Jump to content

Climate change low content


SimonTV

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

If ever you find yourself in a debate with a climate activist , it might be helpful to point out these irrefutable facts...

 

All the chalk and marble and limestone deposits on Earth are made up from the compressed shells  from little sea creatures . They extract CO2 from the atmosphere/sea and turn it into calium carbonate CaCo3 to make their shells, they still do this now  .... 

 

The amount of these deposits is truely enormouse , just in England they extend for hundreds of miles  , and are made visible where the sea errodes the land 

 

White cliffs of Dover 

White_Cliffs_of_Dover_02.JPG

So for humdreds of millions of years CO2 was taken from the atmosphere in this way and locked up .. As a result the amount in the atmosphere has gone down and down and down , less and less for plant life to feed on , and plant life is the foundation of the biosphere .

CO2 reached all time low by about 1850 ( this is all acknowledged by mainstream!) much lower would have lead to death of the planet .... Luckily humans started burning coal and oil , (this also contains previouse ancient CO2 , bound by trees and plancton) .. and slowly ... very slowly the % of CO2 has started to creep up , still not high enough to make plants happy , commercial greenhouses have to pump in CO2 from dry ice etc to get good growth. 

 

The controllers of this planet love death , so they would be over the moon if our bioshere collapsed and died , so they've brainwashed the public into DEMANDING we outlaw CO2 ... What a Joke! 

 

When the malevolent controllers are gone our first task must be to burn all the coal and oil we have ( to get electricity) , perhaps in a 100 years we may get CO2 upto .05% at this level plancton populations in the seas would dramatically increase , suporting at least a ten fould increase in fish population ( and whales) .. these fish sensibly harvested could feed the world . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so much for fighting CO2 emissions!

ChatGPT’s Electricity Consumption

ChatGPT may have consumed as much electricity as 175,000 people in January 2023.

I recently wrote an article in which I guesstimated ChatGPT’s daily carbon footprint to the around 24 kgCO2e. With little information available at the time about ChatGPT’s user base, my estimate was based on the assumption that the ChatGPT service was running on 16 A100 GPUs. In lieu of recent reports that estimate that ChatGPT had 590 million visits in January [1], it’s likely that ChatGPT requires way more GPUs to service its users.

From this it also follows naturally that ChatGPT is probably deployed in multiple geographic locations. This makes it very difficult to estimate ChatGPT’s total daily carbon footprint, because we would need to know exactly how many GPUs are running in which regions in order to incorporate the carbon intensity of electricity in each region into the carbon footprint estimate.

Estimating ChatGPT’s electricity consumption, on the other hand, is in principle simpler, because we do not need to know in which geographic regions ChatGPT is running. Below I explain how one can go about estimating ChatGPT’s energy consumption and I specifically produce an estimate of ChatGPT’s electricity use in January 2023. The scope is limited to January 2023 because we have some ChatGPT traffic estimates for this month.

https://towardsdatascience.com/chatgpts-electricity-consumption-7873483feac4

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2023 at 7:14 AM, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

 

Goddek has misspelled Person's name: it should be Kristina Persson. It could be that Goddek is confusing her (deliberately???) with Kristine Pearson, Founding Chief Executive Officer of Lifeline Energy, and a WEF member, who has been involved with the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship of the WEF since 2003.

 

Re: Persson's "Global Challenge",

"Among the organisations who have financed Global Challenge are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme..."  https://globalutmaning.se/support-our-work/?lang=en

 

Edited by Grumpy Grapes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 2:48 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

 

 

Goddek has misspelled Person's name: it should be Kristina Persson. It could be that Goddek is confusing her (deliberately???) with Kristine Pearson, Founding Chief Executive Officer of Lifeline Energy, and a WEF member, who has been involved with the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship of the WEF since 2003.

 

Re: Persson's "Global Challenge",

"Among the organisations who have financed Global Challenge are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme..."  https://globalutmaning.se/support-our-work/?lang=en

 

 

The CEO of "Global Challenge" currently is Tove Ahlström, a member of Al Gore's Climate Reality Project and an ambassador for the EU Commission's European Climate Pact.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After shutting down its last three nuclear power plants, Germany now has to buy nuclear-generated electricity from France

Thursday, May 04, 2023 by: Ethan Huff

Now that the last of the country’s nuclear power plants is officially offline, the European economic powerhouse of Germany has created for itself a serious energy deficit, which it is addressing by purchasing nuclear-generated power from nearby France.

In a politically correct “green” move that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, Germany essentially abolished its own much-needed nuclear power infrastructure, only to replace it with nuclear power from another country that likely costs a lot more and is far less available than the domestic stuff.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-05-04-germany-shut-down-nuclear-now-buying-from-france.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$50 Trillion For What? Kennedy Dumbfounds Biden Climate Peddler In Fiery Exchange Over 'Carbon Neutrality'

by Tyler Durden
Friday, May 05, 2023 - 08:00 PM

Biden Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk highlighted the absurdity of the climate grift this week during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, when Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) couldn't get a straight answer out of him over the cost of going 'carbon neutral.'

In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration's goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.

When Kennedy asked whether some of the "experts" Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said "It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it."

"f we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?" Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)

Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”

Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”

Turk: “So, first of all, it’s a net cost. It’s what, um, benefits we’re having from getting our act together and reducing all of those costs and climate benefits…”

Kennedy: “Let me ask you. Maybe I’m not being clear. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?

Turk: “This is a global problem, so we need to reduce our emissions and we need to do everything to, uh…”

Kennedy: “How much of we do our part is it going to reduce global temperatures?”

Turk: “So, we’re 13% of global emissions…”

Kennedy: “You don’t know, do you? You don’t know, do you?”

A fully flabbergasted Turk then says "In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads."

Watch (with full exchange here):

Biden official: It's going to cost trillions of dollars. There's no doubt about it.⁰⁰

Me: So, if the U.S. spent $50T to become carbon neutral by 2050, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?⁰⁰

Biden official: *No answer* pic.twitter.com/6u8QmeJRdq

— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) May 4, 2023

As energy expert David Blackmon writes in the Daily Caller;

And there we have it. Americans are being asked to accept the force-feeding of an incredibly radical set of policies with a price tag that is unprecedented in global history to achieve a “carbon neutrality” goal, whose benefits are so nebulous, negligible and wholly reliant on the cooperative actions of other countries beyond U.S. control that they cannot be measured in any reliable way.

Instead, we are being told by senior political appointees forcing those policies into being that we should simply trust them because they think it is the right thing to do in their “heart of hearts.”

This is madness. For some context, $50 trillion is an amount that exceeds the gross domestic product of the U.S., China, India, Germany and Japan, combined. It is a number that drastically exceeds total U.S. national debt. It is more than 135 times the $369 billion in green energy subsidies contained in last year’s Orwellian-named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

That is five new IRAs each year for the next 27 years. Madness.

Madness indeed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/50-trillion-what-kennedy-dumbfounds-biden-climate-peddler-fiery-exchange-over-carbon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burger lovers rejoice! Lab-grown meat is up to 25 times WORSE for the climate than beef, study claims

By Jonathan Chadwick For Mailonline

Published: 12:25, 10 May 2023 | Updated: 13:26, 10 May 2023

Lab-grown meat has been touted as a way to save the planet, but a new study suggests its green credentials are not as solid as many believe. 

Researchers have revealed that lab-grown or 'cultured' meat, produced by cultivating animal cells, is up to 25 times worse for the climate than real beef. 

Production of real meat has a huge carbon footprint because it requires water, feed and the clearing of trees to make way for cattle

Despite this, experts say the carbon footprint of lab-grown meat could be 'orders of magnitude higher' once the industry grows. 

Although lab-grown meat is yet to hit the shops, British scientists are among those growing meat products in a lab with a view to commercialise them. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12067409/Lab-grown-meat-25-times-WORSE-climate-beef.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...