Women More Easily Blinded by Science?

A study from Michigan State University's Sociology Department has found that women have been more easily conned into believing in "a scientific consensus for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" and the impending climate death of the Earth, than have men. This, despite the fact that most top rank climate scientists are men, and presumably members of the oppressive patriarchy of old white males.

Once the ClimateGate emails became public knowledge (see here and here), it should have been obvious to most thinking persons that the methods being used by the controlling inner circle of IPCC affiliated climate science were not appropriate, nor were they in keeping with good scientific practises. The use of denial of access to data, pressuring scientific publications not to publish studies critical of the "consensus of the insiders", the denial of tenure to academics skeptical of the catastrophist viewpoint, the willingness to ignore scientific standards of information exchange -- even to the point of breaking national laws of freedom of information -- should have been enough to tip off any thoughtful individual. Clearly something stinks inside the sanctum sanctorum of mainstreamed catastrophist climate science.

Who is more likely to pick up on the huge contradictions inside the rapidly shredding catastrophist camp -- thinking men or thinking women? It is impossible to know without actually checking. Michigan State sociologists have checked, and found that women are not picking up on the discrepancies. Why not?

Why do such women put their trust in authority figures, even when these figures have proven themselves untrustworthy?

More on this topic later.

Bonus: 5 reasons why water vapour feedback may not be positive, [which would destroy virtually all modern climate models, if true.]

AND a PDF study looking at cloud feedback (PDF) [which also has the potential to obliterate the results of most climate models].