Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Donald H]

Judith Curry She also questions the affordability and effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Yes, that's why she's referred to as a denialist even after her clear statement on AGW and sea level rise, etc.

 

[ding]

Yes, that's why she's referred to as a denialist even after her clear statement on AGW and sea level rise, etc.

I think it’s important to examine the whole picture rather than being dishonest about it.

 

[Donald H]

Where exactly is this catastrophe?

Ask an expert.

Or I can refer you to Ms. Curry's statement on the coming catastrophe.

 

[ding]

Ask an expert.

Or I can refer you to Ms. Curry's statement on the coming catastrophe.

I’m asking you. If it’s so obvious that there’s a climate catastrophe then you ought to be able to back it up with some evidence.

 

[Donald H]

I think it’s important to examine the whole picture rather than being dishonest about it.

For you my friend, and all m adoring denialist audience, I can only dare say again that my opinion closely matches the opinion of Ms. Curry, the foremost educated denialist:

Ms. Curry says:

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

We (all of the denialists and me) could spend a month arguing the question, but than what if we 'self-proclaimed experts come up with a different conclusion than Ms. Curry's clear statement. Are we then supposed to declare ourselves as superior to and more educated on the question than Ms. Curry?

Can you or one of the denialists do a quick study on the questions answered by Mr. Curry above, that can give us a trusted starting point that proves Judith wrong?

Then if any denialist or you differ from Judith, we could do a poll on how to decide who is the most trusted expert.

(maybe the poll could cover the bible's allegorical bullshit too?

 

[ding]

For you my friend, and all m adoring denialist audience, I can only dare say again that my opinion closely matches the opinion of Ms. Curry, the foremost educated denialist:

Ms. Curry says:



We (all of the denialists and me) could spend a month arguing the question, but than what if we 'self-proclaimed experts come up with a different conclusion than Ms. Curry's clear statement. Are we then supposed to declare ourselves as superior to and more educated on the question than Ms. Curry?

Can you or one of the denialists do a quick study on the questions answered by Mr. Curry above, that can give us a trusted starting point that proves Judith wrong?

Then if any denialist or you differ from Judith, we could do a poll on how to decide who is the most trusted expert.

(maybe the poll could cover the bible's allegorical bullshit too?

Can you point to one single climate catastrophe?

 

[Donald H]

Can you point to one single climate catastrophe?

Yes of course! Dozens in fact!

Hurricane Katrina had to be classed as a climate catastrophe.

Oh wait! You must be asking for a manmade climate catastrophe? You should have been more specific on that question.

But than why ask me when you could have asked an expert?

It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea-level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

Does that infer that some events that were catastrophic, were caused by AGW?

Be honest now my friend, this isn't a sunday school bible question that you can dick around with.

 

[Donald H]

Where did all my denialist friends go??

Have all the denialist ckskrs headed for high ground in the dust bowl shitholes?

 

[Donald H]

Does science show that a man can become a woman?

It depends on what the definition of a woman or a man is?

Off topice! Please?

 

[Donald H]

Science is not about

1. parroting
2. fraud
3. fudging data


and neither you nor any of those "climate scientists" can refute one word of that...

You my friend, we all could have trusted you as our expert on climate change, had you not tried to pull that stunt on the tide/water level at the big statue!

Were you misquoted? Is there anything you can say that will allow the denialists and me to trust you again?

 

[ding]

Yes of course! Dozens in fact!

Hurricane Katrina had to be classed as a climate catastrophe.

Oh wait! You must be asking for a manmade climate catastrophe? You should have been more specific on that question.

But than why ask me when you could have asked an expert?



Does that infer that some events that were catastrophic, were caused by AGW?

Be honest now my friend, this isn't a sunday school bible question that you can dick around with.

That’s weather events, not a climate catastrophe. Name one climate catastrophe caused by AGW.

 

[ding]

Where did all my denialist friends go??

Have all the denialist ckskrs headed for high ground in the dust bowl shitholes?

You’re wound up today.

 

[Donald H]

That’s weather events, not a climate catastrophe. Name one climate catastrophe caused by AGW.

Katrina was a climate catastrophe. You're fkd up on thinking that there has to be over 29,000 feet of rain to make a catastrophe!

How many dead bodies do you and your friends need to see floating around??

You’re wound up today.

Yer fkn right about that my friend.

Ms. Curry's words are the perfect slamdunk!

We should see if we can get her expert word on the big flood too?

Save your 'expert' opinion from now on, we're all going back to EMH ,who can be trusted!

 

[ding]

Katrina was a climate catastrophe. You're fkd up on thinking that there has to be over 29,000 feet of rain to make a catastrophe!

How many dead bodies do you and your friends need to see floating around??

Yer fkn right about that my friend.

Ms. Curry's words are the perfect slamdunk!

We should see if we can get her expert word on the big flood too?

Save your 'expert' opinion from now on, we're all going back to EMH ,who can be trusted!

Katrina was a hurricane. Can you name a climate catastrophe?

 

[ding]

Yer fkn right about that my friend.

No shit.

 

[80zephyr]

It depends on what the definition of a woman or a man is?

Off topice! Please?

Showing the absurdity of what democrats believe is part of this discussion.

 

[Stryder50]

It depends on what the definition of a woman or a man is?

Off topice! Please?

One of two biological sex organs.
Outer or Innie ?
Penis or vagina ...

Any "other" is mutation/mutilation.

 

[Stryder50]

For you my friend, and all m adoring denialist audience, I can only dare say again that my opinion closely matches the opinion of Ms. Curry, the foremost educated denialist:

Ms. Curry says:



We (all of the denialists and me) could spend a month arguing the question, but than what if we 'self-proclaimed experts come up with a different conclusion than Ms. Curry's clear statement. Are we then supposed to declare ourselves as superior to and more educated on the question than Ms. Curry?

Can you or one of the denialists do a quick study on the questions answered by Mr. Curry above, that can give us a trusted starting point that proves Judith wrong?

Then if any denialist or you differ from Judith, we could do a poll on how to decide who is the most trusted expert.

(maybe the poll could cover the bible's allegorical bullshit too?

If you are a voter, than you need to be informed when voting on representation.

Does the candidate support or disagree with ACC/AGW ?
Why ?
How does a voter know the differences of the pro-con on ACC/AGW (other than "experts" opinions ) ?

 

[Stryder50]

Where did all my denialist friends go??

Have all the denialist ckskrs headed for high ground in the dust bowl shitholes?

Some of us have real, 3D lives to live and don't spend 24/7 on USMB.

Meanwhile you remain a clueless and ignorant idiot hack and lackey to the ACC/AGW hucksters.

 

[Donald H]

One of two biological sex organs.
Outer or Innie ?
Penis or vagina ...

Any "other" is mutation/mutilation.

​

The notion that there are more than two genders is supported by various scientific, cultural, and social perspectives, recognizing a spectrum of gender identities beyond just male and female.

Gender as a Social Construct​

Gender is increasingly understood as a social construct rather than a strict binary classification. This means that gender encompasses a wide range of identities and expressions that do not necessarily align with traditional notions of male and female. According to the World Health Organization, gender refers to the socially created qualities associated with being a woman or a man, which can vary across cultures and change over time.

SeedScientific

Diverse Gender Identities​

There are numerous gender identities that exist beyond the binary framework. Some of these include:

• Non-binary: Individuals who do not identify exclusively as male or female.
• Genderqueer: A term for those who reject traditional gender distinctions and may identify as both or neither gender.
• Genderfluid: People whose gender identity may change over time or depending on the situation.
• Agender: Individuals who identify as having no gender or being genderless.
  
  2
  
  In fact, there are lists that identify 72 different gender identities, showcasing the vastness of gender beyond the binary.
  
  1
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  2 Sources

Cultural Perspectives​

Historically and across various cultures, many societies have recognized more than two genders. For example, some Indigenous cultures in North America acknowledge Two-Spirit individuals, who embody both masculine and feminine qualities and often hold significant roles within their communities. This cultural recognition further supports the understanding that gender is not limited to just male and female.

stanfordmint.com

Scientific Understanding​

From a scientific perspective, gender is seen as fluid and can encompass a spectrum of identities. This view challenges the traditional binary understanding and acknowledges the complexity of human identity. The existence of intersex individuals, who may have biological characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female, also highlights the limitations of a binary classification system.

Psychology Today+1

Conclusion​

In conclusion, the belief that there are more than two genders is supported by a growing body of evidence from social sciences, cultural studies, and personal experiences. Recognizing and respecting diverse gender identities is essential for fostering inclusivity and understanding in society. As our understanding of gender continues to evolve, it is crucial to embrace this complexity and acknowledge the validity of all gender identities.

Are you going to trot yourself out as the expert opinion here too?

So soon after you and your fellow denialist ckskrs were sent packing on the climate change question?
Leaving ding to stumble along by himself?
https://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)