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

[Spike]

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...

The Hoax

The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

That’s how we began. We used this preposterous sentence to open a “paper” consisting of 3,000 words of utter nonsense posing as academic scholarship. Then a peer-reviewed academic journal in the social sciences accepted and published it.

This paper should never have been published. Titled, “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct,” our paper “argues” that “The penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.” As if to prove philosopher David Hume’s claim that there is a deep gap between what is and what ought to be, our should-never-have-been-published paper was published in the open-access (meaning that articles are freely accessible and not behind a paywall), peer-reviewed journal Cogent Social Sciences.

“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:..”

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

-----------------------

“Penises of the World UNITE’ for Climate Change!!!

ROFLMAO!

*snort*

 

[deljzc]

Man, if there isn't a more damning bit of proof about the legitimacy of social-sciences and their "peer review" process, I don't know what is.

 

[hamster]

God help us.

 

[Steeltime]

Didn't 97% of climate change scientists agree with this study?

 

[mightyguru]

I wouldn't say mine is overwhelming, but it certainly heats up the room.

 

[Spike]

More hysteria



Liberal Journos Uncritically Echo Reports Global Warming Flooded The World ‘Doomsday’ Vault

Several media outlets are reporting the world’s largest repository of seeds, acting as a “backstop” against global catastrophe, has been compromised by global warming.

Well, the news turned out to be little more than media hype. Here’s why.

The left-leaning Guardian was the first to report the Global Seed Vault located in the Svalbard archipelago was “breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.”

Vox and Wired echoed the Guardian’s reporting. Vox reported the Norwegian designers of the seed vault that was supposed to operate without human assistance for “eternity” had met its match from “floods linked to climate change.”

But the media should have done a little more footwork when reporting on the flooding. It turns out the vault regularly floods, as its designers anticipated.

The Guardian claimed “soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling.” The paper quoted Norwegian officials who were scrambling to address the flooding.

“A lot of water went into the start of the tunnel and then it froze to ice, so it was like a glacier when you went in,” a Norwegian official told the Guardian, adding that no frozen water made it to where the seeds are stored.

The Guardian claimed the flooding “impregnable” vault’s 300-foot entrance tunnel due to melting permafrost “questioned the ability of the vault to survive as a lifeline for humanity if catastrophe strikes.”

There’s only one problem — the vault floods almost every year.

Popular Science spoke to Cary Fowler, one of the vault’s designers, who told them “[f]looding is probably not quite the right word to use in this case.”

“In my experience, there’s been water intrusion at the front of the tunnel every single year,” Fowler said.

Fowler explained the tunnel was built along a mountain slope, and at the base two pumping stations remove water that gets into the entrance — the entrance was not made to be watertight.

“The tunnel was never meant to be watertight at the front, because we didn’t think we would need that,” Fowler said. “What happens is, in the summer the permafrost melts, and some water comes in, and when it comes in, it freezes. It doesn’t typically go very far.”

In fact, building the tunnel itself made the surrounding permafrost more vulnerable to melting. Permafrost is sensitive to temperature spikes and artificial developments. Designers have to be careful when building in the Arctic because permafrost melt can make buildings unstable.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/20/l...ing-flooded-the-world-doomsday-vault/?print=1

 

[Steelr4evr]

I've heard it all. Liberals and the likeminded pj wearing snowflakes need to take one for the planet. Save us all and
cut your dick off. You don't have balls anyway .

off

 

[Steelerfan]

I wouldn't say mine is overwhelming, but it certainly heats up the room.

Thats what she said.

 

[MTC]

I've heard it all. Liberals and the likeminded pj wearing snowflakes need to take one for the planet. Save us all and
cut your dick off. You don't have balls anyway .

off

100% truth

 

[ark steel]

One thing I wonder about the Climate Change people is that I am told that there is no way all those scientists (whose funding comes from governments or government-type agencies or ideological groups) and government couldn't possibly conspire to fake it.

However, many of the people who think this also think that government, Big Pharma and millions of doctors the world over are conspiring to hike up drug prices and keep away actual cures.

 

[SteelChip]

One thing I wonder about the Climate Change people is that I am told that there is no way all those scientists (whose funding comes from governments or government-type agencies or ideological groups) and government couldn't possibly conspire to fake it.

If Trump gets his way, that Govt funded stuff will be absent ( for the most part ) in a lot of those agencies. The aimless spending on "Climate Science" will hopefully see a more directed approach

. "If these technologies are economically viable, there will be plenty of private sector capital available to develop them. Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t have to dump money into speculative or failing technology companies or pad the bottom lines of successful ones.

Exacerbating this is the role the federal government has played in toxifying the scientific debate on global warming. Rather than fostering scientific discovery in a field that is a mere few decades old, the federal government appears to have expressed bias in funding science that supports federal climate policies.

Eliminating wasteful spending, some of which has nothing to do with studying the science at all, is smart management, not an attack on science."

The Signal covered the problem today....
http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/25/c...4REZQWm9yOUVkcFp6eTdcL1wvamVlSEtSMDZoMndaeiJ9

 

[Superman]

https://cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311886.2017.1330439

An article, “The conceptual penis as a social construct”, published in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19th 2017, has been revealed by its authors as a hoax.

We understand the authors’ intention was to question the field of gender studies, and the fact it came to be published in one of our journals is disappointing and has led us to conduct a thorough investigation.

Early findings indicate the article was originally submitted to NORMA – International Journal for Masculinity Studies, published by our parent company, Taylor & Francis. The editors of that journal considered the article was unsuitable for publication and intended to reject it outright as unsound, at which stage it should have left Taylor & Francis’ submission system.

Instead, upon rejection it was inadvertently referred to Cogent Social Sciences via the electronic article transfer process in place between Taylor & Francis’ Social Science journal program and our own. Article transfer is common within journal publishing and can provide researchers with a valuable and efficient route to publication in an alternative journal. It allows an editor to recommend an article to other journal editors for their consideration, where the editor believes the article is worth considering for publication but is unsuitable for the journal to which it was originally submitted.

The article was received by a Senior Editor and sent out for peer review as is standard. Two reviewers agreed to review the paper and it was accepted with no changes by one reviewer, and with minor amends by the other. On investigation, although the two reviewers had relevant research interests, their expertise did not fully align with this subject matter and we do not believe that they were the right choice to review this paper.

Peer review depends significantly on trust between authors, academic editors, peer reviewers and publishers, supported by appropriate systems and processes. While we continue a thorough review to ensure these are as robust as possible, we are taking three immediate steps:

We are working closely with the academic editorial teams of all our journals to review our processes and make changes where necessary to minimise the risk of such a situation happening again.

We are reviewing our academic editor and peer reviewer education program to ensure editors and peer reviewers are fully equipped with the skills they need to assess whether a paper is fit for publication.

We are working with colleagues at Taylor & Francis to examine our peer review systems and workflow so that articles deemed unsuitable for publication cannot be transferred inadvertently to another journal’s submissions system.

Emma Greenwood
Associate Editorial Director
Cogent OA

For more information please contact: newsroom@taylorandfrancis.com

 

[wig]

IE, Well Damn!

We look like Horse's non-gender specific *****'.

 

[Xnavycl]

Uh, climate change, preposterous, population explosion, perhaps.

Of course, I am speaking from experience.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Steeler Nation mobile app