Women like consensus. However, science is not done by consensus. Science is done by fact. The Church of Global Warmening has had some success against heretics (“deniers”) yet the truth is out there and the spirit of Galileo lives on in true scientists.

Meh, you obviously didn’t read “Against method”, where Feyerabend pictures more colourful view of Galileo Anyway you don’t sound like scientist, much more like demagog

Alternative theory, women are more likely to accept the authoritative viewpoint, especially where safety is concerned. Case in point, advertisements for safety products are geared toward women, particularly mothers (child safety). How many mothers become overprotective of their children because of over-inflated fears on the local news. NPR even had a story on it:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/08/30/129531631/5-worries-parents-should-drop-and-5-they-should?sc=fb&cc=fp

Another thing that this article reveal is the clear connection between global warming, climate change and grant money.
Hey I’m a sociologist and I want to do an academic study. Where is the money?
Oh, there is a large pot of money for climate research.
Let me think, how about a gender study and global warming?

@MadRocketScientists: I agree!

The real message consists of two insights:

- women are more consensus-oriented than men
- women are a nice target for propaganda of any kind

Remember the “torch of freedom” campaign that started the era of cigarette-smoking women almost 100 years ago? That is a legendary example of propaganda at its best (these days going by the name of PR).

I actually tend to believe (here comes the conspiracy theorist in me) that global warming alarmists hire PR agencies to abuse this exactly mechanism.

Personal observation, global warming is real. However, (the eternal however) is it due to human intervention or is it part of the hot-cold cycle the Earth goes through on an irregular cycle? I don’t know and I am probably too old to live long enough to find out. Such is life. Women do tend to be consensus oriented and have a tendency to want to protect their children. This results in a tendency to assume the worst and want to do something about it. So assuming global warming is due to human intervention means there should be ways to stop it if we change the way we operate. Our problem is to determine how much of what we hear is real and how much is hysterical PR. I don’t think anybody is studying that.

@Dr. O’: Bjørn Lomborg does, actually…

The above comments are insulting and completely biased. There isn’t an ounce of evidence to back up your sexist claims. Women are quite capable of thinking for themselves and many women make excellent scientists. Your comments are arrogant and reveal more about your personalities than the general male population!

… which in fact proves the point.

Bias is like bacteria: there are good and bad ones.

Bias is a result of personal experiences becoming an opinion. A good bacterium that promotes an open dialog that is a foundation of our Western civilization.

Bias against bias is the bad bacterium. It induces a disease called ‘consensus culture’, the kind of political correctness that creates a paralyzed, disabled, weak society. The above comment shows an example of a typical manipulative ‘shut up’ message that should be ignored at best.

We need more bias and more disagreement, and less bias against bias. Consensus is bad for you.

Jefferson,
It is a rule of both science and nature that if one person says something, there is a chance he is right. If everyone says it, there is a good chance they are wrong. This is because consensus includes multiple opinions that are not all in agreement and the far ends are often in disagreement.

I agree. In other words, “When ‘everyone knows’ something to be true, nobody knows nothing” (Andy Grove). One more reason to be skeptical about the global warming “scientific consensus”.

Skepticism created our civilization. Cherish it.

You prove nothing. And to boot, you admit you are a conspiracy theorist. I have little confidence in the validity of claims made by those who are paranoid and think the government or someone more powerful is out to get him or her. You haven’t offered a shred of evidence to back your ‘alarmist hire PR agencies’ claim. Finally you talk in abstracts but have no substance behind your overly self-congralutatory opinions. From the above banter, I get the impression that men are deluded and they think ‘know better’ than the scientists (who are women and men). I also read your message loud and clear that you think scientists don’t know what they are doing or saying and enjoy ‘scaring’ people into saving gas, using alternative fuels, etc. Your message sounds very paternal and nasty, hostile.

… which even more clearly proves the point. As I said, ad hominem attacks tell a long story.

In any case, thank you for your input. Freedom of speech is the most valuable thing that we have at all. I am looking forward to more of your stuff, it is inspiring (for my psychology lectures).

“I also read your message loud and clear that you think scientists don’t know what they are doing or saying and enjoy ’scaring’ people into saving gas, using alternative fuels, etc.”

Actually, the vast majority of climate scientists are not alarmist and do a very good job of qualifying the uncertainty inherent in their findings. The alarmists among scientists are a very small, but vocal group who have powerful allies in the media and in political circles (thanks to government funding for research), who are more than happy to ignore the qualified uncertainty and just hype the worst case scenarios (see this for an illustrative view of this phenomena: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174).

The opening teaser:

Following that, we’re served up this critically biased statement full of hidden assumptions – it’s embarrassing that it comes from a supposedly bias-free social scientist.

“The finding challenges common perceptions that men are more scientifically literate, says sociologist Aaron McCright.”

Where to begin?

First, there is not a consensus among scientists about global warming. CONSENSUS: Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.

Second, since when does a social science study that does not explicitly state its assumptions have the validity to weigh in on whether “men are more scientifically literate” or not?

Global warming is a politically loaded issue. How many of our politicians are plugged into the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)? Hint: Chicago. They say they are “a financial institution whose objectives are to apply financial innovation and incentives to advance social, environmental and economic goals.”
Profit-motivated propaganda to convince us all to spend our money on more expensive energy alternatives, which directly enriches CCX and its political and economic stakeholders, is going to continually bombard us. Everyone has to be vigilant enough to check what is being said in those 30-second sound-bites and government-fed news accounts.

Phrases like “gender differences on climate change knowledge and concern” (Abstract: The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Published online: 5 June 2010 _ Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010) point out a pervasive problem in our culture’s contemporary narrative – the use of words like “educate” and “knowledge” to give legitimacy to an idea or proposition that has no legitimacy, but should be evaluated for individual decision-making. This phrase is falsely saying that to accept global warming, and also that it is human caused is “knowledge.” Anyone not accepting such a scenario is not knowledgeable – that would include a number of environmental scientists in several disciplines. Politicians lament that we need to be “educated” to the issues. TRANSLATION: We have to agree with the assessment of the situation they want us to have. And, that is not usually the true assessment that they hold themselves.

Global warming may be a fact, but “buying” into CCX- and government-backed propaganda probably isn’t going to change the situation, but we will be played like a piano, anyway. Worse, we’re still going to be subjected to junk science similar to this embarrassingly bad article.