Climate Craziness of the Week: 'feminist glaciology' in the climate change context

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
303 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 10:02 am

Feminist claptrap with a climate change theme – absolutely bound to be published!! Expect the LGBT activists to do something similar very soon??

DAS
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 12:33 pm

Trans-glaciology.

phil cartier
Reply to  DAS
March 5, 2016 1:38 pm

Trans-glaciology might be the study of liquid water flowing in streams and the causes that make it turn into ice?

DAS
Reply to  DAS
March 5, 2016 2:38 pm

phil, Only if the water self-identifies as ice.

emsnews
Reply to  DAS
March 5, 2016 3:36 pm

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.

Reply to  DAS
March 5, 2016 7:07 pm

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”.

mike
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 3:06 pm

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.

Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 4:10 pm

You forgot the ‘Sarc’ tag.

Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 6:26 pm

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?

mike
Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 7:58 pm

@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.

Chip Javert
Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 10:15 pm

Mike
Yup. Three sentences & 88 words; you’re on the road to recovery.

mike
Reply to  mike
March 6, 2016 3:18 am

@ 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).

Hlaford
Reply to  mike
March 7, 2016 1:40 pm

Like, go Mike!

Jimbo
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 3:50 pm

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)

Abstract
Climatic Change As A Topic In The Classical Greek And Roman Literature
Abstract
A search was made of the classical Greek and Roman literature for references to climatic change, irrespective whether facts of observation or views. It was found that several scholars/scientists of the classical antiquity made pronouncements on the subject and their statements are either summarized or quoted verbatim in this paper. From the Greek literature we quote Plato, Aristotle and Theophrastus; Herodotus is also quoted for an indirect reference to the topic. From the Roman literature we cite…
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00139058
===============
Thomas Jefferson on climate change
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/climatechange.htm

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Jimbo
March 5, 2016 5:28 pm

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”
???

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jimbo
March 6, 2016 11:10 am

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……

kennethrichards
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 9:24 pm

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8782.long
Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes

Hlaford
Reply to  kennethrichards
March 7, 2016 1:42 pm

You are mistaken, those are feminine. Where are your PC gendered manners?

Paul Mackey
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 7, 2016 5:59 am

“human-ice relationship”????

Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2016 10:05 am

Feminism obviously wasn’t providing sufficient grant opportunities, so they decided to double dip into the climate pool.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2016 11:27 am

“Feminism obviously wasn’t providing sufficient grant opportunities”
You misspelled “graft.”

Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
March 5, 2016 3:34 pm

+1 or more. Witty and brief.

Two Labs
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2016 1:22 pm

That’s exactly what happened here.

scarletmacaw
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 5, 2016 5:01 pm

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.

Tom Graves
Reply to  scarletmacaw
March 6, 2016 3:35 pm

Cinderella and the Seven White Dwarfs

March 5, 2016 10:05 am

Not all are men. My daughter-in-law is a glaciologist in Greenland…

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2016 1:07 pm

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.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2016 2:42 pm

Aphan – +10 Well said.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2016 3:52 pm

Does my inability to comprehend feminists demonstrate that I’m too “manly” or to “feminine”?

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.

bobl
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2016 4:51 pm

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.

Louis
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 5, 2016 2:04 pm

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.

emsnews
Reply to  Louis
March 5, 2016 3:40 pm

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.

David A
Reply to  Louis
March 5, 2016 5:12 pm

==============================================
“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.

GoatGuy
March 5, 2016 10:05 am

Wow. Replace the word “feminist” with “eskimo” or “nigerian”, and it gets to be a funny read…

nottoobrite
Reply to  GoatGuy
March 5, 2016 11:22 am

DARN!!! You let the secret out, its the latest Nigerian scam.

nottoobrite
Reply to  GoatGuy
March 5, 2016 11:25 am

Darn ! Goatguy !!!
You have uncovered the latest Nigerian scam.

nottoobrite
Reply to  GoatGuy
March 5, 2016 11:29 am

Darn11 Goatguy.
How did you know it was the latest Nigerian scam?

NW sage
Reply to  nottoobrite
March 5, 2016 4:58 pm

You haven’t got your phone call yet?

Fraizer
March 5, 2016 10:08 am

I did not have relations with that glacier
– Bill C

Reply to  Fraizer
March 5, 2016 10:14 am

“… It had relations with me”
I think that’s what slick Willy said ( of Monica)

emsnews
Reply to  RobRoy
March 5, 2016 3:41 pm

Wrong. He was married to a glacier that didn’t melt.

Hlaford
Reply to  RobRoy
March 7, 2016 1:51 pm

His wife IS a feminist. Perhaps he longed for something warmer to hug, like a glacier or something.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Fraizer
March 5, 2016 11:41 am

There’s usually sand and grit and rocks mixed in with glaciers.

John W. Garrett
March 5, 2016 10:12 am

…just when I thought I’d heard and seen it all.

mike
Reply to  John W. Garrett
March 5, 2016 12:40 pm

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!!!

mike
Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 3:25 pm

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.

Chip Javert
Reply to  mike
March 5, 2016 10:22 pm

Mike
We’ve talked about this before – 3 sentences and 191 words (unknown number of complete thoughts).

Christopher Paino
Reply to  mike
March 7, 2016 10:04 am

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!

Goldrider
Reply to  John W. Garrett
March 5, 2016 1:04 pm

Seriously. Whiskey–Tango–FOXTROT?

Jack
Reply to  Goldrider
March 5, 2016 1:19 pm

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.

Ian Magness
March 5, 2016 10:13 am

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!

Reed Coray
Reply to  Ian Magness
March 5, 2016 10:21 am

“I’d rather hear about “Feminist postcoital science studies.”

David Smith
Reply to  Ian Magness
March 5, 2016 2:58 pm

“pseud’s corner” is still going strong.
I’m an avid private eye reader. It’s superb

HelmutU
March 5, 2016 10:14 am

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]

Reply to  HelmutU
March 5, 2016 10:16 am

Glaciers are much more sensitive and emotional than those ignoramus males give them credit for.

Marcus
Reply to  HelmutU
March 5, 2016 10:33 am

…Like most feminists, the glaciers are…Frigid !

PiperPaul
Reply to  HelmutU
March 5, 2016 11:44 am
Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 7, 2016 11:52 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  HelmutU
March 6, 2016 11:21 am

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.

Marcus
March 5, 2016 10:14 am

” 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 ” ????

Marcus
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 5, 2016 10:22 am

It must have been hard to type this post out while laughing so hard, so, it’s quite understandable ! LOL

PaulH
March 5, 2016 10:15 am

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’.
😉

Reply to  PaulH
March 5, 2016 12:43 pm

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.

Reply to  PaulH
March 8, 2016 12:53 pm

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.

Editor
March 5, 2016 10:20 am

[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.

Marcus
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 10:24 am

..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

jones
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 1:13 pm

How typically male!. Huh!!

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 3:30 pm

Male and Irish !! Double Huh ! LOL

jones
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 4:56 pm

I’m male and Welsh…..I feel your pain bro…..

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 10:51 am

Perhaps if they asked a man for directions they’d know which way to go?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 11:18 am

Ask as feminist for directions and she’ll tell you where to go.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 12:04 pm

As glaciers get older the more they go downhill. ( you can make of that what you want).

DJA
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 12:41 pm

“Ask as feminist for directions and she’ll tell you where to go.”
Yeah, but she has the map upside down!

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 1:14 pm

“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. 🙂

Menicholas
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 2:03 pm
belousov
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 4:08 pm

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.

M Courtney
March 5, 2016 10:21 am

“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.

March 5, 2016 10:22 am

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.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ristvan
March 5, 2016 10:40 am

Don’t they now have to pay $100/kWh in Oregon?

NW sage
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 5:02 pm

That starts tomorrow – the Legislature just adjourned!

Goldrider
Reply to  ristvan
March 5, 2016 1:06 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
March 6, 2016 12:15 pm

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.

Dburn
March 5, 2016 10:23 am

“(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?

Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 10:23 am

Wot is LGBT?

Marcus
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 10:25 am

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender…..

Marcus
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
March 5, 2016 10:27 am

…Personally, I have a slightly different name for it, but, alas, I would be SNIPPED !

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 11:24 am

And you would be sent to the end of the line.

Sly
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 1:55 pm

well if you were snipped you could then claim to be a member of the LBGT community 😀

Menicholas
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 2:08 pm

“… 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!

mkelly
March 5, 2016 10:25 am

Glaciers are female. They calve. Only females calve. End story.

Marcus
Reply to  mkelly
March 5, 2016 10:35 am

..Are you calling feminists ” cows ” ?..

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 10:35 am

…Or whales ?

mkelly
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 12:22 pm

Take you pick.

Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 2:47 pm

Heehee! 🙂

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 3:33 pm

mkelly, why do you want to insult cows and whales ?

TImo Soren
Reply to  mkelly
March 6, 2016 7:48 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
March 5, 2016 10:25 am

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.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 5, 2016 11:23 am

“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

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 8, 2016 12:19 am

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.

March 5, 2016 10:30 am

I was labelled “mysoginistic” (sic) by ATTP for making fun of this paper.
http://cliscep.com/2016/03/03/a-feminist-glaciology/

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Paul Matthews
March 5, 2016 11:37 am

“Physics” has more than one meaning.

Jim Hodgen
March 5, 2016 10:32 am

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.

Reply to  Jim Hodgen
March 5, 2016 1:18 pm
NW sage
Reply to  Jim Hodgen
March 5, 2016 5:05 pm

She will obviously be applying for the Glaciology post!

Robert Ballard
March 5, 2016 10:34 am

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Robert Ballard
March 5, 2016 10:45 am

..Does the drill have to wear a condom ??

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 12:30 pm

FETAG Feminists for the Ethical Treatment of Alpine Glaciers.
Glaciers have rights.

jones
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 1:20 pm

Joel
“Glaciers have rights”…..
Well, feelings anyway.

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 3:35 pm

I thought they were..frigid !

emsnews
Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 3:48 pm

There ought to be laws against molesting glaciers.

Reply to  Marcus
March 5, 2016 4:39 pm

“There ought to be laws against molesting glaciers.”
Most glaciers I know are above the age of consent

Menicholas
Reply to  Robert Ballard
March 5, 2016 2:10 pm

The driller must be sure to continually ask for permission to keep drilling.

emsnews
Reply to  Menicholas
March 5, 2016 3:48 pm

Especially if they are a dentist!

March 5, 2016 10:34 am

Feminism has infested every facet of Western society. The net result isn’t good.

Gunga Din
Reply to  dbstealey
March 5, 2016 11:35 am

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.)

Reply to  dbstealey
March 5, 2016 5:31 pm

I find Fempocalypse!! by karen straughan , https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw , considerably more insightful .

Reed Coray
March 5, 2016 10:34 am

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

Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
Reply to  Reed Coray
March 5, 2016 11:06 am

@ 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.

Reed Coray
Reply to  Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
March 5, 2016 2:30 pm

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.

Reply to  Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
March 5, 2016 3:04 pm

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

Chip Javert
Reply to  Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
March 5, 2016 10:29 pm

If you think the current candidates are bad (they are), wait till you look at the last couple of incumbents.

skeohane
Reply to  Smokey (can't do much about wildfires)
March 6, 2016 6:23 am

: 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…..

Stephen Richards
March 5, 2016 10:38 am

The bull $hit is strong with climate people

Lorne WHITE
Reply to  Stephen Richards
March 5, 2016 11:23 am

Cow $hit please.

SMC
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 11:34 am

Bovine scat… Let’s be politically correct😄

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 11:46 am

I demand equal time for felgercarb!

SMC
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 12:01 pm

When the cylons attack, felgercarb can have its time. Until then, frack it.

TG
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 1:23 pm

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!

emsnews
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 3:52 pm

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).

DredNicolson
Reply to  Lorne WHITE
March 5, 2016 8:18 pm

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.

Editor
March 5, 2016 10:40 am

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:

the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

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:

all central themes in global environmental change research and decision-making that have lacked such robust analysis of epistemologies and knowledge production

(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….

Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 10:51 am

I’ll never make it as a philosopher….
Probably for the best …

“Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.”
― H.L. Mencken

phil cartier
Reply to  markstoval
March 5, 2016 2:24 pm

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.

Goldrider
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 1:10 pm

Now, now, I’M “robust” and I’m a-callin’ you-all out for discrimination!!!

NW sage
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 5, 2016 5:11 pm

‘Robust’ and ‘Comprehensive’ are interchangeable. Both should be used often in any pseudo scientific doublespeak article such as being discussed here.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 11:46 am

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.

Reply to  Ric Werme
March 7, 2016 3:17 am

I love this comment…

commieBob
March 5, 2016 10:40 am

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.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2016 11:54 am

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.

emsnews
Reply to  commieBob
March 5, 2016 3:54 pm

The things you have to listen to in order to get laid…

Gary Hladik
March 5, 2016 10:40 am

Thanks for the laugh, Anthony.

Sean Peake
March 5, 2016 10:41 am

She can take comfort knowing that some glaciers are merely retreating to their safe spaces

Phil R
Reply to  Sean Peake
March 5, 2016 11:12 am

Does that mean that the advancing ones are aggressive bullies?

March 5, 2016 10:43 am

And I thought the Marxists were ludicrous when I was in school! Apparently they know the proper buzz words to use for the grant-writers.

H.R.
March 5, 2016 10:48 am

From the article (bold mine):

However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied.

Could the reason be that (in my best Sam Kenison voice) NOBODY CARES?!!?!!

Tom in Florida
March 5, 2016 10:50 am

I suppose now we can never ask how much a glacier weights.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 5, 2016 10:59 am

“Does this snow cap make me look fat?”

Phil R
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 5, 2016 11:13 am

Can’t ask how old it is either.

Mary Catherine
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 5, 2016 12:07 pm

Or how old it is.

March 5, 2016 10:54 am

My friends, come visit San Francisco for a weekend. Walk around and observe. It will become clear that we live among people who are transfixed in a very different reality, far removed from the scientific achievement of this age. It’s an unbelievable situation but it’s real.

Goldrider
Reply to  Doug S
March 5, 2016 1:12 pm

Same in New York–which on weekends could pass for Solla Sollew.

Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 10:56 am

Some time ago someone put a link that went would produce a “paper” by randomly put together phrases.
Perhaps these ladies found that link?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 11:04 am

“Feminist political ecology” might be an example randomly linking words and/or phrases together….

Goldrider
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 1:13 pm

You know what they say about leaving a monkey in the computer chair long enough . . . !

PiperPaul
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 11:50 am
jorgekafkazar
Reply to  PiperPaul
March 5, 2016 12:09 pm

The link to the Postmodern Generator itself seems to be kaput. Try the chomskybot, instead: http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

leafwalker
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 12:44 pm

After reading the abstract, I immediately thought of this:
https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
“SCIgen is a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations. It uses a hand-written context-free grammar to form all elements of the papers.”

AB
March 5, 2016 10:57 am

The next glaciolgy study should be from the perspective of those using zimmer frames and coping with microaggression. Got to be all inclusive ya know.

JON R SALMI
March 5, 2016 10:59 am

Where is Alan Sokal when we need him. His classic spoof of deconstructionism, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” had deconstructionist fools such as this paper’s author screaming like stuck pigs for years. We need a similar effort based on climate science.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  JON R SALMI
March 5, 2016 12:19 pm

Sokal [See ‘the Sokal Hoax’] left the deconstructionists hoist by their own petard, looking like total fools, wearing the emperor’s new clothes.
I still have a lingering suspicion that the MIT group that produced the “Climate Roulette Wheel” were spoofing Climate “science.” At the time, I enquired whether it were a joke, but received no reply from MIT.

R Shearer
March 5, 2016 11:00 am

Glacial melt periods are quite unpleasant.

SMC
March 5, 2016 11:00 am

So, does this mean glaciers are going to start burning their bras (do glaciers wear bras)? Are they going to go on birth control to prevent unwanted calving? What would a sexual revolution among glaciers look like? Are the female glaciers going to apply to Gaia for an Equal Rights Amendment? How do you tell the difference between a male and female glacier?

Gunga Din
Reply to  SMC
March 5, 2016 11:05 am

Just look at how they’re made up.

SMC
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 4:33 pm

So what’s the difference between boy and girl glaciers and how they’re made up?

David Schofield
Reply to  SMC
March 5, 2016 11:57 am

Females calve?

SMC
Reply to  David Schofield
March 5, 2016 4:31 pm

verb: calve; 3rd person present: calves; past tense: calved; past participle: calved; gerund or present participle: calving
1. (of cows and certain other large animals) give birth to a calf.
* (of a person) help (a cow) give birth to a calf.
2. (of an iceberg or glacier) split and shed (a smaller mass of ice).

Alan Robertson
March 5, 2016 11:00 am

photios
March 5, 2016 11:05 am

‘…gendered science and knowledge’…???
Surely ‘neutered science and knowledge;
with the first word now a verb, not an adjective?

GregL
March 5, 2016 11:12 am

Please, please, please tell me this is a parody that got through, much like the Sokol affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair), or perhaps something generated from a paper generator that uses random text. If not, the decline of (Western) civilization and the rise of the post-scientific era have all progressed further along than I had thought …
Having said that, I see a problem going forward for the authors of this paper. Since a common insult thrown against a trans-gendered person from hard-core feminists is to call such a person a “colonizer”, how will the field of post-colonial trans-gendered glaciology be allowed to develop? Just asking …

ossqss
March 5, 2016 11:12 am
jorgekafkazar
Reply to  ossqss
March 5, 2016 12:23 pm

Godzilla facepalm? Perfect.

Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 11:12 am

Disclaimer: my mother was a strong woman who directed most things in our family and my sister was a true genius. But I’m afraid the western world has had an overdose of feminist hysterics on all fronts, although, interestingly, they turn away from such things in the “diversity sphere” as feminine genital mutilation and other freedom aspects of their new sisters). I’ve noted, apparently politically incorrectly in recent posts, that in the twilight of post normal climate science of the past few years, female authors have become quite prominent in taking up the torch from falling hands of the old guard. They already enjoy another layer of PC – how can you turn down grants for feminist science.
Please, I really love you women, but enough, nurture and nannying of society for awhile. The biggest surprise for feminists about 50 years ago was how much of a pushover men really were. I believe women were pi55ed how easy it was. My mother didn’t even know there was a difference. Hillary, could you also let this election pass and come back maybe next time after we’ve healed
from a bad experiment in politics that I was quite hopeful, supportive and excited about at the time. I liked Margaret Thatcher but she wasn’t the nannying kind and her likes and the likes of Golda Meir, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria and the two Elizabeths are hard to find these days.
The geography of feminists is a new one on me and the specific feminist glaciologist scared me a little. Am I correct in thinking that the difference that feminist glaciologist will find with glaciers is the reversal of their ‘robust’ tumescence of late? That there will be a major shrinking of the glaciers under the feminist glacial paradigm? Okay Mods- have at it if you will.

emsnews
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 4:03 pm

Um, Queen Victoria hid out on her little island and ignored nearly everything in England which she disliked.
Queen Elizabeth the II has done very little except produce some of the world’s most obnoxious children who are now global warmists running around screaming about it being too hot in between hunting foxes and going to bed with astonishingly ugly nosed mistresses.

Smart Rock
Reply to  emsnews
March 7, 2016 7:10 am

Yeah, but Queen Elizabeth I did some really good stuff, like (a) not starting any wars, which was pretty radical in those days, (b) listening to Thomas Gresham (good money drives out bad) and (c) getting the fossil fuel business started on what passed for an industrial scale in the 16th century. When I have time I want to research this last topic and maybe write a book about it. Well, maybe a paper. Well, perhaps a post at WUWT.
And a lot more besides. Probably the best ruler England ever had, and nowhere is it recorded that she called herself a feminist.

Gary Pearse
March 5, 2016 11:15 am

“.,.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..”
I didn’t realize she was a very large lady.

rocdoctom
March 5, 2016 11:17 am

Wow! Sure this wasn’t written by those monkeys with a typewriter. Whoops, probably can’t say that.

David Chappell
March 5, 2016 11:17 am

At least two of the paper’s authors are men – Carey and Antonello (both are historians), Rushing is female and an undergrad at the time. M Jackson is genderless doctoral student in forestry.

emsnews
Reply to  David Chappell
March 5, 2016 4:05 pm

So, two men, a girl and a eunuch went to this bar together and..

Editor
Reply to  David Chappell
March 6, 2016 5:56 pm

Jerilynn “M” Jackson is a geography doctoral student. Her interests are Climate change, glaciology, human geography, the Arctic, Iceland. I have no idea what human geography is, but I think I’d get in more trouble if I explored that.comment image
http://geography.uoregon.edu/profiles/graduate-students/

Editor
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 6, 2016 6:05 pm

Oh, Google tells me “human geography” is the branch of geography dealing with how human activity affects or is influenced by the earth’s surface. Whew, I thought it required consenting adults.

Mike Macray
March 5, 2016 11:18 am

Great Entertainment Anthony… and comments! You really placed a pork pie on the prayer mat with that one!
Keep up the good work.
bahamamike

601nan
March 5, 2016 11:19 am

Excellent reason to disestablish the National Science Foundation.
No ha ha

Mickey Reno
Reply to  601nan
March 5, 2016 12:14 pm

Masculine glacier narrative: Oh baby, I love the curve of your U-shaped valley, the soft mounds of your terminal moraine, the allure of your sleek crevices…
Poor science. It doesn’t deserve this.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
March 5, 2016 12:26 pm

Mickey Reno…you ghost write for Pachauri don’t you? 🙂

emsnews
Reply to  Mickey Reno
March 5, 2016 4:06 pm

Hahaha and you are under arrest!

David Chappell
March 5, 2016 11:22 am

Incidentally one paper co-authored by Carey is entitled “Give it a tug and feel it grow”.

March 5, 2016 11:22 am

I’m confused. Should I file this under Republican war on women, or Republican war on glaciers ??

Gunga Din
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 5, 2016 2:14 pm

File it under “Ice isn’t the only that floats”.

stan stendera
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 5, 2016 2:34 pm

[snip – over the top -mod]

March 5, 2016 11:24 am

Why??
“However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied.”
Is this not the funniest thing man woman or beast has ever read?

Tom in Florida
March 5, 2016 11:25 am

I suppose instead of using gt to show gains and losses of glaciers we could just use dress sizes.

Barbara Skolaut
March 5, 2016 11:25 am

“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.'”
Then I’m oinking right along with you, Anthony.
These clowns are in-freakin’-SANE.
(Apologies to circus clowns everywhere.)

Gnome de Gair
March 5, 2016 11:27 am

A contrarian point of view: When I was in school, we would have called this study “History of Consciousness”. The purpose is not to study ice per-se, but to study how people think about ice. It’s an interesting way to look at almost any subject. We think about the world of the Arctic and Antarctic primarily through story-tellers like Jack London, and through the adventures of Peary, Shackleton and the like, that anyone would have to admit are heavy on the masculinity. Think of the story about the outcast Eskimo boy who proves himself to his hide-bound village by embedding coiled up fish bones in frozen fat and using them to kill a bear. It’s really a story about good old American ingenuity triumphing over all, not about the way Eskimos really lived. With that sort of thing as our guide, we down here in temperate climes have no conception of how a family and community would really survive in polar conditions. I don’t think there’s anything particularly “feminist” about trying to get people to see things in other ways, but it gets cast that way because it’s a contrast to the testosterone-driven stories we’ve heard all our lives.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gnome de Gair
March 5, 2016 2:30 pm

I don’t think there’s anything particularly “feminist” about trying to get people to see things in other ways, but it gets cast that way because it’s a contrast to the testosterone-driven stories we’ve heard all our lives.

Huh?
Do you think “feminist” was edited into the paper for “testosterone-driven” reasons? Or do you think the authors used “feminist” for “testosterone-driven” reasons?
This is a “sexist” paper that taxpayers payed for to promote “feminist political scatology”.

4TimesAYear
March 5, 2016 11:38 am

To paraphrase Tina Turner “What’s feminism (or gender) got to do with it?”
That said, the study makes absolutely no sense.

March 5, 2016 11:54 am

On behalf of men everywhere I apologize- for having a scientific opinion contary to yours, now shut the f**k up and go get me a beer!

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Sparks
March 5, 2016 12:30 pm

Don’t drink the beer if the can is already opened.

u.k(us)
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
March 5, 2016 1:56 pm

Don’t even touch the beer can if your “mate” is wearing those plastic gloves.

Reply to  Sparks
March 7, 2016 4:09 am

And put ice in it.

Steve Case
March 5, 2016 11:59 am

Straight out of the gibberish generator.

March 5, 2016 12:02 pm

Mr. WATTS wrote:
“After all, millions of husbands and wives battle over the home thermostat setting daily.”
MY COMMENT:
Those battles are a crisis, and a subject worthy of a government grant for further study, in my opinion!
Imagine all the energy wasted turning up and turning down the thermostat too many times a day.
Imagine all the marriages broken up by “thermostat wars”, which are actually the sixth leading cause of divorce.
After 33 years of fighting with my wife over the thermostat, we have finally agreed to a “thermostat war’ cease fire at home.
A few years ago I bought a new thermostat that’s so complicated neither the wife or I can figure out how to change the temperature.
I told the wife not to touch any buttons she doesn’t understand.
I don’t understand any of the buttons either, so I don’t touch them..
So our house has been at the same temperature for years, and we have had to find other things to fight about, which every good marriage needs.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 5, 2016 12:22 pm

Too bad you resolved your “thermostat war”. The Storm Channel might have made it their next reality show.

stan stendera
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 5, 2016 2:43 pm

If you want something new to fight about buy a TV remote
Another one is how to load the dishwasher. My beloved Libby is totally inept at this. Just ask me..

Reply to  stan stendera
March 8, 2016 12:19 pm

Stan Stendera:
Real men don’t load dishwashers.
That’s woman’s work.
Real men shovel snow.
And have heart attacks.
You can look it up.
The wife and I now fight about “other women”.
In a restaurant or store she’ll whisper in my ear:
“Look at that hot chick !”
Of course my head spins around like the head on a bobble doll,
since I am a man and can’t help myself … even though I know …
I’m going to see a 350 pound woman sweating profusely.
Then the fight starts.
We watch old Honeymooners TV episodes to hone our fighting skills.
Prepares me well for the climate change character attack wars.

March 5, 2016 12:03 pm

Hey I just landed a spacecraft on an astroid, is my shirt okay?

Peyelut
March 5, 2016 12:04 pm

Most effectively deconstructed by using “Find & Replace” to correct “Feminist” to “Leftist”.

Margaret Smith
March 5, 2016 12:15 pm

I was already laughing but when I read the comment
“Those darn manly men with their masculinist discourses!”
I had to pause for eye-watering laughter.
Thanks for including this fun nonsense.

Robber
March 5, 2016 12:22 pm

Lewandowsky will have a field day analyzing all these comments. But what do I know? I’m a masculinist satanist clearly out in the cold without a grant to support my humble life.

Tony
March 5, 2016 12:23 pm

I was more concerned about what “gendered science” was?

The_Iceman_Cometh
March 5, 2016 12:28 pm

” I might actually pay to see that.”
Could we not set up a crowd fund for the very purpose?

pomendon
March 5, 2016 12:30 pm

For a supposed critique of current science, you neglected to do your homework well enough this time. This paper was computer-generated. A quick search reveals that over 100 similarly generated papers have made their way into various publications, so please don’t take it seriously. No one actually wrote this and the supposed authors likely don’t exist or have no involvement in its creation. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763

Reply to  pomendon
March 5, 2016 12:32 pm

The point is, it generated a grant…

Marcus
Reply to  pomendon
March 5, 2016 1:09 pm
Gunga Din
Reply to  pomendon
March 5, 2016 2:38 pm

Do you mean that this paper is really a Climate Model?!

emsnews
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 4:10 pm

Haven’t you seen what is walking the runways in Paris this year? Ugly!

pomendon
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 4:12 pm

I mean that the paper is meaningless.

Androg
March 5, 2016 12:32 pm

A little Freud helps here. Hyper-feminism and Lesbianism is robustly linked to “cold or absent mothering.” A study of icebergs (!) needing a sexual framework to be correct? The tail doth wag the dog.

Chris Hanley
March 5, 2016 12:32 pm

Never stand between an academic and a pot of money.
The lead author historian Mark Carey:

He doesn’t hide is light under a bushel:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mark+carey+university+of+oregon&tbm=vid

bernie1815
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 5, 2016 1:15 pm

Thanks for the interesting link.
Whatever the issues with the feminist glaciology article, his performance here strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Future water issues and hydro-electric power generation are issues of great practical relevance. If there is a touch of condescension around indigenous people, it is only a touch.
The normalcy of this interview simply throws into greater contrast the ludicrous nature of feminist glaciology article.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 5, 2016 1:23 pm

The most severe glacial lake outburst flood in Peru ‘during the past half-century’ resulting in over 20,000 deaths was nothing to do with climate change™, but caused by the 1970 earthquake when part of Huascarán collapsed.

bernie1815
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 5, 2016 2:47 pm

Chris, I don’t doubt that you are right. Mounds of earth and /or concrete holding back millions of tons of water need to be constantly monitored. My point is that the video does not explain where this really strange article came from.

David Smith
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 5, 2016 3:38 pm

Carey’s an IPCC contributing author.
That explains a lot.

Neo
March 5, 2016 12:52 pm

Feminists are always in search of something .. anything that is even colder than they already are.
I see the truth of it.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Neo
March 5, 2016 1:45 pm

“Feminists are always in search of something”
Yes, because equality of rights is boring and glyphosate in tampons is funny for about 5 minutes.
And that “culture of rape” that was found in Cologne, and not in a university…

Londfon247
March 5, 2016 12:55 pm

I think this would be an ecumenical matter. The authors of the article are cordially invited to discourse your way out of that. Preferably by using normal everyday English language.

jones
Reply to  Londfon247
March 5, 2016 1:33 pm

London,
“I think this would be an ecumenical matter.”
Ahh….as said by that arch-feminist Father Jack….

Londfon247
Reply to  jones
March 5, 2016 1:58 pm

jones , thanks for supplying the clip

jones
Reply to  jones
March 5, 2016 2:03 pm

Welcome,
I am simply trying to educate and enlighten.

John G.
March 5, 2016 12:58 pm

There can only be so much grant money available for Feminist Glaciology. I hope this doesn’t come at the expense of Black Glaciology and Gay Glaciology.

emsnews
Reply to  John G.
March 5, 2016 4:13 pm

Black glaciers are very angry with white glaciers. Black glaciers matter!

brent
March 5, 2016 1:11 pm

This is not surprising at all. Consider the budding field of ” Feminist Fluid Mechanics” mentioned by Chris Essex!!
Climate and Punishment
Dr Chistopher Essex
It is popular in some circles to despair over how corporate money can corrupt. But corruption can arise from any large pile of money. Government-directed money can and does induce distortion and corruption, too—far more than many realize.
They incentivize academic nonsense, for example. No modern university would be complete without its well-funded Department of Angry Studies, or its Center for Unsustainable Reasoning. Let’s not even get into the budding field of feminist fluid mechanics. You may wonder what that is. Think of identity politics and differential equations. What? Didn’t you know that physics and mathematics are just social constructs?
In the modern world of academia, if you want recognition, plum positions, and the adoration of the illuminati, forget about proving exotic mathematical theorems, advancing quantum gravity, or finding things out about the Universe that no human, living or dead, has ever known. Unless it impinges on the most darling popular passions, you are out of luck
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/climate-and-punishment/

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  brent
March 5, 2016 3:58 pm

Climate and Punishment — i never would have thought of that in a million years — Eugene WR Gallun

March 5, 2016 1:24 pm

Did the science just retreat faster than its namesake?

u.k(us)
March 5, 2016 1:25 pm

Lets all take a night off and recharge the batteries ?

oeman50
March 5, 2016 1:30 pm

I am trying to figure out “human-glacier dynamics.” The only one that I can think of is that when you put your tongue on a glacier, it will stick to the glacier.

cloa5132013
March 5, 2016 1:34 pm

Glaciology is apparently about men talking about men. What about ice and snow? First start understanding the definition of Glaciology.

emsnews
Reply to  cloa5132013
March 5, 2016 4:14 pm

And I thought that feminism is a hot topic. Or maybe a hot flash topic.

Bruce Cobb
March 5, 2016 1:36 pm

Why stop at “feminist glaciology”? How about “feminist science”, feminist math”, and “feminist economics”?
The MO here appears to be to hide behind feminism to push an ideology, and if you disagree then you are either a male chauvinist pig, or a female sellout. This is actually nothing more than feminist chauvinism.

jones
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 5, 2016 2:07 pm

“The MO here appears to be to hide behind feminism to push an ideology, and if you disagree then you are either a male chauvinist pig, or a female sellout”
And a racist Nazi rapist surely?

Hartog
March 5, 2016 1:38 pm

Hundreds of ‘big’ words strung together without any meaning, must be computer generated prose. Clever though.

Gunga Din
March 5, 2016 1:41 pm

This post and thread reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw, “Women spend more time wondering what Men are thinking than Men spend thinking.”
In today’s PC world, whoever wrote and published this paper has a lot of balls!

March 5, 2016 1:52 pm

‘Glaciers, Gender and Science’. Hmm, sounds like a send-up by Brad Keyes @ Climate Nuremberg.

Louis
March 5, 2016 1:53 pm

The fact that they got a grant for this “concept” proves that affirmative action is alive and well. It also proves that there’s a whole lot of waste in government that could be used to do real science. I predict there will soon be a grant request submitted to do research on “black glaciology.” When the money is there for the taking, there will always be takers. There just won’t be any science that comes out of it. It will, however, create a whole new field of wasted time and money because there will be a lot of college students taking race and gender studies courses who will be forced to read this crap.

Menicholas
March 5, 2016 1:54 pm

Climate grant insanity has officially jumped the shark, while wearing stiletto heals.

Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 2:04 pm

It HAS to fit into this… http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
No way could I be reading something real!

Marcus
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 5, 2016 2:46 pm
16" Slides for incubator
March 5, 2016 2:14 pm

[snip – over the top -mod]

Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 2:45 pm

did anyone google the nsf grant?
the abstract of the grant award is weird reading in itself (no mention of feminism!)
on the presumption this is a genuine grant – you Americans really need to look into where your tax dollars go! LOL
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779

bernie1815
Reply to  Kev-in-Uk
March 5, 2016 8:07 pm

Kev in UK:
I read the grant proposal. As it is written I see nothing problematic or particularly objectionable – except it is so plain vanilla and mundane. Do you? What I find puzzling is where the article at issue fits into this proposal.

Kev-in-Uk
Reply to  bernie1815
March 5, 2016 11:47 pm

@Bernie
Yes, that’s exactly what I thought also. The first paragraph reads like a potentially ‘serious’ review of the science, but I find no mention of feminism (unless we classify that under Arctic Social Science?) and this paper adds nothing to the science in any way shape or form. Ergo, it’s a waste of money.
Do these people have to produce accounts of their expenditure for public record? Are any papers/research produced then compared to the original proposal? I would really like to know how such stuff gets through peer review too!

March 5, 2016 2:52 pm

Madame Curie rolls violently in her grave.

Richard Saumarez
March 5, 2016 3:02 pm

Does this mean that feminists should be frigid?
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist it)

clipe
March 5, 2016 3:09 pm

Premier Kathleen Wynne was holding a campaign-style photo-op Tuesday with Training, Colleges, and Universities Minister Reza Moridi and students at Toronto’s Jarvis Collegiate.
The teens were conducting what is known as the “elephant toothpaste” experiment, mixing hydrogen peroxide with liquid soap to trigger foamy and colourful results

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/04/what-kathleen-wynne-was-thinking-when-she-saw-the-now-infamous-pink-blob.html
Boing!comment image

Richard Saumarez
March 5, 2016 3:12 pm

Next there will be “feminist mechanics”
Instead of acceleration= force/mass, which was established by the patriarchy, we will get:
“A particle when acted on by a force will accelerate depending according to what she is feeling at the time”
This law can be analysed from the point of knowledge producers, gendered science and knowledge and systems of scientific domination, particularly where men are concerned. It should be good for grants, or even departments, to rewrite the whole of mechanics and then branch into relativity and the feminist interpretation of Maxwell’s equations.
All I can say is “Brace yourselves, men”!

clipe
March 5, 2016 3:12 pm

Those manly men strike again.

David M. Lallatin
March 5, 2016 3:28 pm

My repost on Facebook: No ‘working’ definition of ‘science’ involved here. [My ‘Z’ honorific (Ziploc-after-walkies) can too much be substituted for ‘Dr’ these days. The ‘product’ of a University is a PhD, not an education-and-relevant-career. Not to denigrate Baristas-with-Liberal Arts degrees…et al. It’s a tough market out there. You ‘own’ yourself, no matter what…or whatever.]

BIGDINNY
March 5, 2016 3:32 pm

Where is Janice when we need her? Janice, you out there?

Robert
March 5, 2016 3:33 pm

This is hat we get for our tax $.
But if you want to see absolutely wonderful field science being performed eclusively by accredited women check out the paleoanthopologic dig being carried out by (American) Lee Berger at Wits U in South Africa. Lee exclusively recruited women for the job due to their unique qualifications.
This is earth shaking work which has the potential to turnour understanding or early hominins upside down.

Robert
Reply to  Robert
March 5, 2016 4:01 pm

Sorry about the typos, working on a tablet.

EternalOptimist
March 5, 2016 3:48 pm

Manly glaciers will never retreat !!
hut hut hut.
no iceberg will be left behind

Eugene WR Gallun
March 5, 2016 4:07 pm

I was surprised to learn that this quote is credited to W.C. Fields
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
Eugene WR Gallun

Resourceguy
March 5, 2016 4:21 pm

Hillary Climate

Eugene WR Gallun
March 5, 2016 4:45 pm

I have no doubt that this women actually thinks that by producing tangential words she is saying something important. Her understanding of the importance of her words is the same understanding of importance that pressured schizophrenics have of their words (perhaps her grammar is better but little else).
Language relates to the environment — except when it doesn’t. Language can give names to things that don’t exist. An example is “the tooth fairy”. The phrase “a feminist glaciology framework” is tooth fairy nonsense. Creating a name does not create a reality (Orwell in 1984 suggests that in an oppressive environment it can or for all practical purposes it can, New Speak being his example).
The woman who wrote this is either an Al Gore or a nut case. I can’t tell which.
Eugene WR Gallun

March 5, 2016 5:03 pm

Not hard at all if we taxpayer suckers allow the feds to hand it out like candy to. . . babes?

David Chapman
March 5, 2016 5:17 pm

Absolute rubbish

Chris
March 5, 2016 6:09 pm

I’ve been following the climate hoax for a few years now, and the Men’s Rights Movement for about a year. Just wait until the get a load of this at the National Coalition for Men/A Voice for Men, to say nothing of the Anti-Feminist organizations that are out there.

Wally
March 5, 2016 6:37 pm

There’s a certain kind of “envy” Freud attributed to these types.

Michael Hammer
March 5, 2016 6:41 pm

Err fellas; I am pretty sure I read somewhere that this is a scam paper. A paper of deliberate nonsense to see if nonsense would be detected by peer review or whether it would be passed for publication. It is not meant to make sense or be understood, it is deliberate nonsense, meaningless phrases strung together to sound impressive. Of course the real message is that it did get through peer review and into publication and it is a very sad message indeed.

Pamela Gray
March 5, 2016 7:40 pm

This is a joke, right? With that much jargon just in the abstract I declare this to be computer generated fake research with a fake computer generated research article.

rogerknights
March 5, 2016 8:01 pm

Climate craziness of the year. So far.

Hocus Locus
March 5, 2016 8:10 pm

WOMENS’ LIB ABSTRACT MAD LIB. You will need:
[BRANCH] branch of science or human endeavor
[FIERY-BRANCH] social sciences pursuit, preferably controversial in this context
[PROP1,PROP2] any objects familiar to practitioners of [BRANCH]
This paper thus proposes a feminist [BRANCH] framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of [PROP1]. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-[FIERY-BRANCH] systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-[PROP2] interactions.
Example for Carpentry/Anthropological/a nail/hammer
This paper thus proposes a feminist carpentry framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of a nail. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-anthropological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-hammer interactions.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
March 5, 2016 8:18 pm

del thx

Hocus Locus
March 5, 2016 8:18 pm

corr. WOMENS’ LIB ABSTRACT MAD LIB. You will need:
[BRANCH] branch of science or human endeavor
[FIERY-BRANCH] social sciences pursuit, preferably controversial in this context
[PROP1,PROP2] any objects familiar to practitioners of [BRANCH]
This paper thus proposes a feminist [BRANCH] framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of [PROP1]. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist [BRANCH] framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-[FIERY-BRANCH] systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-[PROP2] interactions.
Example for Carpentry/Anthropological/a nail/hammer
This paper thus proposes a feminist carpentry framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of a nail. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist carpentry framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-anthropological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-hammer interactions.

March 5, 2016 9:08 pm

Thanks for all the hilarity Anthony (and fellow-commenters).
This subject reminded me of a report I read just the other day about a professor, Peter Drier, on his experience submitting a bogus paper to a humanities conference and getting it accepted:
“Six years ago I submitted a paper for a panel, “On the Absence of Absences” that was to be part of an academic conference later that year—in August 2010. Then, and now, I had no idea what the phrase “absence of absences” meant. The description provided by the panel organizers, printed below, did not help. The summary, or abstract of the proposed paper—was pure gibberish, as you can see below. I tried, as best I could within the limits of my own vocabulary, to write something that had many big words but which made no sense whatsoever. I not only wanted to see if I could fool the panel organizers and get my paper accepted, I also wanted to pull the curtain on the absurd pretentions of some segments of academic life. To my astonishment, the two panel organizers—both American sociologists—accepted my proposal and invited me to join them at the annual international conference of the Society for Social Studies of Science to be held that year in Tokyo.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/27/academia-is-losing-its-mind/

sophocles
March 5, 2016 11:13 pm

It reads like a computer-generated hoax paper.

Berényi Péter
March 6, 2016 12:42 am

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

There is no need to go into such masculinist power games any more. Computer modelling developed into a perfectly legitimate way to study ice dynamics or anything else for that matter, can be done in nice cozy places and it is much easier to adjust results to a desired outcome. What’s not to like?

Richard Saumarez
March 6, 2016 4:16 am

I was convinced that this was a hoax when I first read it. Nefore I sent it to AWatts, I did discover that the senior author exists and the paper is celebrated on the University of Oregon.
https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed

Reply to  Richard Saumarez
March 7, 2016 9:55 am

Wait a second….Richard….you may have solved the AGW problem! When did feminists start burning bras in public? Wasn’t that roughly when global temps started increasing? Has anyone ever run the statistical correlation between increasing feminism and increasing warming? It has to be a nearly perfect correlation! 🙂

John B
March 6, 2016 5:38 am

Monty Python has become reality.
We live in the Post-satirical Age, where caricature has become true likeness and ridicule is impossible.

Geoff
March 6, 2016 6:42 am

The Big Bang Theory – Interesting girls in science
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rITtvpKbJW8

Sean Peake
March 6, 2016 8:17 am

Anthony, you need to create The Gabby Johnson Award for papers like this

March 6, 2016 8:39 am

Wow, do we ever need an ice age! Now please.

March 6, 2016 8:41 am

What blows my mind is that this gets published, with virtually nobody blinking an eye… but a paper about the mechanics of the human hand gets retracted because they used the word “creator” and the internet had a melt down. I guess I’ve gotten so used to far-left bologne in scholarship that I’ve just started filtering it out to focus on whatever substance remains. I would have done the same for the hand paper. The contrast here between mainstream reactions to the two is striking.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Derick Winkworth (@cloudtoad)
March 6, 2016 11:18 am

“Thou shalt have no other Cause before mine.” seems to be the new gold standard used by those with power to determine what can and cannot be said in public.

Ol' Roy
March 6, 2016 8:49 am

Anthony….Consider passing this on to The Journal of Irreproducible Results. It’s not as funny (or accurate) as the article on Impure Mathematics, but it may get a fair hearing from the publishers anyway.

March 6, 2016 11:34 pm

Hmm, I see a new career opportunity here. Sexing Glaciers. Publicly funded for gender studies students of course.

Reply to  Bill Sticker
March 7, 2016 9:50 am

But my gosh…it’s so hard to pick them up to look underneath….But seriously, does their gender really matter? If we know what sex they are….we’ll just treat them differently instead of equally….so maybe we shouldn’t pigeonhole them into one category or another!

Reply to  Aphan
March 7, 2016 10:06 am

Yes, but in the case of a male and female glacier getting divorced, which one is more likely to get custody of the ‘calves’? There’s a whole nascent growth industry out there.

March 7, 2016 1:47 am

It’s laugh out loud funny. Bet you can expect a ‘glacial’ response to this post from the feminist brigade.

AndyG55
March 7, 2016 2:01 am

Thank goodness these glaciers are feminists…
…….. imagine if one actually had an organism !
(I totally understand if you delete this post) 😉

March 7, 2016 5:50 am

I would never speak to a lady that way, my girlfriend would kill me.

M E Emberson
March 7, 2016 11:26 am

Sirs, while making merry about feminism you have not given any consideration to the accusation of Glaciology being Post Colonial. What was or is colonial about studying Swiss Glaciers?

Get Real
March 7, 2016 1:26 pm

Forget income tax, carbon tax and goods and services taxes. All we need is a word tax. A fixed tax on all printed and spoken words. For example adjectives would attract a higher rate than nouns and conjunctions the lower rate. Words deemed unnecessary would be the highest taxed. Certain words could attract an extremely high tax rate, for example ‘climate’ and ‘change. Just a thought, now I had better start saving.

rogerknights
March 7, 2016 5:13 pm

Here’s a comment from the Reason website at http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin#comment where there are more amusing remarks.

Lee G|3.7.16 @ 11:31AM|#
The journal is titled Progress in Human Geography and it is a treasure trove of derp:
Reconceptualizing power and gendered subjectivities in domestic cooking spaces
Health geography I: Social justice, idealist theory, health and health care
Everyday terrorism: Connecting domestic violence and global terrorism
Making space for fat bodies?: A critical account of ‘the obesogenic environment’
Recovering the politics of the city: From the ‘post-political city’ to a ‘method of equality’ for critical urban geography
The necessity of a multiscalar analysis of climate justice
Gendering capital: Financial crisis, financialization and (an agenda for) economic geography
Whiteness and futurity: Towards a research agenda
And lots of references to neoliberalism using big words that probably don’t exist outside of these articles.

Kris
March 7, 2016 6:58 pm

That is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.

samk
March 8, 2016 8:40 am

Hopefully, this is one of those fake articles full of impressive sounding, yet meaningless, jargon that get published because they are full of impressive sounding jargon.

March 8, 2016 9:44 am

I am a married college professor, mother of sons and grandsons. I teach real research and I have followed global warming and then climate change for 20 years, I have travelled to Antarctica and am planning a trip through the Northwest passage with my husband. There is no sign of gender difference in how we see glaciers or climate change. We have both met Anthony Watts twice and would gladly fund any research he did to show what’s up with climate because unlike this embarrassing goddess biased article above, Anthony is helping us get the facts on climate. To our goddess author, Please: “Just the facts Mam” . Please remember: Feelings are not facts.

Luke