OK I admit I haven’t read the full paper, but the article seems to have missed that an increase should be set against the long term decline in such species. Even if the study had shown “no change” compared to earlier control period, that could be a success of NN ban.

It IS funny, very funny. But is also deeply dangerous. This type of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo sounds plausible to the unwary. And before you know it ppl start saying vaccines don’t work and global warming is a hoax. #science #facts #democracy

An alternative way of asking could be “what has this data looked like in previous years?”

What’s the time frame for the data here? Could ppl who are anti-immigration claim “we might be low now, but that’s coz they’re already here”??

So, my question for lawyers is how will this affect appeals in practice? Does it mean asylum seekers will appeal on every possible grounds at their one-and-only appeal, knowing that they won't have a second chance? And will that just eat up more lawyer prep/court time? Or is that not an issue?

5/

The idea that anyone lies for >45 mins in a scanner WITHOUT knowing which bit is being scanned is laughable. Just another lie from an inveterate liar.

This is a very telling graphic, though I’m not sure what the hell is going on with its shape bsky.app/profile/empt...