Why Conservative White Males Are More Likely To Be Climate Skeptics

Scientific American ^ | 10/5/2011 | By Julia Pyper and ClimateWire

[ken21]

they can call this “research” but i would not.

[Triple]

Because they tend to look at facts more objectively?

[Jeff Chandler]

Know thy enemy

They have enemies.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Also more likely to be bitterly clinging to their guns and Bible.

[sand lake bar]

I could be wrong, but I think that the highest levels of education are found among conservative white males.

[ml/nj]

"You really don't know what's going on until you crunch the numbers and find out."

Actually you do know. You only need to look at the "scientific" predictions made by the non-deniers say ten years ago and observe that Nantucket and Palm Beach are still very much with us as they were when the predictions were made.

ML/NJ

[DManA]

It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about global warming - the climate will change as it’s changed for 4 billion years.

What matters is that the “solutions” being proposed by statist maniacs will enslave us and ruin us, and in fact make things worse.

[Onelifetogive]

As a recent study shows, conservative white males are less likely to believe in climate change.

I'd bet that "conservative white males" were also less likely to believe in "the coming Ice Age" that was being marketed in the 70s.

[KeyLargo]

[Spruce]

I am the root cause of all of the world’s problems.

I am a white, middle-aged, American male.

Suck it!

[ETL]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause [historically -etl]. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

[Right Brother]

Ah, those neanderthal ‘white’ males and their simplistic and unenlightened minds. Good thing this study has no racist overtones.

[DManA]

McCright’s study, “Cool dudes:

Embedding a condescending insult within your study name is not good evidence of a neutral dispassionate researcher.

[rdcbn]

I could be wrong, but I think that the highest levels of education are found among conservative white males.

Bingo. Especially in the Engineering, Science and Technology areas.

[allmendream]

This article shamelessly conflates climate change with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I have confidence in the substantial evidence of climate change over the vast ages of the Earth - many of which happened before humans were here - or before we engaged in widespread industrial activity.

What I do NOT have confidence in is the self serving climate models that predict catastrophic change based upon human activity.

Earlier in my own lifetime they were predicting Catastrophic Climate Change in the form of global cooling - and mankind, specifically capitalism - was to blame.

Now they are predicting Catastrophic Climate Change in the form of global warming - and mankind, specifically capitalism - is still to blame.

I am a scientist. I know that if e-mails showed I was using a “trick” to “hide the decline” I would be out on my ear, and rightly so, and my work widely discredited in the scientific community.

Somehow climate “scientists” are not held to the same high standards.

They should be.

[mk2000]

I'm so sick and tired of everything being broken down by race. And Barry and his ilk promote crap like this. They love it. Divide and conquer.

[irv]

It has to do with their identity as an in-group

Right. It has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Whether a theory is viewed as right or wrong is unrelated to whether the theory is right or wrong, just what race you self-identify as.

Once again, a sociologist proves that sociology is not a science.

[Dead Corpse]

Why am I a “denier”? Education, logic, and a working set of frontal lobes.

[DManA]

the idea that white males were either more accepting of risk or less risk averse than the rest of the public.

Here is revealed another prejudice. That there is no risk attached to turning our nation over to Al Gore's crowd. In fact there is a HIGHER risk in doing that than doing nothing.