EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

General => General Chat => Topic started by: zapta on March 12, 2016, 05:42:16 pm

Title: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 12, 2016, 05:42:16 pm
Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon (edit: also) for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

From the abstract

Quote
... 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.

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.long (http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/01/08/0309132515623368.long)

http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779 (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779)
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: elgonzo on March 12, 2016, 06:50:54 pm
Let me make an educated guess: Pseudo-feminist research is lamenting the hyper-sexualisation of women. Male-dominated societies encourage females to be(come) hot women, which -- depending on the overall hotness of women -- contributes to global warming. Hot women also cause males to go into heat, further contributing to global warming. Global warming, as we all know, causes the melting and eventual disappearance of glaciers. Without societies pressuring women to be hot and therefore also leading to fewer males in heat, global warming can be reduced, and thus glaciers preserved. Also, many glaciers have to endure many, many mountaineers crawling over them. Mostly the white glaciers are attracting mountaineers. Considering that white glaciers are female and the overwhelming majority of mountaineers are males, this constitutes sexual harassment. Which has to stop!
Where can i pick up my nobel prize as well as the life-time award in pseudo-feminist stupidity?
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 12, 2016, 06:55:44 pm
Quote
Where can i pick up my nobel prize as well as the life-time award in pseudo-feminist stupidity?

I don't think you are eligible for nobel prize: you actually did something about it and that disqualified you.

You should take a lesson from Mr. Obama who won the peace prize by doing nothing.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: AF6LJ on March 12, 2016, 07:10:07 pm
Okay this is just plain stupid.
I always thought radical feminism was tin foil hat crap to begin with; this takes to a new level.

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Mechanical Menace on March 12, 2016, 07:16:58 pm
Because glaciers represent the patriarchy? :wtf: has geology got to do with feminism? Feminism is at best part of political science or sociology.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 12, 2016, 07:43:44 pm
$400k ~ 1000 Rigol oscilloscopes.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: SeanB on March 12, 2016, 07:54:53 pm
I think this covers it.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Tsh3KaBgo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Tsh3KaBgo)

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: German_EE on March 12, 2016, 08:02:17 pm
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.

Female engineers? During WWII whilst the men went to war the women worked in the factories building the weapons, everything from shells to bombers.

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: rolycat on March 12, 2016, 08:37:55 pm
The paper is very possibly politically correct drivel, but zapta's presentation of the 'facts' is also nonsense.

The NSF did not remotely spend $400,000 on one scientific paper. If you actually read the abstract for the award, to which he thoughtfully provided a link, it covers a five-year program of research and doesn't mention feminism once.

Like many of us on this forum I have little time for or interest in social science, but it does serve a function. If you are going to criticize its practitioners, however fatuous their output, stick to the truth.  The misrepresentation of science for political ends is a far worse sin than a "feminist glaciology framework".
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 12, 2016, 09:37:17 pm
"I think this covers it....."

The producer of that video seems to be shocked at the support that lady fraudster received from big name companies.

That kind of phenomenon is not unique to her and is a reflection of how effective and powerful the PC crowd has been at shaking down everyone.

NPR did a piece a while back about politics behind the diversity push at silicon valley firms. The black caucus has been the biggest supporter of those movements, and as a result they have been the biggest receiver of sv money, or sponsorship of their activities. Yet, whether the actual diversity in those firms change or not is not important to those politicians.

Similarly here, those sponsors are more scared of being labeled as not caring about women issues. Their sponsorship is a small price to pay to buy protection.

Not different than the Mafia of the past. Except the mafias has to work too hard for their payoffs.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: CatalinaWOW on March 12, 2016, 10:45:08 pm
While this one is styled around feminism, this kind of stuff abounds through all of the "soft" academic programs.  It survives for a variety of reasons, including the "protection" theory mentioned above.  Others include a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of mutual support between those who need grants and sponsors for their living, and a sincere belief by some in the meaning and truth of this drivel.  Anyone who has ever visited Sedona, Arizona knows there are plenty of the latter folk on this planet.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 13, 2016, 12:42:16 am
At some levels, however, I find this kind of absurd speeches valuable: it is a confirmation that we live in a reasonable open-minded society where even idiots like that get to speak their minds.

Singularity in speeches, even if all "good", is dangerous to a democratic society.

Quote
Sedona, Arizona

What's wrong with Sedona? A beautiful town in a beautiful country.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: GreyWoolfe on March 13, 2016, 02:28:26 am
Not different than the Mafia of the past. Except the mafias has to work too hard for their payoffs.

Big difference from the Mafia of the past.  The Mafia mostly took out their own over territory battles.  The Feminists will take out anyone who gets in their way.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: blueskull on March 13, 2016, 03:29:17 am
I guess they HAD to write a paper but had no topics, so they went down this path.

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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: CatalinaWOW on March 13, 2016, 04:08:01 am
Sedona is a beautiful place, I love to poke around the monoliths and enjoy the scenery.  But you run into many people enthralled with the "force vortexes", extolling pyramid power and comparing the efficacies of their favorite crystals.  What do you say to someone you meet on a trail who greets you with something like "Did you feel that spirit vortex around the corner?".  It is like a town overrun with Audiophools.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: HAL-42b on March 13, 2016, 05:49:56 am
We started seeing this a lot lately but the phenomenon seems almost entirely limited to USA. When we draw a picture of what the "feminists" are trying to attack we get a pretty accurate picture that there is some political think tank playing with lots of corporate money, a PR agency or three and possibly a three letter agency. 

Fields and areas that have been directly attacked so far:
 - Free speech at universities.
 - Climate research
 - Free software
 - Gaming industry
 - Some media and entertainment.

So the targets are generally young, educated, socially progressive and may present a threat to the status quo. We do not expect to see "Feminism in the petrochemical industry" or "Feminism in the fiscal policy" for example. You need a community with certain properties in order to be able to pull it off.

So I'm calling this social attack "CRITICISM PREEMPTION"

Instead of publicly going against a harmful idea you infiltrate it with 'clowns' which seem to agree with the idea but actually are working to dilute and derail it by acting in ridiculous manner. This way the public will ridicule the whole field and the serious people in that field will refrain from associating themselves with it.  This way you weaken the harmful idea without drawing criticism to yourself.

How it worked so far:

 - "Safe Spaces" practically precluded political free speech in universities.
 - "Black lives matter" seriously diluted discussions of race issues in America.
 - "Gamergate" raised the signal to noise ratio and divided the young gamer community.
 - "Code of Conduct" in the software industry interrupted some work but hasn't been very effective so far.
 - Attacks on Matt Taylor drew attention away from the (non-NASA) Rosetta mission and discredited the scientist.
 - Disingenuous "scientific" paper about  climate change is likely to dilute the climate change research as a whole.

I'm sure there are many more incidents I'm not aware of.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 05:56:36 am
The paper is very possibly politically correct drivel, but zapta's presentation of the 'facts' is also nonsense.

The NSF did not remotely spend $400,000 on one scientific paper. If you actually read the abstract for the award, to which he thoughtfully provided a link, it covers a five-year program of research and doesn't mention feminism once.

Like many of us on this forum I have little time for or interest in social science, but it does serve a function. If you are going to criticize its practitioners, however fatuous their output, stick to the truth.  The misrepresentation of science for political ends is a far worse sin than a "feminist glaciology framework".

+1

The "paper" is simply a silly essay and is not a scientific research paper at all as claimed.

The $400k is the cumulative total of a research grant spanning many years for actual research - not essay writing.

Yep, misrepresentation of science for political ends is exactly right.

---
Add:  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, is Jaclyn Rushing who:
Quote
graduated from the University of Oregon's Robert D. Clark Honors College with a BA in Environmental Studies and Romance Languages. Currently, she is pursuing a MS in Forestry at Oregon State University. Her research interests include human dimensions of natural resources and outdoor recreation.

So  she is not even at University of Oregon where the grant money is. She likely wrote this while an undergrad at U of O with Carey as an adviser and he simply agreed to sponsor the publication for her.

His bio, his grant,  and his research have nothing to do with feminism.

This is just shameless distortion of the facts for political purposes..

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 06:10:03 am
From the authors:

Quote
Funding 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. Thanks to the Geography Colloquium Series at Ohio State University for valuable input on this project.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 06:20:26 am
From the authors:

Quote
Funding 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. Thanks to the Geography Colloquium Series at Ohio State University for valuable input on this project.

See my addition to the above post. That's how it works in environmental science and other programs. An undergrad approaches a faculty member to sponsor their senior thesis. The faculty adviser - even if he has no substantial hand in writing the senior thesis - is the sponsor.  If he is recipient of an NSF grant, he is obligated to disclose that.  The fact remains that this is not a research paper and Carey's grant money is used for actual research that has nothing to do with feminism. At most Rushing would have been paid a small stipend of a few hundred dollars to write this essay.  Any attempt to portray it otherwise is simply wrong.

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 06:40:10 am
... That's how it works in environmental science and other programs. An undergrad approaches a faculty member to sponsor their senior thesis. The faculty adviser - even if he has no substantial hand in writing the senior thesis - is the sponsor.  If he is recipient of an NSF grant, he is obligated to disclose that.  The fact remains that this is not a research paper and Carey's grant money is used for actual research that has nothing to do with feminism. At most Rushing would have been paid a small stipend of a few hundred dollars to write this essay.  Any attempt to portray it otherwise is simply wrong.

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

"I am currently a research assistant examining the effects of climate change on glaciers and mountain communities."

"...Researched the impact of climate change on glaciers in the Pacific Northwest, the Himalayas, and gender glacier relationship for Mark Carey PhD. at the University of Oregon."

http://jrrushing.weebly.com/ (http://jrrushing.weebly.com/)
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: EEVblog on March 13, 2016, 06:50:03 am
Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

First time I saw an article on this I thought it had to be an Onion spoof. But then I remembered the alternate reality the SJW's have created is actually real :palm:
I think I need to go to my Safe Space, on Mars.
But then, Mars is sexist  ::)
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 07:05:59 am

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

Also known as "padding a resume"

The title "research assistant" is given to anyone associated with a researcher, even the undergrads washing beakers or just tabulating data.

Note that the paper in the OP has no data or research of any kind. Likely it is just an attempt by an overzealous 21 year old undergrad to tie her newly discovered feminist ideology into her environmental science major.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 07:17:24 am

Her website suggests that she is/was a research assistant to Mark Carey, so the academic relationship was not as casual as you suggest.

Also known as "padding a resume"

The title "research assistant" is given to anyone associated with a researcher, even the undergrads washing beakers or just tabulating data.

mtdoc, you are making things up again.

Carey, the main investigator of this grant clearly hired Russhing:

Quote
When UO historian Mark Carey hired Jaclyn Rushing, an undergraduate student in the Robert D. Clark Honors College, to explore how nongovernmental organizations were addressing melting Himalayan glaciers, he got an unexpected return.

he supported here research into gender/glacier issues:

Quote
Expanding the investigation made sense, Carey said. "In disaster studies you always look at who is more vulnerable to hazards, and it's usually the marginalized populations. It's the poor groups, the underrepresented groups based on race and ethnicity, and gender has been discussed some in that."

and when she left he brought in replacement to continue her line of research:

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.

Quote
"Melting glaciers are today considered a national security risk for numerous countries," Carey said. "Power and colonialism have shaped the science."

https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: HAL-42b on March 13, 2016, 07:27:20 am
I don't believe this grant happened on it's own, without prodding from upstairs, considering how tight the money is in the field.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 07:41:06 am
Zapta, are you stalking her now?

Your OP  is a lie with your usual anti science, climate denial, political agenda having nothing to do with the silly essay linking glaciers to feminism. Everthing else is a smokescreen.

Our government in its wisdom granted $400K to researchers at the University of Oregon for this scientific research titled "Glaciers, gender, and science,A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research". 

No $400k granted for this paper. No scientific research in the paper. The OP is a lie.

That said, feminisn and glaciers? Give me a frickin break...
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 07:44:59 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Tac Eht Xilef on March 13, 2016, 07:49:35 am
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...)

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Synthetase on March 13, 2016, 07:52:31 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 07:55:18 am
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
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 07:59:48 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 08:03:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 08:28:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 08:48:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Mechanical Menace on March 13, 2016, 10:56:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 13, 2016, 11:40:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Mechanical Menace on March 13, 2016, 12:03:06 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 13, 2016, 01:01:40 pm
"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.

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Stonent on March 13, 2016, 06:07:22 pm
Feminists and glaciers have a lot in common.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 06:56:03 pm
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/ (http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0)
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 07:45:33 pm
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 (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagemode=print). 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


Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 08:02:56 pm
Do we really need another climate change thread?.

FWIW -Curry endorses the scientific consensus on aGW (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?pagemode=print)

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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 08:33:37 pm

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  (https://judithcurry.com/) 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!
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 08:57:53 pm
Spend sometime on  her excellent blog  (https://judithcurry.com/) 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 09:20:50 pm
Here are the facts regarding her views on AGW per her her April 2015 congressional testimony (https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/house-science-testimony-apr-15-final.pdf). 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 09:47:13 pm
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/
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 13, 2016, 09:48:07 pm
"
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 13, 2016, 10:17:02 pm
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?
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 13, 2016, 11:35:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 14, 2016, 12:52:57 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?
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 14, 2016, 01:04:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: amyk on March 14, 2016, 01:07:37 am
I have no idea what I just read. It's all duckspeak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words#Duckspeak) to me. :-\
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: mtdoc on March 14, 2016, 01:17:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 14, 2016, 03:23:57 am
"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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: rolycat on March 14, 2016, 09:55:03 am
"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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 14, 2016, 12:21:44 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Shadetreeprops on March 14, 2016, 12:22:36 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.

https://youtu.be/juR74OYiegY (https://youtu.be/juR74OYiegY)
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 14, 2016, 12:42:08 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 14, 2016, 12:51:43 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: rolycat on March 14, 2016, 12:54:08 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 (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/scientific-consensus-has-gotten-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/) 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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: dannyf on March 14, 2016, 01:03:18 pm
"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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: GK on March 14, 2016, 01:22:31 pm
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 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1054177665090.html)

*Seine Mutter

Incidentally, this thread is fucking stupid.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: elgonzo on March 14, 2016, 02:12:36 pm
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
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 14, 2016, 03:13:05 pm
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.

Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: zapta on March 14, 2016, 03:15:40 pm
https://youtu.be/juR74OYiegY (https://youtu.be/juR74OYiegY)

Very well made.

She has an excellent point, "brats are never happy".
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Stonent on March 17, 2016, 07:50:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: Mechanical Menace on March 17, 2016, 08:10:22 am
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?
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: CatalinaWOW on March 17, 2016, 04:34:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Glaciers, gender, and science
Post by: German_EE on March 17, 2016, 05:25:14 pm
"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.