IndexNo:641492:VxeqXedpUw
| 投稿者 | Broderick |
|---|---|
| 投稿日時 | 2016/11/05 18:01:00 |
| We'd like to invite you for an interview funny generic viagra names Before Bernanke's speech, the Bank of England will release the minutes of its latest MPC meeting at 0830 GMT, which could shed more light on whether new governor Mark Carney voted to increase the bank's asset purchases. paclitaxel versus docetaxel for early breast cancer Well, the answer is, of course! But not so much because "tempers flare" - that's a small component. ﾃつThe LARGE component is what wars are always fought for - land / resources... WHEN the billions of acres of tundra / permafrost unfreezes across Siberia and Canada, allowing this land to be good ag (grazing & crop) land, and "living on" land, you bet your azz China is going to try to "annex" in one way or another Mongolia and parts of Russia, as but one example..and if hydrocarbons are found and much easier to access in those places without the permafrost, then it will be even worse. ﾃつ Then you've also got the factors of the rainfall / precip winners and losers consequential to GW - the losers (drier areas) will need more water for ag irrigation and everything else, and will seek access to land with water on it, not to mention domestic unrest by farmers and others in new-drought areas. ﾃつBut all of this massive conflict will pale in comparison to the chaos which is coming when oil, nat gas, and coal get REALLY scarce in about 75-100 years. ﾃつWorld War II times 10, I think. ﾃつMaybe if it happens all about the same time, we can just get the violence over with. ﾃつA couple billion will die, but after adjusting to the new climate and energy-low lifestyles, there is actually great potential for an unprecedented peace era, in my view. | |