“Climate Deniers” are, You Guessed it, Racist

Racial Resentment May Be Fueling Climate Denial

After Barack Obama took office, white Americans were less likely to see climate change as a serious problem, according to a recent paper published in the journal Environmental Politics. The study further finds evidence of a link between racial resentment and climate change denial. This is not to suggest that all climate deniers are racists, merely that racial resentment may, in part, be driving climate denial.

(Source)

The list of spurious correlations

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Re-Blog and Comment

Advertisements

5 thoughts on ““Climate Deniers” are, You Guessed it, Racist”

    1. That’s because they’re aren’t any, nobody denies that the climate changes, we are surrounded by evidence of it on all sides.
      I am sitting typing this surrounded by terrain entirely shaped by glaciers, there are U-shaped valleys, hanging valleys, moraines, drumlins and erratics all within a ten mile radius of me, all left behind when the glaciers receded around 10,000 years ago.
      That was some serious climate change that melted a thousand feet of ice sheet that covered my present location.
      I am also surrounded by limestone hills and mountains that contain fossils of plants and creatures that once made up the ocean floor, now they are over a thousand feet above sea level.
      As to Anthropogenic Global Warming however, there is no such thing.
      Mankind can no more significantly alter the climate than significantly alter the time the sun rises and sets.

      Like

    2. Living Soils, I can’t understand how people can just accept the word ‘climate’ being used to indicate far more than just climate, in conjunction with the word ‘denier’, without noticing that it makes no sense . . and that it undermines rational discussion . . Since one first has to either go along with such a bizarre concept as people denying climate, or go through a preliminary discussion in itself, like this one, just to get to the point of even having a discussion about the potential of impending doom awaiting humanity if we don’t all agree to hand over tons of money and freedom/rights.

      And, as catweazle explained, adding the word ‘change’ does virtually nothing to alleviate the nonsensical nature of the lingo being used, since no one denies climate change, it seems to me, anymore than anyone denies climate . . but, here we are, ready to get on with the next phase of unraveling the mystery of why so many people are so trusting of people asking for tons of money and power over them, and accusing any who balk of being somehow irrational, when those asking can’t cite a single thing that is going on climate wise, that wasn’t commonly believed to have gone on before, while humans were obviously not in any position to effect global climate. Historically speaking, we’re in a warm phase . . happened many times before . . I mean, unless you’re one of those weird climate change deniers we hear so much about . . ; )

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Living Soils, I’m currious to understand how someone can look at the geoloigical record and reach the conclusion that CO2 is a real danger? I understand the political angle, but CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and life thrived. Only 15,000 out of 100,000 do you have an interglacial period, so the alternative of warmth is an ice age. What evidence do you have that CO2 has, does and will cause catastrophic climate change, and why didn’t it do so in the past? Have the laws of nature somehow been changed?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s