Koffiekamer « Terug naar discussie overzicht

Kabinet Rutte III, vertrouwen in de toekomst ???

53.714 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 ... 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 » | Laatste

Omlaag ↓

luchtschip 3 januari 2020 21:35

quote:
Chiddix schreef op 3 januari 2020 20:23:
De SP raadt het af een marineschip van Nederland naar de straat van Hormuz te sturen. Pas eind deze maand vertrekt het schip. Defensie zegt, dat vooralsnog de missie gewoon doorgaat.
Verschillende politieke partijen vinden de militaire actie van de VS te ver gaan(doden Iraanse generaal in Irak).
Wat kromme gedachten? Wat heeft die generaal op zijn kerfstok?

Die Generaal heeft zoveel op zijn kerfstok, daar is een heel lange kerfstok voor nodig.

Hij was het hoofd van Qud, en had de leiding over Qud's troepen en terroristische groeperingen in Iraq, Lebanon, Syrie en Yemen.

Hij was opdrachtgever voor het doden van vele mensen in die landen.
Hij steunde Assad in zijn aanval op de bevolking (onder meer fosfor bommen)
Hij gaf leiding aan terroristische organisaties als Hezbollah
Hij was verantwoordelijk voor de vele gedode Amerikaanse soldaten in het Midden Oosten.
Hij was verantwoordelijk voor de aanval op de US diplomatieke post in Benghazi in 2012.

Hij is een vele malen gevaarlijker en moordzuchtiger persoon dan Osama Bin Laden.

luchtschip 3 januari 2020 21:43

quote:
DurianCS schreef op 3 januari 2020 20:28:
[...]
Geen idee, maar wat deed deze generaal in Irak?

Iran is al heel diep geïnfiltreerd in het Irakese politieke systeem middels de Shi'itsche bevolking.
Iran heeft veel agenten in Iran geplaatst die de bevolking onderdrukken.

Deze generaal Soleimani heeft daar de leiding over.

Irak's Prime Minister Mahdi is een zetbaas van Iran.

Iran heeft een weg nodig naar haar Hezbollah bondgenoten in Libanon, en die weg gaat door Iraq en Syrie.

Iran voert grote controle uit over Iraq, Syrie (samen met Assad en Putin) en Libanon.

Het antwoord op de vraag is simpel.

Wat deed deze generaal in Iraq.

Hij is er in principe de baas.
Totdat de US er een einde aan maakte, door hem met een raket uit te schakelen.

[verwijderd] 3 januari 2020 22:08

Shashi Roopram bij Jensen: verstandige denker en helder formulerend. Is verbonden aan UP!Network NL, dat ik nog niet kende.

Natuurlijk wel een klef gesprek met Jensen, daar zorgt Jensen wel voor, maar op rustige momenten zeker interessante beschouwingen.

[verwijderd] 3 januari 2020 22:14

@luchtschip: leest als weer een goede zet van de VS, en daar staat ene Trump nu eenmaal aan de leiding.

Vanuit de EU en NL zullen wel weer geluiden klinken dat die cowboys uit de VS dit nooit hadden mogen doen, en dat Trump de ware schurk is. Zelf tot niets in staat overigens, anders dan dat.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:14

How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science

This is a story of American democracy. In one sense, it’s a noble story. People with shared values have come together to petition the government and the public on their political aims, just as envisioned by James Madison in Federalist 10.

In another sense it’s a story of privilege and conceit – the privilege in American democracy that accompanies being mindbogglingly wealthy and the conceit that climate politics could be best pursued by corrupting the scientific literature on climate change.

www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020...

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:17

According to the New York Times, in November 2012, one month after stepping down from the hedge fund he led, Steyer gathered environmental leaders and Democratic party leaders around the kitchen table at his ranch in Pescadero, California. Among those in attendance were Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, and John Podesta, who had founded the Center for American Progress (CAP) in 2003 to promote progressive causes. (Another disclosure: In 2014, Steyer funded a successful campaign by CAP to have me removed as a writer for 538, as revealed in the Wikileaks Podesta emails.)

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:18

At the kitchen table meeting, Steyer was focused on the question: “How do you make climate change feel real and immediate for people?” He was convinced by attendees that the best way to answer this question was through people’s pocketbooks, through economics.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:21

Following this meeting, Steyer invited two collaborators and co-funders to join him, to give the appearance of being non-partisan. One was Michael Bloomberg, then a political independent who was completing 12 years as the mayor of New York. The other was Hank Paulson, a Republican who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and who had also served as Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:23

Each of Steyer, Bloomberg and Paulson contributed $500,000 to the initial project, which was focused on... “making the climate threat feel real,... immediate and potentially devastating ...to the business world....” The initial aim was to produce a series of reports, drawing on several young academics and the expertise of external consultants at the Rhodium Group and Risk Management Solutions.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:25

The first report was published in June, 2014 and was titled... “Risky Business: ...The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States.”... The Risky Business approach was a smart if flawed way to... place economics at the center of climate policy. ...The approach focused on characterizing the extreme RCP8.5 scenario as “the closest to a business-as-usual trajectory” and centered its economic analysis on that scenario: “we focus on RCP 8.5 as the pathway closest to a future without concerted action to reduce future warming.” In this way they guaranteed that the economic impacts would be... eye-poppingly large.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:27

But in generating large economic impacts, the approach of the Risky Business report made two significant methodological mistakes. First, they improperly characterized the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario as “business as usual” reflecting a world... without future climate policy.... Second, they improperly presented the scenarios of the... IPCC ...as representing different policy outcomes, suggesting that we could “move” from one scenario to another: “Moving from RCP 8.5 to RCP 2.6 (as well as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0) will come at a cost.”

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:28

Both of these methodological choices were contrary to the appropriate use of the scenarios, according the modeling experts who created them: “RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario [”business as usual”] for the other RCPs because RCP8.5’s socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions differ from those of the other RCPs.” The scenarios are completely independent from each other, and policy cannot “move” us from one to another. Consider that RCP2.6 represents a world with 3 billion less people than RCP8.5. The Risky Business methodology ignored such critical details.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:30

Dodgy science published by climate advocacy groups is certainly not uncommon and it is usually not that interesting. But the... genius... of the Risky Business project was that it did not stop with a flashy report aimed at the daily news cycle. It undertook a far more sophisticated campaign focused on introducing its methods into the... mainstream scientific literature...., where they could take on a life of their own.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:32

For instance, soon after the initial Risky Business report was released in 2014 the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded work was the basis for 11 talks at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, which is the largest annual gathering of climate researchers. The next step was to get the analyses of the project published in the scientific literature where they could influence subsequent research and serve as the basis for authoritative scientific reviews, such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:33

For instance, a 2016 paper published in the prestigious journal Science from the Risky Business project introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing “business as usual” (RCP 8.5) and “strongent emissions mitigation” (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited... 294... times in other academic studies, according to Google Scholar. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has received little or no criticism.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:36

In another example, a more comprehensive study from the Risky Business project was published in Science magazine in 2017, where the abstract brazenly announces its methodological error: “By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).” The most extreme conclusion of this analysis was that the United States would see a 10% hit to its economy under the most extreme version of RCP8.5 (specifically its 99th percentile), projecting an incredible 8 degree Celsius temperature change from 2080 to 2099. This paper has been cited... 285... times in other studies, according to Google Scholar. The ...10% GDP loss figure would become the top line conclusion of the U.S. National Climate Assessment the next year...

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:37

Publishing papers in the academic literature based on the flawed methods was a formula that would be repeated time and time again. Like the introduction of a virus, the misleading reinterpretation of climate scenarios has subsequently expanded throughout the climate science literature and into leading assessments. Many experts well know that such methods are fatally flawed, but only a few have raised concerns.

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:39

The flawed methods have spread beyond the academic literature and into policy and scientific assessments. According to Gary Yohe, the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University and active in climate assessments for many years, the methodology used in the Risky Business project has caught on: “states and urban areas have adopted this approach, as well as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Climate Assessment of the United States.”

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:41

The 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment offers a particularly notable example. The work initiated by the Risky Business project was cited almost... 200... times in that report, including direct references to the project’s reports as well as the work of its lead consultant, the Rhodium Group. One of the lead researchers for Risky Business was also a lead author of the NCA. His research supported by Risky Business (and that of his main collaborator), was cited more than ...150... times in the NCA. Yet, nowhere that I have seen has it been disclosed by the US government that this NCA ...lead author is under contract with the Rhodium Group from 2015 to 2022...

rationeel 3 januari 2020 22:43

Imagine the reaction if a lead author of the U.S. National Climate Assessment with funding from a Republican billionaire and working with consultants opposed to climate action had their research, that of their funder and their colleagues cited some 200 times in the NCA – and that research was fatally flawed and the researcher’s financial connections with the consultants was undisclosed. I’d wager that it would receive some attention.

53.714 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 ... 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 » | Laatste

Aantal posts per pagina: 20 50 100 | Omhoog ↑

Meedoen aan de discussie?

Word nu gratis lid of log in met uw e-mailadres en wachtwoord.

Direct naar Forum

Markt vandaag

AEX 937,58 -1,00 -0,11% 21 feb


Germany40^	22.179,70	-0,60%
BEL 20	4.405,39	+0,82%
Europe50^	5.441,66	-0,61%
US30^	43.424,20	0,00%
Nasd100^	21.616,30	0,00%
US500^	6.014,32	0,00%
Japan225^	38.152,90	0,00%
Gold spot	2.935,70	0,00%
EUR/USD	1,0460	-0,36%
WTI	70,19	0,00%