Thursday 30th of August
“Researchers have found close ties between climate denying and xenophobia. 63 percent of conservative Norwegian men do not think climate change is man-made, “we read from journalist Iselin Elise Fjeld at NRK on Tuesday night.
Fjäll quotes what she refers to as “research” made by Olve Krange, at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). NRK also writes that Krange concludes that “climate denial seems to go hand in hand with a wider pattern of high nationalism and xenophobia.”
“We have not measured high-level nationalism or xenophobia, but a question about attitudes towards immigrants lets us observe that conservative men, who are also skeptical of immigration, more often doubt human-induced climate change than everyone else, even when we check for a variety of other variables, explains Krange.
There must also be a US study showing the same.
“Both the Norwegian and US study argue that climate denial can be understood as an attempt to protect current power structures,” writes NRK
“There is a way to protect group identity, and maintain a social structure that allows white men to enjoy benefits over other communities,” the researchers explain in the report according to the NRK.
– High-spirited individuals tend to more easily accept and justify existing social structures and oppose changes in traditional lifestyles, called it.
National spokesman for MDG, Arild Hermstad, also states:
“The research explains something we have experienced since the MDG entered the city council in Oslo. Conservative middle-aged is a loud group fighting for the right to drive a car at the expense of children and the sick. They are provoked by women of power and foreign appearance, and in addition they deny the climate knowledge. Climate skepticism and nationalism are linked because such cross-border challenges can not be solved within the national state.
You almost do not know where to start commenting on such a combination of “research” and the NRK’s reporting of it. But let’s try.
First, it is the use of the word “climate neglect”. The use of this term adds that there is something that is true, which is thus denied. For example, would you use the term “UFO-denial”? And also the combination “climate” and “deny” put together becomes completely meaningless. No one denies that the climate exists, or even is skeptical about the climate. In that case, it is climate change, or more precisely the potentially man-made parts of climate change that you are skeptical of or “deny”. Anyone who uses the term “climate neglect” pertains to the definition of Fake News.
It is obvious that NINA researcher Olve Drange for himself tries to figure out the “mystery” about how someone can deny it to him the obvious truth that human terrible activity destroys the planet by changing the climate. And then it’s good that other views the researcher finds incomprehensible, yes maybe morally reprehensible, such as skepticism about mass immigration (!), Are connected.
Therefore, it becomes logical. If you do not understand a specific thing, there is a good chance that you will not understand other things. You’re simply stupid.
Not stupid, but powerful
But wait a bit. It’s not that Olve Drange says. The skepticism of white men expresses immigration and man-made climate change (“climate denial” in Dranges and NRKS language draws) due to “attempts to protect current power structures.” The white men are not stupid. No, they are cynical, power-seeking individuals, he believes. And this defense of their own privileges is the explanation, not that they are stupid.
Drange therefore supports the American study that inspired him, who found that the explanation for the climate denial of white men was that it is “a way to protect group identity and maintain a social structure that allows white men to enjoy benefits over other social groups” .
Responsibility and self-catering operation
It should be noted in this context that self-catering is a good property that is probably chosen. That one wants to protect his group has been absolutely necessary for the survival of humanity (and all other plants and animals). And then the question of men, or “white men”, sees themselves as a group. My assertion is that there is little or no vote.
We white men, like Arab men, black men, yellow men, Swedish men, Danish men, Muslim men, etc., experience us as part of societies where women (and children) make up an entirely natural part. To the extent that we work to protect an “identity” or to “maintain a social structure,” it is a primary entity that wishes to be protected. The primary such entities have historically been families, clans, tribes, ethnic groups, nations, religious or ideological communities.
Of course there are also gender identities and also fighting about status and power between women and men, but for example, in today’s immigration ship, the struggle between white men and white women is far subordinate to the white men’s “struggle” against strange men about resources, and just a fight for the women of the white, or the foreign men.
One can easily understand why skepticism about mass immigration is in the interests of white men. I suppose it is in the interests of white women too. A society of increased violence, rape and crime, increased numbers of hostile people who are offended by trifles, as well as a welfare state that bleeds money for immigrants, is barely in the interests of some of its citizens.
But it is not good to say what a skepticism to accept that man-made climate change would favor white men over women, and neither white men more than dark men, nor immigrants. So here is a significant short circuit outside and goes to the head of the researcher and the NRK journalist.
A more likely explanation of the correlation between immigration skepticism and skepticism to accept the claims about the importance of man-made climate change is that both require a certain degree of critical sense and ability to think independently and beyond consensus and it’s “all” mean.
For decades, the prevailing ideology in the West has hammered sunshine stories about the multicultural society and the doomsday prophecies about environment and climate. At the same time, it is obvious that those who were skeptical of mass immigration at an early stage were most right. It now admits the vast majority.
Even the gloomiest climate cases have been thoroughly disproved by the climate itself. So it has been sensible to be skeptical of the sunshine history of the multicultural society as climate alarmists. For if one should follow the latter’s warnings, a number of expensive measures would have been implemented for no positive benefit.
I’m not going to hang out on the complaints queue that sits over how bad white middle-aged men are treated in Western society. In my opinion, we still have the best cards at hand and are not as discriminated as anyone wants it to. But that does not mean that there are no radical environments trying to “war” against the white man trying to construct an opposition between white men and white women, or rather between white men and everyone else, an artificial, constructed polarization that is harmful to all of us.
But what society should more likely reflect on is whether white men are actually worth listening to in many contexts. Yes, so they have been listened to in questions about politics, governance, war and peace for thousands of years. Is it that women tend to be a bit more consensus-oriented than men? Is it therefore possible for men to dare to point out that the emperor has no clothes and that such a point is sometimes what the society needs to adjust course?
One of the problems we have today is that the intellectual establishment in social sciences believes that they have found the final truth about the good society and that everything is about defending this truth against the heretics. And most heretics are among white middle-aged men. The establishment thus also makes sense of a matter of morality. And they defend their dogmas as obstinate as the church in their day.
The report to NRK is simply crafts, if not also Fake News in some aspects. The impact of those who are not as critical (as white, conservative men) of reading this NRK article would be to think that climate skepticism is as common as immigration skepticism. And it’s something everyone other than white, conservative men should keep away from thinking.
But the truth is that people should get more into the climate issue on their own. Search for alternative views, see if it makes sense. Imagine if humans might be a little less influential compared to changes in the sun, the terrain, the slopes and other conditions that affect the climate than the Green Party the Green and NRK want you to believe.
It does not hurt to investigate the climate case a little further on your own. And if you do not worry yourself, listen to a white man with self-restraint and some individuality. What does he mean about what affects the climate?