>>Thanks for the fun:) To me that's clearly a joke. Not an April one but a good one though!

The full paper starts with the premise that glaciers are just "ice that melts" but quickly discounts this as a Western, male conceptualization before seguing into the familiar discourse about gendered science and domination. Then come the "alternative representations" in which glaciers are anthropomorphized by a series of logic fallacies leading towards glaciers as mystic entities with needs. It's not entirely clear whether it's just the sparse female glacier scientists or all women or all of hupersonkind or also the actual glaciers that are oppressed by apparently male notions like ice responding to physical laws.

Seems to me that this paper is for an internal audience that eagerly recognizes the buzzwords and sees nothing wrong with the notion that glacier science is a colonial misogynistic oppressor that needs to be reformed. Outsiders are more likely to point out that Gaia and science are not mutually exclusive: of course academics from Oregon can work on Gaia representations of glaciers at the same time as others (including interested women) conduct on-site experiments to try to understand why rivers of ancient ice behave as they do. Others will recognize elements of psychiatric "flight of ideas" and sloppy logic in this paper, but the intended audience would lap that up as just more proof of masculine, colonial dominance behaviors.