Since they have failed high school biology, they are obviously not qualified for more advanced subjects.
they flunk economics even more spectacularly. and that really is saying something.
"...global climate change..."
Liberal women studies on how climate affects their oppression is what people who flunk math and science do
They think that just because something makes them feel good, it must be science.
JoMa
Basic biology: a resounding F. A person is either male or female since birth, which cannot be changed. Every cell of your body carries chromosomes which identify you as one or the other, not both, not either, and not neither.
A more comprehensive list would note that liberals are against the science of oilfield fracking.
Liberals are also against the science of genetically enhancing crops/food (e.g. GM seeds).
Liberals oppose using 3D printers because they can make firearms, especially the new metal 3D printers (shhhh, don’t tell them about CNC!).
Liberals oppose using CRISPR to edit human DNA (faster, stronger, smarter humans).
Liberals oppose scientific forestry... the process of clearing underbrush and proactively cutting new roads as firebreaks (often via logging) that reduces forest fires in more conservative woodland states such as Alabama. Anyone see the California wildfires recently?!
Liberals oppose hydroelectric dams (’cause “Salmon!”).
Liberals oppose using aqueducts to save freshwater in Oregon from being dumped by large rivers wastefully in the Pacific saltwater ocean, whereas conservatives want to use that water to help solve California’s fresh water shortage.
I loved science. I became an engineer, and the most used book on my bookshelf is my Halliday Resnick freshman physics book. In high school, I would go home and perform science experiments in the basement doing the things I learned in class, using nothing more than ordinary household chemicals. I disassociated hydrogen from oxygen by placing battery terminals in water. I learned how to increase current flow by salting the water. I learned how expensive this was based on the cost of batteries. I learned how to use a doorbell transformer to reduce my cost, etc.
Growing up in northern Minnesota, I also learned about climate. In one experiment, I filled a clear glass jug with chlorine gas. It had a nice green tint. Since chlorine gas liquefies at -39 degrees, I waited for a -40 degree night to observe the transition change. Alas, it was March by then, and we had no more -40 degree mornings. But, that taught me a lot about climate. I know the months when the coldest temperatures happen. I know, for sure, that we had a good number of -40 degree days those years. I can also see now that some of those -40 degree days are happening again.
The purpose of all this is not to recall my youth. It's to point out that science is a rigorous process. It requires hypotheses , theory, experiments, and, yes, skepticism. There is no consensus in real science. All scientists should be skeptics. Anyone who talks of a 'scientific consensus' should be immediately dismissed as irrelevant. He didn't FLUNK science, he never TOOK it.
They also have no sense of scale or statistics. If they do a thing, "everyone" likes or does that thing. If they dislike or cannot do a thing, "no-one" likes or does that thing, ad infinitum.