It’s a Sign

In fact it’s prof that the entire issue is not real, and it starts with political beggars throwing out unsupported facts.

Women are far more likely than men to die in natural disasters, so they can also be expected to suffer more from the effects of climate change.

Which is the usual way of saying “subsidize something I want, or I’ll stamp my feet.” It also comes with anomalous, convenient examples being used to imply that whatever sentiment they hold magically becomes scientific fact:

Today, on the other hand, the challenge of climate change and that of justice and equality for women are intrinsically linked. We can't propose efficient and innovative solutions if we don't widen our field of vision.

And what do they want? Subsidized intercontinental travel, of course – and not by balloon or foot:

The report proposes concrete measures aimed at including more women in Europe's climate diplomacy such as a quota for a minimum of 40% women in delegations. We should also encourage a greater opening of technical, political and financial bodies. In addition we ask that during the evaluation phase or launch of projects data is systematically collected and broken down by sex.

Not to mention, the opportunity for them to be allowed to financially strangulate whatever fashionable non-issue there is out there.

Concider the reasoning: in an environment where they ALREADY get head-of-the-line treatment to enter the sciences (but don’t to the degree men do,) they want more help, and yet these impoverished victims of non-study also want more of a say in technically based solutions.

You capiche?