US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2037

On January 17 2020 05:48 Nebuchad wrote:


I am small and cute

On January 17 2020 05:53 JimmiC wrote:

Oh maybe it is that you don't understand the definition of propaganda.



So in that post GH was extremely biased, plus was misleading in nature. And he did it like he does most of his post to promote his particular political cause or point of view.

It is pretty clear to everyone who has not been swayed by the propaganda that it is just that.

On January 17 2020 11:47 JimmiC wrote:
Apparently there were actually 11 soldiers that suffered concussions from the Iran attack. It is strange that they choose to lie about this since they were not life threatening and there was a close to zero percent chance of this not coming out. But I guess this administration is so used to lying with no consequence they figured why not.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/service-members-injured-iran-strike/index.html

Asked about the apparent discrepancy, a Defense official told CNN, "That was the commander's assessment at the time. Symptoms emerged days after the fact, and they were treated out of an abundance of caution."

On January 17 2020 13:13 m4ini wrote:
I'm not sure why the heck you guys are speculating, the answer is literally in the article?



Symptoms of concussion include ringing ears, headaches/pressure in the head, nausea etc pp. Guess what you gonna feel like if a big ass missile lands relatively close to you - definitively close enough to get caught in the pressure wave? As someone who stood (relatively) close to a 120mm tank cannon when it was firing, that's exactly how it felt.

The difference here is that i had these "symptoms" for a few minutes, maybe half an hour. Hell, more than half the symptoms of concussion can be attributed to "shock" as well, and you can induce the symptoms of concussion by just violently shaking your head for a minute.

Diagnosing a concussion right after a missile blast is basically impossible, because in all that chaos there's no accurate way to distinguish between all the possibilities. I bet you any money that more than 11 soldiers had symptoms - because, again, a few big ass missiles just rained down on them in stone throwing range.

Not everything is a conspiracy, though it seems to be the common "go-to" regardless of what the news is that pops up.

... the desperate hunger for these carbon credit plans appears to have blinded many of their advocates to the mounting pile of evidence that they haven’t — and won’t — deliver the climate benefit they promise.

I looked at projects going back two decades and spanning the globe and pulled together findings from academic researchers in far-flung forest villages, studies published in obscure journals, foreign government reports and dense technical documents. I enlisted a satellite imagery analysis firm to see how much of the forest remained in a preservation project that started selling credits in 2013. Four years later, only half the project areas were forested.

In case after case, I found that carbon credits hadn’t offset the amount of pollution they were supposed to, or they had brought gains that were quickly reversed or that couldn’t be accurately measured to begin with. Ultimately, the polluters got a guilt-free pass to keep emitting CO₂, but the forest preservation that was supposed to balance the ledger either never came or didn’t last.

“Offsets themselves are doing damage,” said Larry Lohmann, who has spent 20 years studying carbon credits

Almost all of the projects failed to meet a standard required for any true carbon offset called additionality. What it means is that the environmental gains are only real if the solar farms or windmills would never have been built without the credits.

In 2015, a French research center examined 120 projects and found that 37% overlapped with existing protected lands like national parks. Though offsets require an added benefit, the authors concluded REDD was simply layered onto existing conservation plans, reducing it to a “logo to attract financing.”

Then, there are the findings out of Norway, a major exporter of oil and natural gas and the world’s largest supporter of REDD, representing about half of all funding.

Tucked into a little-noticed report published last year by Norway’s Office of the Auditor General was the revelation that the country’s efforts had failed virtually every test

On January 17 2020 15:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Welp, you all heard it here first. There is literally nothing that the US and her companies can do to make life better. It's all just a rouse to increase profits and screw over the world. Great ending to the last few pages. RIP.

On January 17 2020 15:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Welp, you all heard it here first. There is literally nothing that the US and her companies can do to make life better. It's all just a rouse to increase profits and screw over the world. Great ending to the last few pages. RIP.

On January 17 2020 15:54 BerserkSword wrote:


As much as I disagree with his positions on climate change, that's not what he really said.

Make no mistake - Microsoft is doing this to get its shareholders more money. That is the nature of a business, especially a trillion+ dollar market cap mega corporation like Microsoft. If they did not envision this maneuver fattening the wallets of shareholders, they would not have announced it.

Their intent is not necessarily to screw over the world, unless you can provide evidence that Microsoft is an evil corporation bent on fucking the world over.

He just pointed otu that there is evidence that suggests that these kinds of maneuvers rarely pan out in terms of the enivornmental goal, and that companies put profit above all else (as they should)