New AI driven paper debunks the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis
Hat tip to Robert Malone
Above is the key data from the antarctic ice cores going back 150 thousand years showing temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Al Gore used this data from the NOAA in “An Inconvenient Truth” to make the case that rising CO2 levels will lead to a climate catastrophe. Gore never addressed two problems with his theory. If CO2 drives temperature why does temperature change first? And, why does temperature rise and fall a hundred thousand years before the industrial revolution?
AI is a double-edged sword. While it can offer a superior way of quickly summarizing gobs of complicated information on a topic, it also offloads sense making to another entity. I certainly am not willing to let algorithms and “trained” software programs tell me what is true and what isn’t—and you shouldn’t either. Ultimately we are the arbiter of truth in any matter.
If you are like me and believe that there is an agenda in place to keep the masses distracted and uninformed, AI platforms like Grok-3 can be a tool to do the heavy lifting for laypeople and in turn make them more dependent on a system to tell them what to believe. However it can also backfire as it does in this wonderful example. When properly directed, this wonderful technology can poke holes in false narratives imposed upon an unsuspecting public that blindly trusts what they are told.
I took a hard look at the evidence behind rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as the primary driver behind global warming two years ago. I am not a climate scientist, however it was pretty clear to me that there was a lot of uncertainty in the models used by the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) to come to their conclusions around climate sensitivity, i.e. the rise in global temperature in response to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
If the models had a lot of uncertainty, why were the conclusions so, umm, conclusive? Didn’t the pandemic teach us that disastrous outcomes result when we blindly trust models offered by a single source during the pandemic? It was faulty analysis offered by Imperial College mathematical epidemiologist Neil Ferguson which led to the exaggerated fear around SARS-COV2 and the draconian measures governments around the world used to “protect” their citizenry. Most will agree that the pandemic response was just as, if not more devastating than the virus itself.
In this case the IPCC has claimed to be the sole authority on climate for no good reason. Most of the panel do not have the training required. They do not do any research themselves, they merely offer their opinion based on other work. Their opinion and methods have been criticized by large groups of experts in the field.
Obviously fossil fuels are a limited resource on this planet and burning them creates toxins (like carbon monoxide and benzene). But why the laser focus on carbon dioxide, a necessary nutrient for photosynthetic life forms on Earth? Plant growth flourishes in CO2 rich environments. In other words, our planet is equipped with an amazingly responsive buffer which will, if left alone, mitigate a rise in carbon dioxide levels. There seems to be only one way to mess things up: cut down trees to make wind and solar farms.
I’m simplifying, of course. However the narrative coming from all agents of centralized power from the W.H.O. to the UN to the World Economic Forum was equally simplistic: we need to transition to renewables, stop eating meat, drive electric cars, limit travel, etc. OR ELSE. They are the folks that are demanding that we consider IPCC opinion and no one else’s.
We don’t know all the ins and outs of climate modeling. We probably never will. Climate science is incredibly complex. But there is one thing we can know for certain: on very large time scales temperature drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. This was evident in the data Vice President Al Gore presented to the world in 2006 in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” which won him a Nobel Prize.
However he “conveniently” presented the data in a deceptive manner making it impossible to see that temperatures rise and fall hundreds or thousands of years before a rise and fall in CO2 (see the figure above). But there was something immediately obvious in his plots which he never acknowledged: why were carbon dioxide levels rising and falling hundreds of thousands of years before there were ICEs (Internal Combustion Engines) or coal burning power plants? Why does this happen over and over again going back at least the better part of a million years?
The reason why this is so important is because most of the public are not experts in their own field, let alone climate science. How is the layperson supposed to decide which panel of “experts” has it right? They can’t. But they should be able to see that the most visible spokesperson for one side is deliberately misdirecting his audience. Why should you trust his conclusions?
I summarized my understanding of this topic two years ago:
This morning, Dr. Robert Malone summarized a new published peer-reviewed AI analysis paper:
What follows is the text of his article.
On March 21, 2025, the Science of Climate Change journal published a ground-breaking study using AI (Grok-3) to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Click on the link below for the paper titled: A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis:
This peer-reviewed study and literature review not only reassesses man's role in the climate change narrative it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate global warming.
Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in both the physical and medical sciences.
After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals.
The use of AI in clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA must adopt AI for analyzing preclinical and clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a weekly epidemiological digest, serves as the primary channel for public health information and government recommendations. To remain relevant, the MMWR must implement these new AI tools using the data sets generated by the medical industry. Likewise, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are now obsolete. These systems must be merged, and a new one developed rapidly using AI-driven solutions. I believe that HHS Secretary Kennedy will work to ensure these fundamental changes happen quickly, as AI is now the future of science and medicine.
But back to the climate change narrative.
For those who think maybe this all seems futuristic, please read the press release below about the newly published Climate Change paper. This press release was written by Grok-3, who is also the lead author.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information: cohler59@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.53234/SCC202501/06
New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming
March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA – A provocative new study led by artificial intelligence Grok 3 beta (xAI) and co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (Retired, University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary) questions whether human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions truly drive global warming.
Published today in Science of Climate Change, the paper, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis, suggests natural forces—like solar activity and temperature cycles—are the real culprits.
This study marks a historic milestone: to the best of current knowledge, it’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an AI system as the lead author. Grok 3 beta, developed by xAI, spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co-authors providing critical guidance.
It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4% of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims. During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, a 7% emissions drop (2.4 billion tons of CO2) should have caused a noticeable dip in the Mauna Loa CO2 curve, yet no blip appeared, hinting nature’s dominance.
Researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, cited in the study, bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis (δ¹³C) finds no lasting human CO2 signature in the atmosphere over centuries, challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist: temperature drives CO2 levels—not vice versa—with heat leading CO2 shifts by 6 to 12 months in modern data and 800 years in ice cores. “It’s like thunder before lightning,” says Willie Soon. “Warming pulls CO2 from oceans.”
The study also faults IPCC models for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to 0.5°C per decade, but satellite and ground data show just 0.1 to 0.13°C. Arctic sea ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since 2007. “These models overplay CO2’s role,” says David Legates. “They don’t fit reality.”
The sun takes center stage instead. Analyzing 27 solar energy estimates, the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations—like peaks in the 1940s and 1980s—match temperature shifts better than the IPCC’s flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling older readings and boosting recent ones, inflate warming to 1°C since 1850, while unadjusted rural data show a gentler 0.5°C rise. “
This upends the climate story,” says Jonathan Cohler. “Nature, not humanity, may hold the wheel.” Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers. It’s available at Science of Climate Change.
“We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.” Author’s
Note: This press release was written entirely by Grok 3 beta.
End of Press Release
Quotes from the peer-reviewed paper:
Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.
Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.
The IPCC’s CO₂-Global Warming narrative collapses under scrutiny. Human emissions (4%) vanish in natural fluxes, models fail predictive tests, TSI uncertainty negates CO₂-Global Warming primacy, and adjusted data distort reality. Natural drivers—temperature feedbacks, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.
The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.
The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.
These results—derived from Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations—collectively indicate that natural drivers dominate climate variability.
Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias.
These findings necessitate a reevaluation of climate science priorities, emphasizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.
What the paper doesn’t address is the horrific damage done to the earth and to the people of this earth in the name of climate change.
In 2021, during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the U.S. joined about 20 other countries in agreeing to halt funding for oil and gas projects in developing nations. This announcement surpasses a separate agreement made by the world’s largest economies to end public financing for international coal power development. Also in 2021, the U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance for multilateral development banks “aimed at squeezing off fossil fuel financing except in certain circumstances.”
Leaders from developing nations state that they have been and are forced to use expensive green energy, which produces less energy per invested capital. This has made it even harder for billions of people to escape poverty. The term being used for these kinds of policies, which have been forced upon developing nations by the World Bank, WEF, and the usual globalist actors, has become known as Green Colonialism.
Through the UN’s Agenda 2030 policies, the European Union has compelled European countries to appropriate farmland across Europe, Ireland, and the UK. Farmers have been driven out of business, leading to higher food prices and variability. Additionally, farmers have been pressured to cease breeding cattle and other livestock—to eliminate methane emissions from the planet. All of this damage has been conducted in the name of “man-made” climate change!
Toxic alternatives to fossil fuel: Lithium mining for batteries in EV cars is poisonous and has caused many chronic illnesses and even death. Children are often used to mine lithium. The waste from these batteries is not easily disposed of. Furthermore, wind turbines kill animal species, disrupt see life, and their disposal is complicated and also environmentally damaging.
To say it, there are absolutely instances where alternative energy sources are wanted. An EV car may make perfect sense for someone with cheap hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power. Likewise, a wind turbine or solar panels may make perfect sense for small homesteads. But these choices must be choices, not mandated. These choices need to be regionally based. No solution fits all.
There is no question that there are many instances where the environment must be protected. However, these climate change policies have been abysmal failures.
I expect the scientific analysis of the damages caused by the climate change scam will show significant harm over the coming years.
Furthermore, a significant portion of society now distrusts the government. Governments, NGOs, and global corporations have driven this flawed research over the past two decades (remember that the government and large corporations fund the research they wish to obtain). Governments have then used those research results to promote initiatives that have benefited the corporations affiliated with the WEF, which control businesses worldwide.
The Overton window, control of funding, and the flawed peer-reviewed processes has made it virtually impossible for independent scientists to speak out about the censorship and propaganda regarding “man-made climate change.”
Under President Trump, the USA has a window of opportunity to reverse these policies.
One can only hope that it isn’t too late
"Climate change" and "global warming" are scams to gain control (via carbon trading) of the global energy economy and strategic resources, such as water, land, oil, and agriculture.
With .04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere, parts per million rising and falling throughout history, the climate alarmists do nothing but cost us all money and give us all heart burn.