I don't take it seriously when Creationists make the "appeal to Galileo" argument, why should I take it any more seriously when you make it?
I'm pretty sure that I've heard environmentalists call for better treatment of our waste water (to remove or degrade these hormones) before it is discharged back into the rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Maybe your problem is that environmentalists are "touching the issue" in a way that you didn't anticipate?
The judge agreed, concluding “the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”
This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can’t attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist.”
Link to Original Source
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
A quip popularly attributed to Carl Sagan.
You know what Carl Sagan had to say about climate change?
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
~Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))
Dr. Sagan clearly believed that the "extraordinary claims" of climate science were backed up by extraordinary evidence.
"The vast majority of the loudest global warming proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are environmental activists, with their own agenda to advance."
The "skeptics" of Evolution said the same thing.
They said "the vast majority of the loudest Evolution proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are atheists(/secularists) with their own agenda to advance."
I didn't accept that argument from Creationists. Why would I accept it from you?
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
~Dr. Richard A. Muller
"Look either we are all equals or some of us need special treatment. It can't be both."
I think you have the word "equal" confused with "identical" (it is a common mistake).
Two things can be different but still equal.
Even special treatment does not preclude the possibility of two types of things being equal: So long as both groups require some sort of special treatment then they can still be equal.
Link to Original Source
Suppose we accept your premise: Why not solve the imbalance by encouraging people to extend those same social privileges to us men?
Those privileges, that you claim are exclusive to women, make the world a more compassionate and understanding place. I think we need more of that for everyone.
"Stoner" is the marijuana stereotype equivalent of "the town drunkard" (and thus counts as an ad hominem).
We all know that the "drunkard/alcoholic" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of alcohol consumers. The next step is to get the public to understand that "the stoner" stereotype does not apply to the vast majority of marijuana consumers.
Knowing that some of the greatest minds of our era are marijuana smokers disproves that misconception.
Conventional solar cells, the silicon-based sheets used in most consumer-level applications, are far from perfect. Light from the sun arrives here on Earth's surface in a wide variety of forms. These forms—wavelengths, properly—include the visible light that makes up our everyday reality, but also significant chunks of invisible (to us) ultraviolet and infrared light. The current standard for solar cells targets mostly just a set range of visible light.
Link to Original Source