An interesting chat online with Artificial Intelligence, which can’t be wrong, can it?
Me: What percentage of the earth’s air is carbon dioxide? No other answer required, just the percentage ChatGPT: The percentage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 0.04% (400 parts per million).
Me: What percentage of the above result of 0.04% does man contribute to that? Again, no other answer required, other than the percentage asked.
ChatGPT: As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, human activities contribute to approximately 3-4% of the total carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Me: Of the 3-4% that man contributes as you stated above, what percentage of that does Australia contribute? Again, no other answer required, other than the percentage asked.
ChatGPT: Australia contributes about 1.3% of the global human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Me: According to the answers you gave, Australia contributes (adds) 0.0000208% to total global variance in carbon dioxide. That is 0.04% times 4% times 1.3%.
ChatGPT: Your calculation is correct. Australia’s contribution to the total global variance in carbon dioxide is approximately 0.0000208%.
Me: Based on reasonable and general estimates as quoted to derive a figure of 1.3%, would it be reasonable to assume that if Australia targets a reduction of 50% in man made carbon dioxide, it would reduce significantly the impact on Australia’s environment?
ChatGPT: Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that if Australia were to target a 50% reduction in its human-made carbon dioxide emissions, it could have a significant positive impact on the country’s environment and contribute to global efforts to mitigate climate change.
Such a reduction target would help reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and help protect the environment by limiting the adverse effects associated with climate change. However, the actual impact would depend on the specific policies, actions, and measures taken to achieve this reduction and the timeline in which they are implemented.
Me: So, you think “significant” in Australia’s case means Australia would reduce it’s man made contribution to global world carbon dioxide emissions by 0.0000104% (which is the current 0.0000208% times 50%). Just a YES or NO answer only please. ChatGPT: Yes.
Me: Again, I ask the question. Do you think, by all standards of logic, that a reduction of 0.0000104% of man made carbon dioxide would “significantly” contribute to the world wide reduction of man made carbon dioxide? A simple YES or NO would suffice. ChatGPT: No
Me: Thank you Chat GPT:
You’re welcome. If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask.
Me is reader, Tony.
daviddd2 said – “Why have the cheapest most abundant energy supply in the world when we can pay through the nose for it ?”
Here’s some education for the unenlightened, folks.
Australia has enough KNOWN coal resources to serve the country’s domestic energy needs for a thousand years. We have 14% of the world’s known coal reserves, in third place after Russia and the USA. But we’re not allowed to use it. Instead, we export it all, mostly to China.
Australia has nearly 30% of Earth’s KNOWN Uranium reserves – enough to serve the country’s domestic energy needs FOREVER. But (you guessed it) we’re not allowed to use it. Instead, we export it all.
Australia only has around 1% of the planet’s KNOWN reserves of natural gas (most of which the fake corporate “government” STOLE from East Timor) yet we’re in the top 10 global PRODUCERS – a HUGE output, most of which we EXPORT at DIRT CHEAP PRICES, while Australians pay TOP DOLLAR for any they can get.
And just BTW, our fake corporate “governments” are pushing to BAN natural gas use in Australia. Victoria has already passed the legislation to do just that.
Australia’s known oil reserves are just a tiny blip on the world map, about 0.1% of the planet’s KNOWN reserves. We IMPORT about half of all the petroleum oil products that we use. If our oil imports were completely cut off, our strategic petroleum reserves are rumoured to be enough to keep the country going for about four days (although that’s not the whole story, as our Lilliputian domestic production and refinery capacity might keep the country limping along on life support). Meanwhile, our fake “governments” are scheming and doing everything that they can to BAN the use of petroleum products anyway.
Just BTW, folks, when someone tries to tell you that geologic hydrocarbons are non-renewable “fossil fuels”, they’re having a lend of you and themselves. These materials originate deep down somewhere in the Earth, and NO-ONE has a satisfactory answer as to where it’s all coming from or how. Suffice to say that many oil wells that had supposedly run dry have mysteriously started to fill back up. The only issue we have is sucking them dry faster than they fill.
Similar considerations apply to coal. How is it that meticulously engineered metallic artifacts have been discovered embedded in coal seams supposedly millions and millions of years old? NONE of it is what we’re being told by mainstream dogma.
And for the time being into the forseeable future, geologic hydrocarbons represent a FAR superior energy solution to both industrial society AND the metabolic needs of the plant-based biosphere, than any damn wind and solar “farms” which paradoxiclally DESTROY both farming and natural real estate while costing WAY MORE ENERGY to produce than they can ever conceivably return, never mind the daily hazards and permanent toxic landfills deriving from just about every facet of these allegedly “renewable energy technologies”.
And let’s not forget to mention nuke power plants, which are VERBOTTEN in Australia just because.
Climate Change is a “too big to fail” scam. It is underwritten by governments and it is an OBVIOUS push for the transfer of energy resources from natural ones to PATENTED ones.
And guess who the losers are in the game, folks! Not the patent owners who “incentivize” our governments into fleecing us and filling their pockets.
Why have the cheapest most abundant energy supply in the world when we can pay through the nose for it ?
“UN and assorted Climate nutters should volunteer to jump into the cone to appease the wrath of the earth dragons.”
Never mind about appeasing anyone, just plug the freaking cone with them! They may as well serve some purpose.
Obviously these are all the facts which blinded globalists and all our Ozzie pollies with Science. Rudds “great moral challenge of our generation” carbon tax added considerable new cost to our existence. “The introduction of the carbon tax from 1 July 2012 (at AUD23 per tonne in 2012-13) was estimated by the Treasury to have increased the cost of living of households by around AUD9.90 per week on average, and increased the Consumer Price Index by 0.7 percent.” For businesses, the impact was more significant with “up to 30 percent of small and medium sized enterprises’ electricity bills stemmed from carbon pricing and other green schemes”. There were also reports of factory closures due to cost increases, with resulting job losses. One CEO at the time reported that their company had to pay AUD8 million a year for the carbon tax, which it negotiated down, but which still forced it to stop operations. All because the sky was apparently falling on our moronic politicians. At least their ignorance and imbecility is proven now.
Lindesymonds said – “IPCC politicians and ‘scientists’ from the UN and assorted Climate nutters should volunteer to jump into the cone to appease the wrath of the earth dragons.”
No worries, I’ll gladly volunteer to push the bastards in. Hell, I’d even pay for the privelege. Where’s my Usher badge?
One way or another, it’s where these anti-human genocidal mongrels are going to end up anyway.
I asked Chat GPT this
User
What percentage of all plant life will grow in a zero carbon dioxide atmosphere?
ChatGPT
Plants require carbon dioxide (CO2) for photosynthesis, a process that allows them to produce energy from sunlight. In a zero carbon dioxide atmosphere, plants would be unable to carry out photosynthesis and would not survive. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any significant percentage of plant life would grow in such conditions.
Carbon dioxide is a crucial component of the Earth’s atmosphere for supporting plant life. It acts as a raw material for photosynthesis, and plants play a vital role in maintaining the balance of atmospheric gases. Without carbon dioxide, plants cannot synthesize organic compounds, and the entire ecosystem would be severely disrupted.
In reality, a zero carbon dioxide atmosphere is not a scenario that could naturally occur on Earth, as it would be incompatible with the basic requirements for life as we know it.
That was brilliant Tony. Well done with the clever construction of your questions. Australian c.c.problem solved. Ye ha
[…] Go to Source on cairnsnews.org Follow altnews.org on Telegram Please donate now! 00 […]
Mt Marapi in Indo has surged again put forth more CO2 and toxic gas than the entire Carbon Exchange.
I think sacrificial victims are needed here. IPCC politicians and ‘scientists’ from the UN and assorted Climate nutters should volunteer to jump into the cone to appease the wrath of the earth dragons.
Amazingly good article.So true.
Thank Cairnsnews