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.
... 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.
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.
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
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus