AI summarized it pretty well! :)

While I'm sure there are some evangelicals who believe climate change is 100% real but they think it's also good because it'll mean Jesus returns sooner....by far very few evangelicals actually are of that mindset, lol.

Most just adopt the Republican narrative that climate change is fake and an excuse to regulate the economy more.

It's about money, not religion, for 99% of deniers.

It's a money/culture thing, not a religion thing.

Yeah, Christians exist who say climate change isn't real because only God can control climate. Christians also exist who believe God said to be a good steward of the Earth and take care of it.

Most of the conservatives who don't think climate change is real don't believe that for religious reasons. They overall tend to think that climate change is an overblown concern that's a trojan horse justification for letting the government regulate more things.

That's basically it.

They think "scientists promoting climate change studies come largely from elite universities, which by far tend to be very left-leaning, and left leaning folks support more government control over our lives (especially business things), so this is just a conspiracy to justify the government taking more of our money away through taxes and regulations."

Here's a summary:

The article "The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong" challenges the long-held assumption that men were the primary hunters and women were the primary gatherers in our evolutionary past. This assumption, often referred to as the "Man the Hunter" hypothesis, has been deeply ingrained in popular culture and scientific discourse.

However, mounting evidence from various fields, including anthropology, archaeology, and exercise physiology, suggests that this simplistic division of labor is inaccurate. The article highlights several key points that contradict the traditional view:

1. Women are physiologically well-suited for endurance activities, including hunting, due to their higher aerobic capacity and fat utilization efficiency.

2. There is a growing body of evidence from archaeological sites and ethnographic studies that indicates women actively participated in hunting in various societies across different time periods and cultural contexts.

3. The assumption that women's childcare responsibilities limited their hunting activities is challenged by observations of women hunting with their children in present-day hunter-gatherer communities.

In conclusion, the article argues that the "Man the Hunter" hypothesis is no longer supported by the available evidence and that a more nuanced understanding of gender roles in human evolution is necessary. Women played a more significant role in hunting than previously thought, and their contributions were essential for the survival and success of our ancestral populations.

They probably don't care. They get paid hourly to ignore your tickets.

My nosebleed Taylor Swift concert tickets were cheaper than this, and I didn't miss a single scene of the show.

Beyoncé really thinks she's better than Taylor?

Perfect. This makes sense, thank you.

how? I just use Sync for Lemmy and it seems like everything is down when lemmy.world is. I don't really know how Lemmy works, or where different things I subscribe to are based.

Ahh. Didn't know about the tax breaks. Makes sense. You know, as much as if "makes sense" to be forcing people to spend more time and money traveling instead of working or spending time with their families.

They've invested a lot of money in office real estate and hate that it's going to waste.

But see this makes no sense. The money invested is gone (or contractually tied up). Using it won't make it a good investment.

It's like if you bought a car and then moved somewhere where you're like 1 minute walking from work, the grocery store, the hair salon,.and the best restaurants, and you never travel otherwise. The money spent on the car is objectively wasted. Using your car unnecessarily to drive places you (a) wouldn't normally go to or (b) don't need a car to get to is not only pointless, but actually costs MORE MONEY because of gas and maintenance (or for a building, energy and cleaning).

Worst argument though. The building has already been paid for or has a lease. Using or not using it won't bring that money back. The only thing that can bring the money back is subleasing it. Even not using it saves some money (energy bills).

The Indian rice export ban, the war in Ukraine and El Niño are combining...

There's a war in El Niño? What does that even mean? I thought El Niño was a weather thing, not a location.

Mine should be obvious.