Hot or not
There are bigger things to talk about in relation to the G7, but all the same…
Bolsonaro jeers at Macron because Bolsonaro’s wife is hot and Macron’s isn’t.
That’s how we’re doing the G7? Playing Whose Wife Is Most Fuckable? Really?
French President Emmanuel Macron has lashed out at Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro for endorsing “rude” remarks about his wife.
A supporter of the Brazilian president mocked Mr Macron’s wife, Brigitte, 66, in a Facebook post.
The post contained a photo contrasting the French first lady’s appearance with that of Mr Bolsonaro’s wife, Michelle Bolsonaro, 37.
“Now you understand why Macron is persecuting Bolsonaro?” it reads.
In response to the comment, Mr Bolsonaro wrote (in Portuguese): “Do not humiliate (him)… man, ha ha.”
Hur hur. Hur hur hur hur. She ugly, geddit? That means he eunuch, geddit? Stud man get sex goddess, 37. Eunuch get urrggghhh, 66. Let the Amazon burn!
Mr Macron is spearheading efforts to get world leaders to do something about the fires ravaging parts of the Amazon rainforest.
Mr Macron has described the wildfires as an “international crisis”, which critics have blamed on Mr Bolsonaro’s anti-environmental rhetoric and lack of action on deforestation.
But Mr Bolsonaro, whose country is not in the G7, accused Mr Macron of having a “colonialist mentality”.
And a Nugly wife!
The right-wing Brazilian president has a long track record of making abusive comments about women, black people and minorities.
One of his most infamous remarks came during a heated debate in parliament with left-wing congresswoman Maria do Rosario in September 2014.
“I wouldn’t rape you because you don’t deserve it,” Mr Bolsonaro told Ms Rosario.
Mr Bolsonaro also caused uproar while talking about his own daughter during a public event in April 2017. “I have five children. I had four boys, and in the fifth, I weakened and a girl came,” he said at the time.
But his wife is hawwwwwwwt so let’s cut down some more rain forest before it all goes up in smoke.
In any ‘How Low can We Go?’ contest, Balsonaro would have to be a hot favourite to win. And this galah decides the fate of the forest that produces 25% of the world’s oxygen? He is a walking, talking and bragging international crisis all on his very own.
The burning of the Amazon is a threat to humanity because it’s a major carbon sink, but that 20% (or 25%) O2 claim is a wild exaggeration.
Thanks for that. Is it a common claim? I’m guessing it is since Foley bothered to correct it? Are people maybe confusing terms? The Amazon is / does / provides / absorbs 25% of something but producing 25% of the oxygen isn’t it?
I’ve seem the claim (usually 20%) enough that it’s stuck in my mind. Michael Mann chimes in the twitter thread to point out that he’s seen that claim a lot in the press, and he’s probably a more reliable source than me.
I have no idea about the origin of the claim, but as Dr. Foley points out, “Oxygen is not an issue here. Carbon stocks, biodiversity, regional climate, indigenous peoples are…”
Plenty of reason to be worried without the exaggeration.
Definitely, and I meant the thank you, I’m just curious.
I saw one claim the other day that it’s by far the earth’s biggest carbon sink, but I don’t think a percentage was mentioned. Is that one accurate?
Well, why not? Remember when Trumpistas compared pictures of Ted Cruz’s wife to Melania Trump? And found a picture of Ted Cruz’s wife where she was not, shall we say, at her best? And implied that was a meaningful thing to think about in a presidential race?
I am no fan of Ted Cruz, or his wife (I don’t know much about her, but anyone who could marry, and stay married to, Ted Cruz is likely not going to be on my short list of favorite people). But this is not acceptable. It wasn’t acceptable then, and it isn’t acceptable now.
Only it is, isn’t it? There is a large enough portion of the population that eats this up to elect these men to office, and support them once they are in. That is frightening. The misogyny is a feature, not a bug.
Oceans are the biggest carbon sink:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
I have a sometimes bad habit of thinking how people will react to my comments as I’m typing, and trying to head them off by adding more information which then can come across as sounding defensive or doubting the other person’s sincerity. So anyway, no need to explain.
I’m not an expert in this matter, just an educated, curious, and perhaps intelligent person with access to Google. I came across the debunking of the 20% claim the other day, and looked into it to see if it sounded legit. Which is a longwinded way of answering “I dunno” to your question. But I did come across several articles claiming that the Amazon is absorbing less carbon than expected, including this one, which may also give a clue about the 20% figure:
Speaking of wives, the picture of Melania looking to be mere seconds away from doing something naughty with Trudeau (like stepdaughter, like stepmom) is a delight. Especially hilarious is the look on the Donald’s face.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/melania-trump-trudeau-photo-memes-g7
I know, I saw that yesterday on Twitter and laughed myself silly.
The thing with the oceans as a carbon sink is that as the ocean warms it can’t hold the dissolved CO2 and it’s released back to the atmosphere. In addition, the oceans are acidifying, which not only erodes carbonates from the shells and exoskeletons of marine life, but also releases carbon from inorganic carbonates.
WaM @ #2: re ~20-25%. It is a figure I have seen bandied about, mainly via TV news etc. I also understand that so much rain comes down on the Amazon catchment, the river mouth is about the widest in the world.
Photosynthesis is by far the world’s biggest industry, and converts atmospheric CO2 into plant tissues, mainly wood. So the main human activity is unlocking deposits of fossil carbon, mainly fossil plant tissue, chiefly for their value as power station fuel and feedstock in steelmaking; so causing them to enter the atmosphere and then the oceans as CO2, from whence they can only be removed by photosynthesis or in reactions to form stable carbonates (chiefly calcium carbonate) for shallow-level sedimentary sequestration. On the way through the sea water acidified with dissolved CO2 attacks calcareous shells and corals, and probably hastens rock weathering.
A mature climax ecosystem like a rainforest will be in equilibrium with the atmosphere above it. In growth, or regrowth after clear-felling it should remove more CO2 from the column of air above it than it puts back in, though that assumes lack of oxidation of soil carbon as a result of the clear-felling. But the aim of Bolsonaro and his cronies is to convert the forest trees into cash in their own bank accounts as quickly as possible, and the timber products will never sequester atmospheric carbon as well or for even a tiny fraction of the time that the original fossil carbon deposits did.
The atmospheres of the Southern and Northern hemispheres do not mix much, but the southern and northern oceans do. Brazilian-generated CO2 rapidly becomes the whole world’s problem.
It would appear that Balsonaro assumes that the Portuguese who founded Brazil were never themselves colonialists, but were created there in situ one day some time ago as a special favour to South America, by God the Father Almighty; Himself.
Except, if that were the case, surely some preacher would have found out about it by now.
Curiouser and curiouser.