Author Topic: Glaciers, gender, and science  (Read 17437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline amyk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6151
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2016, 12:07:37 pm »
I have no idea what I just read. It's all duckspeak to me. :-\
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3576
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2016, 12:17:28 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.

My faith is and always has been in the scientific process. The fact that decades of research by thousands of climate scientists across the globe has led almost all fo them to the same conclusion - that AGW is occurring and is significant - is what what continues to drive me to not let your continuous political agenda driven anti-science misinformation campaign go unchallenged.

Your repetitive thread creation and interjection of your same political ideology into multiple threads speaks for itself, as does the lie you attempted to pass of as fact in the OP of this thread.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2016, 02:23:57 pm »
"The fact that decades of research by thousands of climate scientists across the globe has led almost all fo them to the same conclusion - that AGW is occurring and is significant - "

That's just some heavy dose of appeal to authority than even the faithful would be too ashamed to admit in public.

Maybe it is indeed true that agw is a religion to some. Its members certainly fit that kind of profile of religious nuts.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1089
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2016, 08:55:03 pm »
"The fact that decades of research by thousands of climate scientists across the globe has led almost all fo them to the same conclusion - that AGW is occurring and is significant - "

That's just some heavy dose of appeal to authority than even the faithful would be too ashamed to admit in public.

Maybe it is indeed true that agw is a religion to some. Its members certainly fit that kind of profile of religious nuts.

An appeal to authority is fallacious only when the authority is not a legitimate one in a particular context.

The scientific consensus is the most powerful tool society has for determining the truth of a theory. Although not perfect, it is certainly superior to accepting the 'authority' of scientists who have sold their integrity or compromised it due to their political or religious convictions.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2016, 11:21:44 pm »
"An appeal to authority is fallacious only when the authority is not a legitimate one in a particular context."

If the authority is legit, why do you need to appeal to it?

To put it different, you can argue the fact the agw is appealing to authority so much, because it knows that it is not legit.

Sometimes even the agw crowd can tell the truth accidentally.

"The scientific consensus is the most powerful tool society has for determining the truth of a theory. "

"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Science is science, whether it is held by majority or minority, and as it is often the case. Being popularly held by itself doesn't make it scientific. And only a moron will equate consensus to sciencr.

Science is just that, science. If it is consensus, it is not science. And vice versa.

"Scientific consensus" is just a phase a non science type uses to cow other people into accepting a thing that cannot pass scientific scruitiny.

BTW, what is the source of this 97 percent bs? It seems to me you don't even get that kind of agreement even among the religious nuts.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline Shadetreeprops

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Country: us
  • Backwater building
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2016, 11:22:36 pm »
oh dear lord, feminists....I am all for equality, but not the new age femanazi's casue they have taken what women worked for and have twisited it into something of a preverse version of what should have been.

Buy it, use it, break it, fix it, Trash it, change it, mail upgrade it, Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it, Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2016, 11:42:08 pm »
I looked up the 97 percent figure and it seems to have come from cook and etc. Here is what wiki has to say about it:

"Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. "

A few things jumped out right away, even to someone without fancy degrees:

1. They reviews abstracts, not papers themselves.

2. They counted papers, not scientists.

3. Most of the papers (two thirds) said nothing about agw - what a surprise.

4. Of the minority that did, 97 of them, or 30 percent of all the papers reviewed, said that humans contributed to agw - a position I agree as well.

That position is vastly different from the authors representation that 97 percent of the climate scientists agreed that humans caused most of the warming.

That kind of representation, based on the survey results, is a fraud.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2016, 11:51:43 pm »
So the 97 percent figure is similar to the NPR story I heard a couple weeks ago where it reported, with a straight face, that there is complete consensus on climate change, among scientists who agreed.

:)

It is just so thick.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline rolycat

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1089
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #58 on: March 14, 2016, 11:54:08 pm »
"An appeal to authority is fallacious only when the authority is not a legitimate one in a particular context."

If the authority is legit, why do you need to appeal to it?
You were the one who introduced the phrase. As you must be aware, "appeal to authority" is a standard term used to describe a form of argument.

Quote
To put it different, you can argue the fact the agw is appealing to authority so much, because it knows that it is not legit.
That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Quote
"The scientific consensus is the most powerful tool society has for determining the truth of a theory. "

"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Science is science, whether it is held by majority or minority, and as it is often the case. Being popularly held by itself doesn't make it scientific. And only a moron will equate consensus to sciencr.

Science is just that, science. If it is consensus, it is not science. And vice versa.

"Scientific consensus" is just a phase a non science type uses to cow other people into accepting a thing that cannot pass scientific scruitiny.
More twaddle. Try looking at the Wikipedia article on the topic, or this informative ArsTechnica article, or indeed any source of information other than meretricious denialist mouthpieces attempting to confuse the public about the value of real science.
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2016, 12:03:18 am »
"oh dear lord, feminists"

Her larger point should be taken seriously.

There is an old Chinese saying that goes like this: a strong society is build on strong families. A strong family is built on strong mothers / women.

By destroying family structures, we have destroyed the foundation of our society.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline GK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2520
  • Country: au
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #60 on: March 15, 2016, 12:22:31 am »
There is an old Chinese saying that goes like this: a strong society is build on strong families. A strong family is built on strong mothers / women.

"Jesus saith unto her*, Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
John 2.4

Quote
By destroying family structures, we have destroyed the foundation of our society.

But then again Jesus was gay (Uranus dominant in his astrological chart):
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1054177665090.html

*Seine Mutter

Incidentally, this thread is fucking stupid.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 12:34:13 am by GK »
 

Offline elgonzo

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Country: 00
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #61 on: March 15, 2016, 01:12:36 am »
Incidentally, this thread is fucking stupid.
What did you expect? This is an EE forum, and unless somebody is able to turn the topic of this thread into a schematic or SPICE simulation, chances are in favor of this thread remaining so...  ;D
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #62 on: March 15, 2016, 02:13:05 am »
What does any of this have to do with your factually incorrect OP anyways?

Good point. I edited the OP to to reflect that this is not the only product of that grant.

The fact of the matter is that after Rushing graduated and left her work as a research assistant for the Principle Investigator of this grant, he brought onboard two more researches, a doctoral student and a postdoctoral research fellow "to look deeper into the science of glacier studies and explore the gender issues."

Your attempt to minimize this as an undergraduate "padding a resume" is clearly false. This was an intentional research topic by a Mark Carey.

Drain the swamp.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #63 on: March 15, 2016, 02:15:40 am »


Very well made.

She has an excellent point, "brats are never happy".
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline Stonent

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3824
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2016, 06:50:07 pm »
Fewer women are getting married, which then in turn means there are more single mothers.  Single mothers don't tend to have the time or resources to finish a degree or apprenticeship therefore do not make as much money and struggle more. 

So, get your good job first, get married, then have kids. A two income house means you can have a kid without bankrupting yourself and ruining your chances at a career. Therefore you CAN be successful...

But feminists don't want to hear that.
The larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
 

Offline Mechanical Menace

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1293
  • Country: gb
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #65 on: March 17, 2016, 07:10:22 pm »
Fewer women are getting married, which then in turn means there are more single mothers.

I thought the "war on contraception education" was leading to more single mothers? Taking the US as an example abstinence only states have a greater proportion of single mothers, especially in regards to underage and repeat underage pregnancies, than those that have a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum.

Quote
Single mothers don't tend to have the time or resources to finish a degree or apprenticeship therefore do not make as much money and struggle more.

Aren't women also the majority of graduates nowadays?
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 CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3047
  • Country: us
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #66 on: March 18, 2016, 03:34:33 am »
Women are the majority of graduates, but are hugely under-represented in many, perhaps most, fields that tend to have high pay.  Much to the surprise of many, a degree is not a guarantee of an above average income.  It is unfortunate, but true, that interest in a field does not correlate with availability of employment.  One of the best examples of this is forensic analysis which is a hugely popular career path in the US due to the popularity of several television shows which dramatize and glamorize the field.  Unfortunately there are not so many positions as applicants and more unfortunately the reality of the jobs is far different from the television portrayal.

The latter problem is true in engineering.  Many actual jobs are far more mundane than students imagine during their degree course.
 

Offline German_EE

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2131
  • Country: de
Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
« Reply #67 on: March 18, 2016, 04:25:14 am »
"more unfortunately the reality of the jobs is far different from the television portrayal".

As somebody who lived with a CSI for eight years I can confirm this. Apart from the necessity of wearing those white 'bunny suits' and cutting down on makeup and perfume to a bare minimum there were days when she came home from work after seeing things that would make your blood run cold. No talking, I just held her until the demons went away and normal life began to resume.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 10:14:54 am by German_EE »
Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Warren Buffett
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf