If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy don't many of the Republicans in the House and Senate believe in climate change?Are any celebrities actually leaving now that Trump has won the presidency?Has the United States ever had a travel ban similar to the current one?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Why do people believe that efforts against climate change are futile even though they accept that the climate is changing?Why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of whether or not it's due to human activity?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?Did any or many conservative news outlets report on the new IPCC climate change report today?What would be the effect of a change in the US Senate?How can half agree with the 3 percent of research that can't

writing variables above the numbers in tikz picture

Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?

What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation

The difference between dialogue marks

What force causes entropy to increase?

How to charge AirPods to keep battery healthy?

Does HR tell a hiring manager about salary negotiations?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Short story: man watches girlfriend's spaceship entering a 'black hole' (?) forever

Likelihood that a superbug or lethal virus could come from a landfill

Old scifi movie from the 50s or 60s with men in solid red uniforms who interrogate a spy from the past

How do I free up internal storage if I don't have any apps downloaded?

Kerning for subscripts of sigma?

A word that means fill it to the required quantity

Can we generate random numbers using irrational numbers like π and e?

What is this sharp, curved notch on my knife for?

How to type a long/em dash `—`

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?



If climate change impact can be observed in nature, has that had any effect on rural, i.e. farming community, perception of the scientific consensus?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy don't many of the Republicans in the House and Senate believe in climate change?Are any celebrities actually leaving now that Trump has won the presidency?Has the United States ever had a travel ban similar to the current one?How is it that the USACE found there will be no significant environmental impact of DAPL?Why do people believe that efforts against climate change are futile even though they accept that the climate is changing?Why is the climate change debate so often framed in terms of whether or not it's due to human activity?Has any relevant American politician ever admited that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie?Did any or many conservative news outlets report on the new IPCC climate change report today?What would be the effect of a change in the US Senate?How can half agree with the 3 percent of research that can't










4















Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have be very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



  • California has had multiple years of drought.

  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

  • Global land and ocean temperature anomilies

Now, clearly some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










share|improve this question




























    4















    Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



    If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have be very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



    Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



    • California has had multiple years of drought.

    • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

    • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

    • Global land and ocean temperature anomilies

    Now, clearly some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



    Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



    * If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










    share|improve this question


























      4












      4








      4








      Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



      If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have be very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



      Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



      • California has had multiple years of drought.

      • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

      • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

      • Global land and ocean temperature anomilies

      Now, clearly some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



      Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



      * If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.










      share|improve this question
















      Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.



      If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have be very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.



      Some examples of persistent weather patterns:



      • California has had multiple years of drought.

      • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.

      • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.

      • Global land and ocean temperature anomilies

      Now, clearly some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.



      Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.



      * If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.







      united-states climate-change






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      JJJ

      6,36222456




      6,36222456










      asked 4 hours ago









      Italian PhilosopherItalian Philosopher

      1,050314




      1,050314




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



          I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



          First few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




          The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




          Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




          In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



          Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



          The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







          share|improve this answer






























            0














            Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



            As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



            Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



            This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "475"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40512%2fif-climate-change-impact-can-be-observed-in-nature-has-that-had-any-effect-on-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3














              Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



              I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



              First few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




              The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




              Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




              In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



              Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



              The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







              share|improve this answer



























                3














                Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



                I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



                First few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




                The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




                Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




                In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



                Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



                The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







                share|improve this answer

























                  3












                  3








                  3







                  Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



                  I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



                  First few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




                  The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




                  Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




                  In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



                  Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



                  The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.







                  share|improve this answer













                  Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such), however, they don't always agree it's due to human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth), then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.



                  I will quote some research to illustrate my point.



                  First few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:




                  The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.




                  Another more accessible article by Scientific American:




                  In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.



                  Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."



                  The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  JJJJJJ

                  6,36222456




                  6,36222456





















                      0














                      Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



                      As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



                      Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



                      This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        0














                        Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



                        As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



                        Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



                        This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          0












                          0








                          0







                          Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



                          As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



                          Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



                          This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.






                          share|improve this answer













                          Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.



                          As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.



                          Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.



                          This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 3 hours ago









                          Mozibur UllahMozibur Ullah

                          1,774815




                          1,774815



























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40512%2fif-climate-change-impact-can-be-observed-in-nature-has-that-had-any-effect-on-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

                              2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

                              Mortes em março de 2019 Referências Menu de navegação«Zhores Alferov, Nobel de Física bielorrusso, morre aos 88 anos - Ciência»«Fallece Rafael Torija, o bispo emérito de Ciudad Real»«Peter Hurford dies at 88»«Keith Flint, vocalista do The Prodigy, morre aos 49 anos»«Luke Perry, ator de 'Barrados no baile' e 'Riverdale', morre aos 52 anos»«Former Rangers and Scotland captain Eric Caldow dies, aged 84»«Morreu, aos 61 anos, a antiga lenda do wrestling King Kong Bundy»«Fallece el actor y director teatral Abraham Stavans»«In Memoriam Guillaume Faye»«Sidney Sheinberg, a Force Behind Universal and Spielberg, Is Dead at 84»«Carmine Persico, Colombo Crime Family Boss, Is Dead at 85»«Dirigent Michael Gielen gestorben»«Ciclista tricampeã mundial e prata na Rio 2016 é encontrada morta em casa aos 23 anos»«Pagan Community Notes: Raven Grimassi dies, Indianapolis pop-up event cancelled, Circle Sanctuary announces new podcast, and more!»«Hal Blaine, Wrecking Crew Drummer, Dies at 90»«Morre Coutinho, que editou dupla lendária com Pelé no Santos»«Cantor Demétrius, ídolo da Jovem Guarda, morre em SP»«Ex-presidente do Vasco, Eurico Miranda morre no Rio de Janeiro»«Bronze no Mundial de basquete de 1971, Laís Elena morre aos 76 anos»«Diretor de Corridas da F1, Charlie Whiting morre aos 66 anos às vésperas do GP da Austrália»«Morreu o cardeal Danneels, da Bélgica»«Morreu o cartoonista Augusto Cid»«Morreu a atriz Maria Isabel de Lizandra, de "Vale Tudo" e novelas da Tupi»«WS Merwin, prize-winning poet of nature, dies at 91»«Atriz Márcia Real morre em São Paulo aos 88 anos»«Mauritanie: décès de l'ancien président Mohamed Mahmoud ould Louly»«Morreu Dick Dale, o rei da surf guitar e de "Pulp Fiction"»«Falleció Víctor Genes»«João Carlos Marinho, autor de 'O Gênio do Crime', morre em SP»«Legendary Horror Director and SFX Artist John Carl Buechler Dies at 66»«Morre em Salvador a religiosa Makota Valdina»«مرگ بازیکن‌ سابق نساجی بر اثر سقوط سنگ در مازندران»«Domingos Oliveira morre no Rio»«Morre Airton Ravagniani, ex-São Paulo, Fla, Vasco, Grêmio e Sport - Notícias»«Morre o escritor Flavio Moreira da Costa»«Larry Cohen, Writer-Director of 'It's Alive' and 'Hell Up in Harlem,' Dies at 77»«Scott Walker, experimental singer-songwriter, dead at 76»«Joseph Pilato, Day of the Dead Star and Horror Favorite, Dies at 70»«Sheffield United set to pay tribute to legendary goalkeeper Ted Burgin who has died at 91»«Morre Rafael Henzel, sobrevivente de acidente aéreo da Chapecoense»«Morre Valery Bykovsky, um dos primeiros cosmonautas da União Soviética»«Agnès Varda, cineasta da Nouvelle Vague, morre aos 90 anos»«Agnès Varda, cineasta francesa, morre aos 90 anos»«Tania Mallet, James Bond Actress and Helen Mirren's Cousin, Dies at 77»e