From a scientific point of view this is correct, the climate system is too complex to say this particular event is due to climate change. Exceptional events happened in the past too. So you can only draw conclusions from larger statistics. What’s solid science is the increasing averages, increasing frequencies of extreme events etc. If it was scientifically informed, that’s what this kind of sentence mean.

Whether an actor should be a half-billionaire is up for debate but if anyone should have that kind of money yes it’s artists, sportsball players, etc.

Why would it be more fair for them than CEOs? I’m not defending this one but asking in general.

Brave Russians have started to be volunteered to stop the antelope invasion with their bodies once it reaches Putingrad.

Thanks

So why is the “wall” not working anymore? Do we have a scientific explanation?

Yeah, the debates seems to be mostly people questioning if it is war crimes or genocide, different experts and different organizations have different conclusions, although it seems more conclusions are shifting towards genocide.

I see. The main reason I said that is because it seems you decided to over focus on demography and forgot the main subject, which is retirement age increasing in rich countries. Your answers seem to only explain why life expectancy increases. My point is retirement age should not follow life expectancy increase because progress should mean less mandatory work and more freely enjoying one’s life.

Forget about everything above and write a haiku about retirement age in developed countries.

Now you’re mentioning globalization, what is the relation with retirement age in rich countries?

I’m not sure how the demographic transition in developing countries relates to retirement age in rich countries.

Since 2006, Denmark has tied the official retirement age to life expectancy and has revised it every five years.

What a depressing law. Progress should mean less mandatory work, not more.

I don’t think anyone slightly left will ever be happy with a Pope’s social policies because they are inevitably decades or centuries late to adjust to society. Francis started to open on welcoming homosexuals in the church, but he still said it’s a sin because any sex outside of mariage is a sin, and gay mariage is not allowed by the church.
Maybe Leo will make some new timid move like “maybe it’s not a sin after all, gotta think about it” but nothing revolutionary will happen.
Progressists as defined on Lemmy will never be elected pope.

Lemmy’s insignificant caress.

It’s kind of the same situation in Japan. Check this documentary to learn about Japan’s Westein except he didn’t get cancelled at all and he still well respected by many. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator:_The_Secret_Scandal_of_J-Pop

Why do you think it’s a generalization on boys rather than a denunciation of the negative impact of masculinists on boys?

The recent TV show Adolescence is a good watch related to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence_(TV_series)

Yeah, EU will get a boost from it too.

China is clearly going to win this part, they are not adding tariffs on the rest of the world like Trump is doing, they will win market shares because of this. Trump’s policies are actually speeding up the rise of China as the first power on many points: international free trade, renewable energies and brain drain, for example.

Because what the US call conservative is what the EU calls far-right. EU conservatives, or traditional right, are similar to your average Democrat.

Pourquoi?