mindlesscrollyparrot

The lack of evidence is one thing, but his argument contradicts itself.

He says that:

• the heavy investment that women make in their offspring means that they go to great lengths to make sure that their partners are committed
• we observe modern men killing their (the women's) offspring in the expectation that those women will turn around and have children with them instead.

Apparently, the women failed to select fathers who would stick around to defend their offspring, and they're happy to mate with men who kill the children that they have invested so much in. This strategy is clearly bad, so evolution would select against it.

Add observations of male mammals killing their rival's offspring and note how we see this in modern men.

No, we don't see this. Men do not routinely kill their rivals' offspring and, if they did, the mother would want them locked up.

Most of your logic implicitly assumes that males and females pair up. The game theory is quite different otherwise. What makes you think that our ancestors 100,000 years ago did this, when you're explicitly comparing them to mammal species that don't?

You succeeded at line 1, I'll give you that.

I hear what you're saying, but I think the real problem is the policy makers, who are without doubt choosing to use the least scary predictions, and pushing even those targets back when they fail to achieve them.

Have they?

"In this case, their very specific prediction was that warming of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂" https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

Isn't the problem more that people have been reading that and assuming that it means 3°, not 'possibly 4.5°' ?

That said, the study there seems to assume that the effects are roughly linear, ie. that there are no tipping points.

I don't think the billionaires' investments are going to be worth billions if the global economy collapses.

I don't think China wants that.

What efficient means: switching from ecologically expensive foods like beef to lower impact vegetarian diets.

What efficient does not mean: using vast quantities of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

If organizing multiple riots across the country doesn't count as domestic extremism, what does?

The graph clearly shows that the second half of July was hotter than in 2023 so the next string of record hot months had already begun when they wrote the article. Ridiculous.

It's easy to overlook them because they're so common and there are, to be sure, a lot of manky pigeons about, but pigeons can be some of the most handsome birds.

It should be the case that we do our part and take in as many refugees as France.

It should be the case that we honour our debts and take in the people that risked their lives to help our troops in Afghanistan.

It should be the case that people stop listening to grifters peddling lies on the internet.

How is their claim not valid if the Home Office allowed it? You think Priti Patel was like "oh, go on then, I'll turn a blind eye just this once" ?

It isn't the case that they have to claim in the first country they come to. That's just misinformation.

If they spoke French, they would probably claim there. France takes more asylum seekers than the UK, so why would they risk their lives? We didn't even take our interpreters from Afghanistan.

You'd think that Nigel Farage would be as informed as anybody on these topics and he's getting his information from Andrew Tate. I repeat: they do not have valid concerns; they are just racists rioting.