Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Angloriligion defends itself? Surprising, Euroriligion defines itself by POB, unsurprising

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I just wanted to post this tho

[hector13]

Has Provate Eye always been £1.80? I thought it was upwards of two quid...

[Loud Whispers]

Nah, Private Eye was £1.50 for a long time, now it's £1.80. Don't think it's ever been £2

[hector13]

Having worked night-shift for two years at Sainsburys and read Private Eye during my breaks, I probably should have known that.

I'll blame it on the fact it's fortnightly.

[Starver]

Having worked night-shift for two years at Sainsburys and read Private Eye during my breaks, I probably should have known that.

I'll blame it on the fact it's fortnightly.

Or that you never, ever, paid for it..?   

(@LW, in passing: it's "slew of", not "sleuth of", in the context of whatever post it was that you said that...)

[Loud Whispers]

Very right

[wierd]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/theresa-may-republican-retreat-visit-speech/

All hail the rise of Oceania!

[Loud Whispers]

"The institutions upon which that world relies were so often conceived or inspired by our two nations working together," she is due to say.

Explains why the world is so fucked lmao

[wierd]

I know the PERFECT way to stop this unholy union.

Just remind the Brits that they are a very proud people, and ask them if "If you can't beat them, join them" sounds like a good mantra. Throw in some lively imagery of George III, and the Boston tea party. Add a few more cameos of things like 'Here Comes Honey BooBoo' and 'Jackass'.

Americanism-- EVERYWHERE.  So long Keeping Up Appearances--- You will be replaced on BBC with some horrible American supernatural romance series.

[martinuzz]

Watch Sam and Dean Enfield battle demons in the name of the Crown

[Loud Whispers]

I know the PERFECT way to stop this unholy union.

Reviving the Spanish Empire?

Just remind the Brits that they are a very proud people, and ask them if "If you can't beat them, join them" sounds like a good mantra.

Lmao that's just the remain slogan

Throw in some lively imagery of George III, and the Boston tea party. Add a few more cameos of things like 'Here Comes Honey BooBoo' and 'Jackass'.
Americanism-- EVERYWHERE.  So long Keeping Up Appearances--- You will be replaced on BBC with some horrible American supernatural romance series.

Those are easily the least offensive things in regards to Americanism tbh

[Radio Controlled]

I'd certainly rather follow America's lead than Germany's (or, kek, Sweden's), particularly now that Trump's gotten in and begun improving things.
Though I'd prefer if they kept their guns to themselves.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Friday's meeting between May and Trump brings.

Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.

For example:

Climate Change Hastened Syria's Civil War
Human-induced drying in many societies can push tensions over a threshold that provokes violent conflict

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Climate change can make storms stronger, cold spells longer and water supplies drier. But can it cause war? A new study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says drought in Syria, exacerbated to record levels by global warming, pushed social unrest in that nation across a line into an open uprising in 2011. The conflict has since become a major civil war with international involvement.
 
Drying and drought in Syria from 2006 to 2011—the worst on record there—destroyed agriculture, causing many farm families to migrate to cities. The influx added to social stresses already created by refugees pouring in from the war in Iraq, explains Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who co-authored the study. The drought also pushed up food prices, aggravating poverty. “We’re not saying the drought caused the war,” Seager said. “We’re saying that added to all the other stressors, it helped kick things over the threshold into open conflict. And a drought of that severity was made much more likely by the ongoing human-driven drying of that region.”
 
Seager added that the entire Middle East “faces a drier, hotter climate due to climate change. This will stress water resources and agriculture, and will likely further increase risk of conflict.” Global warming is desiccating the region in two ways: higher temperatures that increase evaporation in already parched soils, and weaker winds that bring less rain from the Mediterranean Sea during the wet season (November to April).
 
A number of research efforts in recent years have suggested that warmer temperatures and drought increase the risk of violent conflict around the world. A 2009 study found that over the past 30 years in sub-Saharan Africa, temperature rise correlated with an increase in the likelihood of civil war. A 2011 study implicated climate change in pushing up food prices in Egypt, fueling revolution there.
 
Trouble related to drought in the Middle East may get worse. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that human effects on climate change will make the area drier than it would have become without the manmade influences.
 
The U.S. Defense Department is taking the warning seriously. It issued a report last November declaring climate change a "threat multiplier” that will impact national security. When Scientific American asked Seager if his group’s research supports that point of view he said, “Yes. It does. Climate change is very much a cause of concern for national, regional and international security and this study makes clear how that can work. The Syrian war has now taken on a life of its own…however, a drought made worse by climate change was one important factor that initiated the social unraveling.”
 
Colin Kelley, a climatologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who led the work while finishing his doctorate at Lamont-Doherty, concurred, but was also careful to state that severe droughts can have a catalytic effect and contribute to, but not cause, civil unrest.
 
Although snowstorms and rising sea levels garner more of the headlines about extreme weather driven by climate change, drought is quickly rising as the most troublesome, near-term impact. Another paper in PNAS suggests links between global warming and the terrible, ongoing drought in California. Although civil unrest is far less likely there, tension is indeed growing between political leaders in northern and southern California over who gets the increasingly scarce water from rivers, underground aquifers and snow melt, all of which are declining.

Perhaps you should look up the term 'lifeboat Britain'. I think you'll like it.

[Starver]

Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.

Interestingly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792

As to "lifeboat britain", I'm mostly being sent to the RNLI, although it seems to be a reddit thing that I may peruse later, but I was minded to make a comparison to the fate of HMHS Brittanic in a documemtary not long ago.  There's plenty of analagy available for both sides of the argument to exploit, for example the E-deck portals being left open, but my take-home is that most of the deaths were in the first two lifeboats launched (prematurely) with mostly stokers/firemen and got drawn into the rising blades of a propeller, probably because the water had rushed through the supposedly closed-off boilerman's tunnel between boilerooms was left unexpectedly open (and thus also making the E-deck portals an issue that they might not otherwise have been).

[Radio Controlled]

Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.

Interestingly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-38760792

As to "lifeboat britain", I'm mostly being sent to the RNLI, although it seems to be a reddit thing that I may peruse later, but I was minded to make a comparison to the fate of HMHS Brittanic in a documemtary not long ago.  There's plenty of analagy available for both sides of the argument to exploit, for example the E-deck portals being left open, but my take-home is that most of the deaths were in the first two lifeboats launched (prematurely) with mostly stokers/firemen and got drawn into the rising blades of a propeller, probably because the water had rushed through the supposedly closed-off boilerman's tunnel between boilerooms was left unexpectedly open (and thus also making the E-deck portals an issue that they might not otherwise have been).

It's primarily a thing from Gwynne Dyer's book Climate Wars. I could try to look for a video where he explains it if you want or can't find it yourself.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah, who needs a climate anyway. Let us all follow the US' glorious example and deny scientific consensus and its implications. With some luck we can get a couple more decades of delicious cheap energy going, then when the fallout starts hurting the most vulnerable regions the most we could perhaps throw up some nice border walls and keep the nastier externalities away.

I don't think anyone was referring to environmental policy, and I'm sure this is purely a hypothetical as given the choice between following the USA or Germany, we'd all much rather pick none and be the UK. Germany is no example to follow either, we would be replacing lazy Americanism with vapid Merkelism. Look at the example Germany sets; instead of humanitarian aid, take selfies with migrants - all to show the world how virtuous and wise you are, without needing to put any of the effort and sacrifice needed to be virtuous and wise. So when things inevitably get cocked up by your ineptitude, you just hide the wounds and allow Europe to bleed - shutting down all Germany's nuclear plants because hurr duur nuclear science scary is as much a detriment to basic common sense as Trump, Germany now has more coal plants operational that it has in two decades. It really is impressive when a green candidate turns out to be blackest coal, suckling on Putin's gas for support. Oh and she's stopped now because her policies put too much strain on Germany's energy grid and raised costs too high. What a great success for the world to emulate!

More seriously though the UK cannot follow the USA's steps when it comes to energy policy. We do not have a vast store of coal, gas or oil to exploit, as the Americans do with their Texan friends. We are running along similar tracks in regards to the nation-state versus the Sweden >yes party that has commanded Europe for a few years. Fortunately we're going big with nuclear and I hope succeeding parties in the UK continue this policy. One thing to learn from failed projects in the UK in developing renewable sources of energy is that our failures often go unnoticed because unlike Germany, we did not rush headlong whilst ignoring the simple realities of power generation. There's also something fortunate in our failures in that they show that with time, development of power-storage and rising costs of gas and oil, renewable energy sources can one day become economical, reliable and environmentally responsible. Certain failures like biofuels showcase how green is not always green even when working as intended; you should not kowtow to concensus, it is rather dangerous to believe in whatever consensus is when all it takes is one correct person regardless of consensus to advance scientific research. Seems obvious but it is worth pointing out anyways that scientific breakthroughs often act in spite of scientific consensus, competely changing how we see everything ten times over

On the topic of border walls, more BAOs and maritime patrols does the job better for immigration control. We only really have a need for walls in order to control flooding, erosion and land loss from rising sea levels. The French did build an immigration wall with England and they made the English pay for it which I'm sure the Americans would approve, and I think the UK would agree such funds spent helping the French is beneficial to both of our nations. That's nothing compared to the Japanese kaiju wall

Perhaps you should look up the term 'lifeboat Britain'. I think you'll like it.

~o.o~
Can't find it I'm afraid. From the sounds of the term I'm guessing it has something to do with many of the billions of people who would be displaced in a catastrophic disaster such as a global famine or drought seeking for stable nations to settle, such as the UK, or lifeboat Britain.