Cool Dudes: Climate Denial Among Conservative White Males

By Chris Mooney | July 29, 2011 11:24 am

Someone had to say this eventually, and now, someone has.

It has been apparent for a while (at least anecdotally) that conservative white men (CWM) in the U.S. are more prone than the average bear towards climate change denial. Now, based on new research by social scientists Aaron McCright and Riley Dunlap, we have the figures to back that up, including the following:

— 14% of the general public doesn’t worry about climate change at all, but among CWMs the percentage jumps to 39%.

—   32% of adults deny there is a scientific consensus on climate change, but 59% of CWMs deny what the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists have said.

—   3 adults in 10 don’t believe recent global temperature increases are primarily caused by human activity. Twice that many – 6 CWMs out of every ten – feel that way

Such are the data, but what are the underlying reasons? I’m going to say more about this on Monday–speaking from my unique white male perspective–but for now, just check out the study.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Conservatives and Science

Comments (45)

  1. ThomasL

    Seems to be lots of “denial” going on…

    “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

    “When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

    As I’ve said in here before, anyone trusting the computer sims are fools. Guess we’re going to see how objective the alarmists really are…

  2. Somite

    That paper does not show anything new and only comments on some NASA models, not actual temperature measurements. Actual measurements show undeniable warming. Some perspective please!

    What I would suggest is not to use Yahoo news as a source in a scientific discussion.

    The gaping hole discussed here is not a new paper but a press release that at the moment is unavailable. A google cache copy shows a paper that does not show a “gaping hole” but argues with mathematical models for a modeled climate sensitivity. This paper is published in a low impact journal called “Remote sensing” that I can’t verify if its even peer reviewed.

  3. Johnny

    What do Chris Mooney, Al Gore, Joe Romm and Henry Waxman have in common? Several things. They are influential members of society, ‘elites’ who have a big effect on policy. They adamantly advocate that human-made climate change is happening. And they are all liberal white men.

    I’ve heard plenty of times before why CWM’s are evil, and their scientific rejection of CAGW is based on their political rejection of the solution. What I haven’t heard before is any researcher admit the opposite.

    From the article:

    Egalitarians see climate change through the lens of their tribal preference for a social operating norm that is more flexible, more fair (as they would put it), less bound by hierarchies of class, so they are ‘believers’ in climate change rather than ‘deniers’ precisely because the solutions to climate change will necessarily shake up the status quo. that’s the hidden point in “Cool Dudes”.

    Chris since you are such a fan of pointing out confirmation bias among deniers, would you like to comment on this claim now that its aimed at alarmists?

  4. Johnny

    By the way Roy Spencer’s original press release is unavailable. As in “taken down”.

    Because Keven Trenbreth is on the war-path. He’s already been making the press rounds screaming that the paper should have never been published. This is because it would invalidate so much of his work.

    Trenbreth is famous for being quoted in climategate as saying it was a “Travesty they couldn’t find the missing heat” that their model’s said was hiding somewhere in the earth. Until recently they claimed it was hiding in the deep ocean, to deep water sensors disproved that.

    Now we know where the missing heat is. Radiated to space.

  5. Somite

    @4 this alleged drama is unnecessary. Just get the paper published in a peer reviewed journal.

    It appears the paper was not taken since the whole “open access” site it belongs too is unavailable.

    This is much ado about nothing.

  6. ThomasL

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    “That said, it has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.”

    Try reading the actual paper and what has come up from it -> the article was just a handy link.

    There are issues with computer sims, and always have been. Might want to look into them before you sell your soul to what they “tell” you (because they only “tell” you what you tell them to when you write the equation -> why do you think it’s so easy to “adjust” them when they turn out wrong…?)

  7. Somite

    And what if there are problems with computer modeling? (which there aren’t) The warming is observed and measured, not modeled:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Don’t use blogs or news sites as references.

  8. Don

    Thomas L and Johnny are CWMs defending their turf. I’ll bet that they take their cues from Limbaugh and similar talking heads. When they’re feelin’ intellectual, they read part of a G. F. Will column denying GW, and parrot his drivel, but they never read the rebuttals from the climate scientists who have been misquoted by Will. Then they bulk up on wmar, make derisive comments about Al Gore and have a few beers.

  9. Marc Cunningham

    As a 41 year old white male I gotta say, “Stupid White Boys”.

  10. Mike H

    @Somite

    And what if there are problems with computer modeling? (which there aren’t)

    LOL, thats pretty cute. I began my career in engineering as a CFD modeler and will tell you that if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    The warming is observed and measured, not modeled

    Then please explain this Email from Phil Jones

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

    These guys believe their models over instrument data. Even the best most proficient CFD modeler would take a hard long look at his model when it conflicted with instrument data.

    Only a “denialist”, in the truest sense of the word, would trust an unverified unvalidated model over real world data.

  11. Don

    Hey ThomasL. Why do you make reference to WUWT? Why not go to the science?

  12. Johnny

    @Sommite

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Don’t use blogs or news sites as references.

    Roy Spencer used NASA satellites data. Please explain why NASA is only authoritative when you cite it, but not when deniers cite it.

    Please explain how the IPCC models that cannot accurately predict temperature are more accurate than Roy Spencer’s new model that can?

  13. Hugo Schmidt

    I have just finished doing a lot of research for an article on the extreme Right and the neo Nazi movements and so I am a little less tolerant than usual when it comes to classifying people by color…

  14. Johnny

    @ #8 Don

    Thomas L and Johnny are CWMs defending their turf. I’ll bet that they take their cues from Limbaugh and similar talking heads. When they’re feelin’ intellectual, they read part of a G. F. Will column denying GW, and parrot his drivel, but they never read the rebuttals from the climate scientists who have been misquoted by Will. Then they bulk up on wmar, make derisive comments about Al Gore and have a few beers.

    You lost your bet. Your arguement is illogical.

    If you actually read the article which Chris linked to, you’d notice that your predjudicial ditto-head theory is completely debunked by the study authors.

    The entire point is that the average CWM’s instincts are oriented to naturally ignore climate fears, and focus on fearing the loss of control of their supposed position of power in society. These CWMs are not Limbaugh controlled robots.

    Thankfully as long as your ad hominem attacks dominate the platform, the alarmist movement is going nowhere, at least according to the study you’re commenting on.

  15. Somite

    @11

    Because I don’t use emails or hearsay to reach at conclusions. Only published peer-reviewed data. For example, this comment was directed specifically about Briffa’s regional data that had different results from other data sets. Since then it has been explained why that one dataset was an anomaly in comparison to many, many others.

    @12

    Because Roy Spencer’s interpretation has proven to be wrong or not as important as he thinks. If his interpretations and conclusions are so important they would be published in a more impactful peer-reviewed journal.

  16. My, my — what a fascinating example of thread hijacking.

    Why do I get the feeling that the ideologically and financially motivated reasoning that explains the poll results Chris talked about (you know, the ones in the original post at the top of the page) bears a stunning resemblance to the forces driving the hijackers above and on so many web sites? Oh, yeah, I know why — because I’ve seen this little drama play out hundreds of times over the years when some piece of spinnable (non-)news surfaces and is then repeated ad infinitum wherever they can point a browser.

    As for the study Chris points to, I have to say I’m not the least bit surprised by the findings. Read Merchants of Doubt and count the number of liberal or non-white or non-male people who have fought against efforts to legislate cigarette smoking, acid rain causing emissions, asbestos use, ozone depleting chemicals, or global warming emissions. Trust me, it’s not a big number.

  17. Greg for President

    Who cares if the Earth temperature is rising? It has risen and fallen throughout the eons and epochs for many and various reasons. Humans can and will adapt. Is there something wrong with a planet that is 3 degrees celcius warmer? We’ll get use to it.

    But for the people screaming the world is heating, you need to explain what that means. Perhaps the biggest dilemma of rising sea levels is that 1 billion people could be displaced over the next 100 years. The rich white men can deny that temps are rising, but just in case, they might want to build their fences a little higher to keep the crowds from encroaching on their mansions.

  18. Chris Mooney

    Hijacking indeed, but a revealing one, no? Especially given the subject matter.

  19. Incredulous

    Well, the first thing that jumps to my mind is the conservative media – which is less prone to promoting the idea of AGW (or promoting denialism – depending on your viewpoint) is more targeted to that demographic. I am quite sure that if Hip-Hop artists were promoting the it as much as the things that they do promote, it would show up in their demographic market just as strongly.

    Say what you like about the message, the conservative media is more effective at getting their message across even with a more limited number of outlets than the liberal media with a huge majority of the media outlets.

  20. Properal

    Razib Khan found some data that seems to show that smart and stupid people seem to be as likely to be convinced about the dangers of global warming, while smarter are more likely to think it is, not as dangerous. Yet higher education levels seem to correlate more with, dangerous.
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/who-is-chilled-out-about-warming/

  21. Dennis

    Sorry – but I can’t get past the fact that you posted a picture of Woody Harrelson on a post referring to “conservative” white males…

    I don’t think you can get much more liberal than Woody.

    Just saying.

  22. Johnny

    I’m more upset that the Polar Bear Alarmist is now under investigation. Its stealing the attention away from the Spencer paper.

    Funny thing that sad polar bears both make people believe and doubt global warming more than any satellite data.

  23. bad Jim

    This paragraph describes the phenomenon neatly:

    If our tribe is on top, we feel safer. If our tribe is losing out, we feel threatened. If society is operating the way we want, we feel safer. If somebody else’s rules prevail, we feel threatened. So Cs – conservatives – who tend to be Hierarchical, feel threatened not by the facts of climate change but by what the solutions to climate change might do to the way society operates. They cherry pick the facts to support a view that will preserve the social order they prefer, and defend that view fiercely, because it’s about way more than climate change. It’s about protecting their identities, the tribe, their safety. Powerful stuff.

  24. ThomasL

    Actually Don (#8),

    Because I’m in the computer field I know how the modeling works, there are no surprises (how can there be when someone wrote the equations that the model will run -> you think the answer is a surprise?). What I am interested in is how little we actually know, and what huge claims are made on that miniscule amount of knowledge.

    That’s known to be dangerous.

    Of course jumping to conclusions about what another believes when they point out a fault in your own beliefs is another issue entirely…

  25. Chris Mooney

    Any women on this thread? Scanning the names would suggest not…

  26. Sean McCorkle

    ThomasL@25
    What I am interested in is how little we actually know, and what huge claims are made on that miniscule amount of knowledge.

    That’s known to be dangerous.

    Not necessarily. Physics, especially statistical physics, has been dealing with ergodic—highly random—systems since the middle of the 18th century. Even if one were given highly precise initial position and velocity measurements for every one of the 1e19 atoms in a cubic centimeter of air, after only a very short time one would not be able to predict the locations of any of the atoms at all. Yet, after an arbitrary amount of time, one can say with a great deal of certainty that the pressure is directly proportional to the product of density and temperature, and even know the proportionality constant quite precisely. Those systems can be well modelled at the bulk level despite almost completely lack of knowledge at the microscopic level.

  27. ThomasL

    Yep Shawn,

    The computer works the math problem it was given. If there is any “surprise” at the results it’s saying something about our understanding of the maths, not reality… So it’s nice we can have a math problem that results in what we see, even though we have no idea how it what we “see” got to be that way…

    Not saying it’s not useful, but one should be careful about what they think it is telling them. Stuff you get into in advanced theory and logic classes.

  28. Chris

    Men are idiots

  29. Johan Fruh

    What surprises me with these statistics, is the fact that they aimed at “white” males.
    Does that really bring a difference?
    While being black or white probably has a very strong influence on wether you go republican or democrat, I don’t see how that would then change how your party influences you, or how you accept scienctific facts.

  30. Nullius in Verba

    #29,

    Yes. Bringing sex and skin colour into it does seem odd behaviour.

    At least, it does until you realise that many in the social sciences lean towards the hard left, and this plays into the ultra-feminist, anti-racist post-modern creed that says that all the world’s problems are caused by white male capitalists, and that control of the scientific narrative is really about power and colonial dominance. Their theory, I expect, is that white men are using climate denial as a tool to keep down the poor coloured nations and women. (And is evidently leading into the proposal that climate deniers are all racists and sexists, or something.) White men have all the power, and intend to keep it. It’s the same old class war stuff. Boring. And not worth arguing about.

    The survey result is probably OK, but it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know. We knew conservatives were less inclined to believe in AGW. We know (as a stereotype) men tend to be more geeky, more inclined to obsessive interest in science and engineering, more inclined to personality extremes. It’s not really a surprise.

    And since Chris only posted the statistic without saying where he was going with it (until Monday), and nobody is much interested in arguing against, we seem to have diverted onto more interesting topics.

    There’s another theory here on why women feel less inclined to partake. As Joanne is a fairly prominent climate sceptic herself, she probably has a fair amount of insight.

  31. ThomasL

    I think you pretty much nailed it in #31 Nullius,

    “White Male” was the clue in as far as what this “study” was actually going after…. I used to piss everyone off at my “cultural awareness training” (mandatory day every year) when I’d raise my hand and ask what a “White European Male” was in regards to any “general” anything. They never used “white male”, they always used “European” -> to which I always responded that they all hate each other over there and ask any German or Frenchman about the other and they sure don’t think they “think” the same… Guess no one ever taught them about that part of history ’cause they sure never knew how to handle it (memorize the theory, don’t ask if it actually makes sense, your intellectual betters have already determined it does… That’s how grad school worked at least).

    Culture, race and identity wars.

    Not sure what this has to do with Chris’s agenda (which we all know is actually political at this point), but we’ll see where he takes it.

  32. ThomasL

    Sean @ 27,

    You may find this to be helpful in understanding why abstraction is limited, and why what we think the maths tell us is rather limited actually…

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/07/salvaging-learning.html

    it’s long and windy (how he writes, but always well worth the time to digest)

    “Abstraction is the view that holds that behind the hubbub and confusion of everyday life lies a fundamental order that can be known by the human mind, and accurately expressed by means of abstract generalizations—E=MC2, the law of supply and demand, the theory of evolution, or what have you. In an age dominated by abstraction, knowledge tends to be equated with these abstract generalizations, and education becomes a matter of teaching students to memorize them, apply them, and maybe add to the sum total of known generalizations.”

    Thus your faith in models

    “That’s when reflection comes into play. Reflection is the view that recognizes that human ideas of the order of the cosmos are, in the final analysis, just another set of human ideas, and that the hubbub and confusion of everyday life is the only reality we can be sure of. In an age dominated by reflection, Giambattista Vico’s great maxim—“we can truly know only what we make”—takes center stage, and humanity rather than the cosmos becomes the core subject of knowledge. It’s not a knowledge that can be extracted in the form of abstract generalizations, either; it’s a personal, tacit knowledge, a knowledge woven of examples, intuitions, and things felt rather than things defined. From the standpoint of abstraction, of course, this isn’t knowledge at all, but in practical application it works surprisingly well; a sensitivity to circumstances and a memory well stocked with good examples and concrete maxims tend, if anything, to be more useful in the real world than an uncritical reliance on the constructions of current theory.”

    I, on the other hand, am full concious of the limitations such maths actually have…

    It’s also a great read for anyone that doesn’t get the difference between the hard and soft sciences as well as why they are both so important for the intellect… something that’s been debated often in here, and one that always gives me a chuckle as suposedly *smart* people show their blinders…

  33. TA

    I would love to see social scientists ask pointed questions to strong climate change advocates. Especially their views on capitalism and religion.

  34. ThomasL

    Actually TA

    I’m still trying to figure out why Chris put this up -> and left out the last three paragraphs about the “hidden” result it says about “bleievers” and that the whole “believer”-”denier” thing is less then helpfull and a sign both sides are infected.

    But then I guess he couldn’t rant about “conservatives” -> which he thinks are all Republicans, something which could not be farther from the truth. Nullius, as usual, pointed this out for the unpteenth time in a post a few down from this one, “The Stock Market Shows Debt Ceiling Deniers a Little Slice of Reality”, at the bottom (#26), and again at the end of his post #29 under “Wall Street Journal Denounces the “Tea Party Hobbits” > which (his comment) is very much on target, and I’ve said as much in here in the past. We don’t seem to be able to get past that…

  35. vel

    IMO, CWMs wish to deny climate change because of greed and fear. Greed, because they want to keep what ever “advantage” they think they have, be it a SUV, a huge house, eating meat whenever they want. Fear, because they cannot accept change and being “wrong”.

  36. LoriBW

    I can’t help but think that if someone besides Al Gore had been the first to bring the issue before the public eye, many fewer conservatives would be deniers. It became a political issue to them before it was ever judged (if at all) on a scientific basis.

  37. Somite

    TheOnion – Nation’s Climatologists Exhibiting Strange Behavior (Season 1: Ep 5 on IFC) http://onion.com/olQDe0

  38. ThomasL

    Vel (#36),

    “But it’s not just CWMs who do this. We ALL do. We all bring our subjective views on how society should operate to the subconscious process of coming up with our opinions on many issues. Egalitarians see climate change through the lens of their tribal preference for a social operating norm that is more flexible, more fair (as they would put it), less bound by hierarchies of class, so they are ‘believers’ in climate change rather than ‘deniers’ precisely because the solutions to climate change will necessarily shake up the status quo. That’s the hidden point in “Cool Dudes”.

    So, your idea of “fair” is to dumb down to the lowest common denominator because you view “equal”, not as an ideal of opportunity, but rather the way the result should be as in a math equation. You don’t like the fact that some make better choices in their personal lives than others and thus get to enjoy the rewards of said choices (or the misery they bring, both part of the possible outcomes of actually choosing things rather than having things distributed by a third party…). You envy their success but don’t want to have to perform to enjoy the same thing. You’d rather be lost in the herd, always being able to say “those who know decided and I just went along” rather then be held personally accountable for that which you chose or fail to chose…

    That it?

    You see, it can be played both ways…

  39. Somite

    @39 The problem is that your idea of fair does not result in most people’s well being or happiness. No one wants to take away your accomplishments or fruits or success. You just don’t have the right to steal the same opportunities from others.

    Do you think accomplished people truly arose from a vacuum and didn’t take advantage of the programs and system society provided. We are all the product of society and therefore indebted to it.

    It is simply unfair to ask the environment that is everyone’s to take the burden of an SUV for groceries. It is identical to asking people to endure second hand smoke because smokers enjoy it so much.

  40. Nullius in Verba

    “You just don’t have the right to steal the same opportunities from others.”

    That’s a good way of putting it, that gets to the heart of the question. Do you believe in equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome?

    The difference between the two is a source of many misunderstandings. You said that our idea of fair does not result in most people’s well being or happiness – I’d dispute that – but even supposing it is so for the sake of argument, it’s a statement about an outcome. If you give everyone the opportunity, and only a few take it, only a few will benefit from the resulting well being. Is that unfair? Is it fairer to take from those who put in the work, seized the opportunity, and give it to those who did nothing? Who produced nothing? So that they can be happy too?

    “We are all the product of society and therefore indebted to it.”

    There is no such thing as society. A society consists of people, and it is dangerous to impersonalise them that way. Evil starts when you treat people as things, as they say. By treating society as a thing, it becomes easy to feel entitled, irresponsible, to be ungrateful, resentful, or to want to shape and control it, to order it according to your own concept of the way the world should be. It’s a thing; what rights or feelings could it have?

    A simple example – suppose unemployment benefit, rather than coming from the state, was given you by your friends, neighbours, and family. They see you down on your luck, feel sympathy, and help you out by working themselves and giving you part of what they earn. That’s good – I approve of it. Would it be so easy in those circumstances to feel entitled, to demand more at every opportunity, and to make no effort to get yourself out of your situation? If they had their own problems, and said they could no longer afford it, would you demand that they pay anyway? And have it extracted by force? As a human living amongst humans, could you do that?

    Impersonalising your neighbours as “society” makes it far easier to do so. It makes it far easier not to judge, and to avoid the hard decisions.

    We all feel sympathy. We will all help those around us we see who need and deserve it. But for those who give the most, who help others the most, because they have the greatest capacity to help – it comes hard to find yourself hated, for not giving more. It comes hard when others see your talents and effort as a bottomless resource to be plundered for their own benefit, for no effort or deserving of theirs, for no other reason or justification than that they need you. It is hard when you are accused of stealing what you yourself gave, because you didn’t give them everything.

    We are all the product of the systems paid for, and in many cases invented, built, and run by the rich, and we are therefore indebted to them. The top 2% of earners pay around 40% of all income tax revenue. The bottom 50% pay virtually none of it. I’ll tell you, they give “society” vastly more than they ever receive in return! How else could so many others receive so much that they have no capacity to give?


    It’s another point of view. I don’t expect you to agree with it – I’m not going to spend hours arguing about it. But I think it would be helpful if people at least knew how others think and feel about it. We spend too much time fighting creatures of our own imagining, without understanding.

  41. ThomasL

    Somite,

    You don’t get irony, do you? My post in response to Vel was a direct reflection of Vel’s previous comment, just reversed around, and in keeping with the main article this post is about -> both sides suffer from the disease, and both sides have many more reasons than simply the “science” for being so strongly attached to one of them, as in fact a lot rests on their ideas of society -> and that would be *both* sides. Did you catch that it started with a quote from the article?

    The above was just standard “what a leftist is” (pretty text book in fact), same as the grade school mock sit com views of conservatives, in fact just the reverse of the comment Vel threw out above it.

    I’d seriously take the time to digest what Nullius said above, in #41. The same differing view of “fair” holds for things like “freedom” as well by the way -> in Ploy Sci we used to talk about positive and negative freedom, and that the East and West were split along those lines… It is a far more complex issue to delve into then simply looking at it like an equation, where what we care about for validity is the result rather than the ideal…

    I never actually stated what I thought fair was, though I think I can safely say it is likely much more in line if not the same as Nullius then most of those who babble here… And as Nullius also pointed out, I can be pretty damn sure I’ve paid more in taxes then just about anyone else in here, so ya, I benifited from my ancestors not making bad choices and not living beyond their means. I also benifited by being willing to work 16 hour days 7 days a week for years. I’ve also more than paid any “debt” for having had that privlidge, and I really hate people looking at me like their piggy bank. I think I’ve *earned* the right to finally relax. How’s that?

  42. ThomasL

    Oh, and Somite,

    “It is simply unfair to ask the environment that is everyone’s to take the burden of an SUV for groceries.”

    This assumes that there is no actual need for such a vehicle in the owners other endeavors. Perhaps you think it would be less environmentally wasteful to perhaps have more than one vehicle? The SUV for what it is required for -> pulling a trailer or hauling goods that require less than a delivery truck but larger than a car for example, and then purchase a second, more energy efficient vehicle for around town errands? Think hard about energy and resource usage required to build and deliver me that second, not really needed car, and the resources I’m going to burn through to make enough for the purchase before you answer.

    You are also making an assumption that everyone is driving around some big ‘ol V8 big block version, which any check of sales will show isn’t true. In my own case I had to get one for work. I needed something large enough to tote things all over town and keep them out of the weather and away from those who would grab them, sometimes driving on less than ideal dirt roads out to nowhere. It’s a HUGE 4 cylinder, a real pig on the gas… ;) . You see I’m a *real* conservative, not a RINO born again. I have no desire to waste anything, such as using more gas to cross town then I need to (I’d rather invest it, or use it to help someone out who is both in need and looks like such help might actually make a meaningful difference for… as in it will help them not need more help because they actually have something worked out that makes sense… You’re jaw would likely drop if you had any idea how much personal help we provide in *our* community, the place where we can look at the need, look at the *why* of the need, and make a choice as to *our* resources). However, I also know some who own a large vehicle because they regularly need to tow a large trailer or what have you. Rather than purchase more vehicles (that they couldn’t afford, but hey, it’s America and we apparently don’t believe in paying for stuff anymore, so maybe that’s not an excuse…) they deal with the one they *have no choice* in having…

    This is what happens when we trivialize and simplify real life into a text book problem. We make huge, and incredibly unreflective, generalizations on those who don’t agree with our initial outburst and “their” lifestyles…

  43. vrk

    (I’ll just skip the white male priviledge whining.) Chris, could you link to the actual academic publication from now on, instead of websites that talk about the article but don’t actually give any kind of citation or even mention the names of the authors? It’s pretty easy to find with Google, but it would be easier with a direct link:

    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=cool+dudes+THE+DENIAL+OF+CLIMATE+CHANGE+AMONG++CONSERVATIVE+WHITE+MALES+IN+THE+UNITED+STATES&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »