• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deniers tend to be white, racist and old

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,232
Reaction score
28,538
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting article.

If you're old, white and racist, you're more likely to be a climate change denier

Climate change deniers tend to be racist, white and old, according to a study.

Researchers found that American voters with some serious racial resentments were - and this might come as a shock to literally no one - far more likely to question an irrefutable truth like climate change.


Using information from American National Election Studies, researcher Salil Benegal at DePauw University found Republicans with high racial resentment scores were 84 per cent likely to dispute and argue with man-made climate change.

If being more inclined to racial resentment wasn't enough, research conducted by Pew found that climate change deniers tend to also be... Wait, can you guess? That's right, old and white.

Hmmm.
 
Deniers tend to be white, racist and old

By my reckoning, deniers, as the OP-er calls them, seem, judging by the one's who've shared their thoughts with me, tend to have in common stupidity bred from willful ignorance.
 
I don’t deny climate change! It happens on a regular basis! Has been for millions and millions of years! We once had a very unpopulated earth accompanied by serious and drastic climate change. You have heard of this yes?
 
i don’t deny climate change! It happens on a regular basis! Has been for millions and millions of years! We once had a very unpopulated earth accompanied by serious and drastic climate change. You have heard of this yes?

a/s/l?
 
As we start another wildfire season in the Pacific Northwest; as local cities learn to filter water from blue green algae; climate deniers? How stupid can people be, politicizing scientific fact?
 
I don’t deny climate change! It happens on a regular basis! Has been for millions and millions of years! We once had a very unpopulated earth accompanied by serious and drastic climate change. You have heard of this yes?

Deniers deny not the climate change but that human activity like C02 emissions change the climate far far far faster than normal processes ever would (completely different time scales) and these changes are quickly leading to unsustainable environment for the human life itself.
 
Are you suggesting some kind of causal relationship or is this just some kind of "oh-gee look at that" essentially useless factoid?
 
I’ll avoid adhoms but I do find it interesting how one’s political views do a reasonable job at predicting which areas they will disagree with the scientific consensus. Conservatives are more likely to discount the human effect on climate and liberals are more likely to oppose things like GMOs.

It is an interesting phenomenon.
 
Never heard of DePauw University so I wanted to see what the background of someone from there might be. It's a private liberal arts college with an enrollment of approximately 2,300 students, the birthplace of The Society of Professional Journalists and a member of GLCA, a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges located in the states around the Great Lakes..

Can't imagine they would have a bias :roll::roll:

Anyway, I have never denied there is climate change, has been since the Earth was formed and if the climate never changed we would be in deep s**t.
 
Every time I walk through North Philly or Harlem, no bruthas want to talk about gloanl warming with me.
 
I’ll avoid adhoms but I do find it interesting how one’s political views do a reasonable job at predicting which areas they will disagree with the scientific consensus. Conservatives are more likely to discount the human effect on climate and liberals are more likely to oppose things like GMOs.

It is an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, science denial happens on both sides of the political spectrum. Politically motivated conservatives see AGW as a government ploy to strengthen centralised control over their lives, while for politically motivated liberals (in the US sense), GMOs are a corporate plot to gain control over our food supplies and squeeze out the little guy.
 
Never heard of DePauw University so I wanted to see what the background of someone from there might be. It's a private liberal arts college with an enrollment of approximately 2,300 students, the birthplace of The Society of Professional Journalists and a member of GLCA, a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges located in the states around the Great Lakes..

Can't imagine they would have a bias :roll::roll:

s**t.
LOL
Yeah but it was a 'study"{smirk} . Done by 'people who spend their whole lives studying this stuff' {guffaw} .Peer reviewed { sarcastic chuckle} probably
I think another study would show that people who accept every tenet of AGW tend to be pompous white liberal know it alls who turn their air conditioners on full blast the minute the temperatures go above 70.
 
I guess you like to celebrate people who are against science and sanity.

Science is about testing, challenging and questioning the known and the unknown. You are a pusher of "settled science" are you not? Ergo you are anti-science.
 
Never heard of DePauw University so I wanted to see what the background of someone from there might be. It's a private liberal arts college with an enrollment of approximately 2,300 students, the birthplace of The Society of Professional Journalists and a member of GLCA, a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges located in the states around the Great Lakes..

Can't imagine they would have a bias :roll::roll:

Anyway, I have never denied there is climate change, has been since the Earth was formed and if the climate never changed we would be in deep s**t.

My alma mater.
 
Beyond stupid, on multiple levels.

[h=1]Bizarre claim: “Climate Change Denial” is a racial attitude[/h]From ScienceAlert and the “you knew it was just a matter of time before some misguided social justice warrior made the claim” department. h/t to WUWT reader “ozspeakup” Racist Attitudes And Climate Denial Have a Disturbing Link We Never Knew About Something is very wrong here. PETER DOCKRILL – ScienceAlert The drivers behind climate change…
 
Never heard of DePauw University so I wanted to see what the background of someone from there might be. It's a private liberal arts college with an enrollment of approximately 2,300 students, the birthplace of The Society of Professional Journalists and a member of GLCA, a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges located in the states around the Great Lakes..

Can't imagine they would have a bias :roll::roll:

Anyway, I have never denied there is climate change, has been since the Earth was formed and if the climate never changed we would be in deep s**t.

Yeah, scientists tend to be disproportionately white and male.

Perhaps that's why they can see the trend in the data of more white males being on the skeptic side.
 
It is appropriate today to quote Charles Krauthammer.

The central axiom of partisan politics,” July 26, 2002
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. . . . Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything. . . .
Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do — self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power — without being soulless? How to understand the conservative desire to actually abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? . . .
The “angry white male” was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog — the white male — forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.
Read the full column
 
It is appropriate today to quote Charles Krauthammer.

The central axiom of partisan politics,” July 26, 2002
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. . . . Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything. . . .
Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do — self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power — without being soulless? How to understand the conservative desire to actually abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? . . .
The “angry white male” was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog — the white male — forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.
Read the full column

Thanks for posting that, yes liberals invented the angry white male - and I'm all of
that but - the liberals are the ones who are truly vicious. The violent Antifa riots
and continuing vendetta against President Trump illustrate the point.
 
I guess you like to celebrate people who are against science and sanity.

No, the poster is against the many morons who cherry picks articles that blankets any sceptic as stupid.

It might be a little above your pay grade to understand this.
 
Don’t Trust a Fox in a Green Meadow

Posted on 30 Jun 18 by JOHN RIDGWAY 6 Comments
Bereft of gainful employment, I now find myself spending more time than is good for me plucking at the internet for morsels of entertainment. Thus engaged, and being a sucker for the allure of an intriguing title, I recently settled upon the following article, written by a certain Michelle Nijhuis, and posted on Vox,1 the self-proclaimed … Continue reading

". . . In pre-war Germany, the National Socialist Teachers League (of which, spookily, 97% of teachers were a member) distributed the schoolbook, Don’t Trust a Fox in a Green Meadow, or the Word of a Jew.3 Its purpose, of course, was to indoctrinate school children by ‘inoculating’ them against the beguiling ‘evil’ of perfidious Semites — supposedly the principal existential threat to the future of the Fatherland. Other than the fact that both the National Socialists and climate alarmists can both be seen to harbour sincere concerns for the fate of their children, there is, of course, no comparison to be made between their respective moral or ethical positions. To make such a comparison would be odious in the extreme. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that, in the two cases, one encounters an identical strategy to promote ideology: inoculation through brazen propaganda.
Yes, I know that propaganda wars are a two-way intrigue, and this presumably is why the alarmist propagandists cannot see themselves in that role, preferring instead to self-identify as champions against ‘denialist’ propaganda. But, as someone who has been invited by such people to adopt the sobriquet ‘denier’, I feel I am justified in drawing attention to the explicit hypocrisy of talking about ‘herd immunisation’ whilst feigning to take the moral high ground on the propaganda battlefield.
In 1931, the American social scientist, William Wishart Biddle, wrote ‘A Psychological Definition of Propaganda’. This was one of the earliest attempts to study the psychology of propaganda, and it included the enunciation of the following four principles:

  • Rely on emotions, never argue
  • Cast propaganda into the pattern of ‘we’ versus an ‘enemy’
  • Reach groups as well as individuals
  • Hide the propagandist as much as possible.
I maintain that all four of these principles can be readily discerned in the strategies employed by advocates of CAGW. They can be seen in the images of beleaguered polar bears perched perilously upon shrinking ice floes; they can be seen in the refusal to debate the science outside an inner conclave of scientists; they can be seen in the characterisation of scepticism as a dangerous denial of established facts; they can be seen in the ad hominem attacks made upon dissenting voices within the scientific community; they can be seen in the grouping of all sceptics under the one banner of ‘cognitively impaired fantasists’; and they can be seen in the Nijhuis article’s attempt to hide wanton propaganda under the guise of what ‘researchers have found’. . . ."



 
Don’t Trust a Fox in a Green Meadow

Posted on 30 Jun 18 by JOHN RIDGWAY 6 Comments
Bereft of gainful employment, I now find myself spending more time than is good for me plucking at the internet for morsels of entertainment. Thus engaged, and being a sucker for the allure of an intriguing title, I recently settled upon the following article, written by a certain Michelle Nijhuis, and posted on Vox,1 the self-proclaimed … Continue reading

". . . In pre-war Germany, the National Socialist Teachers League (of which, spookily, 97% of teachers were a member) distributed the schoolbook, Don’t Trust a Fox in a Green Meadow, or the Word of a Jew.3 Its purpose, of course, was to indoctrinate school children by ‘inoculating’ them against the beguiling ‘evil’ of perfidious Semites — supposedly the principal existential threat to the future of the Fatherland. Other than the fact that both the National Socialists and climate alarmists can both be seen to harbour sincere concerns for the fate of their children, there is, of course, no comparison to be made between their respective moral or ethical positions. To make such a comparison would be odious in the extreme. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that, in the two cases, one encounters an identical strategy to promote ideology: inoculation through brazen propaganda.
Yes, I know that propaganda wars are a two-way intrigue, and this presumably is why the alarmist propagandists cannot see themselves in that role, preferring instead to self-identify as champions against ‘denialist’ propaganda. But, as someone who has been invited by such people to adopt the sobriquet ‘denier’, I feel I am justified in drawing attention to the explicit hypocrisy of talking about ‘herd immunisation’ whilst feigning to take the moral high ground on the propaganda battlefield.
In 1931, the American social scientist, William Wishart Biddle, wrote ‘A Psychological Definition of Propaganda’. This was one of the earliest attempts to study the psychology of propaganda, and it included the enunciation of the following four principles:

  • Rely on emotions, never argue
  • Cast propaganda into the pattern of ‘we’ versus an ‘enemy’
  • Reach groups as well as individuals
  • Hide the propagandist as much as possible.
I maintain that all four of these principles can be readily discerned in the strategies employed by advocates of CAGW. They can be seen in the images of beleaguered polar bears perched perilously upon shrinking ice floes; they can be seen in the refusal to debate the science outside an inner conclave of scientists; they can be seen in the characterisation of scepticism as a dangerous denial of established facts; they can be seen in the ad hominem attacks made upon dissenting voices within the scientific community; they can be seen in the grouping of all sceptics under the one banner of ‘cognitively impaired fantasists’; and they can be seen in the Nijhuis article’s attempt to hide wanton propaganda under the guise of what ‘researchers have found’. . . ."




I ran across this quote recently:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten,
every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building
has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is
continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.
Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is
always right."
George Orwell, 1984​
 
Back
Top Bottom