A University of Oregon professor wrote a 10,300 word journal
article this past January in which he proposed a new sensitivity to Earth’s supposedly
shrinking icecaps. The new sensitivity? A “feminist glaciology framework” to “generate
robust analysis of gender, power and epistemologies” towards a goal of more “just
and equitable human-ice interactions.” The obtuse screed promulgates the “idea”
that melting icecaps can be properly understood only via more input from female scientists since he believes
research so far disproportionately emphasizes the impact climate change has on
males.
I wish
there had been a more “just and equitable human-ice interaction” a few weeks
ago when I slipped on an icy sidewalk and fell on my back. Was the last ice-age
a just and equitable human-ice interaction? And how the hell has the avalanche
of climate change research, data and stories emphasized its impact on males? I’ve read much of this bunk…have
I missed something?
The
article reads as if written by a college freshman who, having absolutely no
grasp of the subject his paper’s to be written about, decides to throw out all
the big, scientific sounding words he knows and hope for the best. The
professor in this case has gone one step farther, blending
political-correctness, feminist theory, New Age twaddle and climate change
zealotry to accidentally create a comically serious, remarkably dense
pseudo-scientific paper.
The
article was funded, according to the New York Post, by a $412,930 grant from
the National Science Foundation.
Beam me
up, Scotty.
No comments:
Post a Comment