In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
I wrote several times about how a 3 celsius hotter bangladesh in 2080 would still be a far better place to live than current Bangladesh because of economic growth.
And in case they still want to move, it's not "4y old " to claim you solve the problem with violence, as all problems when other people want to take your stuff can be solved or trespass your property.
I am not going to feel responsible for people that didn't exist 100 years ago and if they wanted to explode their demographic numbers in
So you are saying you are fine with people trying to attack your country, have no problem with terrorist attacks etc..
Also if Italy were to be attacked you are also fine with no one helping you, since it's not anyone's problem.
got it
"Orange man" NOT bad.
"Orange man" good.
So you are saying you are fine with people trying to attack your country, have no problem with terrorist attacks etc..
Also if Italy were to be attacked you are also fine with no one helping you, since it's not anyone's problem.
got it
Which part of "allies" which i mentioned i think 1249112301 times in past posts isn't clear to you? but we weren't talking allies were we? As an italian i expect help from my allies, not from random countries which aren't my allies yes. I hereby solemnly swear i won't ask for Bangladesh help in case of italian problems, which is why i am not going to help them if they have problems, is that hard to understand? controversial?
Do i have to write 5 paragraphs of the same caveats every post otherwise you are going to attack the logic of a model which requires pages to be fully explicitated?
Now we are at "if bangladesh gets a little hotter we will have terrorist attacks" phase of apocalyptic porn i see.
Which part of "allies" which i mentioned i think 1249112301 times in past posts isn't clear to you? but we weren't talking allies were we? As an italian i expect help from my allies, not from random countries which aren't my allies yes. I hereby solemnly swear i won't ask for Bangladesh help in case of italian problems, which is why i am not going to help them if they have problems, is that hard to understand? controversial?
Do i have to write 5 paragraphs of the same caveats every post otherwise
From your own terms we were in the hypothetical of countries touched by climate change negatively trying to come in your country adn you said not your problem and easy to deal with.
wtf dude
it's in milan not bologna so probably lucioms cousin and not actually him
lol I was going to post something similar about that story but I'd have got the correct city.
It's curios that the idea that climate change could have made them *less* intense is not even considered as a possibility, like if climate "change" had to always be inherently negative for human beings, always a co factor increasing intensity / frequency of bad events, magically always a change to the worse.
The relationship between weather and fire risk isn't that controversial. Relatively wet weather, followed by super dry and windy weather, elevates fire risk. Those were the weather conditions in SoCal. If you want to argue that global warming was incidental to, or mitigated those weather conditions, then make the case. But I don't think you can argue that the weather conditions weren't conducive to fire.
It's almost illegal at this point to entertain the idea that change in the climate because of warming can ever have any positive effect at all, i wonder why
Almost by definition, global warming will make certain areas more habitable and arable. In other words, there will be positive effects in some areas. I doubt any climatologist would dispute that point. They just think that the positive effects will be swamped at the global level by the negative effects. I understand that you believe your corner of the world will experience positive effects and that you don't gaf what happens to people in more vulnerable areas. But most people find that worldview to be abhorrent.
it's in milan not bologna so probably lucioms cousin and not actually him
When I first scanned the blurb, I read "videos and pictures of his secret penis".
In other news, even one of the most progressive countries in the world found bipartisan agreement to remove citizenships from people who are a threat to the state.
Ofc the concept is still at the beginning and it should generalize to anyone who failed to integrate, to all crimes and so on.
Still, it is a start
it's in milan not bologna so probably lucioms cousin and not actually him
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20...
Lazio is a team in Rome not Milan.
Milan is the city the news correspondent is from
The relationship between weather and fire risk isn't that controversial. Relatively wet weather, followed by super dry and windy weather, elevates fire risk. Those were the weather conditions in SoCal. If you want to argue that global warming was incidental to, or mitigated those weather conditions, then make the case. But I don't think you can argue that the weather conditions weren't conducive to fire.
Almost by definition, global warming will make certain areas more habitable and arable.
Why do you believe the bold, have you seen a complete assessment of pros and cons and determined that, or it's just a "vibe" generated by media exposure?
Most people MIGHT declare they find my view "abhorrent" but they actually live and vote and answer in polls according to MY WORLDVIEW not that which they call "abhorrent".
Only tiny minorities of the population in western countries are willing to pay any significant price to avoid Bangladesh getting hotter and that's what you should look at, not at them calling my view "abhorrent".
I am more willing than others to say in the open things because I long ago discarded all "social shaming" dynamics from my existence, I simply truly don't give a ****.
They still play by old style bourgeois social mores according to which you pretend stuff and live according to completely different principles.
Those are the people who say blacks are absolutely perfectly healthy demographic groups then invariably as soon as they have any money move in neighbors with fewer blacks than the national proportion.
From your own terms we were in the hypothetical of countries touched by climate change negatively trying to come in your country adn you said not your problem and easy to deal with.
wtf dude
We were in that hypothetical not in the "poor people.in Bangladesh magically become good at organizing complex acts of terrors in the west".
We were in the "they try to come", my answer is you sink ships with desperados, shoot to kill on land borders, and it costs almost nothing and they stop trying.
Why do you believe the bold, have you seen a complete assessment of pros and cons and determined that, or it's just a "vibe" generated by media exposure?
Most people MIGHT declare they find my view "abhorrent" but they actually live and vote and answer in polls according to MY WORLDVIEW not that which they call "abhorrent".
You think that , most of the posters here thinks otherwise.
We are at an impasse here.
We were in that hypothetical not in the "poor people.in Bangladesh magically become good at organizing complex acts of terrors in the west".
We were in the "they try to come", my answer is you sink ships with desperados, shoot to kill on land borders, and it costs almost nothing and they stop trying.
Sureeeee!
And I'm sure Italian community around the world would also feel safer and welcomed with such responses.
Trump just won elections (with position to the far right than me on the climate, he denies warming exists and so on) and Trudeau just resigned (havijg only implemented a modest carbon tax), what does that signal you wrt propensity to pay "for the climate" in north America?
Then check how greens went in the last European elections and if you care, look in February how they will do in Germany.
Then if you want check pew polls, possibly the gold standard of polls.
People that care about climate change can be many, but when asked how much they are willing to pay lol
/
To combat climate change, 57 percent of Americans are willing to pay a $1 monthly fee; 23 percent are willing to pay a monthly fee of $40. Party identification and acceptance of climate change are the main determining factors of whether or not people are willing to pay, with Democrats being consistently more inclined to pay a fee.
/
Keep in mind what you guys asks for is an order of magnitude more than 500/year per household (which already only 23% of people are willing to pay)
Sureeeee!
And I'm sure Italian community around the world would also feel safer and welcomed with such responses.
When in Italy we had "no global" riots (a little after the Seattle riots) in Genoa, our police went into the schools the rioters occupied at night and tortured a lot of them for many hours (sometimes days).
Judges tried to jail them, the people ordering the tortures all got promoted by Berlusconi, and anti global rioters never again organized mass riots in Italy (I wonder why).
I opined that the ground in the hills above the palisades was drier than it would otherwise had been because some groundwater from there got diverted elsewhere, and that was a cofactor in the intensity of wildfires.
But 5-south already convinced me even if the above was correct, it played a minor role at most compared to other co-factors. And then there is the big ?? about arsonists, the more arsonists are behind the events the less the rest matters and viceversa.
In some sense democrats responsib
Got it, so groundwater was taken from the Palisades by the democratic leaders. What was your source or underlying facts that lead you to this conclusion?
Tonight the dope sleepy joe byden in his "farewell address" (of which is not a common thing exiting presidents usually do) said about 5 times it was his administration that brokered the deal. I was told by someone of a pretty high caibler this was 100% a lie.
He then didn't hold back by saying congress shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks while in office, maybe because his not so good ex friend polosi profited like 3x better in her trading career than any of the top investment traders or investment funds in the country. She would of worked on wall street, she was that good.
He also claimed we're all being lied to by "global rich elites", and he warned us in a similar manor when Ike Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex (which is what we now call the DS, who's since merged with other "military industrial complexes" across the world but it was actually him, his son and his family who got rich off bribes and corruption, like when he threatened if Ukraine doesn't fire the prosecute who was in the process of investigating the byden family corruption, he was cutting them off financially (the video's all over the internet, these things are in plain sight but people are willing to look the other way bc "orange man bad"). He's warning us of exactly what he's been doing all this time but that's typical of any democrat who became the party of lies, bribes and control.
The worst part of his speech was when he said climate change caused the CA fires. I'm not even gonna comment on that one. I just hope and pray Trump gets in on Monday without any surprises, but that's just me (I have info no one else has).
Got it, so groundwater was taken from the Palisades by the democratic leaders. What was your source or underlying facts that lead you to this conclusion?
*from an area north-west of the Palisades connected through underground acquifers to the Palisades (and many other areas).
I just checked strawberry and almond production nearby (highest water usage crops), then checked where the biggest production centers were, verified Oxnard is a huge producing area, verified where they got their water from.
Which part of "allies" which i mentioned i think 1249112301 times in past posts isn't clear to you? but we weren't talking allies were we? As an italian i expect help from my allies, not from random countries which aren't my allies yes. I hereby solemnly swear i won't ask for Bangladesh help in case of italian problems, which is why i am not going to help them if they have problems, is that hard to understand? controversial?
Do i have to write 5 paragraphs of the same caveats every post otherwise
But many of your “allies” you deemed them leftish .
And you keep saying the left is the worst form of evil on this planet .
And yet despite you want them to be put down , you have no trouble for asking them help when you need it ?
What am i missing?
We were in that hypothetical not in the "poor people.in Bangladesh magically become good at organizing complex acts of terrors in the west".
We were in the "they try to come", my answer is you sink ships with desperados, shoot to kill on land borders, and it costs almost nothing and they stop trying.
And I wonder why people would want to be allies with people like that and prone torture as a good things , sight. .
You must be brain dead to wish torture that could be apply in your own country .
You might not always be on the same side of the political wind blowing on the right …
And when u end up on the opposite side of the country favoured wind some years later , you would wish all your heart they would stop that torture upon you …..
While crying “where is my freedom of speech and thought “lol …
Your value are the one that actually end up killing freedom and you can’t even see it ….
The relationship between weather and fire risk isn't that controversial. Relatively wet weather, followed by super dry and windy weather, elevates fire risk. Those were the weather conditions in SoCal. If you want to argue that global warming was incidental to, or mitigated those weather conditions, then make the case. But I don't think you can argue that the weather conditions weren't conducive to fire.
Almost by definition, global warming will make certain areas more habitable and arable.
Yup .
Seem luciom disregard the fact as well that hotter condition bring more disturbance in the weather like tropical storm , tornado, etc with dire economical cost in damages …
We already see an exit in many areas of insurance companies for different reasons and the cost already is rising dramatically in yearly payments to ge assured for .
That blue trashcan didn't survive the fire lol
