Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

https://www.chalmers.se/en/departme...trongly-linked-to-right-wing-nationalism.aspx

This study - the abstract can be found here - follows up on a US study about the link between climate change denial and conservative white males in the U.S. This study, based in Norway, found that 63% of conservative males in Norway do not believe in anthropogenic climate as opposed to 36% among the rest of the population.

I think the findings of this study makes a great deal of sense in light of the study done by Duke University a few years ago which found that people often reject factual conclusions when those individuals do not like the policy implications.

 

Climate change fearmongering strongly linked to communism.

It's all about control.

 

in the same way that right wing denialism is all about avoiding responsibility?

 

White Christian males pretty much created the world we know, through conquest and invention. Of course they aren't going to believe that anyone is destroying the world without their own planning and consent...

 

It seems logical to me that conservatives would be more skeptical of pseudo-science than are liberals; especially the politically motivated pseudo-science of the left.

 

No, the anti-AGW people are smart enough to know that Humans have very little to do with the climate changing and are not willing to allow the world's governments to fearmonger its citizens into more taxes and regulations and controlling every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave.

 

Pseudoscience:

A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

 

First, we never deny climate change. We even offer proof of changes. But we get told over and over we deny climate change. Strange how we are not listened to so they may proceed with propaganda against us.

 

Climate Change is not a science of the left. It is a scientifically sound and established theory and the solution results in a policy implication that you do not like.

 

Do you deny that humans are currently playing a significant influence on the current rapidly change to the climate?

 

So they are scared little bitches, huh?

 

That is not climate change. That is management by humans. So if you believe in management by humans, why not say that?

 

Why do you think they are "smart enough" to know that humans have very little to do with climate change, despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary?

 

****ing bullshit. This forum is absolutely rife with it.


I'm beginning to think the only way to solve this countries problems is to divide north and south and let the south die on the vine of its vanity.

 

....management? what?

 

If by 'policy implication' you mean being taxed for a scientific event that taxation cannot stop, of which the only benefitting entity is the taxing authority, then perhaps there is justifiable reasons not to like the 'policy implications'.

 

Yes, that is a perfect example of rejecting the science because you do not like policy implication of the solution even though that specific policy implication is not a required solution for the problem.

 

So, conservative white males are less gullible than other people. This finding does not surprise me.

 

If you use facts to promote acts of self destruction and stupidity, your facts will get rejected.

Not a big surprise really.

Perhaps if you came up with more sensible and agreable policies people would be more inclined to think you someone worth listening to?

I don't give a **** if climate change is real or not. You will not rule here.
Cite all the "facts" you like. Makes no difference at all.

 

Yes I know, it's not a "science" of the left; it's a "pseudoscience" of the left.

Heck, if I was paid $90,000 a year to write "climate-change" articles that supported global-warming, even I could be subtly seduced into thinking it was actually a "scientific" report I was writing, when in fact, it was nothing more than a report that would get me $90,000 a year; a report that was made to look "scientific".

One should never confuse a political agenda with science. It's like trying to mix oil with water.

 

Editing someone's post is against forum rules.

 

What's BS?

This country isn't divided north and south. It's divided east/west coast vs middle America.

 

If you notice, they are still unable to cite experiments done using scientific means to show that dropping Carbon Dioxide levels results in cooling planets.

 

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the climate has been changing all that time and continues to change. There were many times in Earth's history that were way hotter and way colder.

For instance, the CO2 levels during the Jurassic period was about 3 to 5 times higher than what it is today. Also, there was a time when the Earth was nearly entirely covered in ice called "snow ball" Earth.

Humans have very little to no impact on the climate.

 

Looking at the election maps of elections since 1950, clearly you are correct. We have bands of blue on each coast with red dominating the rest of America. Clearly a war of two coasts against the rest of America.