Cranky

The notorious male climate crank aka Lumo has published an attack on someone he claims is a female climate crank, the Journal which published her, and females as likely cranks in general:

No one will convince me that there is nothing inherently "female" that these three women share in their approach to reality. It's about a complete inability to figure out how things actually work in Nature combined with a highly exaggerated emphasis on patient reading of all kinds of texts, regardless of their quality, and on making rationally unjustifiable conclusions based on purely verbal patterns of the texts, without any understanding of the content, combined with some irrational prejudices.

I don't argue that this approach cannot be found among male researchers; what I argue, however, is that the probability that a female researcher approaches scientific questions in this way is much higher than in the case of males.

For what it's worth, I have no opinion on the article (haven't read it), agree on the Journal/Publisher (absurdly overpriced - should be consigned to dustbin of history), and think he is stark raving mad on his last point. Has he ever looked at the male-female ratio in, say, literary theory?

Sheesh Lumo, if you are nuts anyway, have an academic death wish, and love Bush so much, why don't you just enlist in the Marines? They always need men and often achieve remarkable results with seemingly unpromising material.