https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/australian-feminists-and-katharine
Australian Feminists & Katharine Hayhoe Weep Over White Men Who Do Not Love ‘Climate Change’
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 tiles) 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.
…
According to her official bio at Vanderbilt, co-author Sophie Bjork-James “has engaged in long-term research on both the US-based Religious Right and the white nationalist movement.” Sophie Bjork-James 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.”
Katharine Hayhoe says “research has shown”—research!—“that climate denial is not exclusively but predominately a male-dominated area and it is usually older White men.”
ABSTRACT: “In this interview, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe discusses with Sophie Bjork-James and Josef Barla: the issue of gender inequality in the natural sciences; the toxic entanglement of right-wing extremism, sexism and anti-science rhetoric in discourses on climate change; the far-reaching institutional and social consequences of the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science research and advocacy; as well as the politics of ignorance and promising ways to rebuild trust in shared values and a shared world in the face of multiple planetary crises and challenges from climate change to biodiversity loss to the rise of far-right extremism.”
