h/t Dr. Willie Soon; Mann beclowning himself promoting absurd studies – but I guess that is nothing new.
The study abstract;
Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change
Nitasha Kaul, Tom Buchanan
First published: 18 May 2023Abstract
Globally, democratic politics are under attack from Electorally Legitimated Misogynist Authoritarian (ELMA) leaders who successfully use misogyny as a political strategy and present environmental concern in feminine and inferior terms. The ascendancy of such projects raise questions involving socioeconomic structures, political communication, and the psychological underpinnings of people’s attitudes. We offer misogyny, conceptualized in a specific way – not simply as hatred or disgust for women, but as a way of accessing a gendered hierarchy whereby that which is labeled “feminine” is perceived as inferior, devalued, and amenable to be attacked – as a relevant transmission mechanism in how ELMAs like Trump may connect with public opinion by systematically investigating the interplay between misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change in the context of the United States. Using a survey methodology (N = 314) and up-to-date questionnaires, we provide a concrete empirical underpinning for recent analytical and theoretical work on the complexity of misogyny. We analyze how misogynist and authoritarian attitudes correlate with climate change, adding to the literature on opposition to climate change policy. An additional exploratory aspect of our study concerning US voter preferences clearly indicates that Trump supporters are more misogynist, more authoritarian, and less concerned with the environment.
And so, it is 100% clear that there is this toxic package or bundle of right-wing ideology, nationalism, exceptionalism, racism, sexism, anti-immigrantism, and anti-climate-change that goes with it. That is what drives many of them.
[Katharine Hayhoe, interviewed by Bjork-James & Barla, 2021, p. 389]
Gender is a game-changer, like the Archimedean fulcrum, with the potential to shift economic logics from profit-exploiting systems of injustice to functional praxes of life-affirming care for ecosystems, human others, and planetary co-habitants.
[Glazebrook, 2015, p. 126]
Sustainability is considered to be a ‘feminine’ project.
Read more: https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/asap.12347Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.
[Mary Robinson, in Allen et al., 2019]
The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.
… The most upfront manifestation of this is the ways in which outspoken female advocates of addressing climate change in substantive ways are targeted. Gelin (2019) referred to the “gender reactionaries to climate-denialism” with reference to the attack on figures such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg. …
Read more: same link as above
The study is based on a sample of 400 people, whom after deleting a bunch of answers was whittled down to 314. They claim most of the discarded answers had zero variation on answers – but given the in my opinion poor quality questions, the lack of variation could have been an artefact of the survey rather than a conspiracy to rig the result.
The study authors draw inferences based on their misogyny theory, like blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 on sexism amplified by climate denial.
The authors redefine “misogyny” as being something other than hatred and / or disdain for women – crypto misogyny? – which makes you wonder why they tried to shoehorn everything into the label “misogyny”, instead of using a different word. “… We depart from the typical understanding of misogyny as hatred and disgust toward women by men, it is far from straightforward in how it functions as part of psycho-political processes. …“.
My favourite paragraph though is this one;
… In a similar vein, Stanley et al. (2019), in their 5-year cross-lagged analysis of the influence of SDO and RWA on environmentalism conclude that, “the relationship between ideology and environmentalism across time could be explained by a third variable. Specifically, it is possible that something related both to ideological and environmental attitudes could drive changes in each variable independently, hence explaining the apparent causal relations” (p. 7). They invite future research to explore the potentially causal nature of the ideology-environmentalism association. We surmise that misogyny could be that third variable. …
Read more: same link as above
If there is such a hidden third variable, why do the authors automatically assume the hidden variable is affecting the judgement of climate skeptics? Why are they so sure they are the objective party?
Because there is a much more obvious candidate for a hidden variable which biases belief in climate change: enthusiastic political support for socialism.
Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?
Why is climate activism be so attractive to socialists?
A fervent communist who used to be a friend once explained to me it doesn’t matter if climate science is wrong, because restraining capitalism with more regulation is socially desirable, even if the climate science rationale for advancing green restraints on capitalism turns out to be wrong.
I don’t think my former friend was deliberately lying about his climate beliefs, but in my opinion my former friend pretty much admitted he had no incentive to rigorously review the supporting evidence for his climate alarmism.
Left wing biases clouding the judgement of climate alarmists might also explain why most greens reject nuclear energy. Nuclear energy should be the obvious zero carbon compromise – a scalable zero carbon energy solution which the Right would accept.
We have unequivocal proof nuclear is affordable and safe, once you cut the red tape – France decarbonised most of their electricity generation with affordable nuclear power in the 1970s. Yet greens consistently choose endless political conflict instead of accepting a viable nuclear powered path to reducing CO2 emissions. They choose endless energy stalemate instead of embracing a solution to their alleged climate crisis which would leave Capitalism intact.
Hayhoe, here we go again !
So …. What’s a Woman ???
Since no one, even Supreme Court judges, do not even know what a woman is these days, how will we know a feminist solution if we see one ? Are we looking for a TERF solution ? Most male politicians seem to declare themselves “ardent feminists” these days, does that count ?
I know what a woman is. 🙂
I suspect that applies to most of us, who are not radical leftists.
“Climate change is a man-made problem and must have a feminist solution.”
Anybody else notice what they did there?
“Man-made” as in Mankind just means “human”, not only males. Yet it must have a female solution?!? Who’s being sexist here?
I tried to read the paper but I got stuck on the first sentence of the introduction that states:
“Many contemporary democracies are under severe strain from right-wing majoritarian political projects” (my bold)
Which appears to be saying that politicians elected by a majority of voters are a threat to democracy.
Funny, I always thought that being elected by a majority was the essential principle of democracy.
The first paragraph includes a list of democratically elected leaders who aren’t to their taste. I suppose even these dimwits were unable to cast Giorgia Meloni as a misogynist, so she was conspicuously absent from the list. And the whole screed went downhill from there.
I couldn’t stand the thought of wading through pages of such sophomoric nonsense, and gave up after a page and a half. It’s just ivory-tower gibberish, devoid of any real meaning.
“It’s just ivory-tower gibberish, devoid of any real meaning.”
Exactly.
“All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.”
(They deserve multiple votes.)
Mann is a lying, deceitful POS and a bully. He was a main force in twisting the arms of generally spineless academics into playing along with the climate scam.
His hockey stick was a botched mess. “Mikes’ Nature trick”, where he cropped off the inconvenient part of Briffa’s tree-ring proxy was scientific fraud. He lied about winning a Nobel Prize, trying to give the impression he was a Nobel winning scientist when he was not even entitled to claim he won a ridiculous “peace prize”.
Why does anyone listen to this fraud at all ?
“Why does anyone listen to this fraud at all ?”
That’s the question.
I think if they repudicate Mann, then they essentially repudicate the climate change crisis.
I think Phil Jones needs a little repudiating, too. Along with some others in the temperature data mannipulating community who have given us a false temperature trendline with the aim of demonizing CO2.
Poor pathetic sociologists trying to get in on the climate trough.
Little Mickey knows he has lost any chance of arguing the actual science, so links in with other scientifically INCOMPETANT clowns like himself.
It is totally LAUGHABLE !
Which reminds me – we don’t seem to have heard from Lewandowsky for a while.
“Is it a coincidence that most climate activists (though not all) also seem to have very left wing political views?”
It seems that most of the climate protesters are also women. Their nurture/caring genes served the survival of prehistoric humans admirably, but it is a somewhat lefty trait.
https://www.voacambodia.com/a/worldwide-protest-launched-against-climate-change/5092484.html
What a dork.
The first clue that what follows is nonsense is “Michael Mann tweets . . .”. Everything after that is irrelevant. It’s nice that you take the time to critique a ridiculous “study” but my Spidey Sense had already alerted me to its vacuity thanks to the fact that Mann believes it. The title of the screed gives away its purpose “Misogyny, authoritarianism, and climate change”. That the authors would connect misogyny to opinions on climate change—two completely unrelated subjects—and attempt to “explore” it tells us volumes about the perverse thought processes of the authors. You can sleep peacefully knowing that what they produced is exactly bupkis, according to the original meaning of the Yiddish word.
“the perverse thought processes of the authors”
Their thought processes are to demonize skeptics in any way possible.
Today, they claim skeptics hate women, and are therefore bad people, without any eveidence of any hatred, I might add (what else is new with alarmists?) and they imply one should not listen to skeptics for this reason.
This is just a different way to attempt to demonize skeptics.
Propaganda 101.
I feel dumb. I don’t recognize the lady in the photo.Looks too young to be a famous conservative.
Denying that CO2 does not cause significant climate change is not the same as denying climate. An explanation of why/how CO2 has no significant effect on climate:
Water vapor is a transparent gas that, molecule for molecule, is more effective at absorb/emit of earth-temperature infrared radiation (IR) than carbon dioxide. From Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 NASA/RSS accurately measured and reported monthly the global average water vapor as Total Precipitable Water (TPW). The anomaly data are reported at [1]. The nominal value is about 29 kg/m^2 so trend from Jan 1988 thru Dec 2022 is 1.36 % per decade.
Given that at ground level, average global water vapor is about 0.8% or 8,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), the increase in water vapor molecules in 3.5 decades is about 0.0136 * 8000 * 3.5 = 381 ppmv. From Mauna Loa data at [2] the CO2 increase in that time period is 420 – 350 = 70 ppm. Per ideal gas laws, ppm = ppmv. With that, water vapor molecules have been increasing 381/70 = 5.4 times faster than CO2 molecules. Thus, regardless of the initial source of warming, water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules. The idea that CO2 starts the increase is ludicrous.
Further analysis shows that the determination by molecule count that increased CO2 influence on the climate has been only about 1/5 as much as the increased water vapor influence is still high. Radiation from water vapor molecules can be in any direction but, because of the steep decline with altitude of the population gradient of water vapor molecules, the distance traveled by a photon before it encounters another water vapor molecule is greater towards space than towards earth so the prevailing direction of IR flux is towards space. This is shown on a Top of Atmosphere (TOA) graph of radiation flux vs wavenumber (wavenumber is the number of wavelengths in a centimeter) by the jagged line below about wavenumber 600 [3]. Because of the characteristic absorb/emit signature of every gas no other gas can significantly absorb or emit radiation in this wavenumber range occupied by water vapor. The line is jagged because radiation that reaches TOA/space is from water vapor molecules at different temperatures/altitudes.
References:
1. NASA/RSS measurements thru Dec 2022 of Total Precipitable Water anomalies https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202212.time_series.txt
2. Mauna Loa data for CO2: https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
3. Figure 1 in Theory of Redirected energy: https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
3 time lawsuit loser running at the mouth again…….
3 time loser, and 3 time refusing to pay his fines or judgements.
Name calling is what leftist do best
Gee, it’s pretty obvious these ELMA people are so bad in every possible way, that we need to suspend their right to vote, and get the cattle cars and internment camps ready.
That’s what the left usually does once they get enough political power.
The way Mann treated Dr. Curry, he shouldn’t be casting aspersions about misogyny.
Yes that Congressional hearing, was the day Mann went from Nero to Zero and never came back.
In these difficult times, I really need:
What exactly does “Electorally Legitimated” mean?
I’m guessing it means that the Misogynist Authoritarians are proclaiming that just because they won an election, they have a right to lead the country.
Yep – the wrong people winning elections.
Seems pretty clear there isn’t a sewer Piltdown Mann won’t climb into for a bit of publicity.
What a creature he is.
We can all take the Mickey out of man, but it takes a special kind of Mann to take the Mickey out of himself.
The alarmists movement are deeply in trouble if this cartoon character is their go to expert on anything…..
He even provided his own stick to beat himself with.
I read the first line about ELMA and knew this is a spoof in the Sokal style.
I was very tempted to include a picture of Elmer Fudd – it’s just so ridiculous.
There’s big money to be had in deceit, no honour, but great finances
We can all take comfort, from one thing. Mann’s brain is in two halves. In the left half, nothing is right, and in the right half, there’s nothing left.
“The study authors have a problem with climate skeptics “targeting” female leaders like AOC and Greta, arguing the motivation is misogyny.”
They aren’t being criticized because they’re female- it’s because they’re idiots. On the contrary, we’re not suppossed to criticize them BECAUSE they’re female? Maybe 50 years ago we might have gone easy on them because they’re female, but now we believe they’re liberated so they don’t need such special tenderness when the things they say threaten all of us. Thus we’re showing respect for their gender by ignoring it!
This study is a social test. Many people like myself quietly believe that climate science is overblown.
I’m a highly educated professional who works in a liberal sector. If my coworkers knew my perspective on this, it would significantly impact my work relationships and likely my prospects for professional advancement.
If I was in a study like the above, I would probably lie about what I think about climate science.
These types are highly discredited – staying relevant requires them to be operating on the boundaries of human decency
In increasing numbers of climate realists, these shills thrash around grubbily looking for that last bit of funding before the whole circus leaves town
Here’s some misogyny for them.
A joke regarding US history.
“First, Women got the vote which was followed by Prohibition which was followed by The Great Depression which was followed by WW2 which resulted in the ultimate PMS, The Atom Bomb. And now Congress can’t balance its checkbook!”
Of course, that’s just a joke and Prohibition was ratified about 8 months before Women got the vote.
But if Mann can mix up a couple of lake cores for the sake of his joke, why can’t I mix up a couple of dates for mine? 😎
The Epoch Times is leading the charge against woke idiocy.
Era of ‘Unquestioned and Unchallenged’ Climate Change Claims Is Over | The Epoch Times
Early in my medical training I was introduced to a long-term patient who had Wernicke-korsakoff’s syndrome – a forum of dementia caused by long term alcohol over-consumption. Characteristic of these patients is disorientation to time and place and continuous confabulation where they say things that might superficially appear to be coherent but which make no sense at all on reflection. They misuse words, make firm statements that are immediately seen to be nonsense, and have no self-awareness of their own failure to communicate logically. I would have a hard time telling the difference between that patient long ago and the drivel being oozed out by the authors of this unscientific “study”.
Correction: “form of dementia”
Maybe Richard Brinsley Sheridan knew of someone with that syndrome and gave his character, “Mrs. Malaprop,” the same characteristic. So now we use malaprop for when people insert a similar sounding but incorrect word. Archie Bunker in “All in the Family” was famous for using malaprops. How about calling it a Malaprop Study?