Feds paid $709,000 to academic who studies how glaciers are sexist

  • Jungrfraufirn glacier

Academics at the University of Oregon have determined that glaciers and the science that studies them are deeply sexist.

“Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political Daily Caller  New Foundationecology, 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,” reads the paper’s abstract. The research was published in the peer-reviewed journal Progress in Human Geography in January.

The study, by historian Dr. Mark Carey and some student researchers, was financially supported by taxpayer dollars. The National Science Foundation (NSF) gave Carey a five-year grant which he used to write his “feminist glaciology” paper. Carey has received $709,125 in grants from the NSF, according to his curriculum vitae.

“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,” Carey wrote. “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.”

Carey concluded glacier research is intertwined with gender relations, masculine culture, geopolitics, institutional power and racism — these apparently led to to glacier-related academic and governmental jobs being predominantly filled by men. Damages from melting glaciers target women and ethnic minorities, who “are more vulnerable to glacier changes and hazards than are men,” according to Carey.

The study shocked many academics and real scientists, and several initially believed the study was a work of satire.

“Who knew there was such a thing as ‘feminist glaciology?’”Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “I can’t satirize it. The scientists do that in their own abstract.”

Cornell University chemist Dr. Phil Mason, took to Twitter Sunday to say the paper left him”dumbfounded.”

Carey attempted to link flooding from a glacial lake with an increase of sexually transmitted infections in women. The academic and his colleagues said the paper showed “how men’s voices have dominated the research” and complained that “power and colonialism have shaped the science” when discussing the research on the university website. The scientists blame “the era of Victorian Imperialism” for the lack of female glaciologists.

“Do we really need a study to tell us that glacier nerds are more likely to be men than women,” Marlo Lewis, an analyst at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, told TheDCNF “Or that women in developing countries are ‘more confined to their homes and child rearing’ when sudden glacier melt causes local flooding?”

Carey also helped found the University of Oregon’s Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples Initiative.

“Predictably, the authors fail to see the ‘sexist’ nature of today’s climate agenda, which seeks to restrict people’s access to the most affordable, abundant, and reliable forms of energy,” Lewis said. “Energy poverty is literally lethal, and in energy-poor countries, it is women and children who suffer most.”

Carey did not respond to requests for comment.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller

Categories

About the Author: Andrew Follett

Andrew Follett

Andrew Follett covers energy and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • model94

    We have lost our collective minds.

    • Philip Beck

      Thankfully not all of us.

  • Philip Beck

    “Feds paid $709,000″…..This should read:
    “The
    U.S. taxpayers were duped via an unaccountable federal bureaucracy into
    paying “women’s studies” graduates for another useless, feel-good-we’re
    saving mankind” study.”

    • John Roguetech

      Actually, it should read “Feds paid nothing….”

      You see, what the author fails to point out, is that the grant was NOT for this study. The grant was a research education grant. The sad thing is, it also wasn’t for $709,000. That number is a complete lie. Fabricated. The grant Dr Carey received was $413,000.

      Now, no doubt, you’ll think “well, that’s close enough” (aside from being completely wrong), but consider how you have been manipulated… If this so-called journalist had presented the actual facts, that someone published an article while being a research educator (and performing climatology research)… Well, perhaps you would have reacted in just as ridiculous a manner, but then why the lies??

      • Philip Beck

        I think that you are very familiar with ridiculous.

  • Jgorish

    Perhaps the person approving the grant thought a typo changed “glaciers exist” to “glacier sexist”. Nah … probably some mandated regulation that all academic fields conform to gender equality protocols.

  • Copper

    Liberalism is a mental disease.

    • Dano2

      Reality has a lib’rulllll bias, sorry.

      Best,

      D

      • Scott in VA

        Thus Dano proves Copper’s point.

        • Dano2

          Sure, sure.

          Best,

          D

      • Duke Silver

        Reality has no bias.

        • Dano2

          Sure, sure.

          Best,

          D

    • Sam Pyeatte

      You would think that someone with a PhD would be embarrassed to put his or her name on something so…worthless and wasteful. Besides, what does it say about an out-of-control and unaccountable Federal bureaucracy willing to waste so much money and time – the real outrage is $709,000 is considered chump change.

      • Copper

        Absolutely. My good friend in college that I ran around with for years lost his head. He started on his PhD. He was so sure of himself he put his younger brother in the hospital twice convincing him to do stupid things. Once I am sure he cut his brother off racing motorcycles so he wouldn’t lose which caused his little brother permanent nerve damage. Psycho. When he graduated he wanted us to call him doctor. I told him to F off and didn’t see him for years. Ran into him 15 years ago at the ski slopes and he tried to make conversation. Still arrogant. I just said what ever, looking at the junker he was driving. Life had caught up with him.

    • Dean Bruckner

      A moral disorder.

  • colinjames71

    I thought this was satire until I read how that scientist thought the paper was…. satire. This might be the most ridiculous thing ever, and that’s a large pool of ridiculous things from which to choose from.

  • Scott in VA

    Well, glaciers are generally white and tend to thrust into the valleys of “mother earth”.
    I especially enjoyed how glaciers give women STDs — those rapist glaciers!
    When glaciers rape minority women, is that miscegenation?
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    • John Roguetech

      That’s a lie. It says that the THIRD co-author READ a DIFFERENT report that supposedly mentioned it.

      But, just out of curiosity, do you know for a fact that loss of glacier habitat hasn’t resulted in increased spread of STDs?? You are trying to mock someone… not for believing a fact, but READING a fact. Seriously, trying to mock people for reading facts says more about you.

  • Gary Hall

    Well – here’s a report by a woman at the National Park Service, and it makes a heyday out of Obama’s recent visit to the Exit Glacier up in Alaska. Looks like he’s the sexist, as he didn’t bother to check out the science before he opened his mouth.

    http://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The Retreat of Exit Glacier.pdf

    Attached is a graphic from the report (note: I added a little note to it).

    • John Roguetech

      Seriously? If there’s ONE woman in all of hydrology, then that means it couldn’t possibly be male-dominated??

  • Mike435

    The paper did not cost $700K. Those grants covered a wide range of other projects. While I find much of the rhetoric used in the paper to be needlessly obtuse, the paper is about gender bias within the ranks of those who study glaciers and goes on to ask how this might have affected the science. I am not a fan of the approach the authors use, but it is not an unreasonable question to explore.

    • Duke Silver

      “but it is not an unreasonable question to explore”
      ….unless at public expense, which it was.

      • Mike435

        Gender bias is an issue of concern to the public. Elected officials set the broad funding priorities of the NSF. The NSF selects review panels to choose which grants to fund. This is a reasonable method for deciding how to spend public funds for research.

        • Duke Silver

          I agree that there is an enormous bias in climate science. Unfortunately, it’s not related to gender.
          I would have been elated had there been a $709K study paid for by the gov’t to determine the degree to which climate outcomes are biased in the direction of predetermined goals……
          …..or to quantify the degree of data diddling.
          …..or the lack of reporting regarding disadvantageous outcomes……
          Gender bias in climate science? Ah, so the gov’t IS willing to admit there may be a bias and the science is not actually settled.
          There’s no longer any money in the coffers for frivolous exercises. Spend your own money on such. Mike. Leave mine alone.

          • Triple M

            So… spend money on trying to prove that things that you don’t agree with must be biased, and don’t look into any other issues.

            Right, of course, silly government.

            • Duke Silver

              In science there is a responsibility to prove that theories are not biased. All due diligence must be driven by that principle.

              This has not happened in climate science.

              Until that has been due diligence has been expended, money spent on lesser virtues is wasted.

              I have no doubt there is gender bias in climate study. Bias abounds in this infantile discipline.

              Simply be honest and admit the science is not settled. Man up and grow a pair or continue to play silly schoolgirl head games.

              • Triple M

                No…what you mean to say is

                ” This has not been done in climate science “… according to me.

                So, we have to spend money on proving something that you don’t want to be true must be biased, and no money can be spent on anything else until reality agrees with your interpretation.

                Oddly companies like Exxon can spend millions trying to convince people of the same thing.

                How about you grow a pair and admit that whining doesn’t change things?
                Or are you a conspiracy theorist too?

                • Duke Silver

                  As expected, you elected to continue the silly schoolgirl head games.
                  So, for you, it’s OK your gov’t spends $Bs (not $Ms) to convince the people (of your POV) and at the same time refuses to fund a single study to be performed by any scientist with a skeptical bent?
                  Your expensive models are unable to predict past, present or future climate….. and yet the science is settled and no debate will be tolerated.

                  • Triple M

                    Yup… you are a conspiracy theorist.

                    Let me guess… evolution isn’t real either?

                    • Duke Silver

                      I’m not the one insisting that an innocuous trace gas is the primary driver of climate compared with the sun, winds, etc.

                      The burden of proof remains squarely upon your shoulders. Loud and repeated boasting doesn’t make it so.

                      At least the bigfoot boys can admit when they’ve been hoaxed.

                    • Triple M

                      Oddly… so far that only evidence that I’m being hoaxed… is a whiner on the internet. So, no, although you may have bigfoot-in-mouth.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Hmmmm, wonder why NOAA won’t respond to that subpoena for information?

                    • Triple M

                      * YAWN… by demands from a republican senator who accepts $600,000 from Oil Industry?
                      I thought all the big money was in climate change science?
                      Apparently not.

                      And you don’t see that as suspicious?

                      A senator who couldn’t prove anything using the actual scientific data.
                      And so wasted money chasing emails between scientists.
                      ( I thought you were against wasting money? )

                      And you don’t think that’s suspicious at all?

                      A senator who now has over 100 emails, that prove, absolutely nothing.
                      So, time wasted, money wasted, and scientists bullied.
                      All without refuting any of the scientific data.

                      And yes, I know, you don’t think that’s suspicious at all.

                    • Duke Silver

                      “A senator who now has over 100 emails”
                      …asked for all (thousands) of them and was given a few hand-picked…..
                      how compliant……
                      NOAAs taking a sheet out of the Hillary playbook.

                    • Triple M

                      How about phone tapping?
                      Or hiring a private detective to follow every scientist around?
                      That would work wouldn’t it?
                      Surely the oil companies could put up the cash for that?
                      I mean if you’re going to go to ridiculous lengths in a witch hunt, you my a well go all the way.

                      Another way might be to actually be able to deal with the data…
                      you know… like a scientist would.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Us taxpayers have already paid for due process. We simply expect it.

                      “deal with the data… you know… like a scientist would.”

                      Uh, no scientist would be diddling raw data.

                    • Triple M

                      Right.. so because you can’t find any problem with the data… you know… like a scientist would. You use taxpayers money to go on a witch hunt.

                      Again… conspiracy theory.
                      Somehow every piece of research anywhere around the world must be wrong, because a senator getting huge money from oil companies accuses some scientists of faking numbers, and doesn’t have any proof whatsoever.

                      It’s not public record, scientists do not publish all their emails with their research. What happens is that people read the science. If they can find faults, they point it out. If they think the numbers look wrong, they compare them to other studies to demonstrate this, or they do a study themselves.

                      What they don’t do is simply accuse scientists of lying because they don’t like the results, and then waste everyone’s time and money throwing up a smokescreen and conducting a witch hunt.

                      It’s totally disrespectful, and nonsensical, which is exactly what it’s meant to be. Nothing has been demonstrated at all, but it makes a good headline for the conspiracy nuts.

                    • Duke Silver

                      The problem with the data is…. it’s manufactured.

                      In any other scientific endeavor – heads would roll, grants pulled, reputations ruined.

                      In climate “science” – it’s just another day and you’ve learned to look the other way.

                    • Triple M

                      *YAWN… yes of course it is.

                      And in order to prove it’s ” manufactured ” you can make up what ever you want… do you sense the irony there?

                    • Duke Silver

                      Honest scientists have nothing to hide.
                      Everyone knows the historical database has been altered. Previous copies of the datasets abound.
                      The question is why. And now, why are the emails withheld?
                      Remain a rube if you like. It’s a free country.

                    • Triple M

                      Yeah… because all scientific studies frequently include disclosure of every single email ever sent. Like I said, if you can’t find it there why not phone tapping? Why not tail the scientists?

                      Because ” everyone knows ” the data has been altered.

                      You see, that’s how the tin hat brigade talk.
                      ” Everyone knows ” that we didn’t land on the moon
                      ” Everyone knows ‘ there were aliens in Roswell
                      etc etc..

                      There must be evidence somewhere, because you don’t like the data.

                      Unfortunately, ” everyone knows ” counts for exactly….squat.

                      Everyone knows that.

                    • Duke Silver

                      If the research was funded by someone other than themselves….. the audit trail must be maintained. That’s a universal term of acceptance.

                      It is only subpoenaed in extraordinary cases like potential fraud.

                      Stop equating CAGW skeptics with moonwalk and alien kooks. I suspect it gives you solace thinking your competitors are loony. Were not. Only shows how little confidence you have in “your own” numbers.

                      The data was published for years before being altered. The present database doesn’t match the original. In scientific terms, you got some splainin to do…..and you’re not doing it. For a former military R&D engineer…I’d be calling Leavenworth home.

                      And don’t try to say your a scientist….. we don’t talk like trolls.

                    • Triple M

                      Sorry, but you’re exactly like alien kooks. You stamp your feet and insist that the data is all wrong.

                      OK then… prove it. It’s not hard, do what every other scientist on the planet does and prove it.
                      Hell, with the money being poured into buying off senators you could do your own research.

                      What’s that? You can’t prove it?
                      The research might not agree with you?

                      OK.. Better idea. Pay a Senator to conduct a witch hunt, declare everything ” potential fraud ” simply because you don’t like it, and then, when you still can’t prove it, at least you’ve created some good news stories for the other conspiracy nuts to link to.
                      Stir up a storm, create doubt, without actually having to prove anything.

                      Play by the rules or don’t play at all.
                      All of this is more about public opinion than science. Yes, accusing someone of fraud would normally be a very serious accusation, and perhaps you should end up in Leavenworth.
                      But somehow I don’t think this Senator will face any repercussions at all.
                      The perfect media weapon.

                      Wake up.

                    • Duke Silver

                      I’m not the one stamping my feet like a petulant child.
                      If you change data – you’d better have a damn good reason and you saying “trust me” isn’t good enough.

                    • Triple M

                      If you can prove that the data is incorrect… you don’t need emails.

                      You are the very definition of a petulant child.

                      You don’t debunk a scientific study by paying a senator to create a stir in the media. You do it with science.

                      You however, think the that scientists are all lying to us, because you live in a conspiracy theory. It’s not rocket science.

                    • Duke Silver

                      It’s not a scientific study when you alter data.
                      Whoever pays for the work owns the work.
                      Your old “its for real, you have to trust me” schtick is stale.

                    • Triple M

                      It’s not altered data, unless you can prove it’s altered data.

                      Besides, how can I believe anything I read on the internet, they might’ve altered the data. Best not to accept anything ever, including anything you say. Because let’s face it, simply being skeptical means that I can dismiss any study I like… apparently.

                      I know – how about we treat scientific studies like scientific studies and work within the boundaries like everyone else, instead of paying senators to create a smokescreen.
                      Funny I’ve read a few research papers, and the section marked
                      ” irrelevant emails for conspiracy nuts conducting witch nuts “,
                      never seems to be there

                    • Duke Silver

                      “It’s not altered data, unless you can prove it’s altered data.”
                      …add the rest of that sentence – and you can’t prove it without backup data, and I’m not gonna give you that.
                      Lets turn it around.When the IRS comes calling – they’re not looking for your numbers (they already have that). They’re looking for justification for your numbers. You can produce it and go on about your business or you can receive a fine or jail time.

                    • Triple M

                      And since when is scientific research audited by the IRS?

                      And as I said, how many other scientific papers require all their emails to disclosed before being accepted? Is that the norm?
                      Hint – No it’s not.

                      And you know why?
                      Because unlike the IRS, if you want to disprove scientific research, you can go and do your own research, you can reference other research… etc, etc…

                      So why the sudden need to change the rules?
                      Why suddenly in this case does a single senator decide that he doesn’t believe something and therefore apply a new standard?
                      Perhaps because of the millions of dollars he’s getting?

                      Hmmmm.
                      The irony is, you were complaining about money, and yet there it is right in front of you.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Never worked for our government have you?
                      Anything funded by congress can be audited by congress.
                      It’s why we have an OMB.

                    • Triple M

                      And how often do they subpoena email records for scientific research?

                      I’ll wait….

                      Because it clearly happens all the time.

                      Should be easy for you to list hundreds of them.

                      No?

                      And even if it did, how would that change the rules?
                      Science is science…. complaining and having a tantrum because you’ve been paid buy oil companies, doesn’t change that.

                      Bottom line, if you want to be taken seriously, play with the big boys, and don’t pay off someone to create a media stir.

                    • Duke Silver

                      We’re not throwing the tantrum – you are.

                    • Triple M

                      Yeah… right… pointing out that you’re full of it, is throwing a tantrum.

                      Still…it’s nice to know that any scientific research can be undermined, simply because you don’t like it. In future we’ll just contact you for all knowledge.
                      Clearly the rest of the world has no idea how important you think you are.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Still…stamping…your…feet.

                    • Triple M

                      Yeah… clearly I’m wrong.
                      Subpoena my emails for the proof.
                      Otherwise, it’s just you’re whining, as usual.

                      There’s mail evidence for Bigfoot too.
                      You just have to pay some senator to find it.

                    • Duke Silver

                      You’re exuding equal parts victim mentality and stalker.
                      Go away.

                    • Triple M

                      Whether I go away or not, won’t change the fact that you’re wrong, and you don’t like it.

                      Have a nice day.

                    • Duke Silver

                      You’re still stamping…..
                      In the words of your favorite princess – Let it go….

                    • Triple M

                      I will… but you and your Senator mate will keep crying.
                      Maybe you should go into politics and take kick backs… I hear that’s where the money is.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Let it goooo…..

                    • Triple M

                      Already have. You’re the one holding onto hope that a paid off senator can change reality for you.
                      Good Luck.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Thou doth protest too much.
                      You know how that one went down.

                    • Triple M

                      Once again, you’re the one protesting, and I can see you’ve long since run out of arguments. Now, I’m just keeping you company.

                      Have fun finding big foot.
                      I’m gone.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Well, I’ve located bigmouth. It’s a start. Wouldn’t make too much fun of the bigfoot boys…. they’ve got more evidence than you and are constantly on the look out for hoaxes. You embrace hoaxes.

                    • Triple M

                      Oh? Now I’m the one embracing hoaxes?
                      Perhaps I should pay a Senator to find me the evidence?
                      The truth is out there Mulder.

                      Back to sleep for you.

                    • Duke Silver

                      I’m not a fan of the bigfoot researchers. Just saying, they’ve become very cognizant of the fact that they are being hoaxed daily and that if they want their research to be taken seriously EVER then they need to be the ones to EXPOSE the false data – not fall for it. It shows a maturity which at this point is not embraced within your element of the climate change community.
                      was a storm – CAGW
                      wasn’t a storm – CAGW
                      was snow – CAGW
                      no snow – CAGW
                      temps up – CAGW
                      temps down – CAGW.
                      Make fun if you will (I certainly do) but at least they take a skeptic with them to help with perspective. You CAGW boys still revile skepticism. You’re certainly not the one “looking for the truth” It is out there…. hidden behind altered data.

                    • Triple M

                      Yes, I’m sure it is.. all hidden by the big bad scientists.
                      I know, let’s buy off another Senator, that’ll fix it.

                      Yes you make fun of something, I’m not sure what though.
                      But please go on making stuff up and then making fun of it.
                      One day you’ll find the magic data that proves all those scientists wrong
                      Then you can prove 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens shot Kennedy.

                    • Duke Silver

                      I’m not making fun of the scientists I’m making fun of you.

                    • Triple M

                      Yeah, I know.
                      Because you can’t make fun of the scientists, because you need your magic missing data to do that.

                      I’m pointing this out, so all you’re left with, is making fun of me.
                      Which is the argumentative equivalent of ” Liar Liar Pants on Fire ”

                      But whatever keeps you off the streets,

                    • Duke Silver

                      The scientists have economic stake in the outcome. I understand that.
                      You’re just a rube. I can’t respect that.

                    • Triple M

                      Yeah… those big rich scientists.
                      All of them.
                      Worldwide.
                      Can’t tell you how many millionaire scientists are out there ruining it all for us.

                      How much is that Senator getting again? Just him, individually?
                      I say pay him more, might find your magic data then.
                      Or better yet, spend that money on doing your own research,
                      except then if the data says the same thing, who are you going to blame?

                      Better to stick to the conspiracy theory.
                      The data is at Area 51!

                    • Duke Silver

                      Let me say it more clearly.
                      The scientists are trying to feed their families. That I can understand.
                      The government does it for you. That I can’t respect.

                      Oh, and one more thing – how much did Sen Whitehouse receive for, uhm…. marine planning? Pot…kettle…black.

                    • Triple M

                      So, if a scientist took money for a research project and fiddled the data to agree with you… would that feed their family too?

                      No?

                      Meanwhile… no, not pot kettle anything. Show me a politician ignoring scientific research, simply claiming it’s a lie, and chasing the researchers emails?

                      All you’ve done is show me a politician who may have been a bit self serving… which is all of them.

                      Sorry.
                      Keep trying Mulder

                    • Duke Silver

                      No more hypotheticals for you. Logic is wasted. Rhetoric is more appealing to your mind. Please continue your “I want to tell you what to do” conversations with some else. Over and out.

                    • Triple M

                      Was that your version of a tantrum?

                      Good Luck with Bigfoot.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Bigfoot has a higher chance of being proven (at 1%) than meaningful CAGW.

                    • Triple M

                      Tantrum then…

                    • Duke Silver

                      Regret at interacting with a chimp.

                    • Triple M

                      Who showed you up…. Ouch, no wonder you’re upset

                    • Duke Silver

                      That’s the difference between alarmists and skeptics.

                      With you, it’s all about winning the argument. You don’t give a damn about the truth.

                      The chimp feels like it won the poop-throwing contest and likes it. The skeptic sees everybody covered with poop and realizes that’s not a good thing.

                      Your new NA name – covered with poop. Yes, you are the poopiest of all.

                    • Triple M

                      The truth? As in, what you say?

                      I certainly give a damn a lot more than someone who just whines because they don’t like something.
                      ” Ohh there must be more data, because I don’t like the results…
                      Everyone’s lying… It’s all a conspiracy… Waaaaaahh ”

                      Like I said, the truth is out there Mulder.

                    • Duke Silver

                      Dear covered with poop – I admitted you won the poop-throwing contest. Just let it go and bask in your, umm, glory.

                    • Triple M

                      How the mighty have fallen.

                    • Duke Silver

                      See, the chimp thinks it wins either way.

                    • Triple M

                      OK you’re done.
                      You lost, and now you’re just trying insults to cover it up.

                      Bye

                    • Duke Silver

                      That’s where you were on post 2, but that didn’t stop you.

          • John Roguetech

            “Unfortunately, it’s not related to gender.”

            Well, considering there is gender bias… Yea, it is. But, without doing any research…. Well, I suppose that would guarantee of not being wrong, even if you could never be demonstrated right.

            I’m always amazed how people just dismiss the problem because they CAN’T THINK OF a solution. Since they have dismissed the problem because they can’t think of a solution, they then mock any research by others. Don’t feel bad. Sure, you not being able think of a solution is ignorance, but that can be fixed. It doesn’t necessarily make you stupid. Refusing to acknowledge facts and having no desire at all to expand mankind’s knowledge, in an effort to make life better and more fair… THAT would be stupid.

            “Ah, so the gov’t IS willing to admit there may be a bias and the science is not actually settled.”

            Clearly you didn’t read the paper. Your attempts to mock something you literally know nothing about suggests I should revise my above opinion.

            • Duke Silver

              Tell you what, John – you go take the gender bias out of climate research and lets see how that changes the C of AGW.
              Good money after bad. Like I said – don’t spend my money, but I welcome you to knock yourself out with your own.

              • John Roguetech

                That is a complete non sequitur. Taking the racial bias out of the criminal justice syatem isn’t going to change the flavoring of cotton candy.

                Creating gender equality, for anyone not a misogynist, is a goal unto itself. If you’re just a misogynist, and use that to justify gender inquialities in how the effects of AGW to human culture is framed and the public policies on how to prevent/mititigate it, then just admit that. By definition, climate change is about the effects to humans. If you think the only humans that matter are men (or just yourself), then fine. Admit it.

                Seriously, I have no problem at all if you want to admit your misogyny. I won’t argue it, or even suggest it’s a bad thing.

                • Duke Silver

                  You sure do talk a lot when you’re spending someone elses money.

    • MAH48

      then explore it all you want on your own dime. Get off the public teat, get out of my wallet/purse. Like George said: “Get a real job!”.

      • John Roguetech

        They did. That what Mike435 just pointed out to you. It was a research education grant (for $413,000 not $709,000). It was not to perform this study.

        Just BTW, that “internet” thing you’re trying your damnedest to use… It was paid for with government subsidies. So please, for all that is humane, get off the public teat. Like Fred (or maybe it was Bob…?) said, “Get a real job!”

  • ClutchingMyRosary

    Wow, déjà vu. I get the same feeling I had in ’96, when the Sokal Hoax broke.

  • Duke Silver

    What a fine opportunity for skeptic and alarmist camps both to take a step back and have a good laugh at the monster we’ve created.

  • AZArchangel55

    I want my money back….NOW!!!

  • http://www.conservativeme.com/ ConservativeMe

    And we wonder why the government is so bloated.

    • John Roguetech

      Actually, it’s not. Compared to other developed nations, the U.S. not only trails in education, but also health care, per capita GDP, corruption, crime, incarceration, infant deaths, poverty and homelessness, suicides, and pretty much every other metric. NASA and the National Science Foundation are two unfortunately small exceptions to government working only for the wealthy.

      • http://www.conservativeme.com/ ConservativeMe

        Nice talking points.

  • NNYer

    I thought it must be 1 April there for a moment. I checked the date to see!

  • Mike435

    The issue of how women scientists are mistreated is real and worth studying.

    http://www.nature.com/news/many-women-scientists-sexually-harassed-during-fieldwork-1.15571

  • Dean Bruckner

    .

  • Russ Wood

    A friend replied, when told of this study “Ah yes – frigidity is a very sad thing”.

  • John Roguetech

    Just want to point out the author of this “news article” is a liar. Not just a little – as in, completely fabricates “facts”. Andrew Follett should not be employed as a journalist. It takes about 10 seconds of research to see that Dr. Carey received $413,000 (and that was a teaching grant). The source Follett provides doesn’t have $709,000 anywhere in it, nor do any of the permutations of the numbers come to $709,000. I’m pretty sure it was literally made up. Also, the paper doesn’t suggest glaciers are sexist, rather glaciology is – if Follett doesn’t know the difference between an object and the formal study of the object, then he should not write about science.

    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1253779

    • Slam

      Where does the NSF gets its money? Is it from private funding or public funding? Or both?

      • John Roguetech

        Public funding.