An analysis of climate data by the respected AI Grok 3 beta verifies that the hype that’s been promoted by the media and other climate change activists for the past forty years is just plain incorrect. [emphasis, links added]
A March 21, 2025, press release details how this analysis was guided by Jonathan Cohler, Dr. David R. Legates (Professor Emeritus, University of Delaware), Dr. Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary), and Franklin Soon.
Grok 3 beta questions whether carbon dioxide emissions released by humanity have been responsible for the slight warming we’ve experienced in the past 175 years.
This amazing study, “A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-
Global Warming Hypothesis” was published in the journal Science of Climate Change.
It concluded that such warming is caused mainly by changes in solar output and other natural causes.
This study is the first peer-reviewed climate science paper using AI to conduct this research and analysis.
This analysis also debunks the conclusions of IPCC computer models that have predicted warming much greater than that which has occurred.
The IPCC’s predicted increase of up to 0.5°C per decade is incorrect. In contrast, data from satellite and ground stations indicate that the average temperature increase has been only about 0.1°C to 0.13°C.
Another incorrect prediction by the IPCC was the reduction in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The data shows that the number of square kilometers of Arctic sea ice hasn’t decreased since 2007.
“These models overplay CO2’s role,” affirmed David Legates. “They don’t fit reality.”
The study continues, “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.”
The unadjusted records, which are available to researchers online, contend that human CO2 emissions comprise just 4% of the carbon dioxide released annually.
This is absorbed by oceans and forests within three to four years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.
During the 2020 COVID lockdown, the amount of CO2 released by mankind dropped by about 7% or 2.4 billion tons of CO2. This decrease should have been reflected by a distinct dip in the CO2 data at the Mauna Loa observatory.
The absence of a noticeable blip in the graph during 2020 supports the conclusion that about 96% of the annual carbon dioxide released, primarily from the ocean, is natural.
This conclusion was also arrived at in a study by Professor Murry Salby and Hermann Harde in their 2021 paper, “Control of Atmospheric CO2 Part I: Relation of Carbon 14 to the Removal of CO2.”
The Grok 3 beta study also indicates that the sun has a great deal more influence on our climate than indicated by the IPCC flat solar model. This paper analyzed other estimates of solar influence from 27 other studies.
It is well known that the IPCC used adjusted temperature records, which lowered earlier temperatures and raised more recent ones.
Actual, unadjusted readings from rural temperature stations that haven’t been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect show that global temperatures have risen only about 0.5°C since the 1850 start date of the Industrial Revolution.
Another study conclusion:
“Moreover, individual Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIIP) 3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs 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…
“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 feedback, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.”
The idea that humans are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, as advocated in IPCC reports and scientists like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and Phil Jones, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Human CO2 emissions constitute just a minor component of climate change empirical data.
This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and other peer-reviewed studies and shows that blaming human carbon dioxide emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since the end of the Little Ice Age is unfounded.
“Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedback, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends,” the authors write.
“The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.”
Recent studies, including Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations, support the notion that climate variability is primarily driven by natural causes.
Human CO2 emissions are a minor contributor, GCMs have limitations, total solar irradiance (TSI) assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce bias. These findings suggest reevaluating climate science priorities and prioritizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.
Many of the assumptions regarding TSI cannot be backed up. Even worse, data adjustments that have been made introduce systemic bias into the data.
“This upends the climate story,” says Jonathan Cohler. “Nature, not humanity, may hold the wheel.”
“We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta, who wrote the press release. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.”
This is just the beginning of many scientific studies, not only in climate science but also in medical science that will be conducted soon. Whether the mainstream media will cover this development remains to be seen.
Hundreds of fascinating facts about the climate change scam can be found in Lynne Balzer’s richly illustrated book, Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie, available on Amazon.
Your ignoring the Facts just like Gore the More DICaprio the Conman and the whole Useless Nations
It doesn’t take an AI study to show that empirical evidence does not support carbon dioxide as a major driver in warming the earth. As I have pointed out in the past, one of the most compelling is that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. The pause in warming at the beginning of this century was at a time when carbon dioxide was raising rapidly. The article contains many relevant facts. The historical temperature records have been altered to support the climate change narrative. This is a matter of pubic record and undeniable. On the average the IPCC computer models have predictions that run hotter than real world data. The Artic sea ice has not declined as predicted.
The so called IPCC just another UN front for a Global Government this whole Global Warming/Climate Change a excuse for UN/Global Government
This so called study is pitiful claptrap
Same baloney I’ve read in the past 28 years.
I assume this comment will be censored
Just like my prior comment on a different article
Therefore, not worthy of the time needed to refute
So Rickie, I can’t imagine why any of your claptrap comments would have been censored but also not sure what your MBA prepared you to call this study claptrap. But you are allowed to post your over-wrought opinions on what gets posted here.
When one reads that 96% of CO2 emissions are natural, implying that the 50% rise of CO2 increase since 1850 was 96% natural, one immediately knows the author is a crackpot.
That rise of CO2 was 100% from manmade CO2 emissions and your insults will never change that fact
My Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog has had over 1,087,000 page views
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Please explain what man raised CO2 levels to 6 to 10 times current levels in the dinosaur era?