placeholder

I should thank you for this link. Every time someone makes claims about the heavy and oppressive hand of the EU, and how the UK and other nations need to liberate themselves from it, it will use your link.

A good opinion piece uses facts to buttress its case. Are you claiming it's untrue that "the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act."?

Actually, if I'm off topic then so are you. You're the person who stated that they don't consult a certain news source. How is that relevant?

There's a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think the same goes for ignorance of the facts. Especially when it's willful ignorance.

But they are planning to leave.

And the UK now has a choice? "Under the Good Friday Agreement, signed 20 years ago in April 1998, the British government incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the domestic law of Northern Ireland through the Human Rights Act." https://www.lawsociety.ie/News/News/Stories/brexit-human-rights-and-the-good-friday-agreement

And unlike the Tories, they let the matter drop. Do you think that's a crucial difference?

As I pointed out, that's exactly the same claim that the denialists made in the wake of the 1997 record setting El Nino and consequent record setting average global temperature. . Now that temperature doesn't even make it into the top 10. Not even as high as years when a La Nina put downward pressures on temperature. In fact, despite a La Nina that lasted from 2020-2022, 2020 was virtually tied with 2016 as the hottest year ever.

Whatever it looks like, he's wasn't convicted for participating in that "tour".

Which is why Musk provided no evidence to back up his belief that Fauci should be prosecuted. He's a soul brother to Hawaiian.

Whatever the merits of that assertion may be, and they are dubious, do you believe it's a crime for someone to think that they are always right and claim that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't know what they are talking about? Sounds like you're unfamiliar with a little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution.

There's a reason aseannow.com requires links to credible sources to support an assertion. You are not a credible source when it comes to defining what poverty is. Neither am I. Neither are any of the members here on aseannow.com That is why the rules require members to link a credible source to back their claims. You linked to no credible source to justify your claim that most of Lineker's salary comes from the poor. Instead you offered your own personal assessment of what income level it takes to qualify as poor in the UK. Now, if you could link to a credible source that shows yearly income under 50000 pounds qualifies as poverty, then you win. But there is no such credible source. So, instead, you make things up. Stop making things up

Because if everyone was allowed to make up their own definitions then rational disagreement would be impossible.

Here's why your comment is incorrect. There's a climate affecting phenomenon called El Nino, It occurs irregularly but when it does, an immense amount of heat is released from the Pacific and it boosts worldwide temperatures. In 2015-16 there was a massive El Nino. So naturally that year the temperature was greater than it otherwise would have been. And why in succeeding years the temperature was mostly less. By the way, he year 2020 was statistically tied with 2016 despite the fact that there was no El Nino. So the increases continue. The last time there was such powerful El Nino was in 1997-98. Again there was an anomalously high temperature followed by years when the temperature was less. ACC denialists claimed this was proof that the temperature rise had peaked. Yet in 2022, that average temperature for 1997, wouldn't even make it among the top ten. And this despite the fact that many of those top ten temperatures occurred during years when the La Nina phenomenon occurred. This phenomenon has the effect of lowering the average global temperature. There's also a thing called regression analysis which is used to determine trends that also disqualifies your assertion. But that's for another time.

This is laughable. Why stop at 50,000?. Why not 100,000? You don't get to be an authority of one. An honest link would show what official figures judge to be the income ceiling for the poor. Or even a link to what recognized economic authorities judge that to be. Not the judgement of an anonymous member on aseannow.com.

You originally claimed most of Lineker's salary was paid for by the poor, not by "many, many" whatever that means. In addition, you called on Chomper Higgott to define poor. Apparently, it's only incumbent upon others to back up what they claim but not yourself. "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

You made the claim. It's incumbent upon you to back it up. Once again, a reminder: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Really, it's mainly the poor who pay for licenses? You have any facts to support that? Apparently you need repeat reminding of what the landing page of the World Forum says: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." What's more, Lineker's pay was 1.35 million pounds. Total BBC expenditures in 2022 were almost 3 billion pounds. A full BBC license is 159 pounds per annum. So, those pensioners' contribution to Lineker would come to 0.7 pence per annum. And, of course, many pensioners pay reduced or no fees. So they would contribute an even more exiguous amount. And this is a household fee. So if 2 or more are contributing to the cost, it would come to at most half of 0.7 pence per annum. Shocking! You've got nothing.

Before I go on to address your latest reply, I think it's time to point out your intellectual dishonesty. Honoroble people admit their mistakes, When yours are pointed out, you simply ignore that. Here's the first one I showed was false: "They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale." The IPCC report I linked to shows that to be another falsehood. I also showed your claim about flooding in Western Australia to be false. Namely this one "This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions." In fact, the worst flood in WA history was the one that took place in early 2023. It really makes for an exercise in futility when one of the parties in a disagreement refuse to acknowledge their errors.

No, it doesn't show another side of the story. If it truly showed another side of the story, it would provide alternate footage of the incidents that the prosecution used against Chansley. Airing something irrelevant is not showing "another side of the story".

When you write the kind of drivel I'm replying to, do you actually understand what it is you're doing? You're the party who created the strawman precedent by connecting a BBC sport commentator's high salary to the plight of the poor. It is to laugh.

What an empty cheap shot. Biden has confronted the Chinese far. far more strongly than any previous administration since Richard Nixon's tenure. I guess you must be desperate to find any grounds for criticism.

You're seriously claiming it's lefties who have made life for the poor worse? Crocodile tears much?

I wonder if those regions are going to start actual rebellions against this particular injustice.

Actually, the IPCC has a record of being overly conservative in its projections which consistently get revised upwards as each report is issued. In fact, your information is way out of date. I suspect that's because you get your information, or rather your misinformation, from denialist websites. At any rate here are a few quotes from Chapter 11 of the latest IPCC report which addresses the issues of climate and weather extremes. Because of the rules limiting quotes, for a more thorough examination follow the link at the bottom: "It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes." "Human influence, in particular greenhouse gas emissions, is likely the main driver of the observed global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions" "Human-induced climate change has contributed to increases in agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions due to evapotranspiration increases (medium confidence)" https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ Got it?