Chatting with Meta AI about Canada's climate policy

submitted by xoenix from files.catbox.moe

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That final answer definitely seems to be a nonsense hallucination.

Of course, it does say at the bottom "Messages are generated by AI and may be inaccurate."

[–]xoenix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why would it be nonsense?

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Because it's merely calculating plausible comments based on numerous comments online, much of which are funded by big corp and wealthy investors for anti-climate disinformation, which AI doesn't yet filter out.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I have looked up the numbers, Canada's coal mining has not decreased, it has increased. We export whatever we don't still use, most of it to China. What other use is there for coal? You burn it as fuel.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

AI engines currently collect false information without much discrimination, if any. Coal producers and wealthy investors, as well as Canada's government want to give the impression of climate change reduction targets, though are not entirely trustworthy. It's not difficult to manipulate 10% and 20% margins.

[–]xoenix[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean you have to actually account for the fact that we continue to mine more coal, that is not only burned, but transported using diesel to be used overseas where emissions restrictions are known to be lower, where any kind of scrubbing or other mitigations that we mandate is not applicable. Then whatever used to be produced here using that energy, is now being produced overseas using energy that does not adhere to our local climate standards, and then transported back to us, again, using diesel power.

None of this is accounted for in our climate policy! It's idiotic and counter-productive, unless you're a globalist cartel member or a Chinese asset.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see China's coal exports are now back to pre-COVID levels, and that Canada is the 7th largest coal exporter, 27% of which goes to China.

The hypocrisy of reducing domestic use while exporting 10% more each year is gaining attention: https://www.westernstandard.news/alberta/china-built-96-of-all-coal-power-in-2023-us-and-canada-sold-it-to-them/52180

So yeah, this agrees with your comment.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, I may have read the phrase "reduction impact would be reduced." Reducing a reduction - pretty double-negativey.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Based on basic Physics, the CO2 levels do not contribute to any global warming (we are already at a maximum).
So all this make no sense.

And based on the actual long-term data, there are fluctuations but no global warming.
Based on long term, we are currently closer to an ice-age.
Even the vikings had it hotter, when they were harvesting hop on green-land.

The H2O gives the strongest greenhouse effect, and can also reflect energy as clouds and ice.
The periodic fluctuations are caused by the sun's variations.
The fraudulent scientists were making it seem that the sun's energy was making earth cooler (by multiplying with -1).

AI is more like a search engine that uses (biased) statistics instead of key-word search.
It sometimes looks like reasoning, because the statistics reveals most correlations in the (biased) data that it was trained on.
Because of all the errors that gives, the modern AI have ways to overrule the conclusions.
As soon you move away from the trained data, the AI moves to more correlations and even random results.

The training data is always biased. And with political and "official" data, it is very biased.
This is the biggest problem in climate data already.
The old data is being altered and replaced with fraudulent data.
And the new data is biased with biased climate-scare models and with bad measurements (near hot cities for example).

For the Climate propaganda, progress in CO2 reduction is usually made-up.
For example, the study looks at Electric vehicles, and claims that it gives zero CO2.
While it costs more energy to charge them, make them, and this energy is usually made from diesel generators.
The industry also seems to make less CO2, because the energy-dependent industry is moving to other countries.

If the governments really wanted to reduce CO2, they would have built many nuclear generators.
Instead the governments are just raising taxes.