Highgate

Yeah, if Nadezhdins' support were to build and become seen in public....it could have been very embarrassing for Putin.  No wonder they found a way to disqualify him.  
His manifesto states that he is  “a principled opponent of the policies of the current president." and is against “unjustified use of military force against other countries” and is for “cooperation with Western countries.”  A former ally of Nemtsov too. 
What a shame that guy isn't the president of Russia.  

Yeah, if Nadezhdins' support were to build and become seen in public....it could have been very embarrassing for Putin.  No wonder they found a way to disqualify him.  
His manifesto states that he is  “a principled opponent of the policies of the current president." and is against “unjustified use of military force against other countries” and is for “cooperation with Western countries.”  A former ally of Nemtsov too. 
What a shame that guy isn't the president of Russia.  

Tucker Carlson is not a journalist. He was a presenter on an entertainment show. Remember always, Fox News told so many lies they had to self classify as entertainment instead of news. 

You spent so long on that reply that you totally forgot to mention about Musk agreeing that the deep state are turns kids in LBGTQ and that the Dems have started a civil war!
It worked though, the thread then moved into a valid debate about who should or shouldn't be interviewed.  
I loved this bit though: "Carlson has been by far the most watched political commentator in America, yet lost his voice when dumped by the legacy media."
He was dumped by Fox News! About the same time they paid out millions to the voting company whom they lied about fixing the election. And Carlson now interviews Putin on a platform ran by a lunactic who laughably thinks the deep state is turning kids gay and who also runs a communications network that can impact on warfare between two European countries!
It's been a bad couple of years to have Musk as your hero. What would he have to do for you to even slightly question your undying support of him? Call a guy who rescues kids from a cave a child abuser? Promote wild, unsubstaniated theories that politician's families attacked at home were just the victims of spurned gay lovers, not the victims of lunatics beliving the constant stream of garbage pumped out by the likes of Fox News/Musk?
 

It's not just that Tucker Carlson isn't a good journalist, he is a truly appalling...actually I hesitate to use the term journalist...TV personality or whatever he is.  
This is a man who helped cost his own employers, Fox News, nearly $800million dollars, for constantly repeating false conspiracies about Dominion voting machines. Lies that's his own text messages proved that he didn't believe.  Carlson was singled out in particular in the lawsuit for his 'knowing and reckless disregard of the truth'. 
Surely, nobody could listen to Carlson describe the Jan 6th as peaceful protests and consider him a journalist of any standing. In fact, the Kremlin have chosen Putin's interviewer well as Tucker has repeatedly dismissed criticisms of Putin and has often parroted Kremlin propaganda in relation to the invasion of Ukraine.  Given that the interviewee is an inveterate liar himself, whose notion of the truth is merely what serves his and Russia's interest (or more correctly what he thinks is in Russia's interest), I really don't think we will learn much of value from this dialogue. 
I'm not against the interview in principle or the broadcasting of it, but anyone hoping that Carlson interviewing Putin will restore journalistic standards will be disappointed to say the least. 
 

It's not just that Tucker Carlson isn't a good journalist, he is a truly appalling...actually I hesitate to use the term journalist...TV personality or whatever he is.  
This is a man who helped cost his own employers, Fox News, nearly $800million dollars, for constantly repeating false conspiracies about Dominion voting machines. Lies that's his own text messages proved that he didn't believe.  Carlson was singled out in particular in the lawsuit for his 'knowing and reckless disregard of the truth'. 
Surely, nobody could listen to Carlson describe the Jan 6th as peaceful protests and consider him a journalist of any standing. In fact, the Kremlin have chosen Putin's interviewer well as Tucker has repeatedly dismissed criticisms of Putin and has often parroted Kremlin propaganda in relation to the invasion of Ukraine.  Given that the interviewee is an inveterate liar himself, whose notion of the truth is merely what serves his and Russia's interest (or more correctly what he thinks is in Russia's interest), I really don't think we will learn much of value from this dialogue. 
I'm not against the interview in principle or the broadcasting of it, but anyone hoping that Carlson interviewing Putin will restore journalistic standards will be disappointed to say the least. 
 

It seems though that Biden's blatant pro Israel bias might hurt him in the upcoming election.  
Not that the other option will be any better for the Palestinians mind.... 
You'd have to wonder what the situation in Israel/Palestine would be now, if the US had been an honest unbiased influence throughout the decades rather than always staunchly pro Israel, and blocking whatever the UN was trying to accomplish in the region. 
The sad truth is, even as many of the younger generation in the US are now questioning the US's automatic reflexive support for Israel against the Palestinians, both of their next Presidential candidates are among the most pro-Israeli presidents there has ever been in the White House.  

Totally agree mate , but there was some on here questioning his effort for the rest of the season after his move was announced 

Very good performance from Max yesterday , can’t fault his professionalism, help us to promotion Max as a leaving present COYR

From the BBC:
More than 800 serving officials in the US and Europe have signed a statement warning that their own governments' policies on the Israel-Gaza war could amount to "grave violations of international law".
The "transatlantic statement", a copy of which was passed to the BBC, says their administrations risk being complicit in "one of the worst human catastrophes of this century" but that their expert advice has been sidelined.
It is the latest sign of significant levels of dissent within the governments of some of Israel's key Western allies.
One signatory to the statement, a US government official with more than 25 years' national security experience, told the BBC of the "continued dismissal" of their concerns.
"The voices of those who understand the region and the dynamics were not listened to," said the official.
 
Full story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68177357

While I can't see any negatives for Palestinians from this earth shattering insight from David Cameron I do believe it's a hollow gesture. Protecting their image.
There are many states that already recognise Palestine. 
And while the UK halts funding to UNWRA over the allegations of 12 of it's people. It continues to cheer on Israel.
What Cameron says has no weight. The terms will ultimately be dictated to Palestinians by their enemies? Again. 
Now I'm not a fully signed up member of Hamas yet and I thought I made that clear 50 pages ago. So on the flipside here you're walking the tricky tightrope of graciously giving Palestinians the rights of self determination and trusting them not to determine to attack Israel. 
Which will be extremely likely if Israel don't make concessions. Still likely even if they do, as some Palestinians see the entirety of Israel as illegal occupation. 
The best we are hoping for is de-escalation. 
So Cameron suggesting a Palestinian State can exist working around the Israeli government under conditions determined by the likes of Britain is a pipe dream. It's pleading to voters. Hamas and Zionists won't respect that. America wouldn't respect that!
Who knows how you find the balance between national security for Israel and giving the Palestinians the freedoms we enjoy? Not David Cameron and Co.
A true positive step would be to defy America and call for a ceasefire. To open lines of communication with Hamas, Fatah, Netenyahu etc. To stop providing Israel with weapons. Don't undermine South Africa. Don't say it's self defence. You know, just stop gaslighting peace protesters. 

I've seen a lot of anger that the ICJ haven't ordered a ceasefire but while Hamas threaten Israel and hold hostages then they couldn't do much more. 
But the facts are that Israel's conduct is wrong in the eyes of the UN, Amnesty Int, WHO, Save The Children, Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross, International Court of Justice among many other human rights organisations. 
No more "collateral damage" and "war is ugly". The ICJ dealt a killer blow to that narrative. 
The leaders of democracy, justice and freedom will now explain to you why you shouldn't listen to the laws that we all agreed would protect humanity. 

An excellent article here which covers all the reasons why 
https://lasp.colorado.edu/mop/files/2019/08/Humans-Will-Never-Colonize-Mars.pdf
 

Feels like they are openly laughing in our faces with it too
COP28 was held in the UAE and the president was Al Jaber -  the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company!
COP29 is in Azerbaijan - a country whose main export is oil and the President of the conference this time is Mukhtar Babayev, a former employee of Azerbaijan's national oil company 🙄
These are the people coming up with the roadmap...hmmmm

You’d think, at the very least, there would be some sort of public commitment to reduce cost on fossil fuels by like 10% a year for 10 years or something. At the minute there’s just no plan at all.
they say ‘no petrol card sold after 2030’. But with no actual wind down plan, so they end up having to kick the can down the road.
they just keep talking  and talking and no one actually does anything, or commits to anything.
its all so frustrating, when we can all see a pathway to a better future, but, as you say, it’s just politics, and a few rich people afraid to lose their power, getting in the way. 

The good news is that a full transition renewable power is now entirely within our capabilities.  If we, and especially our governments, were so inclined it could all be done in the not too distant future. 
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
It will take a lot of effort to update and improve the infrastructure that's required, but it's completely feasible.  Maybe if we use the $7 trillion dollars a year we spend on fossil fuel subsidies (according to the International Monetary Fund) on renewables and their infrastructure instead then that would be a big help!!
Another promising factor is that solar and wind power and now the cheapest forms of energy on the planet. The transition can't happen overnight of course and fossil fuels will still have to used in ever decreasing amounts until the renewable capacity was complete, but the main obstacles to overcome now are mental and political ones. The technology already exists.
 

You mean like calling people ignorant or trolls 😂( not you by the way👍), as for parties I’m very clear I have no faith in any of them 

The good news is that a full transition renewable power is now entirely within our capabilities.  If we, and especially our governments, were so inclined it could all be done in the not too distant future. 
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
It will take a lot of effort to update and improve the infrastructure that's required, but it's completely feasible.  Maybe if we use the $7 trillion dollars a year we spend on fossil fuel subsidies (according to the International Monetary Fund) on renewables and their infrastructure instead then that would be a big help!!
Another promising factor is that solar and wind power and now the cheapest forms of energy on the planet. The transition can't happen overnight of course and fossil fuels will still have to used in ever decreasing amounts until the renewable capacity was complete, but the main obstacles to overcome now are mental and political ones. The technology already exists.
 

The good news is that a full transition renewable power is now entirely within our capabilities.  If we, and especially our governments, were so inclined it could all be done in the not too distant future. 
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html
It will take a lot of effort to update and improve the infrastructure that's required, but it's completely feasible.  Maybe if we use the $7 trillion dollars a year we spend on fossil fuel subsidies (according to the International Monetary Fund) on renewables and their infrastructure instead then that would be a big help!!
Another promising factor is that solar and wind power and now the cheapest forms of energy on the planet. The transition can't happen overnight of course and fossil fuels will still have to used in ever decreasing amounts until the renewable capacity was complete, but the main obstacles to overcome now are mental and political ones. The technology already exists.
 

And still it goes on. Great to see Cameron sabre-rattling too. What a time to be alive, eh! 

And that is definitely worth being worried about. As finite as fossil fuels are, so are any number of resources that are used to make things that are thrown away. It’s all part of the big picture that adds to climate change. 
but then recycling another one. I do my bit, I recycle. But ultimately, it’s not me that’s going to make a difference. It’s institutional, organisational recycling on a massive scale. I find it crazy that it’s not in legislation yet to ban plastic packaging. If you’re a manufacturer, you should have to make a special application to use plastic packaging. Alternatives should be the default. Plastics only where necessary.
i can get behind the idea of just stop oil, but there should be a just stop plastic movement too. Just pull the plug and let the manufacturer’s deal with it. Some are taking it upon themselves, but it should be built into legislation and the choice taken away from companies. 

I think everyone who reads this thread knows your point of view at this stage. If people don't agree with you, it's not because they don't know what you mean.
I know you see yourself as a balanced voice trying to reason with extremists and alarmists of all varieties.  But we all see our own arguments as balanced and reasonable. So don't be so sure that you are the balanced and moderate one. 
Naturally I see my own views on this subject as moderate and from my perspective you are the outlier. We are all biased in favour of ourselves. We'll just have to agree to disagree as usual. 

I'd rank it as the number 1 threat right now.
But looking back and considering how close we came to nuclear war, in 1962 and 1983 in particular, sends a chill down the spine. Single decisions by single individuals seem to have averted a full scale nuclear war between the 2 superpowers on two separate occasions. And who knows there may have been other occasions too.  So those were close calls for humanity to say the least.
Climate change is a much more difficult fix though, so there is that to consider also. Particularly when some people still don't even consider it to be a serious threat.