-1=e^ipi

.

No. Being gender confused and/or being a furry is/are different.

I wouldn't care about wearing a skirt or a pink bow in private, nor would I care if other people chose to wear skirts or pink bows. But I would care about the fact that other people care. Much like how I think most women would have a problem with not wearing a head covering if they visit Saudi Arabia. Anyway, one can have any preference about clothes and still be agendered (as long as the preference for clothing is not due to a desire to fit a gender role).

Okay, I've looked more into it. Schmittner, being a good scientist, recognizes the potential for biased results in Schmittner et al. 2011. http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Schmittner-sensitivity.pdf Fortunately, it seems that Annan & Hargreaves 2013 have tried to resolve this issue and get an accurate, empirical estimate of the temperature change from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene optimum. http://www.clim-past.net/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html So it looks like the 95% confidence interval for cooling since the last glacial maximum is 4.0 +/- 0.8 C. Maybe I can use this + ice core data to get a decent estimate of the impulse response function by using the Van Hateren approach.

Also, question for people in this thread: Do you identify as cisgendered, transgendered, agendered, polygendered or gender fluid? And if so, why?

But sex and gender are completely different. So that won't help at all. Have you tried using google?

So the two most common gender identities are cisgendered and transgendered. Here are the definitions: cisgendered - state of one's gender identity matching one's assigned sex. transgendered - state of one's gender identity not matching one's assigned sex. An example of a transgendered person would be someone who feels that they are a boy in a girl's body and wants to be identified as male and wear masculine clothing / do masculine things. An (extreme) example of a cisgendered person would be someone who wears a burka because they believe that god gave them a gender role that they must fill in order to get into the afterlife. A less extreme example would be Stephen Harper. So I don't think I fit into either of the two categories, and here is why: Gender and sex are completely different (at least according to social justice warriors). So if one accepts this, then what does it mean to identify with a gender? From what I can tell, identifying with a gender means accepting a gender role. The boy trapped in a girl's body wants to identify with the male gender role. The woman in the burka wants to accept the female gender role. But to me, gender roles are ancient relics of the past that make no sense in modern society. If we were living in a hunter gatherer society then they would make sense (taking advantage of biological comparative advantage), but today it makes no sense. So I reject gender roles. As I do not accept gender roles, I cannot identify with a gender. And if I can't identify as a gender, that makes me agendered. Does that make sense? Edit: Also, question for people in this thread: Do you identify as cisgendered, transgendered, agendered, polygendered or gender fluid? And if so, why?

I would chose to be asexual and female. It is far preferable to be female in this country if you are under the age of 30. More job opportunities, longer life expectancy, lower risk of being assaulted or killed, lower suicide rate, lower unemployment rate, etc. Edit: Btw, unmarried childless women under the age of 30 out earn unmarried childless men under the age of 30 for urban areas in Canada, USA and Britain.

There was a similar thread on Real Climate. Also, Judith Curry had a guest post on her blog with different criticisms. http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/29/wht-on-schmittner-et-al-on-climate-sensitivity/ But yes, I am aware of the bias at skeptical science.

Too add to this list: - Male unemployment is much higher than female unemployment. Anyway, let me see if I have this correct... According to our resident male middle-aged socialists, Dre and WIP, men today should be discriminated against in high-skilled non-physically demanding jobs because 25 years ago males were paid well for low-skilled physically demanding jobs.

Low skill jobs + high paying middle class jobs that existed 25 years ago such as working in an auto-plant are dead/dying in the west and this is one of the reasons for the 'hollowing-out' of the middle class and increase in income inequality in many developed countries over the past few decades. Skilled trades are a different matter though.

Looks like even Shakun and Carlson's claim of ~4.9 C difference between Last Glacial Minimum and Holocene Optimum is disputed as well. Schmittner et al. 2011 use Shakun and Carlson's data plus additional data (they uses 435 grid points vs the 54 of Shakun and Carlson) and obtain a best estimate of the Last Glacial Minimum-Holocene Optimum of ~3.0 C. Schmittner defends his/her study in the comment section of this blog: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=77&&n=1140 But even Schmittner 2011 seems to be disupted.

Today != 25 years ago.

Strawman argument. Yes, that was clearly intentional. I also didn't mention kittens. Therefore, I must hate kittens. *sarcasm* And the rate at which males seek help relative to females might have something to do with social conditioning and gender roles.

This is sexist. Many females thrive in a competitive environment and a reasonable amount of competition can overall benefit both genders (especially when compared to where education is heading with nonsense like discovery maths). One of the reasons why females appeared to not thrive well in more competitive environments in the past is because of social conditioning and gender roles. If a female is told that they should not act competitive because it is 'butch and ungirly', then that may discourage them from doing so. Some studies have found that females perform better in a competitive environment if all their peers are female than when in a mixed classroom; this could be because the social conditioning from gender roles discourages females to act 'ungirly' in front of males.

Competition != constant testing. For example, having kids play a game of soccer involves competition. Kids could use more than just basic math and english skills. They could benefit from calculus, linear algebra, statistics, physics, biology, chemistry, geography, computer programming, philosophy of science, economics, etc. Don't forget social justice. We need to brainwash kids into the Orwellian 'progressive' belief system of social justice. Don't forget the discovery math. We can't have people's feeling's hurt because they are too lazy to put the effort into to learn math. Instead they need to discover it! *sarcasm* Are you implying that this is a new phenomenon? I've been to schools that weren't virtually all-white since I've been going to school. Not that the racial makeup of a school matters to me. Edit: this is getting off topic.

So what are people going to do once robots start taking over menial jobs? For example, driverless cars are going to come out in a decade, which will make truckers, bus drivers, etc. obsolete. There is a gradual technology shift which is favoring STEM fields. Don't blame globalization for your laziness and poor life choices.

Now if someone where to say, "a reason why males have higher incomes is because their brains are on average larger and males have on average 3 IQ points more than females" or "females earnings are affected by hormonal mood swings", that person would be labelled as a misogynist by society and the opinion would be dismissed. But claiming that males have lower grades, university attendance, life expectancy, etc. is due to males not being able to stay still and their hormones make them aggressive and violent or whatever is perfectly acceptable. So let me get this straight, according to mainstream feminists: If there is a gender gap that disadvantages females, it is discrimination. If there is a gender gap that disadvantages males, it is biology. Seems inconsistent to me.

Ghost Hacked, 1 Plate techtonics are too slow to be relevant over any time scale less than a million years. 2. With respect to your comments on ice. Ice does have a larger volume, but as a result it has a smaller density. As a result, it floats on top of water and not all of the volume of ice will displace water, some of ice will displace air instead. About 90% of an iceberg is under water for example. As a result, melting of sea ice has no significant impact on sea level. Melting of continental ice sheets such as Greenland and Antarctica do have a significant impact on sea level however.

After reading Steve McIntyre's criticisms of some of Mann reconstructions, I see Tim's point about it being a lot less reliable than it appears. Any issue with Shakun and Carlson 2010?

Same outcome? You really think mainstream feminists want same outcome in suicide rates, life expectancy, homelessness or workplace deaths?

Of course there is disagreement of how feminism is defined. It can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology.

It's 2015 and older females are still trying to tell me that I should be discriminated against for my sex because of stuff that occurred before I was born.

No, they are trying to do things like create awareness of the issue, encourage more competition in classrooms, and increase male role models available to boys.

If you have access to the internet, then you have the ability to learn knowledge that can get you a STEM career if you are willing to put in the effort. Don't make up excuses if you are too lazy to perform tasks that involve math or science.