Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
@DoomsdayDebunks
Apr 12, 2021 • 5 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
Why NFT art is okay. Adding transactions makes no difference to energy use as mining coins happens with or without transactions, also Etherium is in process of upgrade to Eth2, completed by some time in 2022, and after that will have negligible energy use. medium.com/superrare/no-c…
I.e. you use Etherium blockchain, but miners mine Etherium coins with or without fine art transactions, so no increase in mining work. After Etherium "proof of stake" upgrade to Eth2 by 2022, mining has negligible energy use blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/sla… Image
This is about the process of upgrade to the more sustainable Etherium 2 with only a tiny fraction of the energy use of Bitcoin. It uses "proof of stake" rather than "proof of work". I don't understand the details but they have it all worked out. ethereum.org/en/eth2/
@threadreaderapp unroll
Calculations like this are flawed IMHO github.com/kylemcdonald/c… because the number of transactions makes no difference to the day's CO2 emissions. They ARE indirectly supporting the coins. But it's not a bad one to support given that it will have almost zero power use by 2022.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people

Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DoomsdayDebunks

Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Oct 24
SHORT DEBUNK Trump if elected CAN'T use the military as soldiers on US soil
- only as extra National Guards, or relief workers (as for hurricanes)

doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Trump_if_…
SHORT DEBUNK: Why NATO would hardly change if Trump is elected president and ignores all the US commitment to NATO
- and Europe is already well on its way to taking over funding to Ukraine

SEE: doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Why_NATO_…
SHORT DEBUNK: Why Supreme Court was unanimous in decision that Trump's name had to stay on the ballot - also did not say he is immune for everything
- Judge Chutkan's preliminary ruling shortly after election day expected to say an 06 trial can go ahead
doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Why_the_S…
Read 11 tweets
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Sep 26
BLOG: Dare to Hope
- Climate Restoration
- Three ways to get CO2 levels back to pre-industrial 300 ppm by 2050
- potentially pay for themselves
- many more ways to remove CO2 in IPCC AR6 chapters 7 and 12
See: robertinventor.substack.com/p/dare-to-hope… Many ways to do carbon dioxide removal - might need these in 2nd half of century to stay at zero emissions once we get there Cross-Chapter Box 8, Figure 1: Carbon Dioxide Removal taxonomy . Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change AR6 / WG3.
I wrote this blog post on Quora originally. Updated it and shared on my substack because so many seem completely unaware of AR6 / WG3 / Chapter 7 and Chapter 12 - even sometimes write articles on the topic of carbon sequestration that show they never so much as saw this figure.
The first part of the blog post is about several ways to get back to 300 ppm if we wanted to that even pay for themselves. The second part is a short summary of the IPCC sections on ways to remain at net zero through the second half of this century summarized in that graphic.
Read 5 tweets
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Jul 8
If worried about project 2025:

BLOG: Far right Republican Project 2025 is mostly an illegal fantasy - most of it can’t be done at all - “Schedule F” would face legal challenges and likely be struck down
CLICK HERE TO READ:

Screenshot of first page. doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right…
Image
2/ This is impossible. I 'll do a new post when I get time. Most things require new laws and they can't get a far right majority in either house. Schedule F is the main executive decision option. If he tries again it is likely shot down as illegal. Meanwhile short thread.
3/ for LGBT things remember that the vast majority in both houses supported the respect for marriage act. So it is not possible for Congress to pass laws that remove the right for marriage for gay people never mind harsher restrictions.

doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Far_right…


Image
Image
Image
Read 14 tweets
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Jun 15
1/n Yes we ARE headed for 1.7°C if countries keep to announced pledges
- most make realistic pledges and achieve or overachieve
- 77% of IPCC authors CAN be wrong if it is the remaining 23% who study how countries translate pledges into action

See BLOG: robertinventor.substack.com/p/yes-we-are-h…
TEXT ON GRAPHIC As technology improves we expect it to be EASIER to achieve these pledges and improve on them. APS [Announced Pledges Scenario] Most of these pledges are - economically feasible - from countries that historically equal or exceed pledges. The 1.7°C scenario assumes countries achieve their announced pledges. Why do so many say 1.7°C is impossible? It can't be, by definition. Highlighted text: "In the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), the temperature rise in 2100 is 1.7 °C" This graphic is from the latest IEA repor...
2/ About why climate scientists often are so pessimistic about action on climate change.
- hardly any study the economic models
- IPCC / AR6 had a cut off date just before the COP26 net zero pledges
- so couldn't evaluate the feasibility of India / China's net zero plans. Text on graphic: IPCC / AR6 cut-off date was before the net zero pledges of India and China. More important figure : 23% of climate scientists expect a rise of 2 C or less Less than 10% of IPCC scientists study the economics of climate change and Integrated Assessment Models use older simpler economic methods
3/ The big IPBES report in 2019 was the only recent major study with a large element of social scientists and it was the most optimistic, saying we can achieve this transformative change, not just scientifically - that it is economically and socially feasible. Transformative change maximizes good quality of life with GROWTH, material, non material and economic - IPCC and IPBES Increasingly we are following this path makes sense [Scroll down page to see second copy of this graphic for the rest of the text] Graphic from page 33 of the appendix to chapter 4 of the IPBES report in 2019 https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2021-01/GA_chapter_4_supplementary_materials.pdf
Read 25 tweets
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Oct 3, 2022
@GerogeBush6 @mikestabile 1/ This is an inaccurate summary. It is about exceptions to the law not overturning it. There are many exceptions already itif.org/publications/2…
This case is specifically about how YouTube recommends videos to users (continues)
@GerogeBush6 @mikestabile 2/n The case is about whether Google is liable if its algorithm recommends illegal content to users. It is NOT liable for hosting user generated illegal content - that's established. Video summary.
c-span.org/video/?c503199…
@GerogeBush6 @mikestabile This is the basic argument for the defendant

news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/hi… Image
Read 11 tweets
Robert Walker BSc, fact checker for scared people Profile picture
Oct 3, 2022
1/4 Many people are misreading what Putin said in his annexation speech. He did NOT say Hiroshima and Nagasaki create a precedent for the world to use nukes today

- that would be a very radical
- that would reverse all Russian nuclear policy for decades.
2/4 It is very clear in context that Putin said
- the Allied carpet bombing in WW2 in Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne
- set a precedent for the use of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They clip the video just before the second paragraph which makes that clear.
3/4 I go into it in my blog post using the official English translation of Putins' speech as published by the Kremlin.

I look at two other ways to intepret those two sentences, neither makes sense in the context of the paragraph that follows.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(