I’ll probably be labeled a misogynist pig for even bringing this paper to the attention of our readers, but there are just some things that just deserve to be called “crazy”. When I first saw this, I thought it might be a parody, or an old April Fools joke. Sadly, no. The abstract from this publication Progress in Human Geography reads:
Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research
Abstract
Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.
Source: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.abstract
h/t to Richard Saumarez
Like me, you are probably wondering what a “feminist glaciology framework” is
Through a review and synthesis of a multi-disciplinary and wide-ranging literature on human-ice relations, this paper proposes a feminist glaciology framework to analyze human-glacier dynamics, glacier narratives and discourse, and claims to credibility and authority of glaciological knowledge through the lens of feminist studies. As a point of departure, we use ‘glaciology’ in an encompassing sense that exceeds the immediate scientific meanings of the label, much as feminist critiques of geography, for example, have expanded what it is that ‘geography’ might mean vis-a`-vis geographic knowledge (Domosh, 1991; Rose, 1993). As such, feminist glaciology has four aspects: (1) knowledge producers, to decipher how gender affects the individuals producing glacierrelated knowledges; (2) gendered science and knowledge, to address how glacier science, perceptions, and claims to credibility are gendered; (3) systems of scientific domination, to analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control – undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies – have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time; and (4) alternative representations, to illustrate diverse methods and ways – beyond the natural sciences and including what we refer to as ‘folk glaciologies’ – to portray glaciers and integrate counter-narratives into broader conceptions of the cryosphere. These four components of feminist glaciology not only help to critically uncover the under-examined history of glaciological knowledge and glacier-related sciences prominent in today’s climate change discussions. The framework also has important implications for understanding vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience – all central themes in global environmental change research and decision-making that have lacked such robust analysis of epistemologies and knowledge production (Conway et al., 2014; Castree et al., 2014).
Oh.
The funding source didn’t surprise me:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant #1253779.
So, the gist of this paper can be summed up in this statement:
Most existing glaciological research – and hence discourse and discussions about cryospheric change – stems from information produced by men, about men, with manly characteristics, and within masculinist discourses. These characteristics apply to scientific disciplines beyond glaciology; there is an explicit need to uncover the role of women in the history of science and technology, while also exposing processes for excluding women from science and technology.
Those darn manly men with their masculinist discourses! But, I digress.
It would seem to me that given a choice of going to a remote and bitterly cold place, where you have to live in harsh minimalist conditions, with little human contact for months, just doesn’t appeal to many women, hence creating this perceived “bias” or lack of “feminine glaciology”. After all, millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat setting daily. However, if somebody wants to break through the “ice ceiling” of glaciology, I nominate my Internet stalker Miriam O’Brien, aka “Sou”/Hotwhopper who could be a groundbreaking icebreaking leader by going to live on a glacier for a year so she can study it. I might actually pay to see that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feminist claptrap with a climate change theme – absolutely bound to be published!! Expect the LGBT activists to do something similar very soon??
Trans-glaciology.
Trans-glaciology might be the study of liquid water flowing in streams and the causes that make it turn into ice?
phil, Only if the water self-identifies as ice.
This is all about Ice Queens, the ladies who are married to very old rich men who can’t do much to muss these dame’s fake hair pieces while pawing at them.
Please take your offensive views elsewhere. I am trans-glacial; a glacier born into a human’s body and you will never understand the pain I am in. I have a burning desire to melt due to climate change but this darn human vessel I’ve been forced to live my life in won’t let me. My transition involves drinking 20 litres of water a day and sitting in the cold. I am sad all the time. All I want is a little happiness but people keep heating their homes to stop themselves from some made up thing called “freezing to death”.
While everyone else, commenting on this blog post, seems to think that the proposed “merging [of] feminist post-colonial and feminist political ecology” so as to achieve an urgently needed “feminist glaciology framework” that will, in turn, engender “robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to a more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions” to be some sort of big-joke, PC-booger self-parody, I for one have a different take-a-way.
Namely, I find that the post’s article serves to utterly discredit, root and branch, the whole of that male-normative, “masculinist ideology”, that we term “climate science”, and that has been foisted on humanity by a tiny, privileged-white-boy, dork elite–a so-called “science” that the “lens of feminist studies” has thankfully exposed in all its colonial, power and control, scientific-domination villainy, along with its bogus claims to credibility that we now know to be hopelessly mired in a misogynistic, sexist-pig, “gendered” bias. And I mean, like, the article discredits the whole she-bang–the hyped scare-mongering; the brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie eco-confabs; the tenured-troughs; the climate models; the Gaia-freak blogs (and just which “physics” are you referring to ATTP, in your blog-title?–beta-weenie, good-ol’-boy, no-girls-allowed-treehouse physics, maybe? (I think so, wotts/Anders.)), and all the make-a-greenwashed-buck/gulag, carbon-phobe scams. Who knew it could be so simple to take down the hive-bozos?
So anyway, let me conclude that I, for one, will reject out of hand, any of the hive’s agit-prop “scholarship”, past, present, and future, and encourage others to do likewise, unless such ivory-tower flim-flam can be shown to be methodologically free of the slightest “masculinist ideology”–which should pretty much shut down the the whole useless-eater, academic-parasite contribution to the “global-warming” hustle. That, and allow me to also register my delight in the goldmine of cant-goodies, contained in the post’s article that, I recommend, can be mined, until the end of time, for boomerang-zingers with which to plague those poor-soul, dead-ender hive-heros, who, with one foot in the dustbin of history, are still puttin’ up a last-stand, lost-cause, good-comrade fight.
You forgot the ‘Sarc’ tag.
Mike…
Either STOP the intravenous Red Bull/ROCK Star or get some Adderal my man….because those colorful-yet-inane run on sentences are killing me. Please? 🙂 With sugar cubes laced with sedatives on top?
@Aphan
Yeah, I know what you mean–more or less. But all I can think of that might help is to, you know, maybe, like, conceive of the whole untidy, logorrhea-attack mess as a sort of self-indulgent, Proust-wannabe, “Where’s Waldo” word-picture embroidery, derived from the “Teachings of Don Juan”, that is strictly intended to push hive-bozo buttons. I mean, like, the good-comrades are such literal-minded, humorless, party-line stiffs, that I’ve found this sort of thing really screws with their Pavlovian-reflexes–which, again, is the whole point of the drill.
Mike
Yup. Three sentences & 88 words; you’re on the road to recovery.
@ur momisugly Javert
Hmmm…I see Chip that you’ve used versions of that word-count, booger-flick zinger of yours on me twice now. First time–just a light-hearted, good-fun ribbing, we all understand. You know, the sort of regular-guy needle, you’d expect between a coupla, cut-up, rough-house ol’ buddies, and all. Twice though? And with that Javert “handle” of yours? So, Chip, let me ask: are you actively conducting some sort of “Nurse Ratched” stalker-pursuit of moi, in half-baked imitation of your famous namesake? Hmmm?….time will tell, I guess.
And let’s also consider, Chip, that you goin’ through my comments and actually countin’ the number of words and sentences on two occasions holds the hint of a possible, obsessive weirdness creepin’ into your little, pot-shot drive-bys, over time, I’m thinkin’–you know what I mean, there, Chip?
But look, Chip, I like a good game of tit-for-tat, as well as the next dude. So please be reassured that I’m happy to match my “tats” to your “tits” any day–lookin’ forward to it, in fact, if that’s where we’re headed (and if the moderator will allow it, of course).
Like, go Mike!
This is what you get when there is too much funding. Total horse sh!t. Join bandwagon due to MONEY? Oh nooooooooooooooooooo Jimbo. We don’t care about money, we care about tomorrow’s ‘climate change’ (weather) BS. Climate change and the weather were ever thus. (I have more examples like the ones below)
Would I be right in saying:
“The world will be too hot for human habitation by 400AD”
“It’s worse than we thought”
“It’s happening faster than we thought”
“We need a single Earth government to solve the problem”
???
Those guys couldn’t get published now, which just exposes the inherent societal bias against dead people. Especially dead women! Grants for dead women! Repeat after me……
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8782.long
Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes
You are mistaken, those are feminine. Where are your PC gendered manners?
“human-ice relationship”????
Feminism obviously wasn’t providing sufficient grant opportunities, so they decided to double dip into the climate pool.
“Feminism obviously wasn’t providing sufficient grant opportunities”
You misspelled “graft.”
+1 or more. Witty and brief.
That’s exactly what happened here.
Bloke, you nailed it.
Fields like astronomy have a problem jumping on the bandwagon. I wonder if a proposal titled “The Effect of Climate Change on the Distribution of White Dwarf Stars in the Galactic Halo” would work.
Cinderella and the Seven White Dwarfs
Not all are men. My daughter-in-law is a glaciologist in Greenland…
I’d be interested to know what she thinks about this article
Well, I’m a woman and I’ve read the article twice and it still makes no sense to me. But then again, feminists really never have either…..so….? Does my inability to comprehend feminists demonstrate that I’m too “manly” or to “feminine”? Does it mean I’ve been too oppressed as a woman, or given too much freedom of thought? Why is it that I cannot comprehend what the crap it means when they say that we need “more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.”?? Are male scientists being unjust with the ice? Is the ice being unjust with us? Does the ice want to be treated equally and it is not? I’m so confused.
Why is it that most of the time, when someone complains about not being treated “equally”, if the evidence is examined, they usually have been treated “just like everyone else” and THAT is what they don’t like? They always seem to want SPECIAL, different, better treatment than everyone else! If large numbers of women wanted to work on the ice, THEY WOULD….because there are women who ARE doing it NOW. If large numbers of women wanted to do ANYTHING in particular, they WOULD….but they’d have to be determined, strong, dedicated women who pushed themselves to the goalposts. What seems to happen most often is a handful of women want something in particular….and can’t get enough other women to want the same thing, so they make up some kind of battle, or obstacles that stand in their way, scream about it until they convince others that they have not accomplished it because of oppression or inequality, and then laws get passed that make it EASIER for them to get what they want-whether or not anyone else wants it.
That isn’t equal treatment. That’s lowering the bar. That’s demeaning. That’s pandering. And it’s embarrassing to ALL women who feel like every woman (and man) should be allowed and encouraged to do whatever she wants to do with her life without ANY denigration or ridicule from anyone else. The ONLY “gender” that has ever tried to insult or demean me for making life choices that they personally didn’t approve of…is feminist women.
Hugs to Anthony. And while I agree that a certain someone deserves to spend some time in isolation somewhere remote for as long as possible, I don’t think that the sea lions, seals, bears, and other fragile creatures in that area deserve to be exposed to the ravenous, cruel, domineering form of “civilization” that she would naturally force upon them.
Aphan – +10 Well said.
Aside from this particular paper, which is indeed incomprehensible balderdash, you actually did a fine job comprehending the general feminist strategy — you just don’t agree with it. That’s probably just from integrity and a sense of fairness, which occurs in both men an women, just not all of them. No need for a DNA test.
Beautifully stated,
My wife an I often talk about the fact that feminism has attacked the central role that women used to play in the family undermining and demeaning the mother role to the point that it is no longer considered a worthy role in our western societies. To be truly free and empowered Women must be free to choose “family maker” as their role in life and NOT be denigrated for that choice.
The empowerment is the freedom to choose the role you play, not equity by money or any other measure. Women are free to choose to be glaciologists (or Engineers) and my experience is that they are actively encouraged to do so, but the fact that Women in the main freely choose not to follow those professions should also be respected. Women and Men are equal – they are NOT the same.
If female science and facts in the field of glaciology are different from that of males in the same field, then I submit they’re not really dealing will facts in the first place, only conjecture.
All the MEN inside the Global Warming Scare Movement are all sissies so of course, the Sisters must save them via feminist charges against cruel men (and some of us females!) who are telling them, they are NOT roasting to death when it is slightly warmer than tepid tea at a party in the shade in summer in Britain while watching someone play croquet.
==============================================
“As a point of departure, we use ‘glaciology’ in an encompassing sense that exceeds the immediate scientific meanings of the label,”
===================================================
Man-o-man, I agree with that, departed and left science long ago.
Wow. Replace the word “feminist” with “eskimo” or “nigerian”, and it gets to be a funny read…
DARN!!! You let the secret out, its the latest Nigerian scam.
Darn ! Goatguy !!!
You have uncovered the latest Nigerian scam.
Darn11 Goatguy.
How did you know it was the latest Nigerian scam?
You haven’t got your phone call yet?
I did not have relations with that glacier
– Bill C
“… It had relations with me”
I think that’s what slick Willy said ( of Monica)
Wrong. He was married to a glacier that didn’t melt.
His wife IS a feminist. Perhaps he longed for something warmer to hug, like a glacier or something.
There’s usually sand and grit and rocks mixed in with glaciers.
…just when I thought I’d heard and seen it all.
Personally I trace all this misogyny that so infects the study of glaciers to that “Turney of Antarctica” dude–Chris Turney–who, you might well remember, got his patriarchal posterior and those of the trusting morons, who joined his little, PR-stunt jaunt, stuck in a bunch of Antarctic ice, that all the Gaia-con models (models conspicuously suffering from unjust and inequitable, male-normative, sexist-pig biases, I might add) and who then took not the slightest care to see that the rescue of his sorry ass and that of the privileged-white myn and wymyn idiots, who trusted the guy and even paid Turney money to join his little expedition fiasco, was PC-sensitive, but rather ol’ clueless Chris acquiesced–compounding his initial, bumbling incompetence a zillion-fold–to a life-saving evolution that presented a world-wide audience with nothing less than an obscene, counter-narrative, manly, heroic spectacle, that showcased the very worst in masculinist power, domination, and control, and which essentially zeroed-out decades of work by the hive’s best-and-brightest, empowered man-haters, in the area of post-colonial human-ice perspectives and feminist, emergency-responder, butt-saving technique and technology epistemologies.
Hey! way to go Chris!–YOU COMPLETE CHAUVINIST, SCREW-UP SCHWEINHOONT!!!
A coupla corrections:
Should be, “that all the Gaia-con models (models conspicuously suffering from unjust and inequitable, male-normative, sexist-pig biases, I might add) predicted would not be there…”, and “not only trusted the guy, as previously noted, but even paid Turney money…”
Also, thank you Jack for your comment in reply to Goldrider’s query. I wrongly assumed, I now realize, that the Turney fiasco, so firmly planted in my memory, was a memory shared by everyone else. In that regard, Goldrider, you might want to look up the WUWT, December 30, 2013 blog-post “The Antarctic research fiasco”. Some good fun was had by all with that blog-post.
Mike
We’ve talked about this before – 3 sentences and 191 words (unknown number of complete thoughts).
You folks really can’t deal with sentences longer than five to ten words can you? What happened? Didn’t get much further than Dr. Seuss? Stay away from Kerouac! Yer head’s will spin around and explode!
Seriously. Whiskey–Tango–FOXTROT?
Turney was the dingbat that took a ship to the Antarctic to prove it was melting. The ship became icebound and he screeched in most feminist way to be rescued. After great expense, they were.
Fantastic post! Thank you very much. Made my day reading this pseudo intellectual twaddle. The UK satirical magazine Private Eye does (or did) public sentences from this sort of nonsense in a section called “Pseud’s corner”. They’d need to publish the entire article in this case. “Feminist post-colonial science studies” does it for me. Hilarious!
“I’d rather hear about “Feminist postcoital science studies.”
“pseud’s corner” is still going strong.
I’m an avid private eye reader. It’s superb
Sorry, I do not understand these feminist glaciology. What do these women mean? Are the glaciers move slower or faster, when the looked at by feminist women?
[The mods are wondering if they thaw faster, or freeze more solid, when looked at by non-feminist women? .mod]
Glaciers are much more sensitive and emotional than those ignoramus males give them credit for.
…Like most feminists, the glaciers are…Frigid !
https://youtu.be/llvWSOnBdoM?t=35
Looked at the video, and at the end came across another with the same title. By great happenstance, the bloke was trying to chat up a bird at the fish counter, right next to the label “Snow Crab Legs”. Query, do snow crabs live on glaciers? Or are they a reference to femininist researchers on gender afflicted glaciers?
And, Chip Javert, I copied Mike’s effusion into word and used “Tools/Word Count” to assess the passage. 191 words right, but only ONE full stop! Number of sentences depends on whether or not you accept an exclamation mark as the terminator of a sentence. If you do, there were four. If not there were two. Multiple exclamation marks don’t count. And, BTW, I used “Tools” in the Word for Windows grammatical sense, not in the sense relating to the strictly non-feminist appendage.
My ex wife’s frozen rear end had advanced the width of a king sized bed from 1980 to 2000 when I had to flee the region due to “instabilities”. Just my contribution to the histerical record.
” I’m probably be label as misogynist pig for even bringing this paper to the attention of our readers, but ”
Anthony, should that be ” I’ll ” not ” I’m ” ????
Fixed thanks
It must have been hard to type this post out while laughing so hard, so, it’s quite understandable ! LOL
There’s that old joke about “His” and “Hers” thermostats. The “His” thermostat looks like the standard, wall-mounted, round thermostat, and is marked off in increments 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80. The “Hers” thermostat looks the same, but is marked in two increments, ‘Too Hot’ and ‘Too Cold’.
😉
True story. My second job was helping a friend of mine in his HVAC business. One of our clients had a Carrier computerized system. The temperature in each room was controlled by the computer. But the thermostat was programmed to lie to people. The ladies in the office were always adjusting the temperature. So when they adjusted the thermostat down, for instance, the thermostat would slowly show a lower temperature than what the room actually was. The computer kept the room at the temperature the administration wanted it, but the thermostat would tell people the temperature was what they wanted it at. The ladies never knew.
A true story from when I used to work, back in the stone age:
One year many decades ago I got a very large manager size cubicle.
Nothing fancy but it had a thermostat on one wall.
My office was surrounded by about 60 engineers in small cubicles.
.
Every morning a female engineer from one of the cubicles would come to my office and ask if she could turn up the thermostat. Of course I let her.
Every afternoon after lunch a male engineer would come in and ask if he could turn down the thermostat. Of course I let him.
I let them in because I was new in that area and didn’t want to argue with anyone.
After a week I called an HVAC engineer and asked him to move the thermostat somewhere else.
He told me the thermostat was only used as a temperature monitor for that portion of the office building.
The knob to change the temperature had been disconnected when the building was built in the 1950s !
The temperature was actually controlled from another building a half mile away in the product development campus.
He told me he’d install a cover — it took at least a month before a polycarbonate shield was installed over the thermostat.
After that, male engineers were pulling their hair out after lunch when they found out they had no control over the “climate”.
One male engineer tried to pick the lock with a paper clip.
One female engineer seemed like she was about to cry one morning when she asked to raise the temperature and then found that plastic shield blocking the “temperature control”.
This was in the 1980s. There are still 1,000 engineers in that building and I wonder if the “climate” issue is still a problem.
I’m not sure if there was any lesson here, but I have never told the story online.
[This is guaranteed to get me in trouble. Ladies, please skip to the next
comment block, these are not the comments you are looking for!]
(4) alternative representations of glaciers
I was looking at the growth/retreat rates of alpine glaciers a few years ago at http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html . I was surprised at how much that varied between glaciers, but now that I’ve learned glaciers are feminine, I see it’s just that glaciers are having trouble making up their minds.
Sometimes glaciers experience a surge in their rate of travel. I propose we call that event a hot flash.
..OMG !! My screen is now covered in beer ! Thanks for that..I don’t care about the screen, but I really wanted that beer !! LOL
How typically male!. Huh!!
Male and Irish !! Double Huh ! LOL
I’m male and Welsh…..I feel your pain bro…..
Perhaps if they asked a man for directions they’d know which way to go?
Ask as feminist for directions and she’ll tell you where to go.
As glaciers get older the more they go downhill. ( you can make of that what you want).
“Ask as feminist for directions and she’ll tell you where to go.”
Yeah, but she has the map upside down!
“Ask as feminist for directions and she’ll tell you where to go.”
“Yeah, but she has the map upside down!”
Nope. A feminist would never use a map created in a male dominated paradigm in which odds are the cartographer was male, the designer was male, the paper it was printed on was owned by men, and it was distributed through male dominated businesses. A feminist would tell you where to go, but then assume that you were too stupid/inept to get there yourself, so she’d create a banner, print shirts, declare a movement, and then trailblaze the way there in front of you with press coverage the entire way. 🙂
https://youtu.be/-lmw0d6S6jU
Ric
Unexplained changes in glacier flow rates could be so much easier to explain from the feminist perspective – they are simply arguing about the route to take to the sea! Or trying to read the map.
“a feminist glaciology framework to analyze human-glacier dynamics”
Human-glacier dynamics are simple.
They are giving us the cold-shoulder.
And relations are changing at a proverbially slow rate.
Looked up the NSF grant. $413K to reseach how societal forces shape Earth Science: glaciology (paraphrase). Amazing how little $413k buys at the University of Oregon.
Don’t they now have to pay $100/kWh in Oregon?
That starts tomorrow – the Legislature just adjourned!
This needs to be forwarded to Donald Trump, with context. Seriously. This is the kind of crap that needs to have its funding killed YESTERDAY the minute O. leaves office.
There is a real sociology of science. It is possible to do real research in that area and learn things you never suspected. What I suspect is that this “research” will simply regurgitate the “narrative” and “knowledges” that the post-modernists doing it already know, whatever the facts say. I think most WUWT readers would agree that social forces *are* very strongly shaping at least the climate “science” part of the earth sciences, worse luck. What odds do you give that this “research” will actually identify the dominant forces in the area? Or even that the “researchers” would see any point in trying to?
I wasn’t going to comment until I saw that $413k figure. How come they rake in money for trash while I can’t afford new glasses? Too honest, that’s my problem. If someone offered me $413k, I’d feel obliged to do $413k worth of honest work.
“(3) systems of scientific domination, to analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control – undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies” – 50 shades of sooty ice?
Wot is LGBT?
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender…..
…Personally, I have a slightly different name for it, but, alas, I would be SNIPPED !
And you would be sent to the end of the line.
well if you were snipped you could then claim to be a member of the LBGT community 😀
“… I would be SNIPPED !”
OT, but…
Speaking of snipped, why is it that when females are circumcised, it is rightly seen as a human rights travesty, but many people have no problem with the butchering of the genitalia of male infants?
Stop the carnage…leave those kids alone!
Glaciers are female. They calve. Only females calve. End story.
..Are you calling feminists ” cows ” ?..
…Or whales ?
Take you pick.
Heehee! 🙂
mkelly, why do you want to insult cows and whales ?
I believe this is an abridged but pretty good list of animals that ‘calve’:
Antelope, Bison, Cows, Dolphins and Porpoises, Camels, Giraffes and Elephants, Oxen (many types), Hippos and Moose, Reindee and Rhinos, All whales and of course the Yak.
When they say “gender” they actually mean “sex”. Originally, gender referred to behavior, mostly in grammatical constructs, differentiating between masculine, feminine, and neuter; not the same as male and female. In recent decades it’s become more common to replace the word “sex” (male and female), with the word “gender”, which only serves to blur the actual meanings. Sad.
“Meanings?” “Meaning” is an outdated concept. The notion of so-called meaning delimits a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the familiar “paired utterance test.”[1] However, this assumption is not correct, since the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is unspecified with respect to a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Thus an important property of these three types of EC is necessary to impose an interpretation on a parasitic gap construction. To characterize a linguistic level L, any associated supporting element does not readily tolerate the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. We don’t need no steenkin’ meanings!
[1] See http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
A certain W A Mozart produced a musical version of the Chomskybot. He wrote numerous either two bar or four bar bits, gave them numbers, and you could produce your own authentic Mozart piece – previously never known or played – by throwing dice to select the numbers and sticking the relevant pieces together. Referenced in “Scientific American” before it went mad.
I was labelled “mysoginistic” (sic) by ATTP for making fun of this paper.
http://cliscep.com/2016/03/03/a-feminist-glaciology/
“Physics” has more than one meaning.
This is truly groundbreaking. Elizabeth Warren will soon be claiming to be 1/6th glacier – you can tell by the high cheekbones – in order to get another post at Harvard… the Law school is so passe’ now.
Ok…THAT one made me laugh until I choked. These cheekbones? (lol)
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/christmasspecials/images/8/86/SnowMiser.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120422063431
She will obviously be applying for the Glaciology post!
Before any coring may be undertaken the ice must consent; this consent may be withdrawn at any time. Only under this regime will human interactions with ice be respectful of maintaining a safe place for today’s and tomorrow’s frozen post colonial feminists.
..Does the drill have to wear a condom ??
FETAG Feminists for the Ethical Treatment of Alpine Glaciers.
Glaciers have rights.
Joel
“Glaciers have rights”…..
Well, feelings anyway.
I thought they were..frigid !
There ought to be laws against molesting glaciers.
“There ought to be laws against molesting glaciers.”
Most glaciers I know are above the age of consent
The driller must be sure to continually ask for permission to keep drilling.
Especially if they are a dentist!
Feminism has infested every facet of Western society. The net result isn’t good.
Here in the US, about the same time women got the vote, Prohibition became the law of the land. That was followed by The Great Depression which was followed by WW2 which ended in the ultimate PMS, the atom bomb. And now Congress can’t balance it’s checkbook. 😎
(Apologies in advance to the lovely ladies that frequent this site. That was a joke.)
I find Fempocalypse!! by karen straughan , https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw , considerably more insightful .
Theorem 1: Climate scientists are scraping the underside of the barrel for things to study.
Theorem 2: The NSF is more interested in political correctness than science.
If this paper doesn’t prove the first theorem and NSF’s funding of this paper doesn’t prove the second theorem, then proofs of these theorems don’t exist
@ur momisugly Reed,
There are so many legitimate scientific mysteries out there to study (the climate realm included) that Theorem 1 must be considered falsified a priori, that is, before it can even be seriously examined. However, I would certainly allow that this paper stands in strong support of Theorem 2.
The NSF does nothing if not support the views of its governmental masters. As Goebbels knew well, even the most obvious propaganda can have the effect of making what might otherwise be thought of as “extreme” instead sound like a reasonable viewpoint.
This study is nothing more than a “boundary-stretcher” designed to make otherwise lunatic proclamations sound more like reasonable ideas. We must stop trying to defeat the malarkey with facts, because the malarkey is ALREADY clearly false; to even waste the time on it grants it the legitimacy it so desperately seeks. Instead, let it stand as the self-evident sewage that it is, and instead address the source: a government which is engaged in a war to win the public’s mind and willing support.
The fact that the current U.S. presidential front-runners are a known criminal and a TV game show host should NOT have been the first clue that the war isn’t going well for those opposed.
I agree with your assessment of the Presidential candidates and the implication that although it is a clear clue that things aren’t going well for those opposed, it isn’t the first clue. When the two major political parties in this country nominate a clown and a scumbag things couldn’t be much worse.
I guess my point of view is a little different. When I see candidates who are part and parcel of the government’s ruling class (ex-Cabinet officers, a commie senator, etc., I see the same people who have made a terrible mess of things. Where does the buck stop?
Given that, how much worse would it be to elect a non-gov’t candidate?
As ‘Maxine‘ often says, “Can’t hurt. Might help.”
Or maybe you like this. Or this…
If you think the current candidates are bad (they are), wait till you look at the last couple of incumbents.
@dbstealey: In line with your second cartoon, I always thought of electing politicians is like choosing the best floater in your septic tank. I’d like to see an attitude of serving reluctantly, and leaving office to return to the real world. That is, having regular people serve a term in office and leave politics. No career politicians…..
The bull $hit is strong with climate people
Cow $hit please.
Bovine scat… Let’s be politically correct😄
I demand equal time for felgercarb!
When the cylons attack, felgercarb can have its time. Until then, frack it.
Does female science top male science- Do the numbers/measurements/data turn out different with a feminist scientist, would Mr Einstein’s theory be different if Mrs Einstein could have calculated the theory of relativity, would still be relevant?
Let’s give a grant and jump in a time machine to find out.
Watch for Bovine scat as you step out of the time machine!
The theory of Relativity by Mrs. Einstein: If one relative at a family dinner begins arguing about politics, another one will join and and both will be throwing food at each other in a rage within a stated time versus distance. E (Uncle Elmer)= m (mom) c (the youngest child) squared (where the pudding ends up on the floor after the child throws it while the uncles duke it out).
All the bulls–excuse me, self-identified male bovine quadrupedal herbivorous ungulates–seem to getting the “green grass runs” nowadays. Must be all that extra CO2.
You heard it here first: Global Warming causes more bullshi–excuse me, self-identified male bovine quadrupedal herbivorous ungulate fecal matter.
There are several words, commonly used in philosophy, that I’ve never seemed to learn properly. Epistemology is one, the definition is simple enough:
Google offers:
Well that seems simple enough. Not worth getting into in a discussion over lunch, but hey, we talk about Donald Trump, anything else would be better than him.
Then I read something like:
(I’ve hated “robust” ever since it invaded Computer Science in the 1970s. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a better term.)
Given the definition, now I have to understand how it can be plural. I suppose if batteries can have multiple chemistries, there can be multiple ways of distinguishing belief from opinion.
I wonder if there’s an epistemology that catches fire and destroys itself.
I’ll never make it as a philosopher….
I’ll never make it as a philosopher….
Probably for the best …
anyone who tortures philosophy in this way doesn’t rate that title. Odisopher, or hater of knowledge would be more appropriate. In this case, the jackasses are proving themselves jennys.
Now, now, I’M “robust” and I’m a-callin’ you-all out for discrimination!!!
‘Robust’ and ‘Comprehensive’ are interchangeable. Both should be used often in any pseudo scientific doublespeak article such as being discussed here.
Seems to me to be saying that the principal themes of climate change have not been subjected to epistological analysis to separate opinion from belief. I can agree with that but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they mean. What they do mean is that false and twisted knowledge is fine as long as it reflects gender balance. Or perhaps that women are forced to the shallow end of the science pool by nasty, nasty men.
I love this comment…
Strangely, this doesn’t sound at all strange to me. I’m used to hearing this kind of thing. Some of my best friends are third wave feminists. Sigh.
Having said the above … It’s worthwhile to study the workings of science and scientists. Most of us are painfully aware that scientists are not the dispassionate godlike creatures that some folks make them out to be. In light of that, I would like to suggest a really excellent CBC radio series How to Think about Science.
Godlike, no. But I’ve met three or four that should have been preserved at the Natural Bureau of Standards under a bell jar as definitive of “a gentleman.” There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of Climatasters who could be preserved as its antithesis.
The things you have to listen to in order to get laid…