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 
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,” 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.
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
We have lost our collective minds.
Thankfully not all of us.
“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.”
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??
I think that you are very familiar with ridiculous.
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.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Reality has a lib’rulllll bias, sorry.
Best,
D
Thus Dano proves Copper’s point.
Sure, sure.
Best,
D
Reality has no bias.
Sure, sure.
Best,
D
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.
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.
A moral disorder.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Seriously? If there’s ONE woman in all of hydrology, then that means it couldn’t possibly be male-dominated??
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.
“but it is not an unreasonable question to explore”
….unless at public expense, which it was.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yup… you are a conspiracy theorist.
Let me guess… evolution isn’t real either?
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.
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.
Hmmmm, wonder why NOAA won’t respond to that subpoena for information?
* 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.
“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.