1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • UN more interested in social engineering than climate

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 25 09:51:20 2023
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fascist Flea@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 25 10:37:26 2023
    [mindless Shmoo whining snipped]

    Remember when Dumpster wanted to buy Greenland? Denmark's PM
    tried to let him down gently. I suggest that Biden try leasing more of the island rather than demanding a selling price. We could use it to house
    all of the social misfits whose crimes don't rate actual imprisonment.
    We could start with the nastiest rabble-rousing politicians like Dumpster himself. Then Kemp, Lee (TN), Deshittius (FL), etc. Then the overpaid assholes on Fucks, Sinclair, Heil Amerika, etc. Then the NRA and all their bagmen.
    Then the trolls who spread Nazi-like poison on the socials.

    I doubt we'd need to round up the untermenschen like Shmoos who only regurgitate their programming. Once the instigators are sealed off, the mindless MAGA mob will have no more direction than the remnants of the
    zombie horde at the end of The Strain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu May 25 13:08:40 2023
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 25 13:22:33 2023
    On 5/25/23 1:08 PM, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    Social engineering = interfering with the status quo of carbon extraction

    Carbon offsets are to indulgences as carbon removal is to "deus ex machina."

    OTOH, a 2021 UN report calls for for it:

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086312#

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 25 16:09:26 2023
    On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:24:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 1:08 PM, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ
    Social engineering = interfering with the status quo of carbon extraction

    Carbon offsets are to indulgences as carbon removal is to "deus ex machina."

    Blah blah. The whole carbon offsets game is all about money and economic competitiveness.

    Ref France vs Germany on the question of nukes. Germany doesn't want them to count as
    Co2 free energy because their version of clean energy costs a whole lot more.

    The UN has long been the playground of 3rd world countries vying for "energy reparations" from the
    developed world and if the developed world solves AGW with carbon capture they won't get squat.


    OTOH, a 2021 UN report calls for for it:

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086312#

    Exactly, their hypocrisy is clearly documented.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri May 26 09:54:36 2023
    On 5/25/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:24:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 1:08 PM, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    Social engineering = interfering with the status quo of carbon extraction
    Carbon offsets are to indulgences as carbon removal is to "deus ex
    machina."

    Blah blah. The whole carbon offsets game is all about money and
    economic competitiveness.

    And greenwashing. If it actually helped reduce carbon, I'd still be for it.

    Ref France vs Germany on the question of nukes. Germany doesn't want
    them to count as Co2 free energy because their version of clean
    energy costs a whole lot more.

    Germany made the decision, justified or not, based on safety concerns
    and now renewables are cheaper than new nukes. No, they don't prefer it "because... it costs a whole lot more."

    The UN has long been the playground of 3rd world countries vying for
    "energy reparations" from the developed world and if the developed
    world solves AGW with carbon capture they won't get squat.

    Oh? I saw quite few proposed storage sites in the third world.

    OTOH, a 2021 UN report calls for for it:

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086312#

    Exactly, their hypocrisy is clearly documented.

    You act as if the same people were responsible for both reports.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 27 07:26:33 2023
    On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:54:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:24:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 1:08 PM, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    Social engineering = interfering with the status quo of carbon extraction >> Carbon offsets are to indulgences as carbon removal is to "deus ex
    machina."

    Blah blah. The whole carbon offsets game is all about money and
    economic competitiveness.
    And greenwashing. If it actually helped reduce carbon, I'd still be for it.
    Ref France vs Germany on the question of nukes. Germany doesn't want
    them to count as Co2 free energy because their version of clean
    energy costs a whole lot more.
    Germany made the decision, justified or not, based on safety concerns
    and now renewables are cheaper than new nukes. No, they don't prefer it "because... it costs a whole lot more."

    Read what I wrote dumbass. Their decision puts them at a competitive disadvantage. So they seek to level the economic playing field without
    real regard for Co2 consequences.

    Replacing nukes with solar and wind has a Co2 footprint and is actually worse for AGW.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat May 27 15:35:58 2023
    On 5/27/23 9:26 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:54:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 6:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 11:24:38 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 1:08 PM, mINE109 wrote:
    On 5/25/23 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
    and prove it with one little note.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/key-un-panel-sharply-critical-of-carbon-removal-tech/ar-AA1bGfgJ

    Social engineering = interfering with the status quo of carbon extraction >>>> Carbon offsets are to indulgences as carbon removal is to "deus ex
    machina."

    Blah blah. The whole carbon offsets game is all about money and
    economic competitiveness.
    And greenwashing. If it actually helped reduce carbon, I'd still be for it. >>> Ref France vs Germany on the question of nukes. Germany doesn't want
    them to count as Co2 free energy because their version of clean
    energy costs a whole lot more.
    Germany made the decision, justified or not, based on safety concerns
    and now renewables are cheaper than new nukes. No, they don't prefer it
    "because... it costs a whole lot more."

    Read what I wrote dumbass. Their decision puts them at a competitive disadvantage. So they seek to level the economic playing field without
    real regard for Co2 consequences.

    It's France holding up the EU energy agreement over hydrogen generation
    powered by nukes. Germany's objection to French nuke power follows on
    their own decision which remains as I described.

    Replacing nukes with solar and wind has a Co2 footprint and is actually worse for AGW.

    German nukes are already gone and France is expanding its capabilities.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=715a325073cd

    "Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of
    the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon
    footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural
    gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar."

    Yay! Carbon-reducing renewables possible!

    "But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power
    source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh."

    Go nukes!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)