# AEMET anuncia onda de calor, para Espanha, a partir de 4ª feira



## rbsmr (24 Ago 2010 às 02:22)

Texto Integral em:
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/795453/0/ola/calor/peninsula/


----------



## duero (24 Ago 2010 às 03:26)

Nao ha melhor jornal que ese en España?

A credibilidade de 20 minutos e tanta como a credibilidade do primeiro rapaz que vejas por a rua, ainda mais, eu acredito mais na opiniao de calqueira pesoa da rua antes que o que diz 20 minutos. 

Nem tome molestia en olhar para a noticia, eles sao expertos en fazer "sensacionalismo", ainda nao vi una noticia en 20 minutos que fora certa.

É pena o gasto en eucaliptos para fazer eso, melhor deixar os eucaliptos no monte que fazer con eles ese "jornal".

O 20 minutos fizera que eu tivera pena por os eucaliptos, pois antes de ese jornal eu nao tinha pena nenhuma por eses arvores.

Plantar eucalipto é un crimen ao medio ambiente. Fazer 20 minutos con os eucaliptos é un crimen ao medio ambiente e un crimen contra a saude mental das pesoas.


----------



## Dan (24 Ago 2010 às 09:41)

> Aviso Especial de Ola de Calor
> 
> 23/08/2010  Ola de Calor
> 
> ...



fonte


----------



## J.S. (24 Ago 2010 às 11:50)

duero disse:


> Nao ha melhor jornal que ese en España?
> 
> A credibilidade de 20 minutos e tanta como a credibilidade do primeiro rapaz que vejas por a rua, ainda mais, eu acredito mais na opiniao de calqueira pesoa da rua antes que o que diz 20 minutos.
> 
> ...



What is wrong with eucalyptus, Duero? What is good about one plant and not good about others? Like humans, all plants are equal to me. And I see nothing wrong with plants that change the landscape, like new humans from other countries change cultures, architecture, cities, what we eat and listen too.

I think the biggest problem with the native/nonnative issue is the mindset of the people and the strong belief that natural=good (no, it is even more than good) and that humans are for some reason doing "unnatural" things. That has always been some sort of argument. I have come across many studies, including about, Eucalyptus that show us that even IF we accept the biodiversity dogma as a standard, these forests do very well. Certainly when they age and exactly in a region (like California) where they are still portrayed as ecological deserts, much like the coniferous forests over here in The Netherlands. Thorough, peerreviewed research tells us otherwise.

The level of scientific argument in ecology does in fact not rise much above the newspaper you seem to despise. It lacks scientific basis, it takes examples as fact, portrays living things like pests, villains, aliens without solid proof or even a clear description of what that means. Without a clear, unbiased view on them. And eradication if, as ever with these sort of systemic thoughts that surpass empathy and respect for life itself, is always the answer. Destruction of life becomes a good thing...Some life is better than other life or some life should live where it belongs. And a small part of the population decides that.
It is in fact aching strongly and on the very same basis to what we see in culture when newcomers arrive: change is bad, they are no good, they have a detrimental effect etc. They become worthless, their lives are not valuable and so the killing starts.

An example of double standards (just a simple one): Betula pendula is called a "pioneer" species when it grows on the heath. Prunus serotina is called "invasive" when it does the same thing. Exactly the same thing. It is just a simple example of many.
I can also talk about whole habitats that are only able to survive with human assistance (is that than natural suddenly) while whole forests are cut down because these are "unnatural".

The problem is resting one thing: some people just cannot deal with change and develop a singlesided view on that what changes. Some people have very narrow thoughts about how nature HAS TO look like. And so leftwing people, who are very open and tolerant in general to cultural changes and despise the extreme right in politics and who want to get rid of immigrant (foreign people, races etc) show virtually the same intolerance when it comes to changes in nature. 

.


----------



## rbsmr (24 Ago 2010 às 16:07)

Obrigado! A sério que não sabia que o 20minutos era assim. Nós por cá também temos duas pragas de nome «TVI» (tv) e «Correio da Manhã» (jornal) (outra já desapareceu e chamava-se «24 horas» (jornal).

Duero, recomendas algum site de notícias em Espanha (penso que do «El Pais» será bom mas já agora queria conhecer outros) ?




duero disse:


> Nao ha melhor jornal que ese en España?
> 
> A credibilidade de 20 minutos e tanta como a credibilidade do primeiro rapaz que vejas por a rua, ainda mais, eu acredito mais na opiniao de calqueira pesoa da rua antes que o que diz 20 minutos.
> 
> ...


----------



## duero (24 Ago 2010 às 16:58)

Para ver un exemplo de como é 20 minutos.

Un tema que tamben falamos con o forero SOCIOMETEO aqui no meteopt.

O estudio genetico da España dio que o 70% dos españoles temos o gen R1b, que é o "gen ibérico", mais o resto da poboaçao tinha outros genes como o I (moito común nos germanos, mais tambén en tudos pobos de Europa), E3b (dos mouros do Norte da Africa), J, I (ambos dos pobos do mediterraneo oriental, e ainda outros como o gen G.

A noticia foi mesmo asim: 20% somos judeus e 10% árabos, só o 70% somos geneticamente iberos.

Os cientificos que fizeram o estudio nunca dizeram eso, só dizeram as porcentagems e os povos que seguramente foram origen de esos genes.

Eles despois da noticia dizeram iso, e ainda mais, que é verdade que "só" o 70% é o gen de origem ibérico, mais ninguem falo de genes propios judeus no estudio, pois eles sao moito heterogeneos geneticamente.

Eles falaram que un 8% (nao 10) tinha o gen E3b (dos mouros), mais o outro 22% foram otros pobos, romanos, germanos, cartagineses, gregos, fenicios e tambén posivel algo de judeu. Mais o mais probavel que o gen I (mais do 10% da poboaçao e segundo gen de España) fora dos germanos, é o J e I sao do mediterraneo oriental, mais poderan ser dos fenicios, gregos, ou tambén judeus, mais eses genes sao o 12% da poboaçao nao 20% e poderam ser de outros pobos.

Na noticia do 20 minutos nao falaban dos germanos (sao ainda mais importantes que os mouros na genética ibérica) nem os romanos, nem os gregos, nem os fenicios.


OUTRO EXEMPLO, E ESTE É PERSONAL, POIS EU TINHA RELAÇAO CON ELA.

Una pesoa compro un mosteiro velho que estaba a caer, e en ruinas, ele levantou de novo o mosteiro, fizera excavaçao e encontro coisas antiguas, eu ajudei na investigaçao historica, mesmo eu fizela, e fizemos descoberta de coisas importantes da historia, como un rei medieval (filho de princesa portuguesa por certo, matara a un traidor).

A pesoa nao tivera ajuda nenhuma da administraçao, nenhuma. 

Ele fizera una festa no mosteiro para recaudar dinheiro para fazer melhoras no mosteiro, a finalidade era que o dinheiro que pagaban os invitados fora para melhorar as obras do mosteiro, nao para esa pesoa (ele ten o seu trabalho e nao precisa de eso), pois ten pequena empresa, nao grande, e pequena empresa propia.

Eu estive lí.

A noticia en 20 minutos fora:

"EMPRESARIO HACE GRAN FIESTA EN UN MONASTERIO MEDIEVAL"

Falaban que o empresario fazia festas no mosteiro e esmagaba o patrimonio.

Cando ele comprou o mosteiro era casi ruina, e estava a caer, a administraçao nao fazia nada, e ele comprou e levantou con esforzo e seu dinheiro.

Mais o 20 minutos estava a dizer que era grande empresario que gostava de esmagar e fazer ruina con o patrimonio medieval.
E as pesoas a comentar falaban que o estado tinha que meter a pesoa na prisao, na carcel, que adminstraçao tinha que espropiar o mosteiro, tudos falaban mesmo asim, mais as pesoas que comentaban nao tinhan culpa, pois a noticia mesmo parezia asim. Eu fize un comentario a dizer a verdade, e contar tuda a historia, mais meu comentario só estivera 10 minutos e despois o meu comentario desaparezeu, eles fizeron desaparezer o meu comentario que dizea a verdade.

Nunca mais volteir a leer ese "jornal", nao conhezo os intereses dos donos do jornal, mais nao gosto das pesoas que fazen censura e fazen manipulaçao e "sensacionalismo".



A noticia


----------



## duero (24 Ago 2010 às 17:13)

En temas de meteorología eu nao leo os jornais, pois eles sempre fazen "manipulaçao", e "levan a sardinha para eles".

EL PAIS, e un jornal perto a socialismo e a izquierda, e eu tenho visto noticias meteorológicas que sao mesmo "sensacionalismo".

Cando AL GORE, falo da mudanza climatica, para EL PAIS, AL GORE ERA DEUS.

Falaban de que o home é responsavel de tudo, que vamos a mudar o clima para sempre, que vamos fazer do planeta deserto mesmo, e ainda mais, por vezes os comentadores de EL PAIS falaban (penso que ainda falan) que O CAPITALISMO É O CULPAVEL DA MUDANZA DO CLIMA, O SISTEMA CAPITALISTA ESMAGA O PLANETA, a culpa que NEW ORLEANS ficara baixo a agua é.......DO CAPITALISMO. 

NEW ORLEANS FICABA BAIXO A AGUA POR O CAPITALISMO.

O culpavel fora o capitalismo e BUSH que estava a gastar dinheiro en guerras e entao nao tinha dinheiro para as pesoas de NEW ORLEANS, porque esas pesoas ainda mais sao pretas, e BUSH nao gosta dos pretos, e o capitalismo nao gosta dos pretos, e por iso NEW ORLEANS ficaba baixo a agua e ninguen fazia nada.

Mesmo asim eles estavan a dizer.

Sempre fazen o mesmo, calqueira noticia "levan a sardinha para eles".


----------



## duero (24 Ago 2010 às 17:44)

J.S. disse:


> What is wrong with eucalyptus, Duero? What is good about one plant and not good about others? Like humans, all plants are equal to me. And I see nothing wrong with plants that change the landscape, like new humans from other countries change cultures, architecture, cities, what we eat and listen too.
> 
> I think the biggest problem with the native/nonnative issue is the mindset of the people and the strong belief that natural=good (no, it is even more than good) and that humans are for some reason doing "unnatural" things. That has always been some sort of argument. I have come across many studies, including about, Eucalyptus that show us that even IF we accept the biodiversity dogma as a standard, these forests do very well. Certainly when they age and exactly in a region (like California) where they are still portrayed as ecological deserts, much like the coniferous forests over here in The Netherlands. Thorough, peerreviewed research tells us otherwise.
> 
> ...



I don't have any problem with eucaliptus, when them are in Australia.

The true problem its when one plant destroy and expel to the other, when one plat "conquer" the territory of native plants, like happen today in Portugal or Nortwest Spain with eucaliptus. 
200 years ago, that areas were oak forest (Quercus robur, pyrenaica) or other native species (Quercus ilex).

Another example:

Today the soy is grown in 15.000.000 ha in ARGENTINA. More extension that Portugal, and Holland together.

The soy destroy the soil of the PAMPA, and thosand of farmers are expelled of his lands.

THE SOY ITS A BIG PROBLEM IN COUNTRIES LIKE ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY, URUGUAY OR BRASIL.

You can to ask the people from Brasil in this forum about the soy and eucaliptus. 

How many small farmer have been expelled from his lands in Sout America?

_"And so leftwing people, who are very open and tolerant in general to cultural changes and despise the extreme right in politics and who want to get rid of immigrant (foreign people, races etc) show virtually the same intolerance when it comes to changes in nature."_

I would prefer don't speak about this. You live in Holand. I don't thik that you need I explain you about islamic culture, and his traditions, and his conduct wiht homosexual people, or women people.
In "red neighboorhood" of Amsterdam muslims have attacked to homosexual guys.
Holland its a traditional tolerance country, but I know Amsterdam and Rotterdam and I think that with some "cultures" tolerance have limits.


----------



## J.S. (24 Ago 2010 às 23:32)

Homosexuality....foreigners and muslims especially. This is a perfect example of mixing up facts and examples

1) 81% of the hatecrimes towards homosexuals was commited by native dutchmen, not MArrocans. I liked this example in other discussion so much I have these numbers in my head..So the focus is on intolerant muslim MArrocans which are scrtinised, but the facts tell a different story
2) researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims. They don't express themselves in the same way, because of political incorrectness. Also recently researched. Can look it up, if you like. Than you get the link.

Perfect example! Perfect! And you believed it were the muslims...Like most people btw. 

Another nice link: homosexuality was heavily condemned because it was UNNATURAL. And now, the spread of species by mankind is also called unnatural and like muslims, a threat etc. Fact: mankind has always moved species around, knowingly and unknowlingly. Like Aboriginals and Dingo's, polynesians throughout the PAcific and we since 1500 or so, Oh...Arabs introduced the mongoose and the Genetcat, dates, figs and Romans Olives etcetc...It is what we do.

Besides: ecologist are the only scientist I know of who defend their right to use valueladen language in scientific studies, which is a clear indicator that they are not the unbiased researchers they should be in order to provide us objective data on the subject and let US as a society decide. Instead, they rvert to valueladen words about creatures and plants in which they judge them as bad (like: alien, pest, aggressive, prolofic, a threat, a danger, dangerous, killing, weed, smothering etcetc). Sax and Gaines in one link show you much more examples. 

Historians do not decide what belongs in our culture, they can only signal changes and what has been gone and what not. Society decides if they like the change. Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do. They are very biased in general and it shows. The facts are against them and mounting.

So the Eucalyptus belongs in Australia? How about white people in SouthAmerica: shall we all kill them or take them back to Spain and Portugal?
North Americans: all back to Ireland, England, Holland etc? Mugabe thinks it is a good idea, as you might have seen..
Shall we eradicate all cultural influences on our countries, because a group of historians says it is better and new influences are badm, despite the fact that most of us like various cultures? 

To show you some work of ecologists about this topic (critical work), here are some links of Dov Sax and others on the subject. They notice almost the same things I notice: the current trend of eradicating new species simply borders on xenofobia and is highly unscientific. I am currently writing a book on this topic.

A very short one by Mark Davis, a former fervent nativist ecologist.
http://sutroforest.com/2009/09/28/new-scientist-message-enhancement/

A rather harsh one, an opinion of scholar in the Jerusalem post with some good points (I think):

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=165872

Niceone on the double standards here. Native rats causing havoc on Queensland, but that is no problem...they are native! And then you are a- Okay! Welcome in the wonderfull, joyfull world of nativists!

http://www.savingpets.com.au/2010/01/page/2/

The best one of all: all extinctions researched by Dov Sax and Steve Gaines: the conclusion is clear. On continents newcomershave not caused asingle extinction through competition (in particular)!

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/suppl.1/11490.full.pdf+html

And here is waht Sax and Brown have to saym in an exchange of scientific letters, about xenophobia and the scientific attidude of his collegues. The firstone is the last letter and the best one (there are three in total) in which they react to Cassey et al, who claim that ecologist DO have the right to judge and that they indeed are the ones to tel what should be done, based on their skills. They are wrong. Sax tells you why. Especially at page 483. I find this an excellent answer and very true.

http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/Biological%20invasions.pdf






duero disse:


> I don't have any problem with eucaliptus, when them are in Australia.
> 
> The true problem its when one plant destroy and expel to the other, when one plat "conquer" the territory of native plants, like happen today in Portugal or Nortwest Spain with eucaliptus.
> 200 years ago, that areas were oak forest (Quercus robur, pyrenaica) or other native species (Quercus ilex).



If I like Eacalyptus, it is good. So it depends on what you like. There are however zero etinctions because of competition. If you don't like change, which is you right of course, it is not nice. But if Eucalyptus is stronger than other than that is nature.




> Another example:
> 
> Today the soy is grown in 15.000.000 ha in ARGENTINA. More extension that Portugal, and Holland together.
> 
> The soy destroy the soil of the PAMPA, and thosand of farmers are expelled of his lands.



Is it the soy or is it the monoculture of any plant? The problem here i habitatloss and has nothing to do with introduced species. And what does destrcution mean? Is there in fact no soil or has it changed? 



> THE SOY ITS A BIG PROBLEM IN COUNTRIES LIKE ARGENTINA, PARAGUAY, URUGUAY OR BRASIL.



Humans are the big problems if you like biodiversity, not any plant. 7 billion of us is a very big problem. Not any plant. If I would have planted potatoes, we would have a simlar problem.



> You can to ask the people from Brasil in this forum about the soy and eucaliptus.



Like you can ask duthc people about the problems with muslims I guess...right. The problems in those countries have all come about when exactly??? I tell you: when Europeans came to those countries. Get rid of the Europeans and the problems are resolved (and the locals must live like in 1500). Won't happen.



> How many small farmer have been expelled from his lands in Sout America?



I am vegetarian: soy is planted for animalfood. Don't eat animals, you do the Earht a great favour. Much less Co2 problems also. Meat is the single most problem for Co2 problems...Are you a vegetarian?
Besides: I buy biological food and food that supports small farmers.Nothing against them, but it is a bit of topic.

_"And so leftwing people, who are very open and tolerant in general to cultural changes and despise the extreme right in politics and who want to get rid of immigrant (foreign people, races etc) show virtually the same intolerance when it comes to changes in nature."_

I would prefer don't speak about this. You live in Holand. I don't thik that you need I explain you about islamic culture, and his traditions, and his conduct wiht homosexual people, or women people.
In "red neighboorhood" of Amsterdam muslims have attacked to homosexual guys.
Holland its a traditional tolerance country, but I know Amsterdam and Rotterdam and I think that with some "cultures" tolerance have limits.[/QUOTE]

See my remark above. There are very little problems with 95% of the muslims. I had a MArrocan girlfriend for a time. And I am 100% pro women rights and equality, but others have the right to think different and express themselves. It is called deomocracy. That does not stop when democracy gives way to developments I do not like. That is the start of a dictatorial regime. No thanks. And muslima's are protected here and there are more problems with them than Dutch girls, but still there are very few problems in total..

Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy.


----------



## duero (26 Ago 2010 às 16:57)

J.S. disse:


> Homosexuality....foreigners and muslims especially. This is a perfect example of mixing up facts and examples
> 
> 1) 81% of the hatecrimes towards homosexuals was commited by native dutchmen, not MArrocans. I liked this example in other discussion so much I have these numbers in my head..So the focus is on intolerant muslim MArrocans which are scrtinised, but the facts tell a different story
> 2) researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims. They don't express themselves in the same way, because of political incorrectness. Also recently researched. Can look it up, if you like. Than you get the link.
> ...



See my remark above. There are very little problems with 95% of the muslims. I had a MArrocan girlfriend for a time. And I am 100% pro women rights and equality, but others have the right to think different and express themselves. It is called deomocracy. That does not stop when democracy gives way to developments I do not like. That is the start of a dictatorial regime. No thanks. And muslima's are protected here and there are more problems with them than Dutch girls, but still there are very few problems in total..

Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy.[/QUOTE]



J.S. disse:


> Homosexuality....foreigners and muslims especially. This is a perfect example of mixing up facts and examples
> 
> 1) 81% of the hatecrimes towards homosexuals was commited by native dutchmen, not MArrocans. I liked this example in other discussion so much I have these numbers in my head..So the focus is on intolerant muslim MArrocans which are scrtinised, but the facts tell a different story
> 2) researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims. They don't express themselves in the same way, because of political incorrectness. Also recently researched. Can look it up, if you like. Than you get the link.
> ...



See my remark above. There are very little problems with 95% of the muslims. I had a MArrocan girlfriend for a time. And I am 100% pro women rights and equality, but others have the right to think different and express themselves. It is called deomocracy. That does not stop when democracy gives way to developments I do not like. That is the start of a dictatorial regime. No thanks. And muslima's are protected here and there are more problems with them than Dutch girls, but still there are very few problems in total..

Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy.[/QUOTE]

*"researh has shown that Dutchmen are no less intolerant than muslims."*

Sorry, I don't think so. Holanda sempre fora una das naçoes mais tolerantes da Europa, mesmo cando a expulsao dos judeus de España (1492) e Portugal (1497) moitos judeus foran a Holanda, un descendente fora o filósofo BARUCH SPINOZA.

Holanda sempre foi pais de tolerancia religiosa e de habitos liberales en materias como sexualidade ou mesmo en materia de "sustancias", mesmo hoje é o único país onde o haxixe e marihuana sao legales.


*"Arabs introduced the mongoose and the Genetcat, dates, figs and Romans Olives etcetc...It is what we do."*

Nao sei se entendí. Os arabos introduzeran a mangosta e a geneta, sim, mais eles nao introduzeran os dateis, nem os figos nem os olivos. Dateis e figos ja houvera con os romanos, e os olivos fican aqui dende milenios, ainda hoje ha olivos con mais de 2000 anos.

*"(like: alien, pest, aggressive, prolofic, a threat, a danger, dangerous, killing, weed, smothering etcetc)."*

Nao sao inventos dos cientificos ecologistas, sao palavras que identifican.
A vaca, o cabalo, o porco, sao "aliens" en America, a raza de cao DOBERMAN é agresiva e perigrosa, eu nunca senti que a raza de cao CHIHUAHUA fora perigrosa nem agresiva.

*"Historians do not decide what belongs in our culture, they can only signal changes and what has been gone and what not. Society decides if they like the change. Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do. They are very biased in general and it shows. The facts are against them and mounting."*

*Ecologist are in no position to advise others to act or not. But they constantly do.*

Eles dao o aviso, mesmo é como se a una pesoa que fuma tabaco vose dize que deve ter coidado pois pode ter doenças respiratorias, mais vose pode deixar o tabaco ou vose pode continuar a fumar. Ninguen obliga, só avisan.

*So the Eucalyptus belongs in Australia? How about white people in SouthAmerica: shall we all kill them or take them back to Spain and Portugal?
North Americans: all back to Ireland, England, Holland etc? Mugabe thinks it is a good idea, as you might have seen..*

Nao é que MUGABE fizera eso en RHODESIA ha unos anos? os descendentes dos británicos foram expulsos de lá. Moitos "tornaram" para Gran Bretaña, embora a maioria nasceran en Rhodesia e nunca estiveran en Gran Bretaña.

En América nao é posivel, pois nao podemos comparar a colonisaçao dos británicos ou holandeses con a que fizeram os povos ibericos.

Os povos ibéricos fizeram mestizaje e fizeram melhorar a aquelas pesoas con cultura, os britanicos e holandeses nao fizeram eso.
Os britanicos e holandeses fazian apartheid (a palavra holandesa mais internacional). Eles nunca adaptaban a nova terra, eles vivean mesmo como na sua terra, eles nunca fizeram integraçao con os poboadores.

Mesmo INDONESIA, hoje ninguem fala holandés, tudos falan as linguas de indonesia e inglés, mais ninguem fala holandes.
Mesmo os pretos de Sulafrica poucos falan o afrikaans, ainda mais, no SURINAME moitos falam papiamento que é mais perto do portugues que do holandés.

Os pretos de Angola,  de Cabo Verde, moitos chinos de Macao e tudos os brasileros falan portugues.

Os indigenas de Bolivia, de Peru, e Guatemala, embora falan sua lingua tambén falan español.

Nas antiguas colonias holandesas nao ha mestizos, só ha pretos, ou indonesios ou brancos.

Nas antiguas colonias dos povos ibericos ha eso, mais en moitas áreas ha mulatos e mestizos.

NAO COMPARAR O QUE FIZERAM OS HOLANDESES CON O QUE FORA OS TERRITORIOS DE ESPAÑA E PORTUGAL, FOI TUDO MOITO DIFERENTE, e acho que melhor. 

HOJE OS TERRITORIOS "EX-IBERICOS" FICAN MELHOR QUE OS TERRITORIOS "EX-HOLANDESES".

O cono sul fica melhor que Sudafrica.
Suriname pode ser o peor da Sulamerica.
Indonesia fica peor que Bolivia (o menos desenvolvido de Sulamérica)

Nao é tema para fazer comparaçoes, mais esto é para olhar que nao tudos fizemos as mesmas coisas, nem foramos iguais.

As diferencias sociologicas-etnicas, entre Sulafrica e Brasil ou Cuba sao moito grandes. No Brasil e Cuba nao ha as diferencias raciais de Sulafrica, no Brasil ha diferencias sociais (en Cuba oficialmente nao ha diferencia social nenhuma) mais no Brasil ha brancos que moran en favelas, e pretos que moran en boas casas, e en Cuba tanto pretos como brancos sao iguais, iguais de pobres, mais iguais.

Na Sulafrica eso nao acontece, ninguem branco mora nos township, e ninguen preto mora nas áreas residenciais.

OLHANDO PARA SULAFRICA E BRASIL/CUBA, UNA PESOA VE QUE NAO TUDOS FORAMOS IGUAIS, NEM FIZERAMOS MESMAS COISAS.

NAO COMPARAR IBEROAMERICA CON O QUE FIZERAM BRITANICOS OU HOLANDESES.


*Shall we eradicate all cultural influences on our countries, because a group of historians says it is better and new influences are badm, despite the fact that most of us like various cultures? *

MESMO ESO ESTAMOS A FAZER DENDE HA SECULOS.

Dende ha seculos estamos a fazer eso. Nao conhezo tanto a lingua portuguesa, mais tambén acho que é asim.

Na lingua castelhana cando ha dous palavras para una coisa, una áraba e outra latina, sempre debemos tomar a latina.

HOJE A POBOAÇAO JA EN MOITAS OCASIOES NAO CONHECE A PALAVRA ARABA, E SÓ CONHECE A LATINA.

EXEMPLOS DE PALAVRAS QUE SAO MESMA COISA.

PISCINA/ALBERCA (swiming pool)
HUCHA/ALCANCIA (piggy bank)
CASTILLO/ALCAZAR (castle)
TERRAZA/ALCOBA (terrace).

Sempre a palavra latina fora preferida, pois precisabamos de LIMPAR A LINGUA, e hoje mesmo ha muitas palavras que a poboaçao nao conhece, como as palavras ALBERCA e ALCANCIA, que maioria nao conheze e tudos dizen PISCINA e HUCHA.

Oficialmente na lingua española ha un 8% de arabismos, mais na lingua diaria os arabismo nao sao nem o 2% pois mitade de total de arabismos ja só fican en diccionarios, pois a poboaçao esqueceu por a educaçao recibida, e por que era obligatorio dende ha 500 anos LIMPIAR A NOSA LINGUA.


*Is it the soy or is it the monoculture of any plant? The problem here i habitatloss and has nothing to do with introduced species. And what does destrcution mean? Is there in fact no soil or has it changed?*

ITS THE SOY. 

Gostaria de lembrar que no Sul de España e no Sul de Italia ha moitas áreas que sao monocultivo de OLIVOS, tudo olivos, sempre olivos.

Gostaria de lembrar que no Suleste de Portugal ha moitas áreas que sao monocultivo do SUFREIRO (Quercus suber).

Nao ha problemas con os monovultivos de olivos nem con as áreas onde practicamente tudo sao sufreiros, pois eles aqui sao nativos e autoctonos.

Mesmo en Holanda houvera sempre áreas con monocultivos de Tulipan (tulip), e holanda fizera grande negocio con eles, e nao ha problema nenhum na terra.

Por soposto, fico de acordo que quem levara a soya (soy) a Sulamerica (o ser humano) é o principal culpavel, sen duvida nenhuma.

*"Humans are the big problems if you like biodiversity, not any plant. 7 billion of us is a very big problem. Not any plant. If I would have planted potatoes, we would have a simlar problem."*

Estranho dizer eso cando moras en Holanda.

Nao estou seguro mais aprox. estes sao os dados:

Holanda: 40.000 km2 e 16.000.000
Belgica: 35.000 km2 e 10.000.000
Suiza: 45.000 km2 e 5.000.000
Dinamarca: 45.000.000 km2 e 5.000.000

Holanda+Belgica+Suiza+Dinamarca= 165.000 km2 e 36.000.000

URUGUAY

175.000 km2 e 3.500.000

URUGUAY é como 4 holandas, mais ten 4'5 vezes menos a sua poboaçao.

URUGUAY é mais grande que holanda belgica suiza e dinamarca tudos juntos, mais ten a décima parte de poboaçao.


PARAGUAY

400.000 km2 e 8.000.000

10 vezes mais grande que holanda e mitade de poboaçao que ela.


ARGENTINA

2.500.000 km2 e 40.000.000

Mesma poboaçao que España mais en un territorio 5 veces mais grande.


BOLIVIA

1.000.000 km2 e 9.000.000

Aprox. a poboaçao portuguesa en un territorio 10/11 vezes mais grande.


SI VOSE OLHA PARA SULAMERICA, VOSE PODE COMPROVAR UNA COISA

SULAMERICA É UN ÁREA CON MOITO POUCA POBOAÇAO, EN RELAÇÁO AO TERRITORIO.

Mesmo o Brasil ten pouca poboaçao, embora sejan perto dos 200 milhoes.

Sao 200 milhoes en un área como 90 vezes Portugal ou 200 vezes holanda.



*Like you can ask duthc people about the problems with muslims I guess...right. The problems in those countries have all come about when exactly??? I tell you: when Europeans came to those countries. Get rid of the Europeans and the problems are resolved (and the locals must live like in 1500). Won't happen.*

Eu nao tenho complejo de culpavel nenhum embora haja moitas pesoas en Europa que pensan que eles sao culpaveis de o pasado histórico, mais eu nao penso asim.

E esa teoria penso que esta moito ben na holanda, na Alemanha, na Gran Bretana, ou mesmo na França, mais,..........................lembra que estamos en un foro portugues e eu sou español.

Para nos a historia nao é asim, nos nao foramos a esas naçoes, foram eles que estiveram por ca, mais de 500 anos no sul de Portugal e mais 700 no Suleste de España.

Esas teorias de que nos foramos para as suas naçoes sao validas lí, sao boas para os holandeses, alemaes, franceses, britanicos, mais nao para nos. 

Os musulmaos falan do imperialismo europeo, mais por estas terras foram eles os que fizeram imperialismo.

Nos nao foramos para eses paises, foram eles que vinheram por cá. Nao esquecer que este e foro portugués, as palhasadas de "pobo invadido, povo escravizado e pobo roubado" que fazen os musulmanes sao validas para holanda ou frança ou outros paises de por lá, mais esas palhasadas aqui nao sao validas.


*Newplants and creatures are the scapegoat for the problems in the planet, if that is your view, WE cause. And muslims are the scapegoat for problems caused by a very small minority and in fact the need for the US to have some sort of enemy*

No último fico de acordo, os USA sempre estao a procurar "enemigos".

Os españoles foramos os seus grandes "enemigos" en 1898.

Despois foram os pobos de "latinoamerica" e os seus dictadores.

Despois foram os alemaes na II WW

Tambén foram os japoneses.

Despois tamben os vietnamitas (guerra de vietnam)

Tambén foram os rusos (ata 1990)

Mais tamben foram os serbios (finais do S.XXI).

Hoje pareze sao os musulmaes.

Sim, en esto vose ten razao, mais gostaria de lembrar que eses mesmos musulmaes levan 60 anos a dizer que tudos os judeus sao terroristas, levan 60 anos a dizer que os judeus sao asesinos, levan 60 anos a fazer "criminalizaçao" dos judeus.
Agora USA esta a fazer mesma coisa con eles, mais eles agora nao gostan de eso, cando estao a fazer eso con os judeus dende ha 60 anos.



Acredito que esta conversa ja ha tempo que fora para OFF TOPIC, e estamos a perder o sentido original do tema.

Acredito que a conversa derivo en outras coisas que dao para outros topics de OFF TOPIC, mais no tema a falar, e para nao entrar ainda mais en temas "políticos" gostaria dizer que a soja (soy) ou ecualipto sao plantas agresivas, que destruien os habitats e a vida de moitas pesoas na Sulamerica, pois expulsan da suas terras.

Fico de acordo que o problema nao é o eucalipto nem a soya, pois sao plantas como as outras, o problema é cando o home leva esas plantas a territorios e áreas onde nao sao nativas, entao ha un grande problema, e esas plantas convertense en expansivas e destruien os chaos e a natureza.

Como eu estou a dizer gosto do eucalipto (mais en Australia).

Mais o culpavel primeiro é sempre o ser humano, que esmaga con moitas coisas e con a natureza.


----------



## J.S. (26 Ago 2010 às 18:22)

Well...difficult to react on that one. You seem to have mixed up some quotes of mine.

If you talk about dutch tolerance, it is a thing of the past. I live here. So I can tell you. And research has shown that the hate against homo's is real and it is we and not muslims who commit most (by far) the hate crimes against them (the homosexuals). Those are the facts. 
If we talk about the past, suffice to say that Muslims were very tolerant until the Christians (like Bohemund, Tancred and other butchers) went on the crucades and brutalised mulsims in their country.
Let me be clear: I do not like the Islam at all. But I have no rpoblem with the people nor am I in to getting facts mixed up with peoples belief.

We went to South America and North America, I was not talking about we going to Marroco. So is it good, if it would be possible, to send all the people back to where they came from in your  opinion??

Dates, figs and olives (most of all olives by far!) of course are now monocultures or found everywhere. Here comes the strange disctinction you make: because you are familiar with them and may be think they belong here they of course have replaced other plants. You did not witness that. But because it is in the past, it is okey. Now Eucalyptus and other plants (over here we see Pseudotsuga and Picea species doing very well) made their entry. But now we say that that change is bad. 

What you prefer or not is not my point, it is everybodies right. But scientists are not in that position in their role as a scientist. Saying, like you can read, that their view on how to judge species is superior to others is a mistake readily made in the past by others. They do not have a better preference, although they can express it outside the scientific field all they like. But they do not, they use it within their scientific work. 

Now I can say that the artic is loosing ice at a statistical significant rate as long as I can prove the loss is statistically significant. I cannot however say that my profession as a climatologists uniquely qualifies me to also say the loss of ice is bad nor good. It is just changing. what it is is a personal thing.

Saying things are a pest, alien, a threat, agressive etc are valuejudgements that colour scientific work and gives way to a very singlesided look of students on living things. It is no different than eugenetic thoughts in 1900 saying that Jews were not only different, but also inferior. Or black people...
This was accepted not only in Germany, but in more northern European countries with a result most of our current society finds very pitful at least.

So how is Birch that covers heath (itself not a "natural" habitat and therefor interesting for many plants to colonise) a "pioneer" and how is a prunus serotina, which does exactly the same a "pest". If you want to be unbiased, the same rules apply and the rules do not become different because of your origin. And that is what happens in ecology bigtime, like you also do: whether you are good or bad is not based on what you do but rather on who does it. If it is a tree or plant or animal you personally like/accept it is good. If some plant you don't like, it is bad.

So Eucalyptus: which Spanish or Portuguese plants are brought to extinction by this tree? What makes it and why is the olivetre, which has replaced most likely woods and changed it into some sort of steppe, good?

The funny thing is that many people who say that they love nature, have little faith in natural interactions and think that they themselves as humans have to assist nature. We see in The Netherlands that without doing anything, all would be wood over here. So people cut trees etcetc to keep a habitat that is by their standards only possible with human assitance. If however other species start to grow, introduced by other people, they cut them down because this is "unnatural". How is changing a whole habitat, like the countless hectares of Olives or heath in The NEtherlands good and aceptable, but introduving a species into a habitat bad? Why are past introductions good and present bad? Has somehting changed in time that has suddenly made all introductions bad. Strange thing.
One thing has been proven time and time again: the most abundant life is found in woods, even exotic forests like Picea in the UK contain more life than the countryside maintained by ecologists and others. That is a fact too.


Nature doesn't care and does not ask for any assitance at all. The problem in nature people seem to witness is caused by us. Not soy, nor any plant has ever caused a single extinction. They themselves, like the olives, dates, palmtrees, tsuga, pseudotsuga etc have by their own presence enhanced biodiverisity. So the introduction of plants and animals have a net effect and that is more biodiversity. 

But I see this and your thought on Eucalyptus and to me it shows that we will never become good in accepting differences. The time will come that we will again kill people not because of what they do, but because who they are just like we kill plants and animals for their origins and not for their deeds. It leeds to pain, suffering and injustice.


----------

