What do Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner, James Inhofe, and George Will have in common? Several things. They are influential members of society, 'elites' who have a big effect on policy. They adamantly deny that human-made climate change is happening. And they are all conservative white men. Probably the only thing you might not call these people is "Cool dudes".
But that is precisely the label they are given, somewhat facetiously, in the title of a new study -- "Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males in the United States" -- about the war over climate change. The study confirms what many others have suggested, that conservative white males (CWMs) are more likely than any other segment of the population to deny the overwhelming body of science that anthropogenic climate change is underway, and a serious threat to the biosphere and everything in it, including human beings. This is not surprising.
What is valuable about this study is what it says not just about conservative white men, but about all of us. This research confirms that who we are as people, at really fundamental levels, has a lot more to do with the way we see things than just the facts. All of us, not just CWMs. And not just on climate change. And what that means is that arguing issues based just on the facts isn't going to get us very far, since the facts aren't really what we're arguing about in the first place.
Here are a few of the findings (based on analysis of Gallup surveys of public opinion between 2000 and 2010);
So what is about CWMs that make them see the climate change issue this way? The "Cool Dudes" paper suggests that its partly because they're WMs, and partly because they are Cs. The so-called "White Male Effect" in risk perception has found that white males between ages 18-59 are generally less afraid of things than white women or people of color of either gender. A famous "White Male Effect" paper suggested "Perhaps white males see less risk in the world because they create, manage, control, and benefit from so much of it. Perhaps women and non-white men see the world as more dangerous because in many ways they are more vulnerable, because they benefit less from many of its technologies and institutions, and because they have less power and control." That's consistent with general theory about risk perception, which finds that for all of us, the more control we have the less afraid we are, and the more benefit we get from something, the less scary it is.
But what about the conservative part? Why would people who are politically conservative be more likely to deny the evidence about climate change? Well, conservatives are generally what Cultural Cognition theory calls Hierarchists. They like clear and fixed hierarchies of class and race and social structure, a rigid predictable 'that's the way it's always been done' status quo. They don't like government butting in trying to change things, and leveling the playing field, and taking from the haves who have earned it and giving to the have-nots who haven't. Well, the solutions to climate change are going to take all kinds of government 'butting in', all sorts of adjustments to the economic status quo, interventions that will mean new winners and losers, changes to who's where on the economic and power ladder, and to a hierarchist (i.e. conservative), that means somebody else's sort of society - the society of Egalitarians who want things flexible and fair, not rigid and bound by class and hierarchy -- is going to prevail.
That's really threatening, way down deep in the psyche of the social human animal that depends on the tribe for welfare and even survival. 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.
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".
Arguing about the facts of climate change, and who's right and wrong, and assigning loaded labels like 'believer' (good) and 'denier' (bad), won't get us anywhere, because the argument is about something more important, something deep underneath. Trying to get somebody to change their mind on climate change, or any of the polarized issues of the day, is in effect asking them to change their underlying self-identities. "Cool Dudes" makes pretty clear that's not going to happen.
The solution is obvious, though hardly easy. We have stop making climate change a zero sum if-you-win-I-lose battle. We have to frame the issue in ways that work within everybody's underlying cultural/tribal perspectives. We have to realize that answers are more likely to be found, and solutions are more likely to be reached, if the goal is finding common ground, to one of the most serious threats humans - all of us - have ever faced.
This essay originally ran at the Risk: Reason and Reality blog on BigThink.com.
Follow David Ropeik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dropeik
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations…
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4s_60XeB1Q&feature=uploademail
Global warming fraud committed by Heartland Institute "expert" Dr. Bob Carter; prominent "skeptic" deceptively tried to Hide The Inline of global warming over recent decades.
Richard2: "survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs"
Hey Richard2,
Do you agree that Heartland Institute's Bob Carter committed fraud by deceptively Hiding The Incline of the global temperature trend over recent decades, as demonstrated by statistician Tamino in the link* that I have provided here?
If 'no' please explain in scientific detail how in your mind the lines indicating flat temperature trends that Bob Carter drew on Roy Spencer's UAH satellite data as shown by Tamino are statistically and scientifically valid; thank you.
Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming / climate change, including the Heartland Institute, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Like Richard2, ICSC Executive Director Tom Harris has repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's global warming fraud here on HuffPo, despite - or because of - the fact that Bob Carter is the ICSC's Chief Science Adviser.**
----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
Bob Carter holds the following views accepted by many other skeptics:
1. There is no upper troposphere hot spot predicted by the GHG hypothesis.
2. GCMs are not accurate.
3. GCMs overestimate sensitivity (temperature increase resulting from doubling CO2.)
4. The rate at which temperatures are changing is well within the natural range.
5. The magnitude of hottest temperature recorded in modern era is well within natural range of global temperatures.
6. CO2 levels respond to temperature changes in ice core data, not the other way around.
About temperatures, Carter is simply making the point that temperatures are not changing as much as GW fanatics like yourself are claiming. http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
If you look at satellite data at 12/1979 and compare to the UAH temperature at 12/2010, you will see they are about the same. Carter does not claim any statistical trend. He just means the temperature in 2010 dropped to the same as it was three decades ago. If you only want to consider your trend over your time period, you are cherry picking too. Let it go.
Do you agree that the Radiosonde upper air temperature in 1958 was the same as in 2002? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/HadAT_paper.pdf
Bob Carter deceptively tried to hide global warming incline over recent decades.
Chic: "Carter is simply making the point that temperatures are not changing as much as GW fanatics like yourself are claiming."
You still seem confused, Chic, the fact that I have repeatedly explained to you Bob Carter's fraud in detail notwithstanding. I'll explain it to you again - maybe you'll finally grasp it this time:
Bob Carter has claimed:
"There was no temperature increase from 1979 to 1995"
-and-
"There was no change [in temperature] between 1999 and through today"
http://www.sydneyminingclub.org/presentations/2011/april/bob-carter/index.htm
[Slide 6; 1:35]
To support his assertion Carter shows UAH temperature data and puts flat lines across the data for those time periods.
The not-skeptical observer might be mislead into assuming that the flat lines Carter drew there are statistically-valid trend lines; actual statistical trend lines in that context however show warming trends, as explained by statistician Tamino here.*
So again, Chic:
Do you agree that Bob Carter committed global warming fraud with respect to global warming over those time periods as demonstrated* by Tamino?
If 'no': again please explain how in your mind the lines indicating flat temperature trends that Bob Carter drew on the UAH data as shown by Tamino are statistically and scientifically valid; thank you.
----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
http://youtu.be/ain4dLhQtD8
:-)
Most people everywhere however do not have many facts and information about the reality of climate change. They do not understand the Physics and the math behind the facts.
The media of course has failed to its job. They have been told by the corporations that own them not to connect our increasingly unstable climate to global warming. Why? Fear of advertisers pulling out, and their revenues and profits declining. To be sure in years to come, as things become worse, the Media and those entities that own them will be morally and ethically responsible for their criminal behavior. The same holds true for the aforementioned conservative politicians and entertainers.
The 'Facts' and truth about climate change are not all that complicated. Some people with less education however will have difficulty with the terminology and paleo climate implications.
In the end, facts will win out over falsehoods and propaganda- by then however the ability to limit the damage from climate change to a minimum will be long gone.
Excellent post. Yes, I have noticed the the "main stream media" is very cautious about discussing climate change.
You are right. The laws of nature don't care what the press reports.
Yes, we may have already reached the "tipping point".
Then there will be the soul searching in the press that went on after the invasion of Iraq. Too late again
Discounting is unconsciously ignoring information relevant to a problem. We humans discount, at various levels. We discount the facts, the meaning/impact of the facts, the options we have to deal with the facts and lastly our own ability to execute our options.
It's important to decide at which level a person is discounting. CWM's seem to be discounting their options and possibly where they see they have options they doubt their ability to execute their options since they expect "butting in" by the government.
The solution therefore is NOT to try to find common ground.
Rather the solution is to approach the CWM's and present them with opportunities to find and execute their own options to deal with climate change. The sheer seize of the problem may freeze their ability to think of options that they could execute. This is the real mechanism behind the inability of CWM's to get real and find (business) solutions to perceived problems and opportunities.
Example? Present a plan whereby all conservative white males can obtain a loan to buy solar panels to put on their CWM's home. Excess power will be sold back to the power grid. Loan and repayment is through the power company by using less power and sale of excess power from the panels. Present it as the proper CWM way to contribute to the nation's energy needs.
It is not a question of finding common ground.
Those who control the Republican party have demonstrated that they do not wish to seek common ground if it interferes with their short term goal of maximum profits.
Even if no one had ever heard of the greenhouse effect or global warming or climate change (which has been studied for 115 years as of now) it would still be a good idea to stop cutting down forests and paving over all the green earth and polluting the rivers, the seas, and the sky.
It won't blow you away.
"...conservatives ... 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."
You bet some of us conservatives are frightened, but not by the solutions to a manageable, possibly non problem. We are terrified that an already weak economy will be brought to its knees by useless CO2 regulation. I can't speak for other conservatives, but I don't bow at the altar of climate change skepticism. This conservative isn't worried about my identity. I am worried about my tribe, especially my daughter's future, and what CO2 regulation nonsense will do to our economy.
"We have to realize that answers are more likely to be found, and solutions are more likely to be reached, if the goal is finding common ground, to one of the most serious threats humans - all of us - have ever faced."
I disagree. We can't settle climate change by compromise. "We" have to continue scientific exploration until we know what's going on.
And those who think ahead and look around know that green technology is taking off by leaps and bounds across the world That what may look like foolish spending now is actually creating a more viable, less expensive future. That the savings in health alone are huge. There are hidden costs to keeping things as they are.
And China is profitting already from their investment, and selling technology to other nations - soon, to us. Why are we so slow? So afraid to innovate? So lacking in vision? In sheer common sense?
That isn't what the survey results suggest. It says that many are not worried about it at all and that most deny the consensus science.
"We are terrified that an already weak economy will be brought to its knees by useless CO2 regulation."
Groundless fears are going to stop the rest of us from managing greenhouse gas pollution. When you consider the same groups' support for the people who weakened the economy, concern for their feeling nearly disappears entirely.
""We" have to continue scientific exploration until we know what's going on."
Science is in.
Are you saying that David Ropeilc interpreted the Cool Dude survey wrong, because most conservatives deny the AGW dogma and think the solutions to the non-problem are irrelevant?
I am saying he doesn’t speak for me. My view is that the facts of climate change are not problematic, but that alleged solutions proposed by AGW dogma will further weaken society. His pop psychology is just speculation and opinion. And he could be right. Anyone who doesn't do a thorough investigation into the "facts of climate change" is depending on the word of others. What is scary is that too few people understand enough science to know what's going on.
I’m glad we’re on the same page about the science.
I'm aghast that this was made 6 years ago and how much climate devastation we've seen since then. And it's not only warming, it's the toxins and radiation and other poisons we're blithely putting into our oceans and atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2QKY3zW8Q
Good grief! How dishonest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
likely to _____________ than the general adult population?
What's your point?
Cute, very cute. But I really don't think you missed by point.
By singling out the demographic of "conservative white male", there has been a deliberate intention of demeaning the intelligence of a group of human beings based on their gender and race.
The worst of it was the emphasis on focusing on the allusion that there was something pathological about the male psyche.
Men work in careers that are more directly dependent on polluting industries that women.
Mineral extraction, farming, truck driving, construction, and manufacturing.