So basically, you don't know what the problem is but you do know it had better not be anything that implies it could be fixed by reducing men's dominance a little.
Oh dear. Let me get this correct. Unless you can
Meanwhile, in non-science denying parts of academia, we have already firmly established that the genders differ in significant ways, esp. when it comes to preferences. And we don't discount cultural explanations for disparate racial outcomes, simply because we're showing off how virtuously non-racist we are -- while simultaneously judging white people by the color of their skin, and without any trace of irony.
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
IPCC using too many weasel words
I always find it interesting when scientists are simultaneously accused of making black and white statements (e.g., the language of consensus), while also using "weasel words". The simple truth is that scientists spend most of their time dealing with error bars, and those "weasel" words have been operationalized to talk about those error bars in precise ways.
Nothing, of course, will make you happy, except scientists unequivocally denying the importance AGW. When you don't like what scientists say, then the argument is simply constructed on the spot to reify your sense of "rightness". The sad truth is that it may be decades (if you live that long) before you ever contemplate any information that threatens your world view.
Science is not a once and for all deal *ever*. So odd thing to claim.
Climate scientists aren't claiming they've solved the problem once and for all. They are saying that they almost all agree on the basics, which includes AGW. Any alternative theory has to explain the data, and there just isn't one. If detractors had a theory, then they'd talk about it. But instead we get conspiratorial talk about "bad science" trying to, for example, settle things "once and for all".
Any disinterested person reading your argument should see through it on a moments reflection, but we don't get many disinterested people on the AGW issue, because it cuts across the moral concerns of small-government conservatism. I really think conservative philosophy is great, but it has been used by "thought shapers" (like Frank Luntz) to make the discussion fundamentally dishonest.
The Flint water crisis was primarily due to the state and the city of Flint being bankrupt.
If the emergency manager didn't squelch the EPA report, or did just a tiny bit of due diligence, then the water situation would be fine, and a *lot* of money would have been saved.
But if you want to blame the water situation on Flint going bankrupt, then you may as well blame the situation on the big bang. Or the fact the human evolved. Or the derivatives trading that led to the financial crisis. Clutch at straws all day. The emergency manager WASTED money, and seriously poisoned a generation of children. Cognitive dissonance doesn't change the facts on the ground.
How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."