Third World War

[dennis tooth]

BTW I don't think it's as simple as pointing out certain areas that we think will or may be affected by CC.

 

Meteorologists will tell you how complex the system of weather etc is, one tiny undetectable change can have a massive devastating impact elsewhere and each knock on effect reasonates, the seasons are merging and every day the weather fluctuates, the seasons fade and become less defined we can see this even now, changing hour to hour. We really struggle to predict the weather one day in advance and get it right so predicting the actual possible future effects is almost impossible, it simply can't be done. We just don't know whats going to happen.

[cochyn]

True, we can’t say for sure what will actually happen. But we can know that it will: I go along with the simple theory that the more energy in a closed system the more volatile it will become. The earth's climate won’t get drier. It will get stormier and weather events more extreme. Nothing mankind hasn’t dealt with before: millions have died throughout history in monsoons floods and millions more will. Fact of life. as I said above, there is more than our CO2 emissions pushing up the heat.

 

I’m not doubting that we’re at a fulcrum in terms of mass consumption and its effects on the planet. But I’m sure most people would rather forego a few luxuries or change commuting habits than have their country go to war over them. I’d like to think most people in the West realise we don’t actually need half the shit we get told we do. I’d like to think that if impressed upon them, the rest would realise it too. There’s more than enough to go round. It’s just a question of expectation management. We in the west – at the front of the development curve - know this and it’s incumbent on us to forge a path of just enough consumption. Future hikes in commodity prices may just be the spark to make this so.

[Stu Monty]

True, we can’t say for sure what will actually happen. But we can know that it will: I go along with the simple theory that the more energy in a closed system the more volatile it will become. The earth's climate won’t get drier. It will get stormier and weather events more extreme. Nothing mankind hasn’t dealt with before: millions have died throughout history in monsoons floods and millions more will. Fact of life. as I said above, there is more than our CO2 emissions pushing up the heat.

 

I’m not doubting that we’re at a fulcrum in terms of mass consumption and its effects on the planet. But I’m sure most people would rather forego a few luxuries or change commuting habits than have their country go to war over them. I’d like to think most people in the West realise we don’t actually need half the shit we get told we do. I’d like to think that if impressed upon them, the rest would realise it too. There’s more than enough to go round. It’s just a question of expectation management. We in the west – at the front of the development curve - know this and it’s incumbent on us to forge a path of just enough consumption. Future hikes in commodity prices may just be the spark to make this so.

 

Not sure I agree with that mate. If you put a vote to people now "Do you want to go to war with Saudi Arabia, with the aim of dropping fuel by 50%" I reckon you'd get the green light. It is after all, other people that will be sent off to do the fighting.

[cochyn]

Really? See I don't think people would. A lot of western consumers caught a cold in the credit crunch/ recession. They look back at what they bought when they were cash rich and realise it isn't worth the pain of a VLO or the real shit when interest rates start to climb. In short, I think a lot of people are starting to prioritise on necessities. Fuel is one of them, sure. But even now a lot of people are buying cars that do 70mpg+ rather than blithely continuing as they did.

 

Future providers know the agenda: green energy is huge business and a massive global growth sector, Sanyo & Mitsubishi are producing Photovoltaic cells for pennies, Lotus have designed a car using 38% less materials than a standard saloon. It's the thin end of the wedge but it's happening and it's our innovators that are driving it. Much as they always have. Joe Schmoe won't get to dictate the market. He'll have a choice between responsibly sourced item A or responsibly sourced item B. It's a means of gently steering the consumer away from the fact that there's 2 billion other people out there who want the metal your new car's made from. The companies who provide are just finding ways of making what we have goes as far as it can - including our expectations.

[dennis tooth]

Really? See I don't think people would. A lot of western consumers caught a cold in the credit crunch/ recession. They look back at what they bought when they were cash rich and realise it isn't worth the pain of a VLO or the real shit when interest rates start to climb. In short, I think a lot of people are starting to prioritise on necessities. Fuel is one of them, sure. But even now a lot of people are buying cars that do 70mpg+ rather than blithely continuing as they did.

 

Future providers know the agenda: green energy is huge business and a massive global growth sector, Sanyo & Mitsubishi are producing Photovoltaic cells for pennies, Lotus have designed a car using 38% less materials than a standard saloon. It's the thin end of the wedge but it's happening and it's our innovators that are driving it. Much as they always have. Joe Schmoe won't get to dictate the market. He'll have a choice between responsibly sourced item A or responsibly sourced item B. It's a means of gently steering the consumer away from the fact that there's 2 billion other people out there who want the metal your new car's made from. The companies who provide are just finding ways of making what we have goes as far as it can - including our expectations.

I do agree with a lot of what you are saying but I must stop short at the point where we talk of corporations looking to get good PR as the answer, its called greenwashing and I reject it out of hand as pie in the sky meself.

[cochyn]

No, totally I agree with you there. Greenwashing is the new 'Dolphin-friendly washing-up liquid'. But you can't deny that the big corporations (and they tend to be Japanese and Korean - in short those whose economies went down the shitter 10 years ago) are re-emerging with the kind of technologies that will be at the forefront of our need for resource-savvy, sustainable solutions to everyday living. They've seen this coming and have acted. All whilst the west has been flouncing around in borrowed bling for 10 years and have just had a seizure when presented with the bill.

[Section_31]

IMF hit by major cyber attack - Telegraph

 

Shit is on.

[dennis tooth]

[Section_31]

Just looking at the images and news on the beeb's website before. Ukraine, refugee crisis, Trump for president, turmoil in the EU, China's economy, Cameron being a cunt. It's all looking a bit likely isn't it?  

[Guest Pistonbroke]

It's certainly not looking good, spats all around the World at the moment, poverty is rife and the economic climate in a lot of countries is either shit or teetering on the edge. I'm 51 now and if I live to the average age for European men then a third World War could be a distinct possibility, I fear for my kids future as I'm certain they'll have the misfortune of seeing one. 

[Funkasy]

I guy was on danish television the other day saying that the world has never been more peaceful and prosperity has never been so high in the third world countries. He kept saying that the media would only show the bad stuff and not show how most countries were moving out of the shit holes they have been in for a long time. 

And then i found this in "These 39 Facts Will Leave You Feeling Smarter" on ebaums world. 

[Hades]

All of that was also true before the first two wars. 

[Funkasy]

WW1 was the sixth deadliest in history, and WW2 was the deadliest, so that's not exactly true what your saying. 

[Davelfc]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57583363

 

A Russian patrol ship and fighter jet fired warning shots towards a British destroyer in the Black Sea, reports in Russia say.

 

Moscow's defence ministry said that HMS Defender entered Russian territorial waters near Crimea.

The UK's Ministry of Defence has not yet commented. 

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 but this has not been recognised internationally.

Russia said the incident happened near Cape Fiolent in the south of Crimea and claimed the British vessel subsequently changed course.

A patrol ship fired twice and the Su24-M jet dropped four bombs in its path, the Russian reports say.

The British embassy's defence attaché has been summoned to the Russian defence ministry, Interfax news agency reported.

 

HMS Defender is a Type 45 destroyer that is part of the UK's Carrier Strike Group. It is carrying out missions in the Black Sea, according to the Royal Navy's website.

[SasaS]

I don't think WWIII would start over anything Britain does or finds out.

[Bjornebye]

Aah so lets brush this weeks tory scandal under the carpet 

[Anubis]

Kurtz getting all excited over war with China.

 

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

 

[SasaS]

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered.

[Anubis]

That MOD press release is somewhat ambiguous with use of the word ‘at’. Doesn’t rule out shots or bombs fired ahead of it as a warning.

[Section_31]

"destroyer ship"

 

Super army soldiers. 

[dockers_strike]

Putin's knackered SU24s wouldnt stand an earthly against a Type 45 like Defender and her sisters. Fuck yeah. Mess about with the Royal navy and you will get fucked over. International waters so fuck off.

[Davelfc]

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

[Anubis]

Strong Britain

Great nation

Runs away from Russian aviation…