Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 64. (Read 636446 times)

A feminist glaciology



Many readers will be familiar with the famous Sokal hoax paper, in which physicist Alan Sokal wrote a nonsensical article on the “hermeneutics of quantum gravity” and got it published in a sociology journal. Other more recent examples of accepted papers include a completely computer-generated mathematics paper and a repeated request to be removed from a mailing list.

Now it seems that climate science has fallen for a similar joke paper. The journal Progress in Human Geography (impact factor 5, which is quite high) has published an article Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.

Excerpts below are taken from just the first 3 pages of this 24-page masterpiece, plus a final quote from the conclusions.

“Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. 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.”

“A critical but overlooked aspect of the human dimensions of glaciers and global change research is the relationship between gender and glaciers.”

“Through a review and synthesis of a multi-disciplinary and wide-ranging literature on human-ice relations, this paper proposes a feminist glaciology framework to analyze human-glacier dynamics, glacier narratives and discourse, and claims to credibility and authority of glaciological knowledge through the lens of feminist studies.”

“A combination of feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology provide the intellectual foundation for feminist glaciology.”

“Feminist glaciology is rooted in, and combines, both feminist science studies and postcolonial science studies to meaningfully shift present-day glacier and ice sciences.”

“The response to simplistic ‘ice is just ice’ discourse is not merely to foreground or single out women and their experiences – that would simply perpetuate binaries and boundaries and ignore deeper foundations. Rather, it is a larger integration of human approaches and sensibilities with the existing dominant physical sciences. Global environmental change research must pluralize its ontologies, epistemologies, and sensibilities.”

Updates:

The “research” was carried out on a $412,930 NSF grant, full details here.

One of the authors seems to be proud that his article is the ‘most-read’ at the journal.

In reply, the journal says that the paper will only be freely available for two weeks, so make sure you download a copy and save it now for future reference.


http://cliscep.com/2016/03/03/a-feminist-glaciology/


Archive:
http://archive.is/Yih3K

I hope the poster will give us links about that O2 religion. I want to know more.

The 'flat earth/round [spherical] earth' thing is a psy-op designed to give warmistas an excuse to avoid debates with rational people.  Much like the '99% of sciententists say' class of argument.  These are necessary because they inevitably get their asses handed to them when they try to argue coherently on scientific merit.  Nobody I know who has a basic competence science believes the 'flat earth' nonsense.  I'll wager that about the only people who do are only pretending to as part of their shill game.

I've not heard of the 'O2 religion' thing.  People who have the aforementioned basic competence recognize immediately that O2 is a highly abundant(*) waste product of the vast majority of life on earth by biomass.  CO2, on the other hand, is a rare and valuable trace gas necessary for the existence of said biomass for which there is much competition.

* except in anaerobic conditions where the atmosphere is excluded.

edit: slight.

You're really tiring talking about warmer religion...

Like you're also talking about the "round earth religion" and the "O2 is the base of life religion"?
[/quote]

I don't want to be a bore, for sure.

Well, call it what you want, I guess.  "True Believers???"

But we're likely in agreement about the "hypocricy" although i feel it is important to note the way these narcissic twerps rationalize it with carbon credits and offsets and such.

That number must be wrong. 99% of Global Warming Scientists believe this number to be 4.20% bigger by the time they ran out of propaganda money.

Climate change could devastate UK nutrition, cause 1,200 extra deaths in 2050 – study

University of Oxford researchers say world food production will be seriously hampered by climate change, resulting in more than 500,000 adult deaths worldwide in 2050.

But according to Warmer religion, it is not hypocrisy.  It's time for you to understand, and revel in, your rights to carbon credits and carbon offsets.
[/quote]

You're really tiring talking about warmer religion...

Like you're also talking about the "round earth religion" and the "O2 is the base of life religion"?

But according to Warmer religion, it is not hypocrisy.  It's time for you to understand, and revel in, your rights to carbon credits and carbon offsets.

I like how the hypocrisy of Di Caprio is raised here

Thanks for the link.

‘TOO EASY’ to school this media swoonfest over Leonardo DiCaprio ‘saving the planet’? (Hint: Yes. With photo)

Twitchy  by Lori Ziganto 12:47 am

Oh boy. Gag us with a silver spoon (shaddup! The 80’s were awesome). Well, the pathetic and ignorant media swoonfest over Hollywood hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio and his quest to “save the planet” continues. Did Mashable not see the ONE photo response earlier in the week from this MTV star? We’ll help them out. You see, such photos explaining Mr. DiCaprio’s actual carbon footprint just never get old. Too easy? Yes, indeedy. Take a gander:

Too easy. pic.twitter.com/8vz7VpOEqF

— Countermoonbat (@CounterMoonbat) March 2, 2016

While that photo is really all that’s needed to school media fools, let’s make it even more clear for them, shall we?

@mashable The man who owns a private plane and yacht? #BellyLaugh #PullTheOtherOne

— gratzi mckatzi (@GratziM) March 2, 2016

@mashable Then why does he have a huge yacht that he parties on and taking a private jet 30+ times this year? #PracticeWhatYouPreach

— Mike Wolford (@badmike72) March 3, 2016

@mashable He also has a bigger carbon footprint than a small community. He should be looking at himself before criticizing everyone else.

— Feisty Broad (@FeistyBroad) March 2, 2016

Ding, ding, ding! But, hey, he probably doesn’t have time to take a look in the mirror what with all the yachting and jetting around and all.

The post ‘TOO EASY’ to school this media swoonfest over Leonardo DiCaprio ‘saving the planet’? (Hint: Yes. With photo) appeared first on twitchy.com.

Look, 99% ARE NOT denying the "hiatus, pause, no warming in 19," etc.  That's why I am saying this.  The reasons these words and this concept exist is that it is well understood and discussed by those in the field. 

I mean, think about it.  If I reference the actual data and state the issue accurately, "No statistically significant warming in 19 years," please explain how you can get around that data set and that claim. 

By the way.  It's OKAY if you are a Denier.  I don't mind.  Really I don't.  Nobody here is going to fire you, throw you out, or even make fun of you. 

IS GLOBAL WARMING MAKING IT SNOW?


In the early days of global warming hysteria, the alarmists understandably warned that warmer temperatures would cause, among other things, less snow. Jim Steele reminds us:

[Kevin] Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that “children would no longer know what snow was”. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming.

It all sounded plausible, but nature refused to cooperate:

But our climate naturally oscillates and by early February of 2010 Snowmageddon was blanketing the USA’s eastern seaboard with record snows, making global warming predictions the butt of many jokes. The heavy snows didn’t disprove CO2 had caused any warming, but it definitely highlighted failed predictions.

If the alarmists were scientists, they would acknowledge that a theory that generates false predictions is wrong. But they aren’t doing science, they are doing politics. So they retrospectively revised their predictions. Any port in a storm:

In 2011 Chris Mooney writing for the DeSmog blog noted heavy snowfall had become a “communications nightmare” for global warming theory and urged, “We need to move the public to a place where drawing a warming-snowstorm connection isn’t so challenging”.

Good luck with that.

Kevin Trenberth was already on point. Just two weeks after the 2010 Snowmageddon, Trenberth appeared in a NPR interview flip-flopping to a new climate change framework in which a “Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow”. Now he argued, “The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there’s about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s”. Thus “you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming,” A year later the Union of Concerned Scientists held a press conference asserting global warming was no longer causing less snow, but causing heavier snow. And now, every year as heavy snowstorms approach, Trenberth and his well-groomed media outlets bombard the public, urging them not to be misled by their senses, but trust that cold and snowy days have worsened due to global warming.

The alarmists’ new, improved global warming theory was that warmer temperatures caused the atmosphere to be able to hold more moisture. Therefore the total precipitable water vapor increases with CO2, and–presto!–more water vapor means more snow. All earlier predictions were conveniently forgotten.

There are several problems with this theory, including the fact that total precipitable water vapor has not increased in parallel with atmospheric CO2:



It is true that warmer temperatures allow the air to hold more water, so the lack of any significant increase in TPW implies that the Earth hasn’t been warming as required by the alarmists’ theories. Needless to say, this isn’t the conclusion they draw. But as we all know, consistency is not their strong point. Trenberth is famous for writing privately to his political allies: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

The point of this amusing story is that for the alarmists, almost everything is negotiable. More snow? Less snow? No problem! No matter what happens, they tweak their models and pretend that they saw it coming all along. There is only one constant, one fixed star amid the models’ constant fluidity: the need for government control over the world’s economies. This is why governments pay billions to the climate alarmists, and are utterly indifferent to their laughable record of failed predictions. Climate alarmism has nothing to do with science.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/is-global-warming-making-it-snow.php

So are 99% of scientists in the world?

That's a sad news for the global scientific community.

Let me guess.  And it's the "hottest year of the century?"

ROFL...

Storm Jake is set to lash Britain on Wednesday, bringing ice, snow and wind gusts of up to 70mph.

Cold air will sweep across the majority of the country, with showers likely to turn into sleet and snow.

The Met Office is warning motorists to be careful on the roads after issuing a yellow warning for snow and ice for swathes of northern England, northern Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Drivers in Cheshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Humber may be delayed on their morning commute as several centimetres of snow are expected to settle.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/storm-jake-ice-snow-and-wind-gusts-of-70mph-set-to-hit-the-uk-a6906681.html

You misrepresent the facts, which are clear right in the pages of this thread.

I provided direct links to the scientific data.  The only reason I did that is because you didn't seem to know where or how to find it it.  I explained, also, about the exact meaning of significance in trends as used by scientists. 

And I stand by my assertion.  If you DENY the hiatus, pause, "no warming in 19 years" in any fashion whatsoever,

You are a Denier.  

Democratic voters defecting to guy who called B.S. on man-made global warming

29 Feb 2016 – “Nearly 20,000 Bay State Democrats have fled the party this winter,” says the Boston Herald. Thousands of them “are doing so to join the Republican ranks.” “The primary reason?” Secretary of State William Galvin said his ‘guess’ is simple: “The Trump phenomenon.”

“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop” – Donald Trump

You gave me this link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-climate/

And for God's sakes there isn't even one graph without a clear up trend!

Ah ok. I indeed missed something.

Well it doesn't change the fact that your article is lying nonetheless.
Which is not really unusual considering your sources.

Seems nothing really proved your pause yet.

No, some pages back I referenced for valta the actual sources for satellite data sets.