Here we have a great play on words in an article in the Christian Science Monitor titled “Women more knowledgeable them men on global warming, survey says.” The article is about a study done by Aaron M. McCright titled “The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American Public.”
I know, it all sounds like it’s complementing the female sex, but is it really a complement? Or, is it an insulting paper that basically states that women are stupid? Please read on and see what you think?
My personal take on this that if you read this you’ll probably come away with the same impression that I did, which is that the author seems to be a “warmer” type personality and is using his credentials to bolster the argument for anthropogenic global warming.
Here are some of the talking points in from the article that I’m highly suspicious about.
That “women are more likely than men to support the scientific consensus on the reality of global warming caused by humans.” To me that’s insulting because it’s stating what many warmers do, they go along with a “consensus.” A “consensus” isn’t scientifically recognized as being valid. It appears to me that McCright seems to think that women are as dumb as many warmers are because they believe a “consensus” instead of what real science says. “Consensus” isn’t real science and the warmers know that, but they pray the gullible will believe a “consensus” is legitimate science.
He then proceeds to draw the conclusion “that women conveyed slightly greater knowledge of climate change than men – agreeing that its effects were already being seen, that it is human-caused and that scientists think it is occurring. Women were also slightly more concerned about global warming than men.”
Again he appears to be calling women stupid in a roundabout way. He gives them credit for “greater knowledge of climate change than men” only because they happen to agree with the warmer position. I wonder if this statement would have been made if they had greater knowledge but were in disagreement? I’d bet he wouldn’t think them as “having greater knowledge” then. Women are usually concerned more about everything then men are, so I have to wonder why that’s even in there, except to make a feeble attempt to bolster his position with the obvious.
I love this quote from him cited in the article.
“Does this mean women are more likely to buy energy-efficient appliances and hybrid vehicles than men?” McCright said. “Do they vote for different political candidates? Do they talk to their children differently about global warming?”
It really sounds like it’s more of a marketing study than a scientific study. Perhaps it was designed to confirm they can get women feeling all touchy-feely about global warming if they use the right marketing techniques. Perhaps done because the warmers don’t seem to be having much luck with the men. I feel his comments about what kinds of appliances, cars they will buy and who they’ll vote for only strengthens my position about this being marketing oriented.
Moreover, it’s based on science? Nope! It’s based upon 8 years of Gallup Poll Data.” Think my questions are out of line? In another quote he says “femininity stresses attachment, empathy and care. The latter traits might make it easier to feel concern about the potentially dire consequences of global warming.”
Sounds more like he’s saying that women are not only dumb, they’re also suckers and that’s who the warmers need to target (use) to get all their cap & trade and carbon taxes rolling again. I can’t wait to see Al Gore selling “Global Warming BS” on “Days of our Lives.”
Think Aaron isn’t a warmer? Here’s a list of his other studies he’s published per Michigan State University.
- McCright, Aaron M. 2010. “The Effects of Gender on Climate Change Knowledge and Concern in the American Public.” Population and Environment DOI:10.1007/s11111-010-0113-1.
- McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2010. “Anti-Reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.” Theory, Culture, and Society 27 (2-3): 100-133.
- McCright, Aaron M., and Rachael L. Shwom. 2010. “Newspaper and Television Coverage.” Pp. 405-413 in Climate Change Science and Policy, edited by Stephen H. Schneider, Armin Rosencranz, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
- McCright, Aaron M. 2009. “The Social Bases of Climate Change Knowledge, Concern, and Policy Support in the US General Public.” Hofstra Law Review 37:1017-1047.
- McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2008. “The Nature and Social Bases of Progressive Social Movement Ideology: Examining Public Opinion toward Social Movements.” The Sociological Quarterly 49:825-848.
- McCright, Aaron M. 2007. “Dealing With Climate Change Contrarians.” Pp. 200-212 inCreating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating SocialChange, edited by Susanne C. Moser and Lisa Dilling. New York: Cambridge University Press.
You judge for yourself. I’m only asking these questions because this study sounds to me like the author is being a male chauvinist pig who’s desperately looking for ways to get women on the warmer side of things. Sounds like he’s trying to use a “consensus” to prop up the AGW “consensus.”
Somehow I don’t think the fairer sex is that naïve or easily duped. It comes across to me like yet more desperation from the warmistas and definitely more CO2 Insanity.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor