Peer Reviewed -- Penises Cause Climate Change

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peer Reviewed -- Penises Cause Climate Change

You can't make this up.

A couple of hoaxers got a gobbledygook article published in a peer reviewed science publication called Cogent Social Sciences using the Postmodern Generator (a gibberish randomizer program) and editing to make sure they used pro-feminist anti-male academic jargon. (

Apropos, just keep refreshing the page of the Postmodern Generator and a new randomized BS article pops up each time.  )

The name of the study is: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.”  

Here's a Breitbart article by James Delingpole about the hoax (May 20, 2017).

DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study

From the article:

Quote

Gender studies is a fake academic industry populated by charlatans, deranged activists and gullible idiots.
Now, a pair of enterprising hoaxers has proved it scientifically by persuading an academic journal to peer-review and publish their paper claiming that the penis is not really a male genital organ but a social construct.

The paper, published by Cogent Social Sciences – “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences” – also claims that penises are responsible for causing climate change.

The two hoaxers are Peter Boghossian, a full-time faculty member in the Philosophy department at Portland State University, and James Lindsay, who has a doctorate in math and a background in physics.

. . .

... for this new spoof, Boghossian and Lindsay were careful to throw in lots of signifier phrases to indicate fashionable anti-male bias:

We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.

They also took care to make it completely incomprehensible.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.

. . .

This paragraph, for example, looks impressive but is literally meaningless:

Inasmuch as masculinity is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis. The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, “can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility” (Butler, 1993). The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer’s intent should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity. Thus, the isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what’s referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as “toxic hypermasculinity,” is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo braggadocio, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action. The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power in which hypermasculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject positions to powerful ones (confer: Foucault, 1972).

None of it should have survived more than a moment’s scrutiny by serious academics. But it was peer-reviewed by two experts in the field who, after suggesting only a few changes, passed it for publication...

. . .

No claim made in the paper was considered too ludicrous by the peer-reviewers: not even the one claiming that the penis is “the universal performative source of rape, and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

You read that right. We argued that climate change is “conceptually” caused by penises. How do we defend that assertion? Like this:

Destructive, unsustainable hegemonically male approaches to pressing environmental policy and action are the predictable results of a raping of nature by a male-dominated mindset. This mindset is best captured by recognizing the role of [sic] the conceptual penis holds over masculine psychology. When it is applied to our natural environment, especially virgin environments that can be cheaply despoiled for their material resources and left dilapidated and diminished when our patriarchal approaches to economic gain have stolen their inherent worth, the extrapolation of the rape culture inherent in the conceptual penis becomes clear.

Here is the original article Delingpole is reporting on: The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies by Peter Boghossian, Ed.D. (aka Peter Boyle, Ed.D.)
and James Lindsay, Ph.D. (aka, Jamie Lindsay, Ph.D.).

I swear, I'm holding back a belly-laugh... LOLOLOLOL...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peer Reviewed -- Penises Cause Climate Change

You can't make this up.

A couple of hoaxers got a gobbledygook article published in a peer reviewed science publication called Cogent Social Sciences using the Postmodern Generator (a gibberish randomizer program) and editing to make sure they used pro-feminist anti-male academic jargon. (

Apropos, just keep refreshing the page of the Postmodern Generator and a new randomized BS article pops up each time.  )

The name of the study is: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.”  

Here's a Breitbart article by James Delingpole about the hoax (May 20, 2017).

DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study

From the article:

Here is the original article Delingpole is reporting on: The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies by Peter Boghossian, Ed.D. (aka Peter Boyle, Ed.D.)
and James Lindsay, Ph.D. (aka, Jamie Lindsay, Ph.D.).

I swear, I'm holding back a belly-laugh... LOLOLOLOL...

Michael

What hath Sokal  wrought?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I need a place for Manmade Climate Change bashing humor, so this is about as good as any.

Let's start, shall we?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And a tweet today from President Trump:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090074254010404864

Quote

In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

8:28 PM - 28 Jan 2019

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aaaaaaaand back to our pal big Al...

Is Climate Opera a thing?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And a tweet today from President Trump:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090074254010404864

 

Michael

Weather is not the same as Climate.

[Peter]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Weather is not the same as Climate.

I think the "the sky is falling" people know they are hoaxers even with the sanctimonious looks in their eyes.  Good acting, liars, cheats, and wanna be rulers of the earth!    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Weather is not the same as Climate.

Bob,

Partially true. But partially false. (They are not totally distinct, but instead, hierarchical parts the same thing. Like a Ford Fiesta is a car. It would be kinda stupid to say Ford Fiesta is not the same as car.  )

And in the realm of propaganda, however, the two--weather and climate--are interchangeable.

And one thing is wholly true. Propaganda is not the same as Science. Neither is humor.

Don't tell me you read President Trump's tweet as science?

Really?

 

Michael

[Peter]

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Partially true. But partially false. (They are not totally distinct, but instead, hierarchical parts the same thing. Like a Ford Fiesta is a car. It would be kinda stupid to say Ford Fiesta is not the same as car.  )

And in the realm of propaganda, however, the two are interchangeable.

And one thing is wholly true. Propaganda is not the same as Science.

Don't tell me you read President Trump's tweet as science?

Really?

 

Michael

"Arctic blast moving in!" just said Jacky Karlin on our local news. When I was trying to load up on credits to graduate, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I took political geography and the perfessor was insistent upon differentiating between "weather" and "climate." And he was a "doctor."   

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Aaaaaaaand back to our pal big Al...

Is Climate Opera a thing?

Michael

Climate is, roughly speaking, average weather over a moving 30 year interval.  30 years is considered the smallest interval that can indicate climate conditions.  Several things are averaged;  temperature, humidity, precipitation,  growing season length  etc.  Climate change is  the sequence of climate data points (each computered as stated prior over a 30 year interval).  A sequence of climate data points as a function of time  defines  climate change.  To be more exact that should be regional climate.  There is no One and Only climate for this planet.  There are several concurrent climate regimes acting and  interaction over the planet.  For example,  climate in the polar regions  is colder than climate in the tropics.  That must be for the simple reason that the tropics get direct sunlight  and the polar regions get sunlight at a slant.  

The various climate regimes must change over time because the Earth is never in thermodynamic equilibrium with the surround space.  Our distance from the sun varies over time,  the earth precesses around its axis of rotation,  the Sun's irradiance varies over time  and cosmic ray impact varies over time. Cosmic Rays!!???.  Yes. Cosmic rays affect how water vapor in the atmosphere condense around dust particles in the air which affects the process of cloud formation.  Clouds  are the Venetian Blinds or the various climate regimes and have a significant effect on temperature. 

The major flaw in the premise of the Warmists is that there is an Ideal Climate from which our planet is forced to diverge because of CO2 production (mostly from burning hydrocarbon fuels).  There is no Ideal Climate and there never was.  Our general  climate  is a succession of ice ages separated by warmer interglacial periods.  The last major ice age started about three million years ago  and we are still in that ice age, enjoying one of several mild interglacial periods.  Technically (this is a technical definition)  we are in an ice age as long as there is permanent ice at the poles.  Even our current interglacial period is marked by periods of warming a cooling.  That last freeze-you-ass-off cooling was the (so-called)  Little Ice Age which was in reality a cool periods that lasted from 1300 c.e. to 1815 c.e.  (roughly).  Since 1815 the world has been warming a few degrees from purely natural causes.  Since 1850 the rate of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen rapidly.  That is because humans are burning stuff and producing CO2  faster than it can be absorbed by plants, weather of limestone rocks and dissolution of CO2 in the oceans.  Since this rise in CO2 is concurrent with an already existing rise in temperature the alarmists have decided it is our fault because of the concurrent rise in CO2 concentration.  In fact the most powerful greenhouse gas (so-called)  is water vapor,  not CO2 or methane  (CH4).  Of a 1.5 deg rise in temperature since 1815  humans may have cause a 0.5 deg. rise portion of the 1.5 deg rise.  The alarmists are alarmed (alarmists are always alarmed by one thing or another)  because of the rate CO2 addition to the atmosphere. 

So climate is changing.  It is always changing and will continue to change for the next 1.5 billion years until the Sun becomes so hot it evaporates the oceans.  Our vast oceans are why the Earth has not become Venus.  The Sun will burn hotter and hotter as the hydrogen in the Sun is fused into  helium and the helium is fused into carbon.  The earth will eventually be baked dry and life will cease to exist on the surface as the oceans are evaporated  into space.  This will occur several  billion years before the Earth itself is gasified by an expanding Sun (the Red Giant phase).  That will be about 5 billion years from now. 

Our last 3 million years has ben a succession of ice age  glaciation  with intermediate mild periods.  The next several million years should be about the same.  Here is a graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg

 

[BaalChatzaf]

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Partially true. But partially false. (They are not totally distinct, but instead, hierarchical parts the same thing. Like a Ford Fiesta is a car. It would be kinda stupid to say Ford Fiesta is not the same as car.  )

And in the realm of propaganda, however, the two--weather and climate--are interchangeable.

And one thing is wholly true. Propaganda is not the same as Science. Neither is humor.

Don't tell me you read President Trump's tweet as science?

Really?

 

Michael

Climate, roughly speaking is averaged weather.  By convention climate is a sequence of averages taken over a moving 30  year window.  30 years  is small enough to pick up significant  average weather changes.  The idea is to get data of change without be biased by the daily variations.  30 year averaging smooths the daily variation and still picks up longer range trends.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

29 minutes ago, Peter said:

I think the "the sky is falling" people know they are hoaxers even with the sanctimonious looks in their eyes.  Good acting, liars, cheats, and wanna be rulers of the earth!    

I prefer being charitable and attribute the alarmist outburst as a result of underlying scientific error,  government intervention,  and exacerbation  by the media.  As you know the be basic axiom of the media is "if it bleeds, it leads".  Back in the 70's  the  magazines, newspapers  and t.v.  we broadcasting the coming Ice Age showing New York City covered by a massive glacier. The Statue of Liberty's head and torch arm extended from a massive ice cube. Then warming caught on. So you see New York City well inundated by high sea level with Liberty's head and arm barely above the water line. Combine that with Paul Erlich's  grim predictions over overpopulation with shortages of just about everything   and then add  The Club of Rome's   fatalistic predictions of how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.  The combined pessimism  produces  an image  very much captured in the motion picture "Soylent Green".   Well,  none of this doom occurred.  The models that the pessimist and the alarmists relied on were just plain  wrong.

However we should keep in mind that human activity  does indeed affect the environment.  Today you can see photographs and t.v. images of Chinese cities with air thick with pollution. The Chinese currently are the world's leading air polluters.  The air in major  Chinese cities looks thick enough that it can be cut into cubes  and shipped abroad.  Here in the U.S there is the infamous atmosphere of Los Angeles.   Not so long ago (60-70 years)  the atmosphere of Pittsburg was grey with coal dust.  Fortunately that problem has been addressed since.  Very effective steps have been taken to reduce air and water pollution caused by the disposal of industrial waste  and  human waste.  Unfortunately the major third world nations such as India and emerging industrial giants such as China have yet to deal with the pollution problems they are causing. 

Even so, there is nothing that humans could do to turn the Earth into Venus.  Human technology has only the minutest  effect on the world compared to natural effects. The human race is capable of rendering itself extinct, but there is nothing humans can do to sterilize this planet of life.  Natural will do that in about 1.5 billion years and humans will not be around then. 

 

[Peter]

If it gets too hot humans can live in igloos. if it gets too cold we can retreat into deep caverns where it stays in the 40's to 50's. Ta Da! We visited a cavern in Pennsylvania once and though it was in the 80's in July outside I needed a jacket inside. My super scientific point is that cavemen only lived in caves if the weather outside was worse.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Climate, roughly speaking is averaged weather.  By convention climate is a sequence of averages taken over a moving 30  year window.

Bob,

Not in propaganda.

In propaganda, "climate" is a buzzword container for horror stories of universal planetary destruction. The point is to scare the shit out of the public so they will agree with a technocratic elite getting gobs of power over the entire planet, and, of course, all the money and sex that come with it.

Heat, clouds, rain, ice, atmosphere, the sun, etc., are mere details and of little importance to climate in a propaganda sense. A polar bear on a piece of floating ice is far, far more important. Don't believe me? Look at all the people over the years who pointed and yelled, "See? See? The climate did that!"

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Not in propaganda.

In propaganda, "climate" is a buzzword container for horror stories of universal planetary destruction. The point is to scare the shit out of the public so they will agree with a technocratic elite getting gobs of power over the entire planet, and, of course, all the money and sex that come with it.

Heat, clouds, rain, ice, atmosphere, the sun, etc., are mere details and of little importance to climate in a propaganda sense. A polar bear on a piece of floating ice is far, far more important. Don't believe me? Look at all the people over the years who pointed and yelled, "See? See? The climate did that!"

Michael

I am only able to process the literal meaning of terms....

 

[Peter]

From the Talmud: “We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.”

But “False God Ba’al” wrote: I am only able to process the literal meaning of terms....

Care to rethink that? Even your chosen name is not literal, you "bag of mostly water."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am only able to process the literal meaning of terms....

Bob,

I am very similar. However, I own dictionaries. I am aware that almost all words in all the dictionaries I own have more than one definition--some very, very different than others.

Consider the rock.

We all know a rock is a hard thing on the ground. But how about when you rock a baby? Or when you say, "You rock"? Jewish people say God is their rock. Of course rock is a style of music. It could also mean disrupt a situation, like "rock the boat." In my druggie days, a solid portion of crack cocaine was called a rock.

Shall I continue?

 

You will find all of these meanings in dictionary definitions--in all decent English dictionaries, in fact.

So which of them do you process literally for the word "rock"? Seeing that the dictionary is pretty much the standard of literal...

 

Michael

[Peter]

“We begin as philosophers where we began as babies, at the only place there is to begin: by looking at the world.” Ayn Rand

Michael rocks the objectivist world. 

I wrote some of the following several years ago after reading, "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer.

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for humans!” Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.” Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!” The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.” Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

If mankind were causing global warming, then we would NOT SEE simultaneous warming on other planets or moons. But we do. If it warms on Earth, it simultaneously warms on Mars and Jupiter at the same time. The sun is the primary driver of climate change. Mankind has little to nothing to do with warming or cooling in a climatic sense. And I wrote that we are in a ten thousand year warming trend inside a much longer cooling trend. So, we are on our way to another ice age if you understand the graphs.

Ba’al also mentioned we can’t do anything about the weather or the climate but there have been some suggestions from scientists that we might be able to nudge ourselves into a more hospitable climate. I don’t mean that in the Al Gore extremely loony or “The Day After Tomorrow“ movie way, but the most we could do may be in air dropping abundant coal dust periodically onto ice sheets, thereby absorbing more heat from the sun and melting some ice. Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

On 1/30/2019 at 1:56 PM, Peter said:

“We begin as philosophers where we began as babies, at the only place there is to begin: by looking at the world.” Ayn Rand

 

 

Michael rocks the objectivist world. 

I wrote some of the following several years ago after reading, "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming, the Missing Science," by Australian geologist and climate expert, Ian Plimer.

 

The Roman Warming. (500BC to 535AD) “Good for humans!” Then the Dark Ages. (535 to 900)  “Cold is bad for us.” Medieval Warming. (900 to 1300)  “Good!” The Little Ice Age. (1300 to 1850)  “Bad.” Modern Warming. (1850 to Present)  “Good for us!”

 

If mankind were causing global warming, then we would NOT SEE simultaneous warming on other planets or moons. But we do. If it warms on Earth, it simultaneously warms on Mars and Jupiter at the same time. The sun is the primary driver of climate change. Mankind has little to nothing to do with warming or cooling in a climatic sense. And I wrote that we are in a ten thousand year warming trend inside a much longer cooling trend. So, we are on our way to another ice age if you understand the graphs.

 

Ba’al also mentioned we can’t do anything about the weather or the climate but there have been some suggestions from scientists that we might be able to nudge ourselves into a more hospitable climate. I don’t mean that in the Al Gore extremely loony or “The Day After Tomorrow“ movie way, but the most we could do may be in air dropping abundant coal dust periodically onto ice sheets, thereby absorbing more heat from the sun and melting some ice. Peter

 

Putting stuff into the atmosphere to block the Sun  could  trigger off another cold spell like the Little Ice Age.  You would get an increase in albedo which would generate weather that decreased the albedo even further.   We are basically ignorant of the complexity  of our climate system.  Pushing our system into a positive feedback loop could produce  unintended consequences and unlooked conditions.  When you are dealing with something of which  you ignorant,  beware what you do.

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Putting stuff into the atmosphere to block the Sun  could  trigger off another cold spell like the Little Ice Age.  You would get an increase in albedo which would generate weather that decreased the albedo even further.   We are basically ignorant of the complexity  of our climate system.  Pushing our system into a positive feedback loop could produce  unintended consequences and unlooked conditions.  When you are dealing with something of which  you ignorant,  beware what you do.

The planet doesn't have to worry about me.

--Brant

I took the pledge

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The planet doesn't have to worry about me.

--Brant

I took the pledge

No, but what happens in the next 100,000 may be affected by human tinkering.  My inclination is to be cautious about  entering positive feedback loops in systems whose dynamics we are ignorant of.  

A good example of a runaway feedback loop is snow avalanches and landslide.  What starts of as little balls of snow or rock sliding/rolling downhill can expand to a massive movement of snow or land.  This is  rather straightforward  physics  in action.  You don't need quantum theory  to understand it. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Very recently, Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) said something hilarious about the climate change debate. And this applies to both sides.

He said, no matter how many times people say that weather is not climate, after a day or two goes by, a person who has talked with you endlessly about it will pop up and try to teach you that weather is not climate as if you never heard of it before. And always in a tone of imparting superior wisdom.

 

And damned if it isn't true.

 

It's like a conditioned response à la Pavlov...

Diiiinnnng...
Saliva...

Watch how this works.

Diiiinnnng -- PERSON A: "Brrrr... Some global warming..."
Saliva --        PERSON B: "Weather is not climate."

It never fails.

It reminds me of hardcore libertarians saying, "Taxation is theft" as a pickup line. 

 

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here's a new one.  The Little Ice Age was caused by genocide of Native Americans. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html

You can't beat that combo.  It sounds like something that would come out of a focus group composed exclusively of left-wing college student activists.

Do I dismiss it instantly?  That's some serious confirmation bias you have there, Doctor (Doctor who?).  In my defense, note that it's a CNN story. 

[Brant Gaede]

So far from science so close to idiocy.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No, but what happens in the next 100,000 may be affected by human tinkering.  My inclination is to be cautious about  entering positive feedback loops in systems whose dynamics we are ignorant of.  

A good example of a runaway feedback loop is snow avalanches and landslide.  What starts of as little balls of snow or rock sliding/rolling downhill can expand to a massive movement of snow or land.  This is  rather straightforward  physics  in action.  You don't need quantum theory  to understand it. 

Okay, but for the record that's not the way avalanches start.

--Brant