Essay by Eric Worrall
According to the study, some men are frightened of appearing weak and feminine if they admit they are worried about climate change.
Some men may downplay climate change risks to avoid appearing feminine
by Eric W. Dolan
December 25, 2025
in ClimateNew research provides evidence that men who are concerned about maintaining a traditional masculine image may be less likely to express concern about climate change. The findings suggest that acknowledging environmental problems is psychologically linked to traits such as warmth and compassion. These traits are stereotypically associated with femininity in many cultures. Consequently, men who feel pressure to prove their manhood may avoid environmentalist attitudes to protect their gender identity. The study was published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence, public opinion remains divided. Surveys consistently reveal a gender gap regarding environmental attitudes. Men typically express less concern about climate change than women do. Michael P. Haselhuhn, a researcher at the University of California, Riverside, sought to understand the psychological drivers behind this disparity.
…Precarious manhood theory posits that manhood is viewed socially as a status that is difficult to earn and easy to lose. Unlike womanhood, which is often treated as a biological inevitability, manhood must be proven through action. This psychological framework suggests that men experience anxiety about failing to meet societal standards of masculinity. They must constant reinforce their status and avoid behaviors that appear feminine.
…
Haselhuhn found a negative relationship between masculinity concerns and climate engagement. Men who placed a high importance on being a man were less likely to believe that climate change is caused by human activity. They also reported feeling less personal responsibility to reduce climate change. Furthermore, these men expressed lower levels of worry about the issue.
…The study has some limitations. It relied on self-reported attitudes rather than observable behaviors. It is possible that the pressure to conform to masculine norms would be even higher in public settings where men are watched by peers. Men might be willing to express concern in an anonymous survey but reject those views in a group setting to maintain status.
…
Read more: https://www.psypost.org/some-men-may-downplay-climate-change-risks-to-avoid-appearing-feminine/
The abstract of the study;
Man enough to save the planet? Masculinity concerns predict attitudes toward climate change
Michael P. Haselhuhn
Highlights
- •Concerns about maintaining manhood predict less worry about climate change in men.
- •Those who are concerned about the climate are perceived as warm and caring.
- •Masculinity concerns interact with warmth perceptions to predict men’s attitudes.
Abstract
Despite scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, many individuals deny that the climate is changing. Although past work has examined gender differences in climate change attitudes, less is known about how within-gender individual differences may affect climate change concern. In this paper, I study how masculinity concerns relate to climate change attitudes in men. I assert that expressing concern about climate change is associated with traditionally feminine characteristics of warmth, caring and compassion and predict that, because of this relationship, men who are more concerned about maintaining their sense of masculinity will express less concern about climate change. Across four studies, I find support for my predictions.
Read more (paywalled): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494425002555
Sadly the study is paywalled, but this entire hypothesis appears to be based on the assumption that concern about climate change is rational, and that rejecting climate alarmism requires a psychological explanation.
In my opinion the study author found what he expected to find. He expected to find a source of psychological distress which led people to embrace irrational climate skepticism. An apparent correlation between sexual insecurity and climate skepticism appeared to fit the preconceived need for an explanation for irrational behaviour.
But what if the irrational behaviour is to believe the climate alarmists? For just under 40 years we’ve been repeatedly promised imminent climate catastrophe. Why is it irrational to conclude after 40 years of fake doomsday predictions, maybe the climate crisis is fake?
From 2019;
The question then is, why do women appear more likely to believe irrational climate warnings?
Before anyone suggests the problem is women are irrational, there is a much simpler explanation.
Women in Western culture are far less likely to have a science / engineering background. Knowledge of science provides the mental toolkit to challenge wild climate claims. Having the skill to analyse and question climate claims does not automatically make someone a climate skeptic, but it provides more a path for someone to become a climate skeptics.
It is completely understandable if men or women who lack scientific knowledge defer to authority figures instead of forming their own conclusions.
How many of the sampled “insecure” men had a STEM background? Did the study author even bother to check?
From what I have seen this male bias towards STEM is purely a Western phenomenon. When I visited an IT shop in Taipei, over half the programmers were women. Somehow we are failing our women, steering girls away from STEM at an early age.
An easy test for this STEM knowledge can lead to climate skepticism theory would be to determine whether the climate skeptic gender gap was as prevalent in Eastern cultures as it is in Western cultures. At the very least STEM knowledge should be tested and considered as a factor. But author Michael Haselhuhn has a convenient inference which in his mind demonstrates that climate skeptics cling to skepticism to help cover their gender insecurity. I’m not holding my breath waiting for follow up studies which might undermine such a flawed claim.
Environmental Psychology will be prominently featured in the laughing and shaking of heads looking back at these times. Unfortunately, you are living in the advocacy, publication mill driven science swamp now.
History won’t be kind to Climate Alarmists.
History will certainly not be kind to Michael Haselhuhn. If the above is a typical sample of his work, he will spend a lot of time doing nothing of any significance.
Is he now?
The psychology happening with this phony study is pure projection. Climate denier shaming is what keeps woke idiots from questioning obvious nonsense.
That’s the 3rd Law of SJW: they always project.
And here was me getting around to the idea we were all equal and gender fluid and they come over all sexist Adam and Eve on me.
Climate change is real but highly unpredictable. It is also not a crisis as we adapt to it as we always have done. People who worry about it should look at the facts rather than the opinions of the many so called expert fear spreaders who have invariably been proved well wide of the mark.
People who worry about predictions about the future have not learned much about shysters, whose main effort involves ruining their lives for profit.
And how can people look at the facts when the media are gate-keeping what information is disseminated?
You mean “expert grifters” instead of “expert fear spreaders”.
Well, safety culture is stereotypically feminine. But not being able or willing to use math and history is more generally social science biases. Or acting like a preacher.
Men and women can be damn fools, but tend to express it in different ways.
My wife is female, I assure you . . . AND she’s an Environmental Engineer.
But, at the time she was undergoing training, the facts and hypotheses were put in front of her and openly discussed, and she was NOT demonised as a result of opinions she formed – indeed, she ended up with a good degree. And now, as an experienced ENGINEER, she is more than capable of recognising total and utter stupidity regarding climate change catastrophism and the ludicrous and unachievable nonsense that is net zero. What this means is, while she was being trained . . . she was NOT being brainwashed.
If a female now is more susceptible to nonsense, that’s because they are perhaps less likely now to be scientific and engineering literate, and if men are keeping their traps shut, for a start, they are utterly pathetic and . . . also less likely to be scientific and engineering literate.
Some Academics Downplay Objective Thought Because of IQ Insecurity
and tenure insecurity.
“Going along to get along” is standard behavior in academia.
And almost compulsory behavior in climate “science”.
This reminds me of the student research prominently posted in news outlets 25 or so years ago that connected male affinity for stick shift cars with sexual connection with the shifter. I guess it’s more a sign of research desperation for credits than embarrassment for the quality issues of the work.
Some bozo was claiming that rockets were tall and pointed because men were so focused on phallic symbols. The reactions were priceless.
They aren’t? I best report this to the launch crew!
They didn’t know much about the original stick shifts which can’t be too much worse than all the different places nowadays where they put along with the method to control the gears. New Ford Bronco had a stick shift but I was told about returns that couldn’t handle a clutch, sounds more like incompetence. Well, anyway if they can claim gravity out of entropy, who knows, maybe the Shadow knows.
Ginestra Bianconi, 2025. Gravity from entropy. Phys. Rev. D 111, 066001.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.066001
“ Future directions in this line of research involve also the investigation of the proposed entropic action under the renormalization group, and possible connections with phenomenology and experimental results.”
Any sources for your claims that having a STEM degree makes you more likely to be a sceptic? From my observation the opposite could be true.
Yes, the more polarised link.
But isn’t.
I can only conclude that your observations were made staring into a mirror.
STEM didn’t exist in those days. You learned because you feared your parents more than your teachers.
And, you didn’t rely on others to draw conclusions for you. You learned how to do that yourself.
I have no information about about sceptics, but I’ve been taking care to note the CVs of prominent activists, journalists, and government climate advisors (no; don’t ask me what the difference is). They are overwhelmingly—like well over 70%—literature, history, philosophy, politics, classics, and other non-STEM students. The rest are mostly “hard science adjacent” (e.g. geography, “polar studies”, neuroscience, etc.)
Apart from Friederike Otto of World Weather Attribution, and Julian Leslie of (UK) National Energy System Operator, I can’t think of any non-sceptics who are even slightly numerate. Which matters; the basis of the whole AGW and consequent net zero panic is subtle and often entirely novel statistics that ought to be scrutinised carefully.
People with STEM backgrounds are more comfortable examining claims that are presented as settled.
The Springer article, “Climate change denial theories, sceptical arguments, and the role of science communication”, notes that climate change is frequently framed as a near‑unanimous scientific consensus, but STEM‑trained individuals know that consensus isn’t the same as proof, especially in complex systems.
They’re also familiar with moments in scientific history where widely accepted views later shifted, so a degree of scrutiny feels natural.
The Frontiers study, “Correlates of climate change scepticism”, shows that analytical traits are linked to climate scepticism. STEM training tends to attract people who prefer clear mechanisms, question assumptions, and are cautious about models built on probabilities or incomplete data.
Because climate models rely on many assumptions and long‑term projections, STEM graduates may be more aware of their limitations and more inclined to question the degree of human influence.
The Springer article also highlights how climate communication often simplifies complex issues. STEM‑trained individuals may be less persuaded by messaging that feels overly emotional or politically framed, which can come across as scepticism.
These factors suggest that people with STEM backgrounds may be more likely to question aspects of human‑caused climate change because they’re used to analysing assumptions, probing uncertainties, and thinking independently about complex systems.
Having a degree is irrelevant. People who understand what science is and practice it correctly are naturally skeptical and distrust authority. That is what science is–questioning and insisting on evidence rather than conformity.
Those who are afraid to question the herd become true believers. Degree farms, once known as institutions of higher education and the free exchange of ideas, are now designed to concentrate conformity and herd behavior, to discourage questions, and to disparage dissent.
This “study” certainly panders to that element.
I don’t trust sissies
The study has some limitations. Some? How about: it’s a load of bunkum?
Since 80% of all psychologists are women, I think Michael P. Haselhuhn is fighting against his own gender insecurity to be relevant.
He found a way of stealth simping,
hoping he get laid inbetween two COP meetings where the taxpayer pays for his prostitutes.
And isn’t it peak orwellian that the gender that is traditionally at odds with logic since forever is dominating psycho – logic?
Or maybe they are only focused on the psycho part.
This would make sense.
FMI – watch ” The hot/crazy matrix”
Gender insecurity? Perhaps. Grant insecurity is another possibility.
Right, not believing absurd pseudoscience is due to masculine insecurity! Did a gender studies academic produce this trash?
__________________________________________________
Just maybe he made up what he wanted to claim he found.
“Just maybe he made up what he wanted to claim he found.”
A common theme among “psycho-ologists”…
From the article: “Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence,”
There is no scientific consensus on CO2-caused climate change, and claiming there is, does not constitute evidence of this kind of climate change.
Yep. Maybe Mr. Haslehuhn should investigate what proportion of the populace agrees that the climate is changing as it always has but don’t know what is causing it and aren’t really bothered by it.
“poses significant risks to global stability.”
Globalist authoritarians are the only ones facing significant risks. Trump is systematically reversing their subjugation of nation states. Hopefully pathetic European sheep will wake up and throw off the EU chains.
I read this “psycho” junk as saying if you are gender confused, you have more chance of believing junk science..
Just look at the “Stinkies” and their red non-gender dresses, for instance.
Anyway, psychology is the “Grimm Bros” of studies.. a form of “made-believe”…
… and should be treated as such…
“The findings suggest that acknowledging environmental problems is psychologically linked to traits such as warmth and compassion.”
I would like to offer manly warmth and compassion to my fellow residents of NY State who will likely struggle to keep from freezing to death in the dark when the wind dies down and the batteries go dead.
“Despite scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, many individuals deny that the climate is changing.“
Maybe so, but I’ve never met any of them or heard anyone make such a denial. This misdirection is a sure “tell” that the author started with the favored conclusion.
“many individuals deny that the climate is changing.“
That would be alarmists who falsely believe that climate was stable before we started burning fossil fuels. They are the true climate deniers ignoring empirical data in favor of pseudoscience.
Apart from a small solar /albedo caused warming..
.. in what way has the global climate changed ??
No objection to your point. Slow sea level rise continues as an indicator.
I don’t have any Gender Insecurity,
Sometimes I identify as a wardrobe … so I can come out of the closet !!
But mainly as a Kangaroo, because I enjoy a good jump; Call me Skippy. (:-))
1save energy,
You are getting there, but you are not quite on the right path to clarity.
You should not identify with the soft cuddly meme, when hard manly types are available. Change your words to “I enjoy a good hump; call me Roger the highway surface engineer.”
Then, enlightened, approach your next sexual encounter with manly confidence and straight talk, dismissing girly stuff like foreplay. It is a great technique for those who enjoy repeated failure. (Not you, the girl). Geoff S
Wasn’t it Esmeralda who enjoyed a good hump with Quasimodo ?
“Expected to find” – not quite right, I think. “Hoped” or “Wanted” to find is closer.
Or decided in advance, aka predetermined finding.
Some men may have climate beliefs due to gender insecurity. Or they may just be stupid, or perhaps because it provides job security. Could be any number of reasons.
Actually, people become Climate Realists because they are interested in what is true, not what feels good emotionally, or because it’s what their friends and family believe. It requires a certain amount of intellectual curiosity as well as intestinal fortitude. Your BS detector also has to be in good working order.
Meanwhile, the report is that reindeer population has been decimated over the past 30 years due to climate change.
See? Tim Walz is not the only mental retard in America, California and academia in general have a plethora of ‘tards toddling about spewing stupidity.
“New research provides evidence that men who are concerned about maintaining a traditional masculine image may be less likely to express concern about climate change.”
OR
“New research provides evidence that men who are confused about their own gender may also be more likely to express concern about climate change.”
It is crap like this that give the social sciences a black eye. Nobody should give a damn about how someone feels about climate change. The other side has claimed that it is the CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere that will cause catastrophic runaway global warming. It doesn’t matter how you feel about it, man or woman. The only thing that matters is can that statement be proven with proper science and observation. Your feelings are pretty much meaningless.
The real problem is shown by the author in his own words: “Scientific consensus indicates that climate change is occurring and poses significant risks to global stability. Despite this evidence, public opinion remains divided”.
In real life, this assertion of significant risks has not been demonstrated to the customary standards of scientific confidence. It cannot and should not be used to frame public policy when so many past tests have failed.
We have “soft” scientists who are like gossip women chatting about fashion and cats or gossip guys chatting about other guys’ bums. Then we have the “hard” scientists who actually measure, find and discuss errors and use recognized methods of estimating measurement uncertainty.
“Consensus” is an invalid device that is used by soft science authors lacking self-confidence. “Public opinion” has no place answer whether a scientific hypothesis is valid.
Authors like Haselhuhn have too much spare time to write poor science fiction. They should consider taking on work challenges that create new original wealth for others through the production of goods that society demands. Maybe California now has too few of these jobs to show to others to copy. Geoff S
So, skepticism is a manifestation of male insecurity? I thought skepticism was the basis for science. If not, wouldn’t we all be accepting the four elements and be done with it?
The Four Elements Theory: A Deep Dive into Empedocles’ Ideas