My last post at DeSmogBlog, about conservative white men and climate change, has brought up the perennial question: Is everybody as biased as these CWMs are, just on their own pet issues?

So I’ve done another post to at least partially tackle this issue, again at DeSmog. Here’s a brief excerpt:

…let me discuss one important stab at comparing left and right wing biases, found in several studies by Linda Skitka of the University of Illinois-Chicago and her colleagues.

In a well known 2002 paper (see the 5^th study), Skitka showed that liberals, unlike conservatives, update their initial views about whether a person who has contracted AIDS while knowing the risks, and engaging in unprotected sex, deserves government subsidized health care services. Conservatives and liberals have the same negative first impression of such a person—they feel personal disapproval or even revulsion. But liberals then change their minds, go against their first impulses, and decide that the person deserves to be treated equally anyway. Conservatives don’t.

But Skitka showed in a more recent study that there are  contexts in which conservatives, too, go against what you might expect. For instance, and as the last study implied, conservatives usually tend to think that there are no “extenuating circumstances”—that you’re personally responsible for what you do and how things turn out, whether you’re a criminal or someone on welfare or someone who knowingly contracts AIDS. However, in the newer study, Skitka showed that conservativesdo consider extenuating circumstances (or what she calls “situational” factors rather than “dispositional” factors) when members of a group that they support, like the military or the police, are accused of wrongdoing.

However, I will note Skitka and her colleagues did not detect conservatives actually changing their views when confronted with new or contradictory evidence—e.g., seemingly definitive proof that soldiers or police had actually done something wrong. She just caught them going against their general tendency to make “dispositional” rather than “situational” attributions. Honestly, you could argue just as easily that she captured flip-flopping (or, special pleading on behalf of the military and the police) as that she captured open-mindedness and flexibility.

In any case, while I agree that everybody has biases, I’m not sure that means I must also agree that everybody is equally biased. To butcher George Orwell, why couldn’t it be the case that all humans are biased, but are some humans are more biased than others?

You can read further here.

My latest DeSmogBlog post goes into much more detail about the whole conservative white male climate denial phenomenon. It starts like this:

They come at you at public events, wanting to argue. They light up the switchboards whenever there’s a radio show about climate change. They commandeer your blog comments section. They have a seemingly insatiable desire to debate, sometimes quite aggressively.

They’re the conservative white men (CWM) of climate change denial….

Then I get into all the theory behind why this may occur, including social dominance theory, system justification theory, and many others. You can read on here….

The latest show is now up and you can listen here. Here is the write-up:

When it comes to the U.S. political right, it often appears that the opposition to science-and reason in general-is everywhere. From climate change denial to anti-evolutionism; from debt ceiling denial to, that’s right, incandescent light bulb availability denial; conservatives today have plenty to answer for.

Fortunately, some conservatives know it. And given how much he has blasted the “Republican War on Science” in the past, on this show Chris Mooney wanted to hear their take.

So he invited on David Frum. Frum is the editor of the group blog Frum Forum, a former speechwriter for the George W. Bush White House, and a widely published author, most recently of Comeback: Conservatism that Can Win Again. In recent years, Frum has become a leading critic of today’s GOP and its allegiance with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Joining Frum is Kenneth Silber, a frequent contributor to Frum Forum. Silber is a science writer based in New Jersey who contributes to Research Magazine, Scientific American, and other outlets. He calls himself a “center-right dissenter, a deviationist apostle of the Frumian Heresy” and these days, a RINO (Republican in Name Only).

Once again, you can listen here.

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.

Clarification: This show does not air until Monday. I was getting reader suggestions for interview questions. We pre-record the show, usually the week before it airs. Stand by for the link…

In about three and a half hours, I interview David Frum of FrumForum.com and Kenneth Silber, a frequent contributor on science over there. The topic of the show is conservatism, science, and reality–and I’ve gotten two conservatives, albeit pretty much the opposite of Tea Partiers, to talk about it.

It is my perception that across a wide array of issues–from health care to, uh, light bulb policy–the U.S. political right today just views the world differently, and has a different set of facts (which, I’m afraid, tend to be wrong). I want Frum, and Silber, to tell me to what extent I’m right, and to what extent I’m wrong–and also to show me where the liberal blind spots are.

But of course, you may also have questions for them–so suggest away. They’ll be considered if posted in the next three hours or so….

By the way, here is a piece by Silber, entitled “How I Joined the Vast RINO Conspiracy.” And here is Frum’s classic article taking on Rush Limbaugh.

Today was the first day–and may not be the last–that the markets got measurably riled by the debt ceiling battle. Traders finally let fear get the better of them and dumped stocks (and much else). Lots of people have been saying this was going to happen; and it’s only a small slice of what could happen, since there was nothing to spook the markets today other than continuing Washington gridlock. It is not like a default has come yet, or a credit downgrade. Then, we could see a mega selloff akin to the collapse of 2008.

Why do we know that the debt ceiling impasse is starting to stoke fear? Simple: We have a measurement of it. Here’s CNN Money:

One sign of the increasing worries among investors is the VIX (VIX), also known as Wall Street’s “fear gauge,” which jumped by more than 13% on Wednesday alone. The index is up nearly 20% in the past five days.

So traders have been inching towards being afraid, and today they finally gave in and ran.

Which gets me to what I don’t understand about right wing debt ceiling denial: It’s one thing to claim that President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner are bluffing, and the government will still be able to pay its bills after August 2. I don’t believe that, but I can see how Tea Partiers could believe it.

But even then, I don’t see how you could believe that the stock market, or the economy, will somehow survive this brinksmanship. Markets aren’t rational–they often run on rumor, and they often run on fear. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not you believe what Obama says. It matters what the market will do if you force the issue. And now, the market is doing it.

But of course, there will be another rationalization available to debt ceiling deniers. When the market crashes even further, and their own constituents are further damaged, they will be able to content themselves by saying, “It’s Obama’s fault.”

Something very interesting is happening in U.S. politics right now. It is this: The U.S. Republican Party, long the ally of the business community, is becoming increasingly unhinged from that traditional base of support, even as the Democrats become more friendly with it. The reason is that both groups share an outlook characterized by centrism and pragmatism; this stands in increasingly stark contrast with Tea Party extremism, which is not at all good for the stability or growth of the economy, as even corporate leaders now recognize. They listen to the economic experts and the ratings agencies, even if Tea Parties don’t.

I give you Doug Oberhelman, the chairman and CEO of Caterpillar and a longtime Republican, criticizing the failure to raise the debt ceiling, and avoid catastrophic U.S. default. Heck, I give you the entire U.S. Chamber of Commerce, saying the same thing.

And the debt ceiling isn’t the only example. Many corporations, like GE and Duke Energy, joined Democrats in supporting cap and trade legislation, because they wanted a stable business environment going forward and considered greenhouse gas regulations to be inevitable, eventually. Indeed, many companies see the potential for great profits once we put a price on carbon.

Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats today do not take any of the left wing environmental positions traditionally associated with being anti-corporate: They are not anti-GMO; they are not anti-nuclear; heck, they are not even anti-fracking.

It is one thing to want less regulation, as corporations inevitably do. For a long time, Republicans were more supportive of this agenda, and to a measurable extent they still are.

But deregulation isn’t the only thing corporations want—they want economic growth and an economically stable environment in which to operate. They want to be able to look out years hence and know what they’re likely to find. That is what is being threatened right now, and very gravely indeed.

There may well be drawbacks of Democrats becoming the party of Big Business—but it’s hard to focus on them now. To fight the Tea Party, you need all the help you can get.

by Jon Winsor

Last month we praised Mitt Romney for taking a brave stand, if not a full-throated one, supporting the overwhelming weight of climate science. He was immediately pounced on by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum–while standing alone from the other GOP presidential contenders in talking seriously what scientists have said in unambigiously large numbers.

Meanwhile, the unapologetic Tea Party candidate Michele Bachmann has taken the lead in Iowa by 13 points. To be fair, Romney has decided not to compete in Iowa. But Bachmann has made a name for herself by proposing things like abolishing the EPA, and no doubt Romney has taken notice.

In a recent town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, Romney took his own swipe at the EPA:

The key statement: “I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies.” (more…)

Apple (AAPL) smashed earnings forecasts late yesterday, and as a result shares are trading at the highest point ever, currently around $ 387 per share. With less than a billion shares out there this translates into a market capitalization of about $ 357 billion.

The currently most valuable publicly traded company, ExxonMobil (XOM), today trades at around $ 83 and its market capitalization is just under $ 415 billion.

I have said many times that if Apple passes ExxonMobil, it will be a hugely symbolic moment, not just for the markets but for our politics.

The Republicans have long been the party of corporate America–with major stalwarts like the oil majors on their side, an industry centered in very conservative Texas. However, that’s not so true any more: What pro-industry or pro-market party would play chicken with the financial markets, as Republicans have done with the debt ceiling?

And indeed, major companies are shifting to the Democratic camp: Witness clean energy giant GE, for instance, or the fairly blue and liberal California-centered tech industry–epitomized by Apple.

Barring a major downward move in oil prices, or continuing total dominance of the world by Apple, we still aren’t that close to its surpassing of Exxon in value. But we’re closer. Will it happen some day? I suspect so….

My latest DeSmogBlog piece reports on a recent study by Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan, analyzing the differences in rhetoric between those who want climate action and those who oppose it. Some of the findings weren’t that surprising, but one certainly dramatized things for me. As Hoffman writes, based on his survey of newspaper opinion pieces:

Similar to the terminology of the climate denier movement, nearly 25% of all skeptical articles refer to climate change proponents as “alarmists.” More specifically, the dominant political target of these arguments is Al Gore, who is blamed by skeptical authors for fabricating the problem of climate change for ideological and personal gain. A word count of all the skeptical articles showed that nearly 40% of them mention Gore in one fashion or another.

I knew they liked to bash Gore, but I didn’t know it was quite this dramatic.

More thoughts here; original study here.