What in the World Are Cardinals?

Everyone knows the Catholic Church gives world-class pageantry and ritual. Just take a gander at all those old guys in scarlet dresses and beanies parading into the Sistine Chapel to elect a new pope. Especially when the Swiss Guard slams the huge wood doors shut and locks them in. Ritual majesty in all its splendor. Like it or not, it’s pretty impressive stuff even if you suspect at least some of them are harboring secret thoughts of downy cheeked altar boys. Makes you understand in part what irritated Martin Luther so much he hammered an enormous splinter under the Catholic Church’s thumbnail, where it remains throbbing today.

So, why are all those guys called Cardinals? Is it because they dress up in bright red thing-a-me-bobs so they look like the well-known male birds? No, it’s all about history. Here’s a very short version.

If we go way back in time to the early Roman Church right after Peter was martyred, for ecclesiastical and organizational purposes the city was divided into seven regions, each of which was administered by a deacon. Their job was to assist the Bishop of Rome in various liturgical functions. It wasn’t long that the term cardinal-deacons was applied to those seven deacons as well as to twenty-eight principal priests who formed the immediate papal entourage in church functions. They became his trusted advisors and ecclesiastical assistants and were thus “incardinated” to the pope.

That strange word, incardinate, indicates a situation where a member of the clergy is placed under the jurisdiction of his ecclesiastical superior, in this case, the pope. The word cardinal is derived from the Latin root, cardo (meaning pivot, socket, or hinge), as their episcopal lives pivoted around or were hinged to the pope. But that’s not anywhere near the end of the story.

By the late Middle Ages, the title cardinal was also bestowed by the pope on the principal priests of Europe’s key churches (today we would call them parishes) outside of Rome in places like Paris, London, Madrid, Trier, Milan, etc. Note that they typically were not the bishops of those dioceses. They were known as cardinal-priests and functioned as the pope’s posse of elders, so to speak.

Over time and as the popes became more involved in the religious and material world around Rome, the volume of activities increased greatly in that part of Rome we now call the Vatican. As a result, the popes needed more spiritual troops to represent them at episcopal functions and to counsel them. So, they looked around and picked seven bishops in the immediate vicinity to be cardinal-bishops. Those cardinal bishops are titular bishops of one of the seven main dioceses around Rome. Historical Note: It was seven and then became six and now it’s back to seven though only six cardinal-bishops ever exist at any one time — don’t ask, it’s complicated. They all are highly placed administrators in the Roman Curia, or the Catholic Church’s administrative organization (or central government) residing in the Vatican that assists the pope in governing the faithful. The term, Curia, incidentally, is derived from the Latin word for tribe.

From the early Church in Rome cardinals were the popes’ key assistants in religious and administrative functions. But their role as electors of a new pope after the Chair of Peter had been vacated evolved over time and became fixed by a decree issued by Pope Alexander III at the third Lateran Council (1179).

Cardinals used to sport a broad-brimmed scarlet hat known as a galero, which was sometimes adorned with dancing tassels. Sadly, that quaint custom has bitten the dust and today only the scarlet biretta (a strange looking four cornered hat with three “horns” topped by a fuzz ball) and zucchetto (beanie) are worn by cardinals.

Interestingly for non-Catholics, other than electing the pope, cardinals possess no automatic or special powers of governance unless so appointed by the pope. In terms of rank, a bishop and a cardinal have the same powers.

Here’s another freebie for non-Catholics unrelated to cardinals. The term "Holy See" comes from the Latin word for seat, sedes, which refers to the pope’s throne or chair (cathedra in Latin). So, the term refers to the episcopal function of the Roman Catholic Church but is not the same entity as the Vatican. When international diplomats are granted credentials representing their country to the Roman Catholic Church, those documents are not issued to the Vatican City State (which has only been in existence since 1929) but to the Holy See, which has been in existence since Peter was the first pope.

A quiz on this material is scheduled for next week.

Latest Good News/Bad News about Energy Production

In a recent statement, Robert Dudley, British Petroleum’s chief executive officer, tried to put to rest fears about peak oil, which he characterized as “increasingly groundless.” Dudley based his remarks on a BP study that predicted global oil production will increase substantially between now and 2030, largely as a result of increased output from previously unconventional sources like shale oil and gas in the U.S. and Canada. That means the U.S. should be self-sufficient in energy production by 2030, with a scant one percent derived from imports.

So, the good news is all you people out there who have been worrying about oil production hitting a peak and then rapidly declining can take a deep breath and relax. Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen in the foreseeable future.

But not so fast. The bad news Dudley delivered in practically the same breath is that increasing demand in India, China, and other developing nations for energy from all sources will cause carbon dioxide emissions to rise by more than 25 percent by 2030, pushing CO2 levels close to 500 ppm. According to most climate scientists, that situation would be an unmitigated disaster, especially since current scientific studies suggest that if CO2 emissions do not peak within three to five years we’re headed for serious problems.

Dudley and BP’s analysts see our future as one of continued addiction to high energy consumption. Their glinty-eyed predictions are based on existing trends and existing technologies, not on cross-your-fingers-and-hope-things-change-for-the-better scenarios so beloved by environmentalists, bright-eyed optimists, and people named Pollyanna.

Let’s, for a moment at least, engage in hard-headed realism. What does anyone see in the near-term future that would cause people in developing nations, especially China and India, to turn their backs on better, healthier, more comfortable, and more satisfying lives that will result from increased energy and material consumption? For that matter, what does anyone see that would cause Americans to stop consuming energy in the amounts to which we have become accustomed? Get real. Ain’t gonna happen.

So that means we will almost certainly get to experience the full-blown effects of global warming. I’m in my 70th year and basically will miss the worst. That’s my good news.

Arguments against Creationism/Intelligent Design

For a lighthearted but spirited refutation of creationist misconceptions of Earth history, call your local library (or check out their catalog on the internet) and see if they have Creation/Evolution Satiricon: Creationism Bashed. It’s written by the well-known marine geologist/geomorphologist Robert S. Dietz and illustrated by John C. Holden. Stephen G. Brush, a historian of science, examines scientific theories for dating the age of the Earth, particularly radiometric dating in Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolutions of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson; Volume 2 in the series, A History of Modern Planetary Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1996. For a shorter but hardly less lucid critique of claims by creationists that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, coupled with an exposition of radiometric dating methods, see Stephen G. Brush, “Finding the Age of the Earth by Physics or by Faith,” Journal of Geological Education, vol. 30, pp. 34-58, 1982.

In a challenging book intended for the lay audience, G. Brent Dalrymple reviews scientific evidence for the age of the Earth, Moon, and Solar system in such well documented and critical manner that it leaves no room for uncertainty or doubt: The Age of the Earth, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991. The book’s greatest virtue is its detailed analysis of radiometric dating methods. The many, many examples and the exhaustive chronology that are presented reveal how imaginative but sometimes wrong researchers have been in the past. But then he shows how tirelessly other researchers have checked their work, finding the errors and developing more reliable methods. It is also clear that the results of proven techniques have been checked rigorously against the results of other methods, until there can be little scientific doubt about the final conclusions. One cannot read that book with an open mind and continue believing a few warped scientists conspired to conjure up a patently false system and that hundreds of later scientists simply fell into line and confirmed their bizarre fantasies. Philip Kitcher, a philosopher of science at the University of Vermont, has written a marvelously lucid summary of the evidence for evolution and the overwhelming case against its opponents in a thoughtful and witty attack on 'scientific' creationism, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Updated March 2001; go online and read the excerpt, “Creationist’s Blind Dates” at: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/KitcherBlindDates.htm. Kitcher, who as a philosopher is concerned with the way science operates, is particularly adept at showing how creationists distort Karl Popper’s views on scientific method and how they misuse such books as Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Of course, readers interested in the geoscience side of the argument over creationism should read Arthur N. Strahler’s marvelously written and well-reasoned, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, 2nd ed., Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1999. Strahler was professor of geomorphology in the Department of Geology at Columbia University and author of numerous textbooks in geoscience. His book is a comprehensive treatment of the ongoing conflict between scientists who accept the theory of evolution and creationists. He reviews the philosophy, methods, and sociology of empirical science from astronomy to zoology, contrasting those with the belief systems of religion and pseudoscience. In one very interesting section he establishes sound criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience and demonstrates with devastating logic that creation science fails to meet the criteria of scientific enterprise.

A more recent and delightful work based on sound science and leavened with literary grace and elegance is also well worth reading, no matter what your evolutionary point of view, but only if you have an open mind, which by my personal experience is something almost entirely lacking in creationists: Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. For a very well written and tightly reasoned point of view of a Christian geophysicist, see: Roger C. Wiens, PhD, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, material originally written in 1994 and revised in 2002: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.

And don’t forget the early and remarkable essay by the evolutionary biologist and devout Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky that criticized Young Earth creationism and espoused what he called evolutionary creationism: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 35 125-129, 1973. Note that that article may have been inspired by the work of Jesuit physical anthropologist and philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired.

Everyone interested in the cultural war between the adherents of evolution and creationists (in this camp I squarely place those who believe in intelligent design) should read two recent books. The first, by the physical anthropologist Eugenie C. Scott, is Evolution vs. Creationism, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2005. It is both a history of the debate and a collection of essays written by partisans from both sides. Its main attribute is its clear explanation of the scientific method and the astronomical, biological, chemical, and geological bases of evolutionary theory. As good as that book is, even better is Michael Ruse’s The Evolution-Creation Struggle, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 2005. As a philosopher of science, Ruse (self-described as an ardent Darwinian) has testified against the inclusion of creationism in public school science curricula  He cautions all of us on the use of the word “evolution,” especially since it has two meanings: the science of evolution and something he terms evolutionism, which is the part of evolutionary ideas that reaches beyond testable science. In other words, Ruse interprets the struggle between science and theology as a war between two rival metaphysical worlds.

Matt Young (PhD physics-optics) and Paul Strode (PhD biology-ecology) provide a series of clear, concise, and lively discussions for everyday people in their excellent book, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2009. Their narrative is a well-written and highly readable response to creationists’ objections to evolution. Their science-based work takes pains to demonstrate that creationists profoundly misunderstand the very nature and structure of science and avow positions that are contradictory and inconsistent.

One positive indication, though no one should put much “faith” in it, is that courts at various levels repeatedly have held that public schools must be religiously neutral and must not advocate religious views. In that vein, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in the public schools was unconstitutional.

And finally, I wonder if it ever occurred to our creation science and Young Earth friends to explain with scientific rigor the fossilized marine sedimentary rocks (from the Ordovician) forming the summit of Mount Everest, known locally as Chomolungma, Goddess Mother of the World, and explain how those marine sediments were pushed and shoved to an elevation of nearly 30,000 feet. For the latest and slickest version of neo-creationism that has many rich, powerful, and right-wing political backers, interested readers should consult published articles that discuss the implications of the late-2005 decision of a federal judge against the Dover (Pennsylvania) School District in what may have been a critical test case that ruled intelligent design and creationism are one and the same and have no place in a biological science curriculum.

Certainly many arguments can be and have been made that demonstrate the fallacy of creationism/young earth/intelligent design (see above). One that I personally hold dear is practical in nature. To believe in creationism etc., etc., one must reject not only biology and geology but also basic principles in astronomy-astrophysics, physics, geophysics, and geochemistry. How people are prepared to do that I simply can not imagine, even when it is explained to me by those who have faith in creationism. It's a puzzle that can only be explained by Julius Caesar's famous dictum: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Men willingly believe what they want.

HAPPY 2013 TO ONE AND ALL from SOB

Scientific Articles on Global Warming

“The accompanying pie chart [see below] should be instructive. It was produced by James Lawrence Powell [Ph.D. in Geochemistry from MIT], a former member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He did a broad search in scientific journals for every peer-reviewed study of climate change and/or global warming since 1991. He found 13,950 of them, the combined work of 33,690 scientists from around the world. Precisely 24 of the 13,950 studies rejected global warming. That piece represents 17 hundredths of 1 percent of the pie. End of debate.” Source: Editorial: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12-27-12.

“The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.” Source: http://www.jamespowell.org/  

According to Powell, about one tenth of one percent of scientific authors who published in peer-reviewed journals on global climate change issues in the last twenty years do not believe that that change is caused by humans. One tenth of one percent. But I suppose some people believe that’s not a consensus or that all the other scientists who believe in AGW are intentionally falsifying or skewing their results, or are getting paid by some nefarious liberal organization.

But one tenth of one percent seems incredibly persuasive, given that the top ten countries where the research was performed are, in numerical order: USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Persuasive only if you have an open mind.

Again, according to Powell, the results of his study demonstrate the existence of a hoax targeted on misleading the public about global warming. A small group of global warming deniers has created the illusion that scientists disagree about climate change by using a well-funded campaign of smoke and mirrors and every form of communication except peer-reviewed scientific papers. But that campaign hasn't succeeded. Source: James Powell. “The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming. Science Progress, Thursday, November 15th, 2012. Found online at: http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

It turns out conservatives have been caught wearing the Emperor’s New Clothes with their bare asses hanging out for all to see. Readers who yearn for documentation of the existence of an organized movement on the part of conservatives to obscure the science of global warming are encouraged to examine the following peer-reviewed sources. Please note that this list is far from all inclusive.

Aklin, Michael, and Johannes Urpelainen. 2014. Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy 28: 173-177. Abstract: This article shows that even modest amounts of scientific dissent reduce public support for environmental policy. A survey experiment with 1000 Americans demonstrates that small skeptical scientific minorities can cast significant doubt among the general public on the existence of an environmental problem and reduce support for addressing it. Public support for environmental policy is maximized when the subjects receive no information about the scientific debate, indicating that the general public's default assumption is a very high degree of scientific consensus. Accordingly, a stronger scientific consensus will not generate public support for environmental policy, unless skeptical voices become almost silent.

Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 12107-12109.

Anderegg, William R. L.; and coauthors (December 28, 2010). Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (52): Available online at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012517/.

Bodenstein, Lawrence (December 28, 2010). Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (52): Available online at: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/E188.short.

Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14(2): 125-136.

Bray, D. 2010. The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy 13(5): 340-350. Abstract: This paper first reviews previous work undertaken to assess the level of scientific consensus concerning climate change, concluding that studies of scientific consensus concerning climate change have tended to measure different things. Three dimensions of consensus are determined: manifestation, attribution and legitimation. Consensus concerning these dimensions are explored in detail using a time series of data from surveys of climate scientists. In most cases, little difference is discerned between those who have participated in the IPCC process and those who have not. Consensus, however, in both groups does not amount to unanimity. Results also suggest rather than a single group proclaiming the IPCC does not represent consensus, there are now two groups, one claiming the IPCC makes overestimations (a group previously labeled skeptics, deniers, etc.) and a relatively new formation of a group (many of whom have participated in the IPCC process) proclaiming that IPCC tends to underestimate some climate related phenomena.

Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2). Available online at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust. 2014. Skeptical Science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

Doran, Peter T., and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. 2009. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 90(3): 22-23. Abstract: Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years, and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm). However, attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes (2004) reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskes’s approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts (Peiser 2005) and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion (Pielke 2005). A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall Zimmerman (2008). The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

Dugan, Andrew. 2014. Americans most likely to say global warming is exaggerated. Gallup. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

Feygina, Irina, John T. Jost, and Rachel E. Goldsmith. 2010. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system sanctioned change.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 326-338.

Fisher, Dana R., Joseph Waggle, and Philip Leifeld. 2013. Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist 57(1): 70-92.

Flynn, James, Slovic, Paul, & Mertz, C. K. 1994. Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Analysis 14(6): 1101-1108. Abstract: This paper reports the results of a national survey in which perceptions of environmental health risks were measured for 1275 white and 214 nonwhite persons. The results showed that white women perceived risks to be much higher than did white men, a result that is consistent with previous studies. However, this gender difference was not true of nonwhite women and men, whose perceptions of risk were quite similar. Most striking was the finding that white males tended to differ from everyone else in their attitudes and perceptions–on average, they perceived risks as much smaller and much more acceptable than did other people. These results suggest that sociopolitical factors such as power, status, alienation, and trust are strong determiners of people's perception and acceptance of risks.

Freudenburg, William R., and Violetta Muselli. 2013. Reexamining climate change debates: Scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs)? American Behavioral Scientist 57(6): 777-795. Abstract: Despite strong scientific consensus that global climate disruption is real and due in significant part to human activities, stories in the U.S. mass media often still present the opposite view, characterizing the issue as being “in dispute.” Even today, the U.S. media devote significant attention to small numbers of denialists, who claim that scientific consensus assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are “exaggerated” and “political.” Such claims, however, are testable hypotheses—and just the opposite expectation is hypothesized in the small but growing literature on Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods, or SCAMs. The work on SCAMs suggests that, rather than being a reflection of legitimate scientific disagreement, the intense criticisms of climate science may reflect a predictable pattern that grows out of “the politics of doubt”: If enough doubt can be raised about the relevant scientific findings, regulation can be avoided or delayed for years or even decades. Ironically, though, while such a pattern can lead to a bias in scientific work, the likely bias is expected to be just the opposite of the one usually feared. The underlying reason has to do with the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge, or ASC—so named because certain theories or findings, such as those indicating the significance of climate disruption, are subjected to systematically greater challenges than are those supporting opposing conclusions. As this article shows, available evidence provides significantly more support for SCAM and ASC perspectives than for the concerns that are commonly expressed in the U.S. mass media. These findings suggest that, if current scientific consensus is in error, it is likely because global climate disruption may be even worse than commonly expected to date.

Gauchat, Gordon. 2012. Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77: 167-187.

Kahan, Dan M., Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman, and Gregory Mandel. 2012. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2: 732-735.

Kahan, Dan M., Hank Jenkins-Smith, and Donald Braman, 2011. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14: 147-74.

Kalof, Linda, Dietz, Thomas, Guagnano, Gregory, and Stern, Paul C. 2002. Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men. Race, Gender & Class 9(2): 112-130.

McCright, A. M. 2007. Dealing with climate change contrarians. In: Suzanne. C. Moser, and Lisa Dilling, (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change (200-212). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McCright, A. M., 2010. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment 32: 66-87.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: an analysis of the conservative movement’s counter claims. Social Problems 47(4): 499-522.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2003. Defeating Kyoto: the conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems 50(3): 348-373.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2010. Anti-Reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture, and Society 27(2-3): 100-133.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52: 155-194.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2011. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change 21(4): 1163-1172. Abstract: 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.

McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2013. Bringing ideology in: the conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA. Journal of Risk Research 16(2): 211-226. Abstract: Extending existing scholarship on the white male effect in risk perception, we examine whether conservative white males (CWMs) are less worried about the risks of environmental problems than are other adults in the US general public. 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 nine Gallup surveys between 2001 and 2010, focusing on both a single-item indicator and a composite measure of worry about environmental problems. We find that CWMs indeed have significantly lower worry about environmental problems than do other Americans. Furthermore, the results of our multivariate regression models reveal that this CWMs effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender and the effects of nine social, demographic, and temporal control variables – as well as the effect of individuals generalized (non-environmental) risk perceptions. We conclude that the white male effect is due largely to CWMs, and that the latter’s low level of concern with environmental risks is likely driven by their social commitment to prevent new environmental regulations and repeal existing ones.

Oreskes. Naomi. 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005). The scientific consensus on climate change (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594

Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

How Likely Is Gun Control in America?

Like many Americans, I have been consumed over the past days by the senseless murder of innocents and the American love affair with weapons. Like many who have spoken out recently about the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in my heart I too believe that gun control is the only answer.

But as a rational observer of American politics I do not see a realistic scenario in which guns will not continue to be an ordinary and familiar element in our lives. Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment speaks directly to weapons that would be used to support a militia, in other words, an Army. Thus, assault rifles are precisely the type of weapon the 2nd Amendment wants to have in the hands of citizens.

But, the only legitimate first step, repealing the 2nd Amendment, is not realistic, not with so many Americans opposing such a move. With weapons already in the hands of the citizenry numbering in the hundreds of millions, effective gun control is not much more than a pipe dream. Physically, those existing weapons have been made to last for 100 years or more and would almost certainly be grandfathered into any gun control legislation that may pass. Those weapons will not disappear from our lives — their confiscation is unthinkable — no matter how weapons are restricted in the future. How can they be controlled? Not by any scenario I believe is politically feasible.

Americans should admit that we live in a country where gun ownership is worshiped and guns themselves are objects of quasi-sexual fetishistic fantasies and dead children are quickly forgotten by most, with the exception of close relatives and friends. That’s the harsh lesson taught by Columbine High School and too many other examples.

The bottom line concerns a realistic scenario I see that’s based on our recent history with gun violence. People will rant and rage over the bloody slaughter of innocents for a few months, demanding politicians pass meaningful gun control legislation while the powerful gun lobby wraps their arms around politicians from both parties and pressures them to protect the right of every American to own weapons. What we will get in the end is pablum that will allow both sides to declare some sort of moral victory. Then we’ll hope and pray that we've seen the last of senseless mass killings. But when it does happen, as it inevitably will, outraged voices will be raised once again for meaningful gun controls. That’s life in America, where people love their guns.

America is an “exceptional” nation favored God over all others, or so the conservatives would have us believe. Just tell me how it is that, when the far greater majority of those conservatives proclaim themselves as born-again Christians, they are such fanatical gun worshipers? Was it Jesus who told them to buy assault weapons, or 30-bullet magazines? Would Jesus arm himself to the teeth and shoot the first person who tried to break into his house or steal a loaf of bread? What in the world happened to love thy neighbor as thyself? Or turn the other cheek? Naturally, that hypocrisy fits right-wing ideologues like a glove.

So, to finally answer the question posed above, America will adopt meaningful and effective gun control when an openly gay woman Cardinal is elected Pope.

Mayan Calendar Doomsday Prediction

Oh my God. Doomsday approacheth on high. Tomorrow we’ll all wake up dead. Oh, shit! Oh shit! What to do? Should I quickly wrap up my Christmas shopping? Pun intended. Should I run to church for final absolution or shoot the pastor because he’s way too friendly with the altar boys? Should I run across the street and punch that asshole I've hated forever in his stupid mouth? What to do? What to do? I’m so confused I feel blonde.

Well, one thing for shit sure I’m not paying all those bills that have piled up from Christmas shopping. Fuck ‘em. Let’s see if those bastards can collect when I'm taking the deep dirt nap. Ha ha.

But wait. What if the Mayans were wrong? Hey, think about it. If the Mayans were so smart why didn't they kick the Aztecs’ ass? And what about Columbus and all those rapacious Conquistadors? Why didn't the Mayans sink the Spaniards’ boats and engage in a little creative cannibalism they were famous for? Maybe the Mayans were as stupid as we are and didn't know shit about shit.

Still, doomsday is doomsday. So, after giving it a lot of thought I’m gonna hedge my bets. Tonight I’m going to bed with a crucifix in one hand and a miniature plastic Mayan calendar in the other that I bought off some Chinese guy in Chichen Itza for one-third the going rate. Maybe one will balance out the other and I’ll wake up in a brave new world with Winston Smith sitting on my bed. It could happen.

What Dave Brubeck Meant to Me.

It was somewhere in my late teens (1961-1962) that I discovered Dave Brubeck. At that time in my life I was mostly listening to classical music and was transitioning from regarding Mozart, Brahms, and Beethoven as my drop dead favorites to Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartók, and Shostakovich. I was starting to really dig dissonance and rhythmic atonality.

Of course I had heard the Take Five single on the radio and thought it was terrific. But, when a friend who also was into classical music told me that if I liked the counterpoint in Bach and Mozart I should buy Brubeck’s album, I ran out and bought it. And immediately fell in love with every track on the album. I was hooked, big time, by the incredible, almost indescribably pulsating, complex rhythms that the Quartet generated (especially by Paul Desmond’s soaring interpretations of Brubeck’s chords). That first listening was almost a religious experience; I'll never forget the thrill of hearing Blue Rondo a la Turk or Pick Up Sticks for the first time.

From that moment the Dave Brubeck Quartet was my favorite jazz group. Well, followed very, very closely by John Lewis’s fantastic Modern Jazz Quartet and then by Stan Getz's great tenor sax.

What wasn't obvious to me then but is in retrospect was that at least part of my admiration for and fascination with Brubeck was his insistence on playing with an integrated group, first in the Army during WWII and later with Eugene Wright as his bassist. When Brubeck cancelled a number of engagements in the early 1960s at concert halls and college campuses because he refused to appear without “The Senator” on bass, I was pumped up by his principled stand and his refusal to let money overrule his convictions. It matched my personal commitment and felt exactly right.

Brubeck’s stand was an affirmation of the role art can play in the real world, especially if artists are committed to living their principles. It somewhat counteracted the searing revulsion I felt for the morally challenged assholes in Hollywood, especially Walt Disney and Ronald Reagan, who made sure actors, writers, and directors were blacklisted and denied employment in the field because of their political beliefs or associations, real or imagined. Brubeck had the courage of his convictions and I loved him for it. Of course, his music made that all the easier.