Reposted from Science Is Not The Answer, William M Briggs’s Substack
Busy day at the Briggs compound, and I only have time to tell you, with regret, that the feminists are at it again.
Turns out there is a journal, and I promise this is true, called Australian Feminist Studies. And in this journal is a peer-reviewed—what is a peer here? angry unnaturally colored hair she beasts?—a paper titled “A Climate of Misogyny: Gender, Politics of Ignorance, and Climate Change Denial – An Interview with Katharine Hayhoe” by Sophie Bjork-James and Josef Barla.
According to her official bio at Vanderbilt Bjork-James “has engaged in long-term research on both the US-based Religious Right and the white nationalist movement.” Which makes her officially ignorant on the subject of physics of fluid flow on a differentially heated rough rotating sphere.
But she does appear quite knowledgeable about what eye wear to don to signal to others her woke credentials.
I refuse to look up Barla because no man has any business in a “feminist” journal.
Hayhoe, however, does know something about physics. She’s best categorized in that second-tier of scientists (see her paper titles) who take an idea given to them by first-tier scientists, and worries that idea to death. She has no idea how to even question the idea given to her. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Most of us do not belong in the first tier of anything.
Yet this paper is a catalog of feelings of these three people—transcribed from a Zoom call! Which, I suppose, is precisely what a paper in a feminist journal should be. So this is not a criticism. The only fallacy would come in supposing depth of feelings is a sound proxy for the correctness of propositions like “climate emergency.”
Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.”
This is because those in opposition understand Reality. In Reality, there is no interesting or important threat from “climate change”, and gender equality is a myth. I don’t mean myth in its modern sense of fiction or error. I myth in its classic sense of a foundational moral story. Only this one happens to be false, too.
Hayhoe (you do realize, dear reader, the intense effort it takes to not tease that name?) responds:
…there is the issue of gender inequality in the physical sciences in general. So, when you look at the earth sciences for example, which is my field, by the time you get to the level Full Professor, only 13% of us, according to the most recent numbers I have seen, are women.
Realists would take this as proof that men are better than women at physics, on average. And that the woke have not yet made the field DIE. But that it’s getting there.
Hay—stop me!—hoe’s answer goes on for a very long time to this first question. Indeed, the paper goes on for pages and pages. You know I love you, my dear readers, but even my great heart is of finite size. I could only read snatches.
Anyway, she says “research has shown”—research!—“that climate denial is not exclusively but predominately a male-dominated area and it is usually older White men”.
Which, again, proves older White men (ahem) are more in touch with Reality than others. And ore often tell the truth.
She immediately confirms this judgment: “Women conversely are more concerned about climate change.” Ain’t it the truth! Because “climate change” is a cultural or social phenomenon, and maintaining rules and order in these are what women excel at.
“Briggs, that is so sexist. That isn’t true. That makes you a misogynist.”
Uh huh.
Heyho’s very next sentence: “I am part of this program called Science Moms that just launched yesterday and part of why we did that was that it turns out that 83% of women in the USA are worried about climate change.”
Almost every one of these 83% of women do not understand any physics, but they do understand they have to be seen caring about “climate change.” Yet their deep feelings for “climate change” means nothing to the climate.
Wait. Why did she say White (and notice the capitalization) men are so amazing?
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.”
Allowed to dominate? Who allowed them? Women?
She then moves to a story of her—and I know you won’t believe me, but you know your Uncle Sergeant Briggs wouldn’t lie to you—a story about her cats.
I stopped reading after that.
Old white men have experience of life 😀
She seems to assume all old non-white guys and gals agree with her.
So true. Odd she felt safe attacking oldness so long as she safely made it white and male. I need a Big Name University PowerPoint slide that shows a hierarchy with weighted neutrality scores.
I almost stopped reading as soon as I saw the words “feminist studies”…
In the rather small, select echo chamber, no doubt they do
I was in my thirties when James Hansen pulled nasty parlor tricks during a typical Washington DC hot sticky humid day.
Hansen’s dirty trick caused me to pay attention where Hansen worked in the government and to doubt every single word he uttered or published.
At no time did Hansen ever appear honest.
As the decades passed, I gained age and watched troupes of lazy indolent greedy people enter ‘
Global Warming‘ climate science, all looking to earn glory and fame pushing fakery.Suddenly there’s are armadas of fakirs claiming their rope trick works.
Hayhoe has based her alleged science on feelings and fake generalities. Fake generalities are false strawmen drawn up from assumptions and bias about people that she knows absolutely nothing.
White men this, old white men that, women are so much better at these things. That is, so long as women and woman-like things agree with Hayhoe’s dream world.
Let’s get to basics.
Has Hayhoe started raising sheep, buying carders, spinning wheels and loom sso they’ll have clothing when the fossil fuel world fails?
Or started her own gardens and preserving all of the food they will need through the rest of the year?
If everything she owns or uses are derived from/by fossil fuels, her outrage and specious claims are just that, specious.
Cry, bitches!
And a rigorous scientific education.
This is likely because Older white men graduated from a school system that valued Knowledge and Science and Math and Language. They weren’t indoctrinated into the church of CC and merely taught Feelings and Gender Fluidity and Social Justice and had Climate Fear drilled into their heads from Kindergarten through 12th grade in every course.
In 1957, after Russia launched its first Sputnik, American schools tightened up their curricula with more rigorous science and math courses. The rigor subsequently declined in the ’60s, as well-meaning, but misguided, professors lowered their standards and inflated their grading to help keep young men from being drafted. Being born in 1972, Hayhoe might not even know what Sputnik was. Certainly, most of her contemporaries don’t don’t what Sputnik was. They don’t know what they don’t know. As a contemporary comment on our educational system, I offer the following: https://news.yahoo.com/act-test-scores-us-students-040600305.html
Much like models we complain about here, the SAT and ACT tests are not the same over time. Comparisons between eras get muddied because the tests don’t measure the same things.
I was predictably incredulous when I heard SAT scores would be adjusted for demographic factors, then grew predictably smug when universities demanded access to both raw and adjusted scores.
The Bell Curve book, and not just the much publicized discouraging bit of it, should still be required reading. It was the Pandora’s box that swallowed the materialist cultural worldview of its time – i.e. don’t explore data that might support ideas you don’t want to live with.
Once the old white men have all gone, the species is doomed
“ And ore often tell the truth.”
A typo?
Should be ” And are often telling the truth.”?
more…
NitPicker! 😎
More likely the typo.
Thanks for correcting my correction of my correction of what might have been a more simply corrected …. OH NO! I just went Kamala Harris!
Just so long as you didn’t go Joe Biden.. ! 😉
XO Baiden trips so much even his words trip off his tongue.
He embodies the great political Climate Tripping Point
I’m with Kirk Lazarus on this
Perhaps … And/Or
Yes, I noticed a couple of typos. Mr. Briggs should proofread his postings. However, it’s always harder to proofread your own stuff.
Are they saying that you have to have a cult (check spelling) to be climate aware?
Just another whinging minority getting way too many concessions and airtime.
Once you’ve pandered to all the minorities, all you have left is a really pi$$ed majority!
Has no one mansplained to these ignorant twats that there is nothing wrong with the climate? It is all hysterical crap in their feeble feminazi heads?
Ha ha ha. Throw gasoline on the fire and stand back….
Oh, no. I keep a pump-up sprayer for such tasks!
Filled with gasoline?
Kerosene, for doing controlled burns along right of ways and fence lines. Sometimes contaminated diesel, got to use it for something.
Never trigger a Karen !
Imagine being an actual 45 y/o white housewife named Karen.
Oh fun, I think I just learned empathy.
Now I have to spend the next few decades apologizing to people.
Always trigger karens and video their histrionical antics to shame them before the world.( yes, I did a GWB and created my own word, your welcome)
No one ever mentioned to you that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”?
As Mike notes the gasoline part, it’s like pouring gasoline on an EV fire.
At what point do we declare victory in this “War on Women” I’ve been told we are conducting?
I married my love, a woman. (I’m a guy.)
Guess I’ve been neutral in this “War on Women” I never knew was going on.
(If there really was one going on, talk about “NetZero”!)
When they put on their negligee?
The women won long ago. 🙂
The “War on Women” has been escalated by the “Trans” con-men.
When they start tearing up the furniture after they’ve broken all the crockery?
What is a ‘White man’? Is zhe (or is it Ж?) different from an ‘Albino man’?
And how does Hayhoe know the sex of these Pale People? Isn’t that gendering them?
How does one ‘forcefully oppose gender equality’? (Asking for a friend.)
So many questions, but really, Hayhoe has cats? Doesn’t Hayhoe know how Australian Environmentalists feel about cats?
Gender Equality should include all genders…even old white dude gender
It’s all about “Labeling”. Stick a dishonest label on those with an opposing view and you no longer need to engage them. Just bring up the label to dismiss them.
PS How old is Hansen? Mann? The Goracle? Brandon? Obama (well, half white)? Gleick? etc.
Too many comments from me here, but had to say thanks that’s brilliant. I wish more people could “get” critical thinking.
As someone who looks like an older white guy (my grandfather was Mexican), I am quite familiar with the casual racism of older white women like Hayhoe. Assuming ethnicity means anything significant about a person is the basis of racism.
Hayhoe being a Green predicts a lot more about her behavior and beliefs than Hayhoe being an older Anglo.
Hayhoe is not what I would consider all that old. She was born in 1972.
She is middle aged, she just acts like an old bag.
Atta boy!
…
and obviously pines for black.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #5:
Ridicule is the most potent weapon.
Except here, these folks turn the most potent weapon on themselves. We need do nothing but point out the obvious.
With stuff like this appearing, we can be fairly certain climate skeptics are slowly winning. Some other indicia:
“the worlds most existential threat”
Please, please, please help stop the words “existential threat“. What thing’s existence is threatened?
The far left world view will be threatened if the world doesn’t do something soon.
“Biden says climate change—not nuclear war, Russian Ukraine invasion, China in South China Sea/Taiwan—is the worlds most existential threat.”
Our pesident is delusional about CO2 (among other things).
Ask Israelis if Climate Change is their most serious “existential threat”.
I wonder if someone should tell them just how much they are enabling the other side……Um?.. Nah, let them talk…
The same research shows that the highest achievements in academia – including in climate science – are also predominately a male-dominated area.
Strange how it never occurs to her that such people may be more likely to hold a view that is different to the less intellectually able view because, they are right.
But then, her own research explains her own limitations.
Hmm … She played the “Race” card, The “Sex” card, The “Mom” card, (Did I miss any?), But no actual data or science mentioned.
All “feelings”.
She Missed the Trump Card
Well, she’s Australian. 😎
Who, Hayhoe?
I just said that comment out loud, and I sounded like I was practising for opening the door at Halloween trick or treat time. 🙁
“Well, she’s Australian.” ????
Hayhoe was born on April 15, 1972, in Toronto, Ontario.
That makes it a Canadian, I think. !
Moved to Texas years ago.
Calls herself a “climate scientist” but her bio says “My first published papers were in the field of observational astronomy, on variable stars and galaxy clustering around quasars.”
There are far too many astrophysicists who call themselves “climate scientists” simply because they somewhat delved into black body radiation for a couple of lectures in stellar radiation, and now think they know everything and are obligated to tell everyone like those other astrophysicists Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, (ulp) James Hansen, now Catharine Hayhoe added to the list.
Hayhoe’s “climate science” seems to be mostly along the lines of how to go about convincing people that a degree of warming since the Little Ice Age is important enough to support her career.
https://www.katharinehayhoe.com/biography/
Now that is funny. My early papers in astrophysics were on a kind of binary (and variable) stars. And I have written on apparent clustering of .. quasars near galaxies and I have ‘somewhat delved’ in the physics of radiative transfer of heat, the odd thirty years or so. That is why I am a Denier and proud to be one.
I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.
(And apologizes to Australia!)
The cat card? 😉
You missed the “Age” card, but you’re only as old as you feel….
I’ve never been this old before.
Don’t know how I’m supposed to feel.
OMG, just too funny.
This is predictable and in accord with Blair’s Law: “the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force” as formulated by Australian journalist Tim Blair.
I heard about the movie “Idiocracy” from a friend but I’ve never seen it. A comedy.
He described it as some mediocre guy (white) accidently being hibernated for 500 years and waking up to find out he’s the smartest guy on the planet.
I might watch it to better understand what’s going on now.
Sometimes I feel like Lieutenant Ripley, in the movie Aliens, when she says, “Did IQ’s suddenly drop while I was gone?
It’s good. A really sarcastic look at modern dumbed down marketing/fast food and tv culture in the USA.
I cant find it free anywhere, but a DVD wont break the bank
https://www.amazon.com/IDIOCRACY-WILSON-LUKE-Luke-Wilson/dp/B000ND7UL6/ref=tmm_dvd_title_0
My favorite Blair-ism is –
Nothing “green” ever works properly.
Ain’t that the truth?
Hoe-hum !!
The “Sciencemom(s)” knows what she talks about she won the 2019 Champions of the Earth award the UN’s (UNEP) highest environmental honor, say what, Champions of the Earth award … and now she have here eyes on the “green nobel” aka the Goldman Prize, out of 219 prizes given to date 98 females have won the prize, just a thoughy, but how many stupid prizes titels do exicts…!!
“Titels?” Is that some kind of Freudian slip?
Katharin Hayho is despicable fraud. A consummate liar that wear her religion on her sleeve to convince the gullible that what she is saying is truthful.
Not as low as say Hamas, but not far above them in my book.
For those here who do not know, Hayhoe’s PhD is in political science. She holds an endowed chair in that department at Texas Tech. She is not, and never was, a ‘climate scientist’ except in the beliefs in her own mind.
I’ve just begun attending a series of lectures on the application of the scientific method.
Right from the get-go, the presenter made it absolutely clear that the “science” focus of this course totally excludes any fields of research that are not physically observable, measurable, replicable.
So I guess we won’t be discussing how the scientific method is applied to “political science”?
I think you just said “My professor was born before 1970.”
“. . . excludes any fields of research that are not physically . . . replicable.”
I guess that excludes climate science too.
Actually when I took a 100 level Political Science course at Indiana University I learned a lot. The course was about FDR’s “New Deal”. It was a far better and more balanced discussion of history than I ever got when I took several history courses there.
Rud,
According to Wikipedia:
Hayhoe received her BS degree in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto in 1994. She began her college career studying astrophysics, but upon taking a course on climate science to fulfill a course requirement, she shifted her focus to atmospheric science, which she ultimately specialized in at graduate school. Hayhoe attended graduate school at the UI-UC, where she received her MS and PhD. Her PhD committee was chaired by Donald Wuebbles, who recruited her for a research project assessing the impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes.
But then, it is Wikipedia!
“the impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes.”
Hmm, assessing the impacts of something that can’t be quantified on something else.
I don’t know the dates, but a number of years ago the Great Lakes had a few down years and some folks expressed alarm. Then the Lakes recovered. I call these changes episodic rather than cyclical, and am not directly interested in any of them.
Climate “scientists” go to great lengths to avoid the fact that everything they are panicking over, has happened before.
“Hmm, assessing the impacts of something that can’t be quantified on something else.”
That’s alarmist climate science.
“She has a B.Sc. in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Colgate University, Trinity College, and Victoria College at the University of Toronto.”
honorary doctorates
honorary doctorates
honorary doctorates
So her highest non- honorary degree is from USA? Three responsible parties USA, Canada, Australia?
Australia?
Why not check her Bio at Texas Tech? Here is what is says.
Katharine Hayhoe is a Paul Whitfield Horn Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair in Public Policy and Public Law in the Public Administration program of the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. She is also the Chief Scientist for the global conservation organization, The Nature Conservancy.
She has a B.Sc. in physics and astronomy from the University of Toronto and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Colgate University, Trinity College, and Victoria College at the University of Toronto.
Not that degrees, or academic honors mean much to me anymore when it comes to so called “climate scientists” which I lump in with most “soft sciences”.
Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D. | Faculty | Political Science | TTU
Even so, Katherine Hayhoe has no evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth.
So how smart is a person who claims to have evidence when they don’t have evidence? Are they incapable of recognizing evidence? Are they just stupid? Are they so biased they can’t see the truth? They are certainly wrong to claim there is any connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather when they have no evidence for such.
Katherine attacks climate change deniers but she is the real denier. She is denying reality while claiming it is skeptics who are doing so when they merely point out that she has no evidence for what she claims about CO2.
I think Rud is right, this is just another indication that the climate alarmists are losing the argument.
If they were held accountable for their BS predictions it would be so much easier. But they aren’t. She was one that promoted the permanent SW drought myth and was dramatically busted when the flooding rains came to Texas.
But the same “reporters” that broadcast her BS prediction then came back, after a suitable interval after the rains, to “report” on more of her BS predictions as if she was a real “expert”.
She is also one that takes a page out of Mann’s book and blocks anyone that effectively questions her or disputes her contentions on social media.
Actually, I was hoping that Rud was right and Wikipedia was wrong. But, I gotta go with what is true. Since we haven’t heard back from Rud with some other source for his information, he apparently was mistaken.
So glad that my daughter didn’t have to take any classes while at Texas Tech taught by Katherine A-hoe.
“Texas Tech University’s tuition is $11,852 for in-state and $24,092 for out-of-state students.
It’s the same old BS. And those that don’t recognize it by now are the densest of the dense.
For example. Here is an article just out on my “news” feed.
Lawyer Backs Black Lives Matter Group’s Right to Defend Hamas Attack (msn.com)
Of course they have the right to say it under the first amendment. That has never been the question. In fact there is not question but only affirmation that those that say such things support genocide as long as the targets are those they so obviously hate. But it is a common method of the scumbags to start pulling the victim card when they are called out for what they have said. And this very article is an example of that.
Turley thinks he is being the modern version of John Adams who defended British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre when no other litigator in the city would. But he is wrong. Those that would condemn or even punish such speech by peaceful actions or words are also exercising their rights under the law.
Turley shows his true colors here.
Letting idiots like the BLM grifters open their yaps is the best way to respond. They always hang themselves when they aren’t playing the good ole race card.
Black Lives Matter shows its true character: They glorify the murder of innocent people.
Black Lives Matter are terrorists themselves.
Apparently black lives only matter when they are being killed by white cops.
Blacks killed by anyone else, especially other blacks, are invisible to them.
How pitiful is this? We are winning this kind of trash is all they have.
Hayhoe is one of the most deluded alarmists out there so is constantly given the megaphone to shout down rational voices.
Fake feminists blame the patriarchy rather than take personal responsibility which is the foundation for empowerment.
This just in: old, white male makes angry, sexist, misogynistic remarks about a female scientist for saying that angry, old, sexist, misogynistic white males are problematic for women in science. News at 11.
This just in: immature androgynist spews hateful sarcasm over the obvious because he dislikes what was said. Followup news at 12.
Which of those are you currently identifying as, Al?
I think today I will identify as a goldfish. And be content to blow bubbles until a heronj gets me.
This just in: People with no real arguments always resort to racism, sexism, misogyny, etc, ad nauseum.
“old, white male makes angry, sexist, misogynistic remarks about a female scientist”
If you’re referring to the article, where’s the angry part? I see only facts.
News flush.. AlanJ finally finds a “science” paper he can relate to and understand.
Study hard, AJ… You may one day make it to being a “climate scientist” just like Ms Hayhoe !.
.
Not if he has anything dangling twixt his legs, lol.
Apparently that need not be a barrier – as in the ‘Dylan Mulvaney’ gambit!
I don’t see any such remarks, then again, you are an expert at seeing whatever it is that you want to see.
Now, now Klaus – where’s your inclusivity?
This just in: old white female who doesn’t appreciate the feminists’ war on men thought it was a well-deserved trashing of a female propagandist. If Hayhoe’s a scientist I’m a polar bear.
Okay, what do I know? Ms. Hayhoe knows what a woman is, which is one step ahead of the new US Supreme Court Justice, but how does she know that none of those other men in the heights of academia are not women, or at least identify as such. I mean, are there really even women, or is that ‘old’ thinking. And how many feminists are really male? The women have really made it a complicated business? Why we’d have no WNBA and the women wouldn’t be denied the high salaries that go with the NBA, since of course they could easily play there.
Whether a male, is a man or a woman, appears to depend on which argument the leftist is making at the moment.
Categorize me??? HOW DARE YOU
Leftys love the struggle so struggling with their fluidity must be the ultimate for them along with changing the weather. Restless comes from wrestle I suppose and how they wrestle with hyphenated surnames beats me.
Hayhoe, hayhoe, it’s off to woke we go.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Priceless!
Women seem to be more likely to support these fashionable social and environmental issues than men. Maybe they’re just more idealistic, but they should rest assured that neither governments, businesses, industries, nor consumers will make the operational or lifestyle changes that will have any effect on the climate. The evidence from the IEA is this: during the last three decades emissions from industry and electricity generation have risen 60%. The future seems it will be more of the same; e.g., India plans to boost coal use by 40% by 2030, while China’s coal imports are forecast to rise from 229 MT in 2022 to 378 MT within two years. So who’s doing that much in the climate fight anyway?
Hayhoe 0 – Curry 1000
They’re not idealistic, they’re unrealistic. They can afford to be because the western civilization men built has insulated such women from the consequences of their stupidity. Their privilege has metastasized into a revolting sense of entitlement. I say that as a woman.
………..but we don’t even know what a woman is!
Speak for yourself.
I’m identifying as a woman today, and a man tomorrow, the next day, well I’m not sure what I will be. Depends how I “feel” mate! —
Now how can Katherine mischaracterize you if you keep switching from male to female?
Next thing we know, Katherine will be calling transsexuals climate change deniers.
Hayhoe doesn’t speak for all women – just the blue haired, tattooed, screamy ones
Katharine Hee Haw is a whack job who has been wrong too many time with her breathless fearmongering babblings.
So, according to some poll cited by Hayhoe, 83% of women are onboard with the climate change bandwagon. I wonder what would happen if women (white and otherwise) were polled about whether they would support eating bugs (and feeding them to their kids). Would they support living in a home without adequate heat and AC? Would they support being forced to either ferry the kids around in an EV or take public transit (if even available) instead? Would they want to be trapped in a small city, and face restrictions on travel, especially air travel?
Personally I don’t know any women (including myself) who would want anything to do with nutty net zero nonsense that is always coupled to the climate change narrative like a bunch of box cars behind a locomotive.
This Hayhoe lady is incredibly ignorant – and stupid – if she thinks that most women want to go back to an 18th century lifestyle – and for some bizarre reason, white men do not.
IMO this apparent marriage between climate change activism and feminism is simply insulting to women. It’s not unlike the notion that supporting fossil fuel use is racist. As if people of color are supposed to also want to give up the fruits of the industrial revolution and the positive impact it has had on humanity.
It’s no wonder loopy ideas like this (luckily) gain little traction….
“It’s no wonder loopy ideas like this (luckily) gain little traction….”
I agree with the sentiment, but I’m having trouble with historical examples of loopy ideas that died. Loopy ideas seem to gain traction as a mark of increasing standard of living.
The example that comes to my mind first is USA fad diets – they come and go with different names on overpriced snack food boxes, but the general idea of losing weight by eating “as much as you want” seems to persist across fad diets.
I believe it goes back to the old “no enemies on the left” attitude that many leftists take. As a result they feel the need to support any cause that is being pushed by other leftists, no matter how nonsensical, or unconnected to the causes they are pushing.
Please do not use racist terminology like “people of color.” Like its predecessor “colored people,” it was designed as a phrase to divide people into white vs. non-white groups and pit them against each other for the political benefit of the racist Democrat Party and their foot soldiers (KKK, Antifa, BLM, etc.).
From another “words have meanings” fan: you should offer a substitute term to try next time. It’s not the kind of search history I want lurking in my browser.
In Holland we have this song: “He ho, he ho, je krijgt het niet kado”
What is the difference between a feminist and a knife?
A knife doesn’t whinge about mysogeny whilst practising misandry
Ho hum
I hold it that that paper will turn out to be a spoof. Whatever it is, it is a rich source for a competent comedian.
“Hayhoe (you do realize, dear reader, the intense effort it takes to not tease that name?)”
Heck, and I was just about to…. but I’ll refrain.
Thank god she doesn’t suffer from dwarfism, it’d be so much worse.
“only 13% of us, according to the most recent numbers I have seen, are women”
Yuh, but how many enter that or any other field? The feminists think every field must have AT LEAST 50% women.
Yeah, and what was the percentage 10 years ago, 20 years ago?
It’s higher now, which means progress for women.
In my field, forestry, few women study that subject. The few who do- are guaranteed a job because all the state and federal agencies that hire women MUST increase the number of women. But the fact that they’re guaranteed jobs certainly ticks off the men because forestry jobs are tough to get – partly thanks to climatistas who are trying to shut down all forestry “to save the planet”. Reverse discrimination isn’t helping their cause if it angers people. Here in Wokeachusetts- women now dominate not just forestry but all state environmental agency leadership positions.
It’s an odd situation where I worry “they’re” being pulled onto a sinking life raft when their parents push them into STEM. 4 billion humans are smarter than average and most of them could not afford the computer I’m typing on.
Half of civil war era Americans were subsistence farmers, I wonder whether engineers will be the next farmers (meaning, only a small very effective minority of us might be needed).
In academia, she would naturally see who’s learning what now, In industry, I’m surrounded by certain demographics – the uniformity isn’t good or bad, it just is . After years of worrying that faraway people might steal my job for half price then do it better, I root for them to succeed. It might otherwise feel hypocritical to buy on Amazon.
I wonder what the percentage is for Sumo wresters?
Football linemen?
“Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.””
Forcefully oppose? What the hell does that mean? I’m sure she used that word to imply rape. I’m not aware of any man who opposes gender equality in any fashion- it’s just that they don’t want reverse discrimination.
““Sophie starts us off: “We find it striking that many of the voices downplaying or denying the reality of climate change are also those who forcefully oppose gender equality.”””
I would like for Sophie to give us one example of someone doing this.
This is a figment of Sophie’s imagination, not reality.
Maybe she was personally not popular with men- so this is her way of getting back at them. If she claims to be a scientist- she should stick to pushing back the frontiers of knowledge.
To most on the left, there is no difference between a failure to support and being guilty of forcefully opposing.
According to many, anything less than full throated agreement and support, is equivalent to actively opposing.
Of course these are the same activists who just a few years ago, claimed that all they wanted was acceptance.
““The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.””
Dominate? Men do the hardest jobs and go off to war. It would be one thing to complain about aristocracies and “the Church” as dominating powers- but to blame all men? And of course, men don’t live as long as women, on average!
If you are in a predominantly white society then they will dominate that society through numbers alone.
That would apply to any race. A predominantly black society would be dominated by the members of that society.
So these women are whining about demographics.
Dont worry, Joe Biden is trying to change the U.S. demographics. He has a *long* way to go to make white people a minority in America, though. But he is trying his best with his wide-open borders.
Though I’m not a huge fan of Trump, I did like many things he said. Once he said, “we should encourage more Scandinavians to emmigrate to America” or something like that. And for saying that, he was accused of being raccist. I think Trump’s thinking was more that Scandinavians are highly educated and can add more to America than millions of peasants in a time when we no longer have rapidly growing industry desperate for low skilled people, as when my peasant grandparents came here from Italy just before WWI. Every Scandinavian that I’ve personally met or seen on a video speaks better English than most Americans. What’s racist about wanting highly educate people coming here? Isn’t it the policy of New Zealand that they only allow people to become citizens if their nation needs those skills?
I suspect that Scandinavians have a lower crime rate than many of our recent immigrants as well.
A short lesson in metaphysics and the Problem of Induction.
You fail to get a job.
Is this because
(a) you are crap, unqualified, chippy and resentful, and no sane person would employ you.
or:
(b) You are being oppressed by White Men.?
Answers on a postcard to the institute of Marxism, Peace and Love.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown isn’t that old.
I am trying to figure out where someone like Willie Soon fits in. The notion that he is an angry old white man will surely come as news to many.
According to the leftists that I unfortunately know, if you are not a white male, then you are a lackey of the white males, which is even worse.
As every good leftist knows, all minorities are supposed to support them.
I remember some leftists proclaiming that Clarence Thomas was not a real black.
And that was before he didn’t vote for Brandon!
“that climate denial is not exclusively but predominately a male-dominated area and it is usually older White men”
That makes perfect sense to me. Men tend to be more logical while women tend to be more emotional. Men tend to value independence and self-determination while women tend to value safety and stability.
Older men tend to have been educated through their formative years before the left solidified its stranglehold and shifted the government school’s mission from education to indoctrination. White men were more likely to have been educated in rural and suburban schools rather than inner city schools where the leftist stranglehold took root much earlier.
‘The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries and all of a sudden that is not enough anymore.’
Allowed to dominate? Who allowed them? Women?”
On the contrary, the only reason that women and minorities have equality un this country is because white men granted it to them (and, in the case of blacks, fought a devastating war to win it for them). The question is, had the roles been reversed, would they have done the same?
I believe that the way those on the left treat anyone who dares to disagree with them, answers that question.
William Briggs is a hard act to follow for anyone who might try to offer a clever response to absurdity.
Not only is Katharine Hayhoe a misogynist, she it a racist misogynist. That, of course, is my humble opinion from reading the above article.
Just carefully examine her quoted statement:
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries . . .”
Hmmmm . . . one thinks (reasons) that having:
(a) wealth,
(b) education,
(c) inheritance of military powers,
(d) inheritance of political powers, and/or
(e) family connections to others in power
may have been significantly more important than being “White” in enabling them to “dominate Western society for centuries”?
As others have documented, “White” is not defined as a specific race . . . it is a construct proven useful for things like conducting a census and filling in government forms.
“The [US] Census Bureau defines White people as follows:
‘White’ refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans
I have not doubt that if asked, the former kings and queens of Spain and Portugal—you know, the rulers of those countries that largely dominated the conquest of the North and South America—would have objectively strenuously to being classified as “White”, given their typical skin pigmentations.
Ref: https://andscape.com/features/white-immigrants-werent-always-considered-white-and-acceptable/
Errrr . . . last sentence of last full paragraph should read “. . .—would have objected strenuously to being classified . . .”
The great irony of the uninformed climate alarmists is that they think we are wrong about their “truth”. “If I feel it, it is true.” Men and women are different, and that is good. It has taken me forty years to learn to listen to feelings and be empathetic. Fortunately, my woman not only has feelings, she also believes in real facts and real truth. So it is becoming increasingly easy to listen and care about her feelings that have nothing to do with climate. It is harder to have empathy for feelings grounded in a false narrative – especially when those with climate alarmist feelings refuse to debate what is actually happening versus what the flawed models predict.
In the real world, old white men have contributed quite a lot to society, just saying
“The fact that being a White man has allowed them to dominate Western society for centuries”
Hmm, not really. If we’re using the racialised descriptor “white” to mean Western European society, the reality for centuries was a small elite that dominated a much larger lower class.
Science Muthas has such a different ring, doesn’t it?
When I hear her name I always expect “Kermit the frog, here” to follow.