Author Topic: Glaciers, gender, and science  (Read 17451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2016, 06:44:59 pm »
I don't believe this grant happened on it's own, without prodding from upstairs, considering how tight the money is in the field.

Read above. The grant is a multiyear grant for research. It was not awarded to write this essay. It's coincidental tha a tiny fraction of it may have been paid to an undergraduate sorking in the PIs lab.
 

Offline Tac Eht Xilef

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 509
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2016, 06:49:35 pm »
It's even worse because if you look at the authors - the last listed - who by tradition in scientific publishing is the most important author ...
(Emphasis mine)

Rubbish - it varies widely & wildly from country to country, field to field, department to department or lab to lab, and - more often than you'd like to believe - whatever the PI/supervisor wants.

(e.g. my first paper had me as main author, my supervisor as 2nd, and his principle RA - who provided much of the support to me - as 3rd. In the same department, I have friends who did all the research & analysis, wrote the paper, but have been relegated to 2nd, 3rd, or last author. In the same field in the same country, there are certain PI's who are well known for insisting everything that comes out of their lab is attributed to all in order of lab seniority - PI first, then senior to junior RAs, with postgrads etc. last - and any one of them could've done the actual work and authored the paper.

Yes, I had a good PI/supervisor...)

 

Offline Synthetase

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Country: au
    • Synthetase's World of Nerd
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2016, 06:52:31 pm »
mtdoc, you are making things up again.

You turned a multi-year research grant fund into $400,000 for a single essay and mtdoc is the one making things up. Pot, meet kettle.

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2016, 06:55:18 pm »
It's coincidental tha a tiny fraction of it may have been paid to an undergraduate sorking in the PIs lab.

mtdoc, you keep making things up.

Quote
After Rushing graduated and left for Oregon State University to pursue a graduate degree, Carey brought in M Jackson, a doctoral student in geography, and Alessandro Antonello, a postdoctoral research fellow in the honors college, to look deeper into the science of glacier studies and explore the gender issues.

https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2016, 06:59:48 pm »
It's even worse because if you look at the authors - the last listed - who by tradition in scientific publishing is the most important author ...
(Emphasis mine)

Rubbish - it varies widely & wildly from country to country, field to field, department to department or lab to lab, and - more often than you'd like to believe - whatever the PI/supervisor wants.


Fair enough, i was only speaking from my experience in the natural sciences in the USA.

Generally in that case the PI is listed last. In this case, since it was an essay and not research all bets are off.

Regardless, if you read their bios and the stuff Zapta dug up on her, it's pretty obvious tha Rushing wrote the paper which is all i was getting at.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2016, 07:03:32 pm »
It's coincidental tha a tiny fraction of it may have been paid to an undergraduate sorking in the PIs lab.

mtdoc, you keep making things up.

More smokescreen. Your now bringing in things that are not part of the essay in your OP. And you continue to avoid the fact that your OP is an outright lie.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2016, 07:28:45 pm »
Your now bringing in things that are not part of the essay in your OP.

mtdoc, you are making things up again.

The two people that I mentioned, M Jackson, (a doctoral student) and Alessandro Antonello (postdoctoral research fellow), are co-authors of that paper.

With all the respect, it's getting ridiculous.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2016, 07:48:24 pm »
Zapta you're the one who started the thread. It's your OP. It's your link to the nsf grant in the OP that shows the 400k is a multiyear grant for research with no mention of feminism. A tiny fraction at most was tied to this essay - not the $400k you claim.

Your post, your lie. Own it and move on. 

Or not, whatever. I agree it's ridiculous.
 

Offline Mechanical Menace

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1293
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2016, 09:56:11 pm »
Giving any social group special "treat" is just plain discrimination. Women do not need special research/work/... care, and privilege should be considered as discrimination.

Women do need more... encouragement to get into certain fields. STEM areas are a good example of that for the main except for maybe life sciences. Same is true for men when it comes to some things, especially primary education. But tbh in most places that encouragement would be something that has to start at middle school level at the latest, but that's long term so there's no instant recognition to put into election propaganda.

That short term thinking causes a lot of problems and animosity. If group X is underrepresented in universities the instant response of many would be to set up scholarships and grants exclusive to group X. But when you look into group X's demographics it generally becomes obvious they are just overrepresented in a socioeconomic class who all have much lower chances of climbing that social ladder and getting into higher education at all. So why not just set up those scholarships and grants for anyone who comes from that socioeconomic background instead of just one, oh lets say ethnicity from it? You help alleviate the greater problem instead of sticking a plaster on one result of it and breeding rightful jealousy from people with the same problems but wrong skin colour. But that wouldn't buy you any political capital. Every group wants special treatment for themselves above and beyond what everyone else gets. White people, black people, Asians, Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other way our species likes to make imaginary lines between "us" and "them," everyone sees a level playing field as persecution towards their tribe. You've got to keep very careful check of yourself not to do it because unfortunately it's part of human nature.
Second sexiest ugly bloke on the forum.
"Don't believe every quote you read on the internet, because I totally didn't say that."
~Albert Einstein
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2016, 10:40:22 pm »
It is so much simpler and more fair to all to live in a meritocracy.

Unfortunately PC and special interest groups (aka racists and sexists, etc.) have made it next to impossible.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline Mechanical Menace

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1293
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2016, 11:03:06 pm »
It is so much simpler and more fair to all to live in a meritocracy.

You can only have a meritocracy if you have true equality of opportunity, if everyone gets the chance to earn their place in it, not buy it, have it handed to them due to some real or not so real sob story, not handed to them due to hereditary privilege. Never going to happen, nobody really wants it. When the abolition of slavery came in the vast majority of slave owners couldn't see it as one group of people gaining rights but as themselves losing their rights. The balancing was seen as persecution towards the privileged. The same was true of the wealthy when the common man gained the vote, of the common man when a couple years later women gained the vote and on and on.
Second sexiest ugly bloke on the forum.
"Don't believe every quote you read on the internet, because I totally didn't say that."
~Albert Einstein
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2016, 12:01:40 am »
"nobody really wants it. "

That's very easy to answer: give the states, cities or towns the ability to a) establish laws banning any decision based on non merit factors, like race, sex, .... Or b) establish laws that equalize the outcome.

And let people vote with their feet as to which states, cities or towns they prefer to live in.

================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline Stonent

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3824
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2016, 05:07:22 am »
Feminists and glaciers have a lot in common.
The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2016, 05:56:03 am »
The paper sounds like an exercise in buzzword bingo. Women are quite capable of becoming engineers and/or scientists (and hello to board member Sue AF6LJ). The following female scientists spring to mind:

Marie Curie
Diane Fossey
Grace Hopper
Heather Cooper
Amy Mainzer
Carolyn Porco
Michelle Thaller
Marie-Anne Lavoisier
Margaret Thatcher
Angela Merkel
Ada Lovelace

I suppose that fictional scientists could set a good example so we can also add Maj. Samantha Carter and Dr Beverley Crusher.

Not to mention Judith Curry, a courageous climatologist that keept her scientific integrity

Quote
Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career.

Quote
She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 05:58:11 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2016, 06:45:33 am »
Aaannnd - were back to the climate science denial trolling.

Honestly, Zapta, I'm starting to wonder if you're being paid for these posts since you constantly start threads or interject the same agenda into so many threads. And spare me the ad hominem cliche - this road has been traveled way too many times.  Do we really need another climate change thread?.

FWIW -Curry endorses the scientific consensus on AGW. She is an honest scientist who rightly prods the climate science establishment to be careful in how they present the evidence and the uncertainties. It's unfortunate that this is then used for political propaganda purposes.

You still haven't explained why you misrepresented the facts in your OP.

I gotta hand it to you though - this thread was pure genius. Find a paper that links feminism nonsense (a well known EEVBlog punching bag) to glaciers and climate science to suck in the masses to your climate change denial nonsense - which was your agenda all along.  Kind of like offering free beer and food to get people to show up for a religious revival.  Well done!  :clap:

The feminism nonsense is great fun to poke fun at and I'm as disgusted by some of the extremes as the next guy, but it's not much of a fair fight on a forum full of (mostly) male engineers.

I like Stonent's joke about glaciers and feminist though.   The problem is feminists generally don't have much of a sense of humor.

Question: How many militant feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: That's not funny!
 ;D


« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 07:00:19 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2016, 07:02:56 am »
Do we really need another climate change thread?.

FWIW -Curry endorses the scientific consensus on aGW

That's was in 2009 when climategate got exposed and she started to reevaluate the scientific practices of the IPCC crowd. Anyway, she seems to be one of the more honest scientists that put science first and go where it leads them.

We need more of her kind. Women like her are the real feminists in my book.

BTW, nothing is inherently wrong with feminism, it has many aspects of common sense personal liberty, the problem is the wacky overshoot that some of its proponent took.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2016, 07:33:37 am »

That's was in 2009 when climategate got exposed and she started to reevaluate the scientific practices of the IPCC crowd.

No, that is still her position. Spend sometime on her excellent blog to confirm this. And don't take one issue she raises out of context.  It is heavy on the science. She is appropriately skeptical as any scientist should be but is still among the 97% that endorse the reality of AGW even if she disagrees with some of the conclusions of some of her colleagues especially re: the degree of human contribution. It's this type of mischaracterization of her views (by either side) that is part of the problem. If one does not understand how science works it is easy to mistake the existence of some uncertainties to mean that nothing is certain.

Quote
Anyway, she seems to be one of the more honest scientists that put science first and go where it leads them.

We need more of her kind. Women like her are the real feminists in my book.

On this point I wholeheartedly agree with you. Yeah!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 07:45:12 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #42 on: March 14, 2016, 07:57:53 am »
Spend sometime on her excellent blog to confirm this. And don't take one issue she raises out of context.  It is heavy on the science. She is appropriately skeptical as any scientist should be but is still among the 97% that endorse the reality of AGW even if she disagrees with some of the conclusions of some of her colleagues especially re: the degree of human contribution. It's this type of mischaracterization of her views (by either side) that is part of the problem. If one does not understand how science works it is easy to mistake the existence of some uncertainties to mean that nothing is certain.

I doubt that she considers the IPCC climate models 'settled' as in gravity models.

Quote
And what of the years following 2016?  Will we see cooling and then a continuation of flat temperatures?  Or continued warming?  I suspect that there will be some cooling and continued flatness.  I’ve stated before that it will be another 5 years before we have the appropriate prospective on the current temperature fluctuations and whether or not the early 21st century pause is over.

We just have to grab some popcorn and watch…better stock up, this is gonna take a while.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end-of-the-satellite-data-pause/

It's a pleasure to see a courageous, open minded, and non dogmatic scientist like her that goes where the evidence will take her. That's the real spirit of science.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2016, 08:20:50 am »
Here are the facts regarding her views on AGW per her her April 2015 congressional testimony. From the bottom of page 7:

Quote
Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have
contributed to warming, are trivially true
, but they are essentially meaningless by themselves in terms of
alarm.

So she believes, as do almost all climate scientists that:

1) The earth is warming
2) There is a greenhouse effect
3) Man's activities have contributed to the warming.

Where she disagrees with most of her colleagues is on the certainty about how large the human's contribution is, how accurate the models for future forecasts are and what if any policy response should occur. Those are legitimate areas where honest scientists can and should disagree. That's how the science advances.

Like in any scientific field  there is a spectrum of ideas about the magnitude of certain phenomenon or the areas of uncertainty.  She is on one end of the spectrum. That's as it should be. But that in no way changes the fact that she agrees with the consensus view that AGW is real.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 08:22:29 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2016, 08:47:13 am »
So she believes, as do almost all climate scientists that:

1) The earth is warming
2) There is a greenhouse effect
3) Man's activities have contributed to the warming.

Both +1uV and +1000V are measurable positive voltages. The devil is in the details.

Let's hear it from the woman herself:

Quote
JC message to climate scientists advocating for more funding at the same time they are claiming ‘settled science’ [e.g. Marcia McNutt]:  you have been hoisted on your own petard.  You are slaying climate science in the interests of promoting a false and meaningless consensus.

Quote
To make progress, we need to resolve many scientific issues, here is the list from my APS Workshop presentation:

Solar impacts on climate (including indirect effects)
Multi-decadal natural internal variability
Mechanisms of vertical heat transfer in the ocean
Fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, lapse rate)

Judith Curry  Feb 2016.  https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/04/now-that-climate-science-is-settled/
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2016, 08:48:07 am »
"
1) The earth is warming
2) There is a greenhouse effect
3) Man's activities have contributed to the warming"

For the record, I agree with every single one of her points, without any grants from taxpayers and no fancy degrees from fine institutions. And I agree to that decades ago when other climate scientists, under almost 100 percent concenncus,  were dreaming up ways to generate co2 as a way to combat global cooling.

Some of those leading global cooling advocates then are advocating, with more conviction today, global warming, with equally convincing research, scientific models and more funding.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2016, 09:17:02 am »
Zapta,

Nothing in your post refutes the fact that she agrees with the consensus view that AGW is real.


"
1) The earth is warming
2) There is a greenhouse effect
3) Man's activities have contributed to the warming"

For the record, I agree with every single one of her points

Glad to hear that. Sounds like progress.


Quote
And I agree to that decades ago when other climate scientists, under almost 100 percent concenncus,  were dreaming up ways to generate co2 as a way to combat global cooling.
  Any unbiased source to back up that statement?
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2016, 10:35:35 am »
Nothing in your post refutes the fact that she agrees with the consensus view that AGW is real.

Well, if this is all you picked from her quotes in post #44 then good for you, even if she calls it "false and meaningless consensus" and says that we need to research non anthropogenic causes.

The faithful see only what they want to see. Good for religion. Bad for science.

Anyway, I predict that she will be on the correct side of science history.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 10:38:03 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2016, 11:52:57 am »
Well, if this is all you picked from her quotes in post #44 then good for you,

I've been reading her blog for years. She is outside the mainstream so it is not surprising that she disputes much of the mainstream scientific view. She revels in that role and in fact that is what she is most famous for.  She is also quite political which informs much of her opinions. Nothing wrong with that per se - just something to be aware of.

Nevertheless, she has always maintained that AGW is real and important as almost all climate scientists do. 
Your cherry picking quotes out of context are just a smokescreen to distract from that fact.

What does any of this have to do with your factually incorrect OP anyways?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 12:00:15 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2016, 12:04:49 pm »
Your cherry picking quotes out of context are just a smokescreen to distract from that fact.

Cherry picking is in the eye of the faithful.
Drain the swamp.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf