect situation – what caused what?
Does depression cause diabetes or does diabetes cause depression?
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-emotional-mental-health#1
There are those amongst us who will assert that diabetes actually starts from the very moment you are first introduced to sugar… possibly= a hard line white male conservative who was fed saturated fat during his formative (age=0 thro 16) years.
Anyone else in that group around here?
Its easy to tell which girls are in that group – they are tall, slim, intelligent AND are actually capable of delivering their own babies without epic medical intervention.
There’s a real puzzle, why can’t short girls with phat asses deliver babies?
How long has that been going on we wonder?
A program on BBC 4 this week said, by reference to Henry 8’s wife Jane, at least 500 years.
Ehrlich was, shall we say, a bit late with his prediction. Malthus also.
(Jane died from complications 2 weeks after delivering Henry’s only viable son Edward = King for 6 years until TB took him out at age 15)
Are we any closer to understanding Dana, his ilk and maybe even what is maybe REALLY happening out there?
Also a lot of other sh1t – such as life expectancy – on its way down and has been for 20+ years?
a bit of clarification on Jane…
OK ok, humans have big brains and (need) big heads to put them in BUT – are you REALLY saying that Ma Nature evolved us to a point where something like 25%+ of girls and their babies died during childbirth.
YMMV but personally, I find that utterly insane. It is evolutionary catastrophe just waiting to happen.
Given that today the infant and maternal death rate is nowhere near 25% suggests that the problem in the past was a lack of hygiene and not Ma Nature’s evolutionary foolishness.
Admins, why are these off topic and obviously insane posts by Peta of Newark allowed to continue to pollute rational discourse here!
Been asking myself that for a long time.
So… 40 years ago we stopped teaching people to think.
40 odd years ago we removed our children from the state educational system. A colleague said: “ Never mind your kids, think of those left behind, they will be running the country in 40 years time”
I often think of that these days.
From the article: “According to a Pew Research Center survey, younger Americans are also more likely to correctly answer that the planet is warming and that this warming is primarily due to human activities.”
Younger Americans are more easily duped than are more experienced, older Americans.
“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, conservative, American men.”
The Left hates the White Race. Even though a lot of people on the Left are white. The Left has to have a demon to focus their anger and hate on and at the current time, that demon is the White Race.
Don’t listen to these self-haters. They not only hate themselves, they hate everyone who doesn’t agree with their view of the world and accuse those they hate of racism.
The facts are that it is the Left who are the racists. They accuse others of racism as part of their political tactics. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the Left is a racist, according to the Left.
The Dispicable Left, always spewing hate and division and racism. What a destructive force they are on our society. And their insanity is broadcast far and wide by the hateful Leftwing News Media.
The thought of a loser sporting a degree in Poli Sci striking a pose to stop the 4.7 billion year old process of climate change caters to … young, ditzy, Democrat, American women.
Good we cleared that up.
If a subject has to explicitlely state “science” in its name, it is not a science. If one of its practitioners has to clame that he/she/ it is a “scientist”, he/she/it is not a scientist.
And I wish I could edit that… Bloody mobile phones…
In the forthcoming AOCene period your problem will disappear, the technology will itself become extinct.
…together with the human race.
The exceptions would be Earth Science and geoscientist.
my guess is that actual education has not been taught for several generations yielding ignorant, compliant and easily manipulated under 40 people and they can vote
“For Democrats under age 40…
Among Republicans, 61 percent under age 50…”
Hmmm…wonder why they used different age cutoffs for D’s vs R’s? Perhaps to “massage” the data into fitting their narrative?
I’m no scientist or statistician, but even I can see that there’s something fishy there.
1. As mentioned in the article, older people remember when the latest “the end of the world is nigh so give us money” scientific scam was the coming of the next ice age. We also remember the population bomb, and peak oil, and the ozone hole, and any number of other similar shrill screeches from the scientific community. Experience tends to make one less gullible over time.
2. We are old enough to have a series of memories of past extreme weather events to compare modern events with. I remember blizzards, and droughts and floods and heat waves and cold snaps etc etc etc from my youth. I know from experience that not only are the events of today NOT unheard of, but that we seem to me to be experiencing less of them than when I was young.
3. We havn’t had “global warming, global warming, global warming” pounded into our consciousness like a pile driver since birth. Our kids are propagandized about this stuff daily and incessantly both through the public school indoctrination they receive and even things like kid’s TV shows. The fact that younger people are more prone to believe what they’ve been programmed to believe all their lives is a surprise to any researcher is a bit far-fetched to me.
4. Older people have seen enough government boondoggles to know that it wouldn’t stop with $20 a month. Naive youngsters would say “$20 bucks is nothing, even if it fails, it’s worth the investment to give it a chance”. We fogies have seen this bait and switch many times before and fully understand that $20 a month would only be the beginning, not the end. Ask them the real question: Would you be willing to start out paying an extra $20 a month, with that amount rising regularly, without end, resulting in large numbers of Americans suffering the crippling energy poverty that is happening in other nations that have bought into the scam?
Sometimes listening to your elders is a good idea.
“Climate denial caters to a small and dwindling population of old, white, ……. American men”
I.e., those who follow the scientific method, and don’t see it as a tool for colonial & neo-colonial oppression.
Are these climate wackos mostly Capricorns? Just askin’ because Capricorns are the ultimate control freak who get their undies in a bunch if you don’t knuckle under to them.
This panic-attack stuck has a life span and while it appears to be hitting the repetitive/cracked record state, it’ll probably be around under the Church of Control of Climate entereth its illusory state of sainthood designations.
Anyone besides me remember that “tilt & wobble” property the Earth has, wobbling slightly while our little blue marble revolves around the Sun? The “wobble” means that the celestial North Pole (GEOGRAPHIC, not magnetic) moves one degree in space every 72 years. (It’s now pointing toward the Teapot.) That means that the angle at which the planet receives sunlight changes just slightly, and at some point, changes enough to have a real effect on weather (short term). Over the long term, the effect increases, and the ice line moves in the general direction of the equator. (Climate, in case you were wondering -> long term change overall.)
I’d love to be around when Big Ice Sheets squish the domiciles of these squawking, cash-grabbing, attentionmongers, but — well, we all might just live long enough to see them and their claims deflated by hard reality. Hang in there. Just keep an eye on them, and make notes of the more silly things they say.
Dana Nuccitelli has taken his fair share of money from big oil.
“Dana Nuccitelli’s ‘vested interest’ ? – oil and gas”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/
We also remember the old “population explosion” hysteria. Global Warming is pretty much an extension of that.
It was followed by peak oil which underpinned movies like mad max. It then extended to the great resource shortage and the rise of David Suziki an his one minute to midnight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynnoYI3GptU
It’s all part of the normal cults that take hold from time to time
There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.
CO2 feeds plants
Plants feed animals – feeds us
CO2 is cool
“climate scientist Dana Nuccitelli”
Wow, really? That must make me a Nukyuler Fiz…Phys… Dude.
Six munths ago I could not even spell Climut Sientist. Now I are one!