These are the points I would have made if I had more time. I believe in man made climate change but these sort of studies make it easy for those who don't to point and laugh. The idea that there will be no progress in energy production in 200 years is such a silly assumption it means that this study can only be used for scaring the incredulous.

If I were to point to the fact that vinyl record sales are the fastest growing segment of music purchases and concluded that they would eventually overtake downloads the slashdot crowd would shout down my faulty reasoning pretty quickly. But because this study is about climate change the faulty assumptions get a free pass.

Perhaps you would like to argue the points I made rather than guess at my understanding of the laws of physics.

It is generally accepted that all long term economic growth comes from technological innovation. If you want to extrapolate from current trends you have to factor in economic growth and therefore some technological progress. To assume we will be using the same energy generation methods in 200 years is ludicrous. I don't need to know what the technological progress will be to know that there will be progress.

IPCC Emissions Scenarios

Maybe do it the way the IPCC does it by creating multiple scenarios based on sets of realistic assumptions.

But "if nothing changed" is an absurd assumption, it's saying, "if there was no technological progress in the next 200 years". Its the same ridiculous assumption that all Malthusian predictions of disaster make, and why they never come true.

Anyone who makes predictions based on nothing changing for almost 200 years is an idiot.

Canada does have some tariffs on trade with the EU, Turkey doesn't. I believe all European countries except Belarus have tariff free trade with the EU even if they are not in the EU itself.

... but immigrating to London for high skilled non-EU nationals has become very difficult in the last 7 years (due to rules changes) ...

If the UK left the EU it could end unrestricted immigration from the EU and increase high skilled immigration from outside the EU by reversing those rule changes. One of the problems of EU membership is that we have unrestricted immigration of low skilled workers (when we have unskilled UK citizens that could do those jobs) which increases demand for housing, driving up house prices.

... Frankfurt takes over as the biggest European financial services hub.

I remember this scare story from when we didn't join the Euro. Wrong then, wrong now.

... and of course the UK will be forced to accept freedom of movement as that's a non-negotiable part of the EU free trade system.

Wrong, the EU has a free trade deal with Turkey without free movement. You are confusing the "single market" with free trade.

... and won't be able to veto countries like Turkey entering the EU, so EU immigration will increase.

But outside the EU we won't have free movement with the EU so we can set the level and type of immigration as we see fit. Cyprus will veto Turkish membership of the EU anyway.

The European Court of Justice (whose rulings the UK must abide by to remain part of the EU) has decided that the UK cannot deny prisoners the vote and any EU citizen has the right to censor search engine results concerning them throughout the whole EU. Can you tell me why this kind of interference in domestic matters is required for a trade deal? What other trade deal requires citizens to be subject to the rulings of a foreign court?

Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.

So, you don't like what the democratically elected government of the UK are doing (or what you think they will do) so you give the power to spend UK taxpayers money to the undemocratic EU because they will spend it how you want.

From the article:

Finally, the researchers warn of “unknown unknowns” and call for “extensive research” into “unknown risks and their probabilities”.

Scientists researching field A call for more research into field A. Also, as there will always be "unknown unknowns" that funding should continue indefinitely.

The feminist argument is that this skew in gender balance is the result of prior socialization. But this claim of nurture over nature is not only unproven, it is utterly untestable.

I don't think this is completely untestable. The claim that gender differences are purely due to socialisation would seem to be contradicted by studies like this: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children

... you said one reason the USA LE was lower ...

Precisely, one reason, not the only reason. Europe might have better healthcare systems than the US, which is why LE is higher there but that does not mean that Cuba has a better healthcare system than the US because it has higher LE. I offered an alternative explanation. Given that a lot of the health problems in the west (and especially the US) are caused by overconsumption (obesity, binge drinking, etc.) then this is not an unreasonable alternative explanation. These problems are also present in Europe (to a lesser extent) and maybe they handle them better with universal healthcare systems but that doesn't mean that overconsumption doesn't have an impact on LE, a problem that an authoritarian state can handle through compulsion.