Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Conservative white males and climate change

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 06:45 AM
Original message
Conservative white males and climate change

from Mother Jones:




A new paper in Global Environmental Change has a generated some interesting chatter online. The title, "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States" sums it up the central question pretty well: Why do white guys think climate change is a bunch of baloney?

Via Chris Mooney, here's the summary of the data on conservative white males, or CWM:

— 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


It's not exactly shocking news, if you've ever taken a moment to consider that white men seem to make up the majority of the audience for Fox News, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. The authors boil it down to a few psychological explanations: "identity-protective cognition," or seeking out and believing that which affirms the beliefs or values one already holds, and "system justification," or a motivation to defend the status quo.

Mooney also raises a good point about one theory the report authors left out of the discussion: "social dominance orientation." Basically, the idea is that white men like things they way they are now, because so far they've made out pretty well. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/why-are-white-guys-climate-skeptics



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. "social dominance orientation." Jeez. Gimmee a frikken break.
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 06:52 AM by SpiralHawk
Time to join the hoop of humanity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can anyone find *any* of the stats for conservative non-white males, or CW females?
All of the articles I've found about this compare CWMs to the general population - and don't give a single statistic for any other category. Is there really a significant difference between CWMs and CWFs? Or CWMs and CnWMs?

They want $31.50 to access the original article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X

and I'm not paying just to get a basic part of the story. Is the inclusion of 'white male' in all the titles - or, worse, the omission of 'conservative' in the Mother Jones title - at all justified? Is the average 'white guy' of the MJ title more likely to deny climate change than the average conservative woman?

I am (despite my DU username) a white guy, but, as a non-conservative, I object a bit to MJ trying to make it look as though I'm part of the problem when they give Michele Bachmann a free pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Shut up and accept your assigned role as The Big Evil!
What are you, some kind of proponent of The Patriarchy? Or are you just a racist?



:sarcasm: (<-- hopefully not really necessary)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. There are some generic regressions for beliefs vs. race, gender, party, parenthood, etc...
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 08:37 AM by Viking12
But the paper doesn't break them down.

I have a copy. Check your PM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-04-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Thanks - my understanding of statistics isn't enough to properly understand the regressions
Edited on Thu Aug-04-11 10:37 AM by muriel_volestrangler
but I think these excerpts of their text seem worth knowing:

As shown in the base model for each of the five denial indicators, political conservatives and males are more likely to report a climate change denial view than are their politically liberal and female counterparts.
...
Our results here indicate that non-whites are more likely than are whites to deny that a scientific consensus exists and that whites are more likely than are non-whites to believe that the media exaggerates the seriousness of global warming. Race has no direct effect on the other three denial indicators.
...
In the conservative white male model for each of the five climate change denial indicators in Tables 4 and 5, the statistically significant positive coefficient for our conservative white male dummy variable means that conservative white males are more likely to espouse climate change denial than are other adults. This effect exists when controlling for the separate, direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender—and for the effects of nine other relevant social, demographic, political, and temporal variables. In other words, the intersection of ‘‘conservative,’’ ‘‘white,’’ and ‘‘male’’ does matter for explaining the distribution of climate change denial in the American public.


It seems to me, looking at the tables these refer to, that the figures in the line for 'race' are still positive numbers for 'denies that a scientific consensus exists' with the columns of 'CWM' and 'confident CWM', unlike the ones for ideology and gender; and so I think the 'white' bit really is unproven. The second paragraph I excerpted certainly points that way.

But, against that, 'conservative' is highly correlated with 'white' anyway, so maybe the figures do show something I'm missing.

Thanks for sending it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC