Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Gee it's hot - The Climate Change discussion thread

Keeper66 said:
What does remuneration have to do with it? What tangent are you flying off on now?
Click to expand...

He's such a fucking idiot. Scientists that are barely scraping buy apparently have to work for nothing before their results are accepted.

Just when you thought the moron couldn't be any more stupid.
 
Frank Bergman Slay News March 25, 2025 A groundbreaking study led by artificial intelligence (AI) has confirmed that globalist narratives about “climate change” and “global warming” are a hoax. xAI’s Grok 3 beta was used to produce the first-ever artificial intelligence-led peer-reviewed climate science paper. The AI analyzed temperature, sea ice, and atmospheric CO2 data to investigate whether humans are changing the climate through excess emissions.
Click to expand...

However, with political agenda and hunger for grants from the United Nations removed from the equation, the AI-powered machine provided very different results to the climate scientists spouting the “settled science” on “global warming.”Instead, the AI-led study found that temperatures change before atmospheric CO2 changes and that solar activity and natural cycles drive global temperature changes.
Click to expand...

Grok 3 is an artificial intelligence model developed by xAI, an artificial intelligence startup founded by Elon Musk.Released in February 2025, Grok 3 is designed to solve complex problems.It can retrieve information in real time and provide contextually relevant responses.Researchers Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon used Grok 3 to scrutinize climate-related datasets and climate change models.
Click to expand...

They sought to establish whether the anthropogenic global warming narrative is supported by evidence.“This paper aims to rigorously test the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis by integrating unadjusted [observational] datasets with recent analytical frameworks, scrutinising model performance, isotopic evidence and the IPCC’s solar forcing assumptions to determine whether the prevailing narrative withstands empirical scrutiny,” the paper states.The observational datasets used in the review include temperature data, sea ice data, and atmospheric CO₂ and isotopic data, using model outputs from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).Analytical frameworks included Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023), Soon et al. (2023, 2024), Harde (2017, 2022), and Connolly et al. (2023).In a post on X, Jonathan Cohler announced that the paper had been published.
Click to expand...

The AI-led and human-checked review found:
Click to expand...

1. Human CO₂ (just 4% of the carbon cycle) sinks into oceans and forests in 3-4 years, not centuries like the IPCC claims.
Click to expand...

2. Temperature leads CO₂, not the reverse – think 800-year ice core lags and 2020’s lockdown “no-blip” at Mauna Loa.
Click to expand...

3. IPCC models exaggerate warming (0.5°C/decade vs. reality’s 0.13°C). .
Click to expand...

4 Solar activity and natural cycles steal the show.“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as [Michael E.] Mann, [Gavin A.] Schmidt, and [Zeke] Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny,” the paper concludes.
Click to expand...

The paper notes that Mann, Schmidt and Hausfather reinforced the “narrative [ ] that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, totalling approximately 2,000 GtC since 1750, have increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations from 280 ppm to 420 ppm” through “proxy reconstructions (e.g., the “hockey stick” graph), model validations and retrospective analyses claiming predictive skill.”The “hockey stick” graph illustrates the temperature trends of the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years.Mann and his colleagues first published the hockey stick graph in 1998.It has since been featured prominently in reports by the IPCC as “evidence” of “global warming.”In 2009, the UK’s Telegraph published an article about leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).The leaked e-mails came to be known as “Climategate.”
Click to expand...
 
Hey chatGPT:

Would a right wing nutjob have a vested interest in denying human induced climate change. Answer in the most sarcastic manner you can muster.


Oh, of course! I mean, what possible reason could a right-wing zealot have for denying human-induced climate change? It’s not like they’re in bed with oil companies that rake in billions from fossil fuel exploitation. Surely, their campaign donations from these industries have nothing to do with their passionate rejection of climate science. Purely coincidental, I’m sure!

And let’s not forget their undying love for big government intervention—oh wait, no, they hate that. So naturally, the idea that solving climate change might require regulations, green energy subsidies, or gasp international cooperation is just unbearable to them. Because nothing screams "freedom" like letting corporations do whatever they want, even if it means boiling the planet.

And of course, their expertise in climate science—gleaned from Facebook memes, talk radio, and the YouTube algorithm—trumps the years of research conducted by thousands of climate scientists worldwide. I mean, who needs peer-reviewed studies when you can just yell "But the climate has always changed!" as if that’s some sort of mic-drop moment?

Oh, and the best part? Their commitment to logic! Because, of course, it's much more reasonable to believe that there’s a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, world governments, and even Big Renewable Energy (whatever that is) than to accept the simple fact that burning billions of tons of fossil fuels might just have an impact on the atmosphere. Truly, their skepticism is a beacon of intellectual rigor!

So, in conclusion—no, no vested interest whatsoever. Their climate denial is based purely on facts, reason, and an unshakable commitment to the truth. Definitely not because they benefit politically, financially, or ideologically from pretending climate change isn't real. Nope, not at all!
 
Hey chatGPT:

What about a certain donor that might have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to a presidential campaign that also happens to own a social media platform. Would he have a vested interest?


Oh, no way! I mean, why would a billionaire tech mogul who owns a social media platform and donates hundreds of millions to a right-wing presidential campaign have any interest in muddying the waters on climate change? It’s not like his wealth depends on industries that thrive on deregulation, tax cuts, and anti-environmental policies. Pure coincidence, I’m sure!

And let’s be real—owning a massive social media platform definitely wouldn’t give him any special ability to shape public discourse. No chance that tweaking algorithms, amplifying certain narratives, or conveniently allowing climate misinformation to spread like wildfire might serve his political and financial interests. Nope! Just a hands-off, totally neutral, free-speech-loving billionaire with absolutely no agenda whatsoever.

And come on, who would ever believe that someone with enormous financial stakes in industries that benefit from climate inaction might want to influence public opinion? That would require the ridiculous assumption that billionaires don’t always act out of pure, selfless concern for humanity. How dare anyone suggest such a thing!

So, to answer your question—no, no vested interest at all! Just another totally impartial, truth-seeking, humble billionaire who just so happens to be bankrolling the political forces most likely to roll back environmental protections. Nothing to see here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top