Reply With Quote
Did you mean by themselves?
That genes in themselves do not determine behavior.
Environment acts on genetic material therefore behavior is more complex.
You said a male is a male. What does this even mean?
And genes themselves can be confusing. XX. XY. Wait a bit... what’s going on here.
This is all relatively new.
Did you mean by themselves?
Yeah, it's all about you. How could I forget.
The geometric increase in atmospheric pollution started in the mid 19th century. In geographical time, mere moments before you were born, DMC.
You say it has nothing to do with you, but events are already overrunning this claim. Natural feedbacks won't be mocked.
you, natural feedbacks
I just mocked them
You can mock nature for sure, but the effect of your mockery on natural feedback loops will be nil.
Yes.
Genes alone.
And then further to the point is that we have found that the chromosomes that determine whether one will produce sperm or egg (the biological definition of sex) are much more fluid than we thought. XX and XY male/female can be XXX XXY on and on... Then even within the x and Y (thus associated hormone genes) chromosomes, bits and pieces of these chromosomes thus genes can mix. We have people born with a wide variety of visible sexual physical features as well. Now that we have the capacity to look at DNA closer it is quite complicated.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cast...ience-analysis
A glance at this sports article represents just a small taste of how complex this is. So in a world in which we learn more I can understand the confusion all the way from gender iden y to hard sexual designations male XY and female XX. Even gender iden y is confusing because one might associate with a behavior that is currently designated male or female or what? I can see how it’s confusing to people who are born with a variety of what I have mentioned above, and also the general public who never had to experience any sort of confusion.
Im just glad I did not have to experience any sort of questionable urges. Saw breasts and associated “softer” female facial features, attracted to breasts and associated features, game over.
But he feels empowered.
Don’t you do this to him.
Combined with Exxon's scientists finding the same 40? years ago, we have coal going back 50+ years
Coal Knew, Too
A newly unearthed journal from 1966 shows the coal industry, like the oil industry, was long aware of the threat of climate change.
“Exxon knew.”
Thanks to the work of activists and journalists, those two words have rocked the politics of climate change in recent years, as investigations revealed the extent to which giants like
Exxon Mobil and S were aware of the danger of rising greenhouse gas emissions even as they undermined the work of scientists.
But the coal industry knew, too — as early as 1966, a newly unearthed journal shows.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f?ri18n=true&ncid= newsltushpmgnews
Earth’s carbon dioxide levels hit a 3 million year high
carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reached 407.8 parts per million in 2018.
In 2017, they reached a high of 405.5 parts per million.
Earth surpassed the 400 parts per million mark in 2015.
“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration
“Back then,
the temperature was 2 to 3 degrees [centigrade] warmer, [and]
sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”
https://www.salon.com/2019/11/25/earths-carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-a-3-million-year-high/
Supreme Court allows libel suit by climate scientist who was compared to Jerry Sandusky
The Supreme Court
refused on Monday to shield two conservative writers from being sued for defamation
by a climate-change expert whom they
accused of having “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
Over a dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito,
the high court cleared the way for Penn State professor
Michael Mann to sue the National Review and the conservative Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute
for having compared him to the former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was imprisoned for sexual abuse.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-11-25/supreme-court-climate-scientist-sue-defamation?utm_source=Today%27s+Headlines&utm_camp aign=88aa2e01ff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_12_COPY_01&utm_medium=email &utm_term=0_b04355194f-88aa2e01ff-80027601
You are talking about facts, and evidence. This is a meta analysis of available data and peer-reviewed studies.
If your response is an ad hominem, then you would appear to not really care about facts and evidence.
Do you care about facts and truth?
As Trash and his BigCorp kakistocracy move to permit and increase all kinds of pollution
Canadians dying at a higher rate in areas with more air pollution
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-canadians-dying-higher-areas-air.html
Buttplug compares "climate change crisis" to 9/11 and WW2. Also compares border wall to "moat full of alligators".
how specifically did he compare the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2?
Watch the video
i did. i'm asking you how you think he compared the climate change crisis to 9/11 and WW2
Prime mover not DMC
You're stupid
That's my opinion. Did you have something to add, or are you just doing the Pavlov thing?
You didnt give an opinion. Just posted a YouTube
nah I posted an opinion along with the video and you asked about said opinion w/o watching the video
now you're just straight up lying
be better
i watched the video. didnt see any issues with it, and im not a buttplug fan by any stretch.
how did he compare the climate change crisis to 9/11 chris?
If anything, the models so far seem to be underestimating the knock on effects.
Cruel irony if the Cassandras are understating the danger.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions