Conservative white males (CWMs) are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views ... these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well.

and ...

CWMs also tended to assert a stronger understanding of global warming than other adults – and those who said they understood it best were the most likely to be the strongest deniers.

View full article here

So blue white men are less green, fine!

So thinking smart people are harder to fool, well I never!

I bet the writers of this junk were white. Self hatred is the bedrock of the AGW movement and I suspect of this survey too.

The more you investigate, the more you understand, the more you come to the conclusion that the 'scientists' are wrong. Who'd have thunk it? Odd to be labelled in an socio-ethnic group because of it though...

I don't even go near dissenter.

I don't share the unfounded CAGW beliefs.
I'm an un-believer; an infidel.

I remember when I first heard the theory in the early 1990s I was quite sympathetic, but then some warning signs arose. Carbon trading. This just feels like a scam, even before Richard pointed out the fraud. Apparently it was designed by Ken Lay of Enron fame, which should arowse suspicions immediately.

Then there is the way that religious people have seized upon it. This brings it into the realm of eschatology. Every religion has its own version of the End of the World.

So any intelligent, questioning person should be doubting it by now.

Dellers has just written about Greenpeace. That video looks well funded, and presumably they had to get George Lucas' permission to use Star Wars characters and footage.

The MSM should be taken to task for using the word 'Denier', I can understand how it gets into the comment sections because quite frankly; the bastard 'warmistas' give me the creeps, I feel unclean just reading the propaganda.

I don't know if the temperature is going up or down, but I know that they don't either. I know that the surface temperatures are shit data in the first place, and I know they are fiddling the shit data, so anyone who knows 'otherwise' is just kidding themselves.

It is a neat ploy, using correlation = causation to explain my denier status as arising from my age, sex, and colour. I am now an acronym - a CWM. Easier to dismiss that way. Hypocrisy is not a problem to the Guardian, of course.
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denia ... deological came up when googling this topic. Just wonderful:
"McCright & Dunlap argue that while corporate interests may once have seemed front-and-center in spurring resistance to climate science, at this point it's becoming increasingly apparent that ideological motivations are actually the primary motivator. Or as they put it: “conservative movement opposition to climate science and policy has a firm ideological base that supersedes the obvious desire for corporate funding.”"
From a quick scan of their paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 198.x/full
it would seem that the politicisation of climate change is our fault, not the CAGW folk.

So the real story is that lefty wogs 'n' women are likely to believe any crap they're told.

Proud to be CWM

If you wanted to you could push the correlation = causation chain further.

CWM I imagine are more likely to have a higher mean income, which strongly correlates to better educated and more intelligent.

So, to sum up, The Guardian is saying that clever people think CAGW is bunkum and stupid people believe it.

Hard to argue with their analysis.

Proud to be a 'DISSENTER'.

What is needed is a Chief DISSENTER to unite us into a force to be reckoned with.

Anyone out there up to the challenge?

In such arguments, there is always danger from correlation with no causation. However, there is some protection from seeking also plausible (if not known) causal mechanism.

It is rather difficult to find causal mechanism in sex and skin colour, though one might do better on the latter (also arguably in both directions, including the wrong one for the Guardian).

More importantly, I suspect there is more to be said for causation of scientific scepticism from serious higher eduction in science and associated numerate subjects. There is known correlation (sadly, and on both grounds) for such education WRT sex and skin colour.

In terms of trying to resolve the relative importances of these different issues, perhaps figures could also be published separately for far-east Asians.

As for 'conservative' with a small 'c', that implies at least some belief in past methods and knowledge as being strongly competitive with new methods and knowledge, where the only difference is age. This probably covers (in addition to the higher educational aspects) old knowledge of the false rhetoric of "argument from authority" and of "argument from popularity". I suppose it might also include knowledge of (and belief in) the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age.

Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick

Indeed, my first sentiment was, what a backhanded complement.

At the first sight of any unexplained weather phenomena, the caveman would feel the need to appease the gods by sacrificing a few fellow souls. The instinct live on.

So the Guardianistas want to call educated, white, conservative males dissenters now? That's nice. At least it's an improvement on 'denier'. However, this educated, white, conservative female still regards Guardianistas and their CiFalitic cheerleaders as science-blind, authoritarian arseholes.