Weststigers Wasteland

[Tigerm]

From an AI question: Is the planet greener at the moment with CO2 helping it?

Yes, the planet is greener in many areas, and increased atmospheric CO2 is a contributing factor, though the picture is complex. Here's a concise breakdown:

• Global Greening Trend: Satellite data, including NASA's MODIS and studies from Boston University (1982–2015), show a significant increase in global vegetation cover, with up to 50% of the Earth's vegetated areas becoming greener. This is often called the "greening effect." For example, leaf area index (LAI) data indicates a 5–10% increase in global foliage since the 1980s, particularly in regions like China, India, and parts of Europe.
• CO2's Role: Higher CO2 levels enhance photosynthesis through the "CO2 fertilization effect," allowing plants to grow faster and use water more efficiently. Studies estimate that 70% of the greening since the 1980s is attributable to CO2, with additional contributions from nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%), and land use changes (4%), like reforestation in China.
• Regional Variations: Greening is prominent in forests, croplands, and savannas, especially in India and China due to intensive agriculture and afforestation. However, some areas, like parts of the Amazon and Congo, show browning (vegetation loss) due to deforestation, drought, or fires.
• Caveats: Greening doesn't mean universal ecological health. It can mask issues like biodiversity loss, soil degradation, or forest quality decline. CO2-driven growth may also plateau as plants reach nutrient or water limits. Additionally, climate change linked to CO2 (e.g., heatwaves, extreme weather) can counteract greening in some regions.
• Recent Data: A 2024 study in Nature Climate Change and posts on X (e.g., from climate researchers) confirm ongoing greening, with global leaf area continuing to rise through 2023. However, no specific 2025 data is available to confirm the trend's status this year.

In short, the planet is greener, and CO2 is a key driver, but this comes with trade-offs, and regional losses highlight that greening isn't a universal win for ecosystems. For deeper insights, NASA's Earth Observatory or recent Nature publications are reliable sources.

 

[Tiger05]

@Tigerm - you've been played with this one big time.

This is another one which takes fact out of context and you'd have to be really stupid (we'll define stupid later) to fall for it.

It's completely cherry picked data...

 

[Tiger05]

From an AI question: Is the planet greener at the moment with CO2 helping it?

Yes, the planet is greener in many areas, and increased atmospheric CO2 is a contributing factor, though the picture is complex. Here's a concise breakdown:

• Global Greening Trend: Satellite data, including NASA's MODIS and studies from Boston University (1982–2015), show a significant increase in global vegetation cover, with up to 50% of the Earth's vegetated areas becoming greener. This is often called the "greening effect." For example, leaf area index (LAI) data indicates a 5–10% increase in global foliage since the 1980s, particularly in regions like China, India, and parts of Europe.
• CO2's Role: Higher CO2 levels enhance photosynthesis through the "CO2 fertilization effect," allowing plants to grow faster and use water more efficiently. Studies estimate that 70% of the greening since the 1980s is attributable to CO2, with additional contributions from nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%), and land use changes (4%), like reforestation in China.
• Regional Variations: Greening is prominent in forests, croplands, and savannas, especially in India and China due to intensive agriculture and afforestation. However, some areas, like parts of the Amazon and Congo, show browning (vegetation loss) due to deforestation, drought, or fires.
• Caveats: Greening doesn't mean universal ecological health. It can mask issues like biodiversity loss, soil degradation, or forest quality decline. CO2-driven growth may also plateau as plants reach nutrient or water limits. Additionally, climate change linked to CO2 (e.g., heatwaves, extreme weather) can counteract greening in some regions.
• Recent Data: A 2024 study in Nature Climate Change and posts on X (e.g., from climate researchers) confirm ongoing greening, with global leaf area continuing to rise through 2023. However, no specific 2025 data is available to confirm the trend's status this year.

In short, the planet is greener, and CO2 is a key driver, but this comes with trade-offs, and regional losses highlight that greening isn't a universal win for ecosystems. For deeper insights, NASA's Earth Observatory or recent Nature publications are reliable sources.

You are so funny. This is so stupid. You are actively looking to f**k yourself up. You've are looking for data/facts to prove yourself right rather than try and figure out the truth you want your feeling validated.

f**k your feelings. Facts matter.

I did this before but I'll do it again:-

Climate Change by 2100: Two Paths​

1. Low-Emissions Scenario (Global Warming ~1.5–2°C)​

If we act decisively now (deep cuts in fossil fuels, land use change, etc.):

Temperature:​

• Global average warming limited to 1.5–2.0°C above pre-industrial levels
• Fewer and less extreme heatwaves, floods, droughts compared to higher scenarios

Sea Level Rise:​

• ~0.3–0.6 meters globally
• Still affects low-lying cities/islands, but adaptation is possible

Coral Reefs:​

• 70–90% of tropical reefs lost even at 1.5°C
• Less loss of biodiversity overall

Arctic:​

• Ice-free summers may occur once every 100 years
• Some stability possible with recovery efforts

Agriculture & Water:​

• Reduced risk of widespread food insecurity
• Fewer droughts, more manageable water shortages

Social Impact:​

• Migration and conflict risks still present but more manageable

---

2. High-Emissions Scenario (Global Warming ~3–4.4°C)​

If emissions continue to rise (business-as-usual, minimal action):

Temperature:​

• Global average warming could exceed 4°C
• Most of Earth experiences extreme heatwaves every year

Sea Level Rise:​

• Global rise of 0.6 to 1.1 meters
• Possible multi-meter rise over centuries due to melting of Antarctica and Greenland
• Major cities (e.g., Jakarta, Miami, Kolkata) face flooding or abandonment

🪸 Ecosystems:​

• More than 99% of coral reefs lost
• Mass extinction risk for many land and ocean species

Arctic & Cryosphere:​

• Ice-free Arctic summers every few years
• Permafrost thaw releases methane, worsening warming

Agriculture:​

• Crop failures in tropical/subtropical areas
• Severe food and water insecurity across vulnerable regions (e.g., Africa, South Asia)

Human Impacts:​

• Millions to billions affected by extreme heat, disease, and displacement
• High risk of climate-driven migration and conflict
• Global inequality worsens as poor nations suffer disproportionately

---

Tipping Points & Irreversible Changes​

• Some changes may become irreversible even if we stabilize warming later:
  • Collapse of Greenland/West Antarctic ice sheets
  • Death of Amazon rainforest
  • Disruption of ocean currents (e.g., AMOC slowdown)

These could amplify warming and destabilize global systems.

---

Summary Table​

Feature	Low Warming (~1.5–2°C)	High Warming (~3–4.4°C)
Global temperature	+1.5–2°C	+3–4.4°C
Sea level rise	~0.3–0.6 m	~0.6–1.1 m (multi-meter long-term)
Coral reefs	70–90% loss	>99% loss
Extreme weather	More manageable	Catastrophic, frequent
Arctic ice	Rare ice-free summers	Regular ice-free summers
Biodiversity	Serious but localized loss	Mass extinctions likely
Agriculture	Regional stress	Global food insecurity
Human impact	Adaptation possible	Large-scale displacement/conflict

 

[Tiger05]

Let's be very clear - if you are stating climate change isn't true. You are stupid or evil. I'll clarify stupid later. It's not a low IQ. It's an inability to process information in a mature fashion.

 

[Tiger05]

So facts over feelings mean that two posters here have posted culture war BS that is completely and utterly factually incorrect.

I was astounded at why this is happening so I've been investigating this.

I see a couple of reasons but I'd love to hear from @macnaz and @Tigerm in relation to an admittance they've been played and to look at themselves and ask why they've been played:-

1. Misinformation being pushed from industry (and other) figures.
2. Stupidity that isn't related to IQ.

I'll go through both of these separately.

 

[Tiger05]

Misinformation being spread by industry and other figures. I suggest you read the book Merchants of Doubt. I really suggest both you guys read this book because if you don't you are willingly engaging in stupidity and honestly I'd be embarressed.

Merchants of Doubt​

Authors: Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway
Published: 2010

Synopsis:​

Merchants of Doubt is a non-fiction investigative book that explores how a small group of scientists, often with ties to industry or conservative think tanks, deliberately spread doubt about scientific evidence on major public health and environmental issues.


The authors trace how these individuals:

• Used media manipulation, lobbying, and public relations tactics
• Exploited the idea of "scientific uncertainty" to delay or block action
• Were involved in multiple controversies over decades

Key Topics the Book Covers:​

1. Tobacco and cancer – denial of smoking's health effects
2. Acid rain – attempts to cast doubt on its cause and impact
3. The ozone hole – delaying the phase-out of CFCs
4. Global warming – spreading misinformation about climate science
5. Pesticides and DDT – attacking Silent Spring and Rachel Carson
6. Second-hand smoke – questioning its harms despite strong evidence

---

Central Thesis:​

A handful of politically motivated scientists acted as “merchants of doubt,” using their credentials to create confusion and delay regulation, often working in tandem with corporations and free-market think tanks.


They weren’t necessarily climate scientists — often physicists from the Cold War era — who opposed government intervention more than the science itself.

---

Why It Matters:​

The book is a powerful case study of how science can be politicized, how public understanding can be manipulated, and how denialism operates in plain sight—with real-world consequences for health, environment, and policy.

 

[Tiger05]

Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity​

Who was Bonhoeffer?​

• German theologian, anti-Nazi dissident, and pastor
• Executed in 1945 for his role in resisting Hitler
• Wrote about moral courage, ethics, and responsibility — much of it from prison

---

The Core Idea:​

Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is more dangerous than evil.


Why? Because evil can be confronted and exposed, while stupidity — especially willful, socially reinforced ignorance — is harder to challenge and more easily manipulated.

---

Key Concepts in the Theory:​

1. Stupidity Is a Social, Not Intellectual, Deficiency​

“It is not that stupid people lack intelligence. It is that they are often blinded by ideology or group identity.”

• Bonhoeffer saw stupidity as not a lack of intelligence, but a failure to think critically when under the influence of groupthink, propaganda, or authoritarian power.
• People become incapable of independent reflection.

---

2. Stupidity Is Easily Weaponized​

“The stupid person is often more dangerous than the malicious one.”

• Unlike evil, stupidity doesn’t need motivation. People may unknowingly spread lies, act harmfully, and even justify cruelty — all while believing they’re doing the right thing.
• This makes them easier to manipulate.

---

3. Stupidity Grows Under Oppression and Conformity​

“Where the power of the strong oppresses the weak, stupidity grows.”

• Authoritarian systems, mass movements, and ideological regimes often encourage uncritical loyalty.
• People may abdicate personal responsibility, and stop thinking independently, because it feels easier or safer.

---

4. Stupidity Cannot Be Fought With Reason Alone​

“Arguments do not make headway against stupidity.”

• You can’t always debate or educate someone out of stupidity when it’s socially reinforced.
• Instead, Bonhoeffer says the only real remedy is liberation of the individual, so they can think freely again.

---

Moral Implication:​

Bonhoeffer urges us not just to resist evil, but to defend the conditions for independent, moral thinking — through truth-telling, education, courage, and justice.

---

Summary Table:​

Aspect	Bonhoeffer’s View
What is “stupidity”?	A social and moral failing, not lack of intelligence
Why is it dangerous?	It can’t be reasoned with; it’s easily manipulated
What encourages it?	Oppression, propaganda, authoritarian power
What resists it?	Independent thought, courage, and moral responsibility

 

[Tiger05]

@Tigerm and @macnaz - I am pretty confident that you both fit squarely into Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity and we can actually prove this really easily.

This is actually a win/win for me but not for you. If you agree with the information I've provided above and you therefore agree that you've bought into misinformation then you win (but I win as well) because we stop having childish conversations.

If you don't agree you've proven that my diagnosis of the issue is correct because you are rejecting facts and you have an inabiltiy to think critically. You favor feelings over facts.

So over to you two - admit you got it wrong, read up on the book Merchants of doubt and question yourself and your sources of information.

For the record when I get lied to in minor ways it really pisses me off. The young greens senator misrepresented housing reform and I agreed with him. Later on the facts proved him wrong. I wouldn't vote for the Greens because of that one instance. It was nothing at all like the misinformation you guys actively subject yourself too but I was pissed off.

​

 

[Tigerm]

@Tigerm and @macnaz - I am pretty confident that you both fit squarely into Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity and we can actually prove this really easily.

This is actually a win/win for me but not for you. If you agree with the information I've provided above and you therefore agree that you've bought into misinformation then you win (but I win as well) because we stop having childish conversations.

If you don't agree you've proven that my diagnosis of the issue is correct because you are rejecting facts and you have an inabiltiy to think critically. You favor feelings over facts.

So over to you two - admit you got it wrong, read up on the book Merchants of doubt and question yourself and your sources of information.

For the record when I get lied to in minor ways it really pisses me off. The young greens senator misrepresented housing reform and I agree with him. Later on the facts proved him wrong. I wouldn't vote for the Greens because of that one instance. It was nothing at all like the misinformation you guys were subected too but I was pissed off.

​

Global warming, global cooling, climate catastrophe, net zero is a scam.

 

[Nutz]

My head hurts.
I had a hunch that the rebound effect was feasible.
Regardless of fact, fiction, being played or whatever, I think the world as a hole could do better but the powers to be are more concerned with their current budget and their term in office.
Money makes the world go round but education hopefully can make some difference.

 

[Tiger05]

Global warming, global cooling, climate catastrophe, net zero is a scam.

You have just admitted outright that you don't give a shit about facts. All you have is feelings and when facts are presented to you you respond with more feelings.

You 100% fit into Bonhoeffer's theory if stupidity. The great thing about this theory is that when someone proves they fit the theory the response is pretty simple. You cannot reason with someone who denies facts because of their feelings.

I said earlier we need to agree that facts matter over feelings. They do for me. They don't for you.

Here is a quote I love:-

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. — Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I'll leave you with a little breakdown of how climate change is impacting Australia now.

Climate Change Impacts in Australia (Happening Now)​

Extreme Heat and Bushfires​

• Hotter, longer heatwaves are now a common feature. Australia’s average temperature has risen by ~1.5°C since 1910—more than the global average.
• The Black Summer (2019–2020) bushfires burned over 24 million hectares, destroyed thousands of homes, and killed or displaced an estimated 3 billion animals.
• Fire seasons are starting earlier and lasting longer, especially in southern and eastern states.

---

Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Erosion​

• Sea levels around Australia have risen about 25 cm since 1880, and the east coast is particularly vulnerable.
• Areas like the Gold Coast, Northern Beaches (Sydney), and parts of Torres Strait Islands are already facing erosion, inundation, and infrastructure damage.
• Saltwater intrusion is also threatening coastal farmland and freshwater supplies.

---

Droughts and Water Stress​

• The Millennium Drought (1997–2010) and more recent dry years have hit the Murray–Darling Basin and other regions hard.
• Warmer temperatures increase evaporation, making droughts more intense even when rainfall patterns don’t change.
• Water insecurity is becoming more prominent for farming communities and Indigenous populations.

---

Heavy Rainfall and Flooding​

• A warming atmosphere holds more moisture, leading to intense downpours when it does rain.
• The 2022 Eastern Australia floods, especially in Lismore and Brisbane, were record-breaking, displacing thousands and causing billions in damages.
• These events are becoming more frequent and costly.

---

Biodiversity Loss​

• Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate in the world, and climate change is a major driver alongside land clearing and invasive species.
• Koalas, kangaroos, and numerous birds and reptiles are at risk from habitat loss, heatwaves, and bushfires.
• Coral bleaching has devastated large parts of the Great Barrier Reef, which has experienced five major bleaching events since 1998.

---

Agriculture and Food Security​

• Heatwaves and droughts are reducing crop yields for wheat, fruit, and vegetables.
• Livestock suffer from heat stress and lack of water.
• More variable weather makes it harder for farmers to plan and manage risks.

---

Urban Heat and Health Risks​

• Australian cities are experiencing urban heat island effects, especially in poorer suburbs with less tree cover.
• Heat is the deadliest weather-related risk in Australia, responsible for more deaths than floods, fires, and storms combined.
• The health system is under pressure during extreme heat events, particularly for elderly and chronically ill populations.

---

Security, Insurance, and Economy​

• The insurance industry is warning of more areas becoming “uninsurable” due to flood and fire risks.
• Infrastructure is vulnerable to climate extremes, with costs rising for maintenance and emergency response.
• Climate risks to agriculture, housing, tourism (e.g., the Reef), and natural disaster recovery are projected to cost billions annually.

 

[Tiger05]

My head hurts.
I had a hunch that the rebound effect was feasible.
Regardless of fact, fiction, being played or whatever, I think the world as a hole could do better but the powers to be are more concerned with their current budget and their term in office.
Money makes the world go round but education hopefully can make some difference.

Listen mate - do not fall for culture war bullshit. I provide facts which can be fact checked. These guys don't have facts. They have feelings.

Education doesn't help if you do not have the emotional maturity to use facts. We also live in a world where people get played so much.

It's hard doing the research that I do and it's easy to just go to some stupid culture war site and indulge your feelings. That is why these guys post stuff that is from twitter or something rather than look at the actual science.

 

[Nutz]

Listen mate - do not fall for culture war bullshit. I provide facts which can be fact checked. These guys don't have facts. They have feelings.

Education doesn't help if you do not have the emotional maturity to use facts. We also live in a world where people get played so much.

It's hard doing the research that I do and it's easy to just go to some stupid culture war site and indulge your feelings. That is why these guys post stuff that is from twitter or something rather than look at the actual science.

We all have good intentions Tiger.
Some have more time than others to research.
I for one can't, atm as I'm just about to head into theatre for my hip replacement. I'm not making excuses, just fact.
I'm sure I'll have time to form an opinion over the next week or so.
All I can do, and I encourage you too, regarding the care for our planet is not to add to the problem. As I've said before it's hard when you've spent your life savings on a petrol car and use electricity etc but we should control what we can control. Stop throwing crap into our drains, turn lights off etc etc.

 

[TooheysNew]

Dude, you're just regurgitating chatgpt...

 

[Nutz]

Education doesn't help if you do not have the emotional maturity to use facts. We also live in a world where people get played so much.

Waiting waiting, I could grow a new hip at this rate
I'm interested to know what your research has done to save the planet. Have you been able to implement changes in your lifestyle that can make a difference?
I said education is paramount. I believe that. It's the foundation to how we live.
If kindergartens through to universities enlightened people in what's wrong with the planet and how we can improve things, then as generations come and go we should have people at the top who are willing to make the right changes.
My generation is just starting to wake up to it all.
I hope my grandchildren do a better job.
Once again, people like me can only make baby steps. Throwing facts at me will only help if it has simple instructions

 

[Tiger05]

We all have good intentions Tiger.

This isn't true. I related Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity. They don't have good intentions. They have feelings. They want those feelings validated. They don't give a shit about facts.

Some have more time than others to research.

True - but I did most of that with ChatGPT. It's not hard. These guys are actively sourcing their information from known sources of misinformation. They are engaging with that because it gives them a high.

Educating yourself is f**ken hard. You have to be mature and state well I was wrong about whatever it is.

If you don't have the time (I admit I'm retired and I have a tonne of time) then say you don't know. I've learned to do this a lot.

I've been a moron. It's human nature. Continuing to engage with bullshit though is bullshit.

I'll have time to form an opinion over the next week or so.

This makes no sense to me. How can you form an opinion on a fact. Does 1 + 1 =2. It's not open for debate. It's not about having an opinion.

We are all entitled to opinions but those opinions need to be based on facts. If the facts don't concur with your opinion that your opinion is bullshit and completely worthless.

All I can do, and I encourage you too, regarding the care for our planet is not to add to the problem. As I've said before it's hard when you've spent your life savings on a petrol car and use electricity etc but we should control what we can control. Stop throwing crap into our drains, turn lights off etc etc.

I don't understand why people are actively fighting against caring for the planet.

I think some more facts are important here:-

1. Human history from hunter-gatherer to today has taken about 10, 000 years.
2. All of this development has occurred in a relatively stable environment called the Holocene period.
3. We could expect the Holocene period to last another 50,000 years without man made climate change.
4. The facts are without any action we could f**k the world up within 100-300 years.

--> Please fact check these comments if you want too because they are off the top of my head.
--> The arrogance and the stupidity of people who think this is a game astounds me. It's not a game. It's not a joke. It's not culture war BS.

 

[Tiger05]

Dude, you're just regurgitating chatgpt...

Mostly true but I'll add some context.

After you questioned my using ChatGPT to fact check I did two things:-

1. I asked you is there a better way to do this - there was no response.
2. I queried ChatGPT and stated I wanted facts and not bullshit. I also stated to provide sources so there are sources that you can fact check in my posts or chatGPT.

Some other points:-
1. I am pretty well educated. For instance I understand climate change, I'm well educated on the energy transition and I am well educated on other topics such as nutrition. I mention some facts that I understand - for instance Merchants of Doubt is a classic book on misinformation. I understand the Holocene period and how long humans have been about. I am not stupid but I'm also not easily led.
2. These guys are posting known misinformation that they get from social media sites. They aren't providing solid mature information to discuss. They are basically little children throwing tantrums. This is not a debate between someone well educated discussing nuance in the discussion that I could learn from. This is childish bullshit. ChatGPT can fact check this sort of stuff really quickly for me. I'd argue it's much better to use this approach than for me to have to dig around and spend a lot of time proving bullshit is bullshit.

 

[Tiger05]

I'm interested to know what your research has done to save the planet. Have you been able to implement changes in your lifestyle that can make a difference?

Not really. This is a real tough one. I'm an economist by education and this is a classic example of the free market not providing the right outcome. The simple economic solution which I like is to implement a carbon tax. That is though too hard in today's day and age. People are so focused on getting what they want today and they don't want to pay more taxes. They whine about not getting enough though. This pisses me off.

I like the story of buying an electric hot plate rather than use the gas one at my home. I am married with 3 kids. Basically no one uses the electric hot plate. Right now I try and stress using the A/C to warm the house but my wife prefers the gas heater.

Massive changes are required across human society. We are just tiny little nothings in the big scheme of things.

I'm actually an optimist and although I can see it could all go bad I know that the energy transition is happening even when a moron like Trump gets voted in. It's becoming a case of it's cheaper to transition than not transition.

I'm only really concerned about tipping points and I don't understand them. To be fair I think scientists don't understand them perfectly either. This is though the issue. It could be worse than what I think it is.

I said education is paramount. I believe that. It's the foundation to how we live.
If kindergartens through to universities enlightened people in what's wrong with the planet and how we can improve things, then as generations come and go we should have people at the top who are willing to make the right changes.
My generation is just starting to wake up to it all.
I hope my grandchildren do a better job.
Once again, people like me can only make baby steps. Throwing facts at me will only help if it has simple instructions

Education is so important but the world we live in is so f**ked up. I don't understand these culture war warriors. I don't get it. I think there is so much misinformation designed by people who want to blow the world up and get rich while they can but some people buy into it so easily.

I gave a bunch of facts and detailed information but these guys won't change their feelings because they love having those feelings.

I think the discussion on education has to now include discussions on misinformation and human ego's/feelings. You'd think if you have the right information it's easy to make decisions but it's not that simple because it's hard to admit you got something wrong.

 

[TooheysNew]

Mostly true but I'll add some context.

After you questioned my using ChatGPT to fact check I did two things:-

1. I asked you is there a better way to do this - there was no response.
2. I queried ChatGPT and stated I wanted facts and not bullshit. I also stated to provide sources so there are sources that you can fact check in my posts or chatGPT.

Some other points:-
1. I am pretty well educated. For instance I understand climate change, I'm well educated on the energy transition and I am well educated on other topics such as nutrition. I mention some facts that I understand - for instance Merchants of Doubt is a classic book on misinformation. I understand the Holocene period and how long humans have been about. I am not stupid but I'm also not easily led.
2. These guys are posting known misinformation that they get from social media sites. They aren't providing solid mature information to discuss. They are basically little children throwing tantrums. This is not a debate between someone well educated discussing nuance in the discussion that I could learn from. This is childish bullshit. ChatGPT can fact check this sort of stuff really quickly for me. I'd argue it's much better to use this approach than for me to have to dig around and spend a lot of time proving bullshit is bullshit.

I'm not here to teach you critical thinking skills mate. Sorry. I don't do that for free.

You cant just ask a Large Language Model not to give you bullshit haha. That's not how it works at all.

You will need to find your own sources that aren't ai generated.

 

[Tiger05]

I'm not here to teach you critical thinking skills mate. Sorry. I don't do that for free.

You cant just ask a Large Language Model not to give you bullshit haha. That's not how it works at all.

You will need to find your own sources that aren't ai generated.

A couple of little points here:-

1. Your first point is like stating I have the special information but I can't give it to you because of blah blah blah. Sorry but that is a bullshit statement. Just to be clear if you can back it up do it. I'm not only ready to learn I'm willing to learn. Please provide the information if you can. If not don't. I am happy to be proven wrong. It will enhance my knowledge and I'll even state thank you.

2. Your point on the LLM may be true but I'm not convinced. I have queried ChatGPT in a lot of detail about topics I know in detail and I've learned heaps. My daughter is studying IT and she has stated LLM aren't good at math but I'm not sure what that means for generalist knowledge. I accept I am a generalist. I want to learn from experts and have my understanding of issues aligned with the experts unless I have a better argument than they do which is really hard. So in my experience Chat GPT works fantastically well and I can give a great example. That misinformation that was posted from social media sites was easily fact checked and shown to be stupid. They are cherry picking data and they got easily exposed. I have also used ChatGPT to fact check some detailed nutritional papers and it did a great job. From my experience it's great at getting the bigger picture right and relaying that information in a clear fashion.

3. Why would I go and find my own sources ? This to me is a ridiculous statement. They have obtained their information from twitter like posts and I'm serious. Go and read it. It's just emotional feelings. It's not data driven. It's not science. It's a joke. I recently fact checked Taurine. I had to go and read scientific papers. I took time and it's difficult. There is no way I'm doing a deep dive on clearly obvious misinformation. ChatGPT just spits out clearly how what they are posting is bullshit and it gives sources. It's awesome. You know what you can do fact-check me. If I learn it's awesome.