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.