2012-03-22 14:15:50how to rate: Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change...
Sarah Green

True in my experience, but how do I rate it??

Cool Dudes: The Denial Of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males In The United States
We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity-protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2012-03-22 14:34:17
John Cook


Firstly, love the paper title :-)

Second, I've been rating social science papers about climate change as Methods.

2012-03-22 14:56:39
Sarah Green

That's what I've been doing, too. And I picked explicit endorsement, because without assuming AGW there can be no denialists to study.

Rating papers about climate denial in order to refute denial seems oddly circular. 

2012-03-22 16:55:59
Ari Jokimäki


I have classified this kind of papers as mitigation as I think that's mostly what they are related to (climate denial and public opinion are preventing mitigation).

2012-03-22 18:14:40
Mark Richardson

Hmmm, I didn't do that. I've put polls as opinion and education or similar as 'Not Climate Related', along with history descriptions.

2012-03-22 19:50:31Ok, a few issues to resolve here...
John Cook

First, what category. I think either methods or mitigation but not "not climate related" if it's social science about climate. But I don't think it's mitigation. I only rate mitigation if it's about lowering emissions. There is no specific link between emissions & social science studies. So I think methods.

As for endorsement level, I'd rate this as neutral. I think of it this way. Could a denier have written that abstract? Theoretically yes. Think Singer, they love using the word denier these days.

2012-03-22 22:00:33


One more reason to revise the ratings. Like Mark, I rated them opinion/neutral.

2012-03-22 22:28:00
John Cook

The more precise definition of opinion papers is "non peer reviewed". So a social science paper is usually peer reviewed.
2012-03-22 23:14:11
Sarah Green

I have classified many social science abstracts as mitigation; often they are studying how to motivate people to act to slow AGW.

'Could a denier have written it' is a good metric. I suppose a really cool dude could have written this one.

2012-03-23 07:46:29
Dana Nuccitelli

Yeah I'd call that methods too.  It's borderline implicit endorsement though, with all the 'climate change denial' phrases.  If you read the paper I'd bet it would be an explicit endorsement.