As a scientific matter, it is false. It cannot be invalidated, therefor it cannot be considered true. See Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability.
This, like most of the other claims of the terrible effects of climate change, is not a statement of science, but, rather, of politics. It is a fear appeal, designed to induce the listener to enter a state of fear, in which critical thinking stops. The person affected by the fear stops questioning, and accepts the premise a priori. It causes 'probability neglect', meaning the affected person over-estimates the probability that the feared event will occurr, and presumes that the speaker has the solution that will prevent the feared event.
It is a popular and effective technique of propaganda. It is antithetical to logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
Here is a list of all the places that will be hit 'hardest' by global warming:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/se...
And an amusing list of all the various things that will also be 'caused' by global warming:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...
I always want to know what bottom-feeding right-wing trawl site you have dredged these things up from. It would save some time if you could provide the link. I mean, these types of studies on gender issues and climate change have been around for a number of years, why is it on your radar now? Did The Heartland Institute flip you a fiver and position paper to repost this?
Anyway, isn't this the whole mindset of you climate skeptics? "Lock up the women, break out the guns and ammo, the darkies are coming to rape de women!" You don't even accept that people agree with your irrational fear. How messed up is that? You will probably feel better if you go stroke the barrel of your shotgun for a while. It will get nice and warm. Ahhhhhh. Isn't that soothing? See? All better.
It's very sexist, where are all the heat driven men becoming rent boys due to a 0.5 degree rise in temperature ?
Then again the wishy washy liberals and the crooks at the ipcc would probably see a rise in male prostitute numbers as a benefit of warming.
First, this link is actually a blog within the hill.com
Second interesting that the link is to page IV and we don't know what were in the 3 pages leading up to page 4. I also find it interesting that they went to a lot of trouble starting with page four to make it look like actual congressional proceedings allowing them to edit the contents to their liking
So I am not about to read anything that is already suspect but honestly like many of your questions, what if anything does this bias blog actually have to do with the category??????????????
42
Yeah, but mine was smart enough not to pursue science as a career, so she has a lot more money than I do.
Steered: It's only half of the picture, and makes for a good...not great sympathy poster.
What kind of question could you ask a stupid person?The only one i can think of is,are you stupid.
If you do, you might want to be aware of this:
"[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health," http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/jan2013/hconres36.pdf
You might ask what this question has to do with climate change. Well, the above wording comes from an actual congressional resolution with the purpose of: "Recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change." "Whereas women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,"
My question here is a turn around. What question would you ask regarding this resolution?
