Climate Change Insanity: Feds spend over $400K on “Glacier, Gender, & Science” study
Mongolia’s brutal winter tied to “global warming” in move for Paris Climate Agreement dollars.
I suspect there is a new app being used by grant-writing professors that blended the hottest, politically-correct topics together to generate grant proposals.
It is the only rational explanation for the following report:
The National Science Foundation has spent more than $400,000 on a study that published scientific results on the “relationship between gender and glaciers.”
The paper “Glaciers, gender, and science,” published in January 2016, concluded that “ice is not just ice,” urging scientists to take a “feminist political ecology and feminist postcolonial” approach when they study melting ice caps and climate change.
“Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change,” the paper by Mark Carey, a professor at the University of Oregon, explained. “However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers–particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied.”
“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,” the paper said.
Feminist glaciology? What next, transgender astrophysics? Caitlyn Jenner may want to get a science degree and capitalize on the funding trend.
Also new in “climate change” inanity: Problems related to Mongolia’s current spate of deadly cold and blizzards are being blamed on….global warming!
…Since November 2015, large parts of the country have been experiencing very low temperatures of up to minus 40 degree Celsius, followed by heavy snowfall that has covered around 90 percent of Mongolia’s territory. This has resulted in sharp reductions in plant life used for livestock feed and rendering pastures — and even basic services such as transportation — largely inaccessible.
… “Herders and livestock were used to warmer winters … so now with colder winters, it makes it hard to cope with the temperature,” Tsedensednom, governor of Ulziit district, located more than 600 kilometers southwest of the capital city of Ulaanbaatar, told Devex.
Lean Alfred Santos, the author of the above analysis, is a community development reporter for an Asian Pacific publication. His theory is a part of a larger analysis of how Mongolia can take advantage of the wealth redistribution plan that it otherwise known as the Paris Agreement, which was adopted by 195 nations last December. Not surprisingly, it looks like more climate change grants are being proposed to take advantage of the billions promised in the international accord.
Due to the recent difficulties in the country, the international community has responded with significant financial aid and truckloads of supplies by way of support.
The Asian Development Bank, for example, has proposed a $3 million grant to the government to “strengthen resilience and capacity” of the country’s various levels of government, so that they are better equipped in responding to natural disasters such as dzuds, on top of implementing much more effective and streamlined disaster risk management strategies.
If the grant writers can somehow tie the request to the current refugee crisis, the funding is sure to be forthcoming!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Soon now, we’re going to have to put this crap to death.
Otherwise, this trend threatens a new dark age.
And I’m not kidding.
AGW + feminism.
Another fine example of Blair’s Law.
For those unfamiliar with (Tim) Blair’s Law: the ongoing process by which the world’s multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force.
The feds should be prohibited from funding nonsense like this.
Congress has begun scrutinizing the NSF more now that the dominance of the behavioral and social sciences over the hard sciences is becoming better known. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/the-need-to-know-as-we-understand-it-today-may-be-a-lethal-cultural-sport/ explained why NSF’s motto should be Altering Minds & Behaviors without Telling You. NSF has been very involved with K-12 education for just this very reason. Frightening to know they will be creating virtual reality curricula for the Next Generation Science Standards or that those very same standards are to be incorporated into English or Social Studies classes.
Recently I am seeing what would be controversial neuroscience work using K-12 education being run out of NIH where it will be funded with much less scrutiny.
Mother Gaia would be proud of her doting icon worshippers.
As the feminist that I am I propose there be a sweater grant for all women who work indoors and a grant for massages to undo the stress from gender and/or “ice interactions” (ice creeps up on you).
Hang on, Jennifer, there’s a solution to your ice problems on the way!
It’s called ‘spring’.
“Spring is coming” always follows “winter is coming”.
“And so, my fellow scientists, there exists a “relationship between gender and glaciers.”
Glaciers are fluid. And Gender is fluid, based on LGBT Social Science.
Climate Change. Gender Change. Are you beginning to see a pattern, a correlation of the two? Just look at my Pareto chart. Change here. Change there. Simply amazing!
The line graph shows Change increasing exponentially. And the bar graph shows truth-seeking steadily decreasing.
Amazing! This chart explains everything!
I am a Climate Scientist and I approve this graphic.”
Global Warming is just Gaia having hot flashes and should be celebrated. People upset about Global Warming are tools of the patriarchy and are being microaggressive.
So when rivers of ice move, it’s indicative of global warming? The world was hotter before and it was colder before…all long before the Industrial Revolution.
Here’s the actual grant:
Notice NO MENTION of “Feminist Glaciology” nor any papers that seem batshit insane. I’d probably approve this grant, and have no clue what was coming.
Looks the NSF was either trolled or defrauded. Feminist glaciology isn’t a ‘thing’ and every science loving person I know regardless of where they fall on the AGW spectrum is looking at this and going “huh”?
The inconvenience of science can be easily overcome through enlarged frames of reference. However, then it is no longer science, but rather philosophy or faith.
Or even fantasy, in the case of spontaneous conception, and an appropriately dysfunctional religion or moral philosopy pulled from the dark fringes of a penumbra.
Does NSF not know that “critical geography” is politics, not science?
Critical geography is about the application of Marxist theory to the interaction of humans (esp. capitalistic ones) and the environment; it’s (intentionally) all politics, no science. What did NSF think it was funding?
No doubt “critical geographers” would like to be appointed political officers who would get to tell scientists how their science must be made to serve political ends, but, we don’t (yet) have zampolits overseeing scientists.
How could NSF have possibly approved this as “science” when it is so obviously just politics?
Video of him at the college paper online.
“The National Science Foundation has spent more than $400,000 on a study that published scientific results on the “relationship between gender and glaciers.”
This is inaccurate.
The grant that the freebeacon links is an NSF CAREER award. It isn’t for a particular study or paper. It’s a five-year grant to a young assistant prof to pay some salary and research expenses. So far, that grant has paid about $410,000 in about 3 year, or about $11,000 per month.
The paper looks like a perspective piece based on a literature survey, with no additional field work. I’d estimate that it took no more than two months applied time to research and write.
So, the NSF spent about $22,000 for the paper.
Sure, it’s a silly paper. But, after this burn, I’ll bet that he does nothing but serious work. And, if you look at his grant abstract (link below), there is some serious work proposed (along w/ some more silliness).
I see a direct relationship over time between the number of feminist rants about income equality and rape culture compared to the number of warnings about the global threats of climate change.
Ergo, we must assume that feminism contributes to climate change. Junk science is allowed right?