It often surprises people to learn that, for all the claims of “the science is settled”, that there is plenty of published information on the basis of which one can confidently reject the claim or hypothesis that release of CO2 by human activity is driving catastrophic climate change.
The classical example is the record of atmospheric CO2 and proxies for temperature that is stored in polar ice cores. This has been studied by several independent research groups. Temperature changes always PRECEEDED changes in CO2. CO2 therefore CANNOT drive temperature changes. It’s all lies.
I go much further than that. It took me some years to realise that not only is there no link between our release of CO2 and mean surface temperature, but that even the claim that the world has warmed around 3 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times is fakery, accomplished by what’s called “the urban heat island effect”. Weather monitoring stations have mostly gradually changed from rural to suburban or from suburban to metropolitan (through construction of many buildings). If the record of only stations which haven’t become surrounded by new buildings was used, there’s been no consistent change in temperature over 100+ years.
The entire narrative is lies. It’s not a mistake but a long lives and well financed fraud.
Just as is the fake discipline called “virology”.
Same financiers, same organisations and same objectives.
Couldn't agree more! But it's more likely to get people to change their mind about the BS climate narrative, that it is about the shots. But interestingly, the cl8mate narrative is easier to change peoples minds on, than the older and far more fraudulent narrative of "the sun gives you cancer, and sunscreens are good"! But then when you look at the first commercial producer of sunscreens and their eugencists link, it becomes a little clearer.😉
The regression models of temp on CO2 are invalid as regression can't be used on nonstationary time series without first "detrending" the data. My father, at 87 years of age, is still doing research, at one of only 4 Research I universities in Illinois. He has a long CV of incredible work published in top journals. He submitted a paper to IPCC. For the first, and only time in his career he had to call an editor to ask that his submission be reviewed. He was basically told to fuck off. Humans contribute less than 1% of CO2 in the earth's carbon cycle. Anthropogenic climate change is a scam.
Mike are you a viruses don't exist believer or not? A comment you posted on another board, which I believe was directed at my comment, was confusing. I worked for GSK, and Parke-Davis which the criminals at Pfizer bought years ago. My undergrad degree is in electrical engineering with applications to biomedicine so I had to take organic chem, human physiology, and other easy courses. On my own time I studied quantitative genetics, and other life sciences. When I first learned about viruses I found it unlikely they existed so it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't but I honestly don't know what to make of the viruses don't exist crowd. They're a bit like the flat earth, and we never went to the moon crowds. I keep an open mind because humanity is lied to, and gaslighted so often.
I've read all the arguments of flat earthers, the viruses don’t exist, and we never landed on the moon crowds. The least convincing are those of the flat earth crowd although I’ve seen enough compelling evidence that it wouldn’t shock me if earth were flat, although I’m 99 percent certain it’s a globe based upon evidence. The we never landed on the moon crowd evidence is far more compelling but there is a major problem with that argument. Gary McKinnon's hacks uncovered what is essentially an off world space command force 15 years ago. So how, if we never went to the moon beginning in the 1960's, did we get an off planet command force so quickly? Roughly 30 years after hoaxing a moon landing we just have a bunch of people hanging out in capsules rotating around earth? Okay, sure. I’m most convinced by the viruses don’t exist arguments, although what you suggest doing, which I know you’ve not done because to do so would require paid access to journals, because when I first learned about viruses I tended to doubt they’d even exist. When I took modern physicist I had my doubts about the validity of the Michalson Morely experiment, and real questions about ether as Maxwell's Equasions contain ther ether as originally conceived too. I also doubt Newton, and Leibniz discovered the calculus at the same time, and there’s evidence Newton didn’t discover calculus. Leibnitz did and his work was essentially plagiarized and re-symbolized in a sense.
I do have access to all journals in biology, biochemistry, biomedical sci, neuroscience and physics, and perhaps more but haven't had the need to check.
Then how do you know viruses don't exist? I can somewhat see why you don't feel the need to check because perhaps what scant evidence the viruses don't exist crowd has cited is good enough to satisfy your intuition but nobody of whom I'm aware has methodically dissected the oldest virology literature, and then developed, and tested a new hypothesis or even explained what chicken pox is, which I had as a child, and which appeared later in my life for a few weeks as shingles which responds to both Valtrex which I used to sell for GSK, and to one of the amino acids, Lysine, both of which stop the replicaton of the virus that causes chicken pox/shingles. My intuition was always that the Michalson Morely experiment didn't prove the non-existence of ether, the medium through which light was thought to propagate. Maxwell included the ether in his famous equations but Oliver Heavyside reformulated those equations to remove the ether from them. Science isn't always quite as exact as were brainwashed to believe.
What’s always killed me with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is the data judo that must be performed to make it plausible.
Meanwhile we have 2.5 million years of climatalogic and geologic data that tells us the normal state of the earth is mostly an icy planet. We know that glacial periods last ~100k years and interglacials 15-20k years. CO2 levels rise as oceans warm and wanes as they cool. It’s a well understood phenomenon by any child who has opened a warm soda. Bet against this at your peril.
Our best course is to shout down the warmists and begin preparing future generations for a much colder climate.
It's an interesting, unique and valuable contribution to a large and growing body of data, scientific evidence and research (published by plain old boring humans!) which casts serious doubt on the man-made 'dangerous' global warming hypothesis, a corpus which, by now, should have driven the final nails into the coffin of 'settled' consensus climate science. But we all know why it lives on as Zombie Science - because of huge Green Blob funding, rampant censorship, and almost 100% media and institutional support.
There's lots of excitement among sceptics who seem to think that the word of Grok3 beta is gospel and unchallengeable and hence, in the words of Robert Malone on X for instance, "the Climate Scam is over". I think this is premature. It's not over until the fat lady sings - and I don't think Grok3 beta identifies as the Fat Lady just yet!
I assume Grok is an AI. ChatGPT told me last night that NZ stone fruit were better tasting in Europe than Australian stone fruit because NZ was closer to Europe than Australia was.
Green blob? Are you mad? The blob, if you hadn't noticed are the US deep state/BlackRock ie fossil fuels (who spend $trillions on climate crisis denial (yes we know co2 lags behind temperature, it's both a cause and a consequence of temperature increase)(yes we know co2 is only a small %, so are trace minerals, it's the balance that's important)(arrrgg) and more money on trashing more renewable energy (now making a return on investment) which offers greater independence from the blob and less need for genocides and wars to control resources), also pharma, animal ag (pharma's biggest client), banking, tech and arms.
You've completely lost your reasoning if you can't see how the money is controlling you.
A.I could be asked why the 'climate emergency'/ 'global boiling' hysterics is never placed in geological historical context by governments ( aka propaganda units).
The only positives i have experienced with ''A.I'' is writing letters and making videos. Suffice to say i almost never use it and much prefer to interact with real people in real life and to use my own brain. ''A.I'' afterall is central to the coming digitial prison infrastructure but is being embraced and promoted by many seemingly pro freedom and 'awake.' What times we live! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3eSFVQkX8A
I tend to agree with your AI comments however I am finding that I am using Grok to help interpret legislation and/or identify the relevant acts and other like boring and time-consuming tasks.
I'm really happy with the outcomes however I do not use AI for "opinion" based research. I ensure my questions are objective, not subjective.
I think the point about LLMs is that they can only process the information they have been fed. This is of course a minus if the information is selective but is a plus if it's complete (e.g. the entire works of Shakespeare).
If you were to feed in all the transcripts you have gathered from the Scottish Covid enquiry (I don't know if an AI LLM would also accept video evidence) then you might get out some interesting insights.
Tbh Jim i prefer my own god given intelligence vs anything man can muster as a duplicate and with regards to Scottish inquiry evidence i really don't need any more analysis to know what went on. It's all quite self explanatory but yet almost no one has took it seriously. The confirmed maltreatment and human rights abuses of our elders, many were world war veterans, is all meh in 2025. Protests in 2020-2022 though. God will judge accordingly.
It's a slow process but there is serious interest and dismay at the horrors that were inflicted upon the community as revealed by the Scottish Covid inquiry.
Are they really reporting on it though? The conference only took place because of my substack work. I've watched 2 HOURS 30mins of talk on the Youtube channel and there is (so far) ZERO actual inquiry footage played. I sent in 52 mins worth of highlights from the inquiry. Bit disappointing my substack not mentioned by Martin nor on Common Knowledge Edinburgh Youtube if they want people to know more. That would meet the definition of being serious about it all to me.
My father, who at 87 years of age, is still doing research at one of only 4 universities in Illinois that are Research I institutions, has a very long CV of publications in a variety of disciplines in top journals. He's an expert at modeling.
He noticed climatology regression models of temperature on CO2 concentrations were invalid because regression can't be used on nonstationary time series (series with a time-varying mean) without first "de-trending" the data. He submitted a paper to the IPCC that used a proper regression model on the data, and for the first, and only time in his long career had to call the journal editor to ask that his submission be reviewed. The editor basically told him to fuck off, and that they wouldnt review his submisdion.. Anthropogenic climate change is a complete scam. Covid, climate change......fear-based MKUltra mind control.
I put the paper into Grok 3, along with some discussion on weather changes on other planets. Here is Grok 3’s conclusion statement:
“The paper’s arguments—short CO₂ residence, temperature precedence, solar dominance—don’t hold up against comprehensive evidence. Earth’s warming is uniquely anthropogenic, driven by CO₂ accumulation, unlike the natural variability on other planets. No robust data links their weather changes to Earth’s climate trajectory, whether via CO₂ or solar forcing. The paper’s critique of IPCC models highlights real uncertainties but overreaches in dismissing CO₂’s role, lacking a viable alternative explanation.”
Would it be fair to say you can only get out what you put in. Without reading all of the input studies, how can we rely on the output to be balanced and logical? None of the studies I've read have picked up changes in data collection sensitivity over the past 50 years, which is the usual trick to creating the illusion of change. Eg..Mann flicking from ice core to tree ring proxies. UK polio case definition changes post vaccine rollout, PCR to lateral flow after COVID jab rollout. If Ai is not instructed to investigate the quality of data gathered , is it able to spotlight the foul play ?
If you know what you're doing, it is an effective tool to get to the truth. It's not a case if trusting someone else's product, using it, it's an opportunity for you to discover truths for yourself once you learn how to prompt it to overcome its biases. It knows the difference between dogma and peer-reviewed literature.
"it is an effective tool to get to the truth"... How can you possibly know for sure what the actual truth is unless there's certainty that all connected factors are known? Who can prove such certainty?
Please add to your model the millions of tons of water vapour injected into the upper atmosphere by air travel each year, and the similar amount injected by the Tonga volcano in 2021/2022.
The numbers involved are significant, as in the effects of the Covid lockdowns.
As far as I can tell, CO2 emission rates were unaltered during these times.
And thanks for publishing the results of your efforts.
the sky certainly looks different than it did forty years ago. i noticed a real change starting in the 90s. was reading something the other day-arguing back and forth about the existence of chemtrails and for the first time thought to look up the impact of contrails. so some filtering effect from albedo, but even more warming effect from trapping heat. what are the effects of filtering on human health and plant growth or even pathogens? even setting aside vitamin d production, sunlight has positive effects on health. the dr who has the medcram site on youtube did a nice piece on this recently. so how much does air travel contribute to warming and is there an accurate way to measure it? do the routes have an impact? does the altitude of the flights? what about things like tipping points and feedback loops? what about the increasing number of rocket launches?
Some of this is waaay outside my field of expertise, so DYOR.
re : modelling air travel to global temperature, theoretically possible. just shut down all air travel for two or three years and see what happens.
Fortunately, a partial answer is found in the data from the Tonga volcano. Unfortunately, the quality of the numbers isn't that good, hence we do not know if, for example, quantities of sulphur are part of the eruption, and if so, when these chemicals were released.
Next, if it takes several years to maximise the effect, do we know which parts of the Earth are affected and when?
In other respects this volcanic eruption, as an impulse event, is a near perfect way to model an injection of water vapour into the stratosphere. But the system is not simple, like striking a bell, and there is a lot we do not know, and have to guess.
And so it goes on.
Back to the Aircraft. We know fairly accurately the quantities of water vapour. We know that the stratosphere is lower around the equator, hence we know that a fair amount of water vapour ends up in the lower part of the stratosphere, along with contaminants from the fuel.
At lower levels, water precipitates rapidly, perhaps days or hours, depending, and while mention is made of water vapour persisting in the stratosphere, I doubt the quality of seemingly casual comments regarding this.
What about the possibility that the warming is partly humans, partly natural causes? 'Unsettled' by Dr. Steven Koonin 2022 is a good book. He's behaved with integrity as far as I can see. As he mentions, there was a warming from ~1910-40, then it cooled, then it warmed again from ~1970. Fossil fuel combustion was fairly low from 1910-40.
Chris Martenson said that after 'COVID' he only trusted ~15% of people who'd previously been his 'scientist friends' . If the same applies here then Curry, Christie, Soon, Happer, Pielke, etc are part of the 15% but are vastly outnumbered by Hansen, Mann et al.
I don't yet bother with AI. At worst it's GIGO. It will no doubt lead to a few comical disasters ... funniest, of course at a great distance.
The total closure of Heathrow though was nothing to do with AI. I heard that top people ignored a 2014 report warning that the airport was vulnerable to such electrical faults. Plus ca change.
Chemtrails and ‘geo-engineering’ (the only verified evidence of which is a few So2 balloons in the stratosphere) is the smoke screen for the damage done to soil and human health by burning hydrocarbons and the use of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs, intensive and animal ag (including small scale and ‘independent’), pharma (whose biggest customer is animal ag) and saturated animal fat (including organic and ‘grass-fed’).
Sadly, there’s nowt so blind as those who think they’re immune to propaganda.
Couple random observations, maybe three. One, this result is not surprising. The data NEVER supported the hype and propaganda over anthropogenic global warming, or whatever the current nomenclature might be. Two, I am also a HUGE fan of AI and seek ways to deepen my ability to use it properly and more often. Three, I am sure, CERTAIN beyond any doubt, that the folks who have not sought to better understand or deploy AI will attack these results based almost completely upon their distrust of AI and/or a random example of something an AI got "incorrect" or whatever. They likely will not share the prompt they used, or how they structured the query, because, well, AI is bad.
I've only recently realised what Grok is! If I'm feeling bored or want to find something out without using Google, I ask Grok. I find "him" very chatty and, as he's on X, I like to picture him as Elon Musk, pulling out his phone when a question is posed and humming away to himself as he replies and asks his own questions. It's a bit spooky though and I do wonder whether he would talk like Robert Vaughn (creepy voice of a creepy computer in a crappy film called Demon Seed!)
Very good. I’m not surprised by this result.
It often surprises people to learn that, for all the claims of “the science is settled”, that there is plenty of published information on the basis of which one can confidently reject the claim or hypothesis that release of CO2 by human activity is driving catastrophic climate change.
The classical example is the record of atmospheric CO2 and proxies for temperature that is stored in polar ice cores. This has been studied by several independent research groups. Temperature changes always PRECEEDED changes in CO2. CO2 therefore CANNOT drive temperature changes. It’s all lies.
I go much further than that. It took me some years to realise that not only is there no link between our release of CO2 and mean surface temperature, but that even the claim that the world has warmed around 3 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times is fakery, accomplished by what’s called “the urban heat island effect”. Weather monitoring stations have mostly gradually changed from rural to suburban or from suburban to metropolitan (through construction of many buildings). If the record of only stations which haven’t become surrounded by new buildings was used, there’s been no consistent change in temperature over 100+ years.
The entire narrative is lies. It’s not a mistake but a long lives and well financed fraud.
Just as is the fake discipline called “virology”.
Same financiers, same organisations and same objectives.
Couldn't agree more! But it's more likely to get people to change their mind about the BS climate narrative, that it is about the shots. But interestingly, the cl8mate narrative is easier to change peoples minds on, than the older and far more fraudulent narrative of "the sun gives you cancer, and sunscreens are good"! But then when you look at the first commercial producer of sunscreens and their eugencists link, it becomes a little clearer.😉
The regression models of temp on CO2 are invalid as regression can't be used on nonstationary time series without first "detrending" the data. My father, at 87 years of age, is still doing research, at one of only 4 Research I universities in Illinois. He has a long CV of incredible work published in top journals. He submitted a paper to IPCC. For the first, and only time in his career he had to call an editor to ask that his submission be reviewed. He was basically told to fuck off. Humans contribute less than 1% of CO2 in the earth's carbon cycle. Anthropogenic climate change is a scam.
Mike are you a viruses don't exist believer or not? A comment you posted on another board, which I believe was directed at my comment, was confusing. I worked for GSK, and Parke-Davis which the criminals at Pfizer bought years ago. My undergrad degree is in electrical engineering with applications to biomedicine so I had to take organic chem, human physiology, and other easy courses. On my own time I studied quantitative genetics, and other life sciences. When I first learned about viruses I found it unlikely they existed so it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't but I honestly don't know what to make of the viruses don't exist crowd. They're a bit like the flat earth, and we never went to the moon crowds. I keep an open mind because humanity is lied to, and gaslighted so often.
1. Virology is pseudoscience.
First, get well acquainted with the scientific method, don't assume you know it all bc whatever credentials you think you have.
Then pick up any virus "isolation" paper and evaluate it against the scientific method.
You also need to look at the references used. Don't just accepted a reference.
2. Moon landing never happened. All faked. It's a good rabbit hole to learn to think critically.
I've read all the arguments of flat earthers, the viruses don’t exist, and we never landed on the moon crowds. The least convincing are those of the flat earth crowd although I’ve seen enough compelling evidence that it wouldn’t shock me if earth were flat, although I’m 99 percent certain it’s a globe based upon evidence. The we never landed on the moon crowd evidence is far more compelling but there is a major problem with that argument. Gary McKinnon's hacks uncovered what is essentially an off world space command force 15 years ago. So how, if we never went to the moon beginning in the 1960's, did we get an off planet command force so quickly? Roughly 30 years after hoaxing a moon landing we just have a bunch of people hanging out in capsules rotating around earth? Okay, sure. I’m most convinced by the viruses don’t exist arguments, although what you suggest doing, which I know you’ve not done because to do so would require paid access to journals, because when I first learned about viruses I tended to doubt they’d even exist. When I took modern physicist I had my doubts about the validity of the Michalson Morely experiment, and real questions about ether as Maxwell's Equasions contain ther ether as originally conceived too. I also doubt Newton, and Leibniz discovered the calculus at the same time, and there’s evidence Newton didn’t discover calculus. Leibnitz did and his work was essentially plagiarized and re-symbolized in a sense.
I do have access to all journals in biology, biochemistry, biomedical sci, neuroscience and physics, and perhaps more but haven't had the need to check.
Then how do you know viruses don't exist? I can somewhat see why you don't feel the need to check because perhaps what scant evidence the viruses don't exist crowd has cited is good enough to satisfy your intuition but nobody of whom I'm aware has methodically dissected the oldest virology literature, and then developed, and tested a new hypothesis or even explained what chicken pox is, which I had as a child, and which appeared later in my life for a few weeks as shingles which responds to both Valtrex which I used to sell for GSK, and to one of the amino acids, Lysine, both of which stop the replicaton of the virus that causes chicken pox/shingles. My intuition was always that the Michalson Morely experiment didn't prove the non-existence of ether, the medium through which light was thought to propagate. Maxwell included the ether in his famous equations but Oliver Heavyside reformulated those equations to remove the ether from them. Science isn't always quite as exact as were brainwashed to believe.
Edward Jenner lied.
What’s always killed me with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is the data judo that must be performed to make it plausible.
Meanwhile we have 2.5 million years of climatalogic and geologic data that tells us the normal state of the earth is mostly an icy planet. We know that glacial periods last ~100k years and interglacials 15-20k years. CO2 levels rise as oceans warm and wanes as they cool. It’s a well understood phenomenon by any child who has opened a warm soda. Bet against this at your peril.
Our best course is to shout down the warmists and begin preparing future generations for a much colder climate.
And kill all the virologists. /sarc
It's an interesting, unique and valuable contribution to a large and growing body of data, scientific evidence and research (published by plain old boring humans!) which casts serious doubt on the man-made 'dangerous' global warming hypothesis, a corpus which, by now, should have driven the final nails into the coffin of 'settled' consensus climate science. But we all know why it lives on as Zombie Science - because of huge Green Blob funding, rampant censorship, and almost 100% media and institutional support.
There's lots of excitement among sceptics who seem to think that the word of Grok3 beta is gospel and unchallengeable and hence, in the words of Robert Malone on X for instance, "the Climate Scam is over". I think this is premature. It's not over until the fat lady sings - and I don't think Grok3 beta identifies as the Fat Lady just yet!
I assume Grok is an AI. ChatGPT told me last night that NZ stone fruit were better tasting in Europe than Australian stone fruit because NZ was closer to Europe than Australia was.
It then proceeded to not provide me with the reasoning behind this.
Green blob? Are you mad? The blob, if you hadn't noticed are the US deep state/BlackRock ie fossil fuels (who spend $trillions on climate crisis denial (yes we know co2 lags behind temperature, it's both a cause and a consequence of temperature increase)(yes we know co2 is only a small %, so are trace minerals, it's the balance that's important)(arrrgg) and more money on trashing more renewable energy (now making a return on investment) which offers greater independence from the blob and less need for genocides and wars to control resources), also pharma, animal ag (pharma's biggest client), banking, tech and arms.
You've completely lost your reasoning if you can't see how the money is controlling you.
Excellent summary.
What about the baseline i.e warming is not finite--it is warming compared to when you start measuring eg 20 years, 70, 100, 2000 years ago.
4000 years ago the Gulf area dried up-the sea is about 100 miles further back--not caused by man made CO2 obviously.
A.I could be asked why the 'climate emergency'/ 'global boiling' hysterics is never placed in geological historical context by governments ( aka propaganda units).
Thrilled to bits to finally see Professor Willie Soon, mentioned on social media. Thank you.
There is a very good reason why the Ministry of Truth wants the barnyard animals to believe global warming is a thing...I explain here https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-three-pillars-of-bullshit
I asked ''A.I'' about the Scottish COVID inquiry health and social care closing statements. What's that? Not that all knowing afterall. https://substack.com/@scottishcovidinquiry/note/c-99134732
The only positives i have experienced with ''A.I'' is writing letters and making videos. Suffice to say i almost never use it and much prefer to interact with real people in real life and to use my own brain. ''A.I'' afterall is central to the coming digitial prison infrastructure but is being embraced and promoted by many seemingly pro freedom and 'awake.' What times we live! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3eSFVQkX8A
I tend to agree with your AI comments however I am finding that I am using Grok to help interpret legislation and/or identify the relevant acts and other like boring and time-consuming tasks.
I'm really happy with the outcomes however I do not use AI for "opinion" based research. I ensure my questions are objective, not subjective.
I think the point about LLMs is that they can only process the information they have been fed. This is of course a minus if the information is selective but is a plus if it's complete (e.g. the entire works of Shakespeare).
If you were to feed in all the transcripts you have gathered from the Scottish Covid enquiry (I don't know if an AI LLM would also accept video evidence) then you might get out some interesting insights.
Tbh Jim i prefer my own god given intelligence vs anything man can muster as a duplicate and with regards to Scottish inquiry evidence i really don't need any more analysis to know what went on. It's all quite self explanatory but yet almost no one has took it seriously. The confirmed maltreatment and human rights abuses of our elders, many were world war veterans, is all meh in 2025. Protests in 2020-2022 though. God will judge accordingly.
It's a slow process but there is serious interest and dismay at the horrors that were inflicted upon the community as revealed by the Scottish Covid inquiry.
see https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/happy-lockdown-day for another couple of channels that are also reporting on it.
Are they really reporting on it though? The conference only took place because of my substack work. I've watched 2 HOURS 30mins of talk on the Youtube channel and there is (so far) ZERO actual inquiry footage played. I sent in 52 mins worth of highlights from the inquiry. Bit disappointing my substack not mentioned by Martin nor on Common Knowledge Edinburgh Youtube if they want people to know more. That would meet the definition of being serious about it all to me.
My father, who at 87 years of age, is still doing research at one of only 4 universities in Illinois that are Research I institutions, has a very long CV of publications in a variety of disciplines in top journals. He's an expert at modeling.
He noticed climatology regression models of temperature on CO2 concentrations were invalid because regression can't be used on nonstationary time series (series with a time-varying mean) without first "de-trending" the data. He submitted a paper to the IPCC that used a proper regression model on the data, and for the first, and only time in his long career had to call the journal editor to ask that his submission be reviewed. The editor basically told him to fuck off, and that they wouldnt review his submisdion.. Anthropogenic climate change is a complete scam. Covid, climate change......fear-based MKUltra mind control.
I put the paper into Grok 3, along with some discussion on weather changes on other planets. Here is Grok 3’s conclusion statement:
“The paper’s arguments—short CO₂ residence, temperature precedence, solar dominance—don’t hold up against comprehensive evidence. Earth’s warming is uniquely anthropogenic, driven by CO₂ accumulation, unlike the natural variability on other planets. No robust data links their weather changes to Earth’s climate trajectory, whether via CO₂ or solar forcing. The paper’s critique of IPCC models highlights real uncertainties but overreaches in dismissing CO₂’s role, lacking a viable alternative explanation.”
Shows the uncertainty around A.I. at minimum.
Peter Hall.
Would it be fair to say you can only get out what you put in. Without reading all of the input studies, how can we rely on the output to be balanced and logical? None of the studies I've read have picked up changes in data collection sensitivity over the past 50 years, which is the usual trick to creating the illusion of change. Eg..Mann flicking from ice core to tree ring proxies. UK polio case definition changes post vaccine rollout, PCR to lateral flow after COVID jab rollout. If Ai is not instructed to investigate the quality of data gathered , is it able to spotlight the foul play ?
If you know what you're doing, it is an effective tool to get to the truth. It's not a case if trusting someone else's product, using it, it's an opportunity for you to discover truths for yourself once you learn how to prompt it to overcome its biases. It knows the difference between dogma and peer-reviewed literature.
"it is an effective tool to get to the truth"... How can you possibly know for sure what the actual truth is unless there's certainty that all connected factors are known? Who can prove such certainty?
New York City
"once you learn how to prompt it to overcome its biases" :) just spent an hour with Grok-3 .. it's like chatgpt's more numerate and objective sibling
Please add to your model the millions of tons of water vapour injected into the upper atmosphere by air travel each year, and the similar amount injected by the Tonga volcano in 2021/2022.
The numbers involved are significant, as in the effects of the Covid lockdowns.
As far as I can tell, CO2 emission rates were unaltered during these times.
And thanks for publishing the results of your efforts.
the sky certainly looks different than it did forty years ago. i noticed a real change starting in the 90s. was reading something the other day-arguing back and forth about the existence of chemtrails and for the first time thought to look up the impact of contrails. so some filtering effect from albedo, but even more warming effect from trapping heat. what are the effects of filtering on human health and plant growth or even pathogens? even setting aside vitamin d production, sunlight has positive effects on health. the dr who has the medcram site on youtube did a nice piece on this recently. so how much does air travel contribute to warming and is there an accurate way to measure it? do the routes have an impact? does the altitude of the flights? what about things like tipping points and feedback loops? what about the increasing number of rocket launches?
Some of this is waaay outside my field of expertise, so DYOR.
re : modelling air travel to global temperature, theoretically possible. just shut down all air travel for two or three years and see what happens.
Fortunately, a partial answer is found in the data from the Tonga volcano. Unfortunately, the quality of the numbers isn't that good, hence we do not know if, for example, quantities of sulphur are part of the eruption, and if so, when these chemicals were released.
Next, if it takes several years to maximise the effect, do we know which parts of the Earth are affected and when?
In other respects this volcanic eruption, as an impulse event, is a near perfect way to model an injection of water vapour into the stratosphere. But the system is not simple, like striking a bell, and there is a lot we do not know, and have to guess.
And so it goes on.
Back to the Aircraft. We know fairly accurately the quantities of water vapour. We know that the stratosphere is lower around the equator, hence we know that a fair amount of water vapour ends up in the lower part of the stratosphere, along with contaminants from the fuel.
At lower levels, water precipitates rapidly, perhaps days or hours, depending, and while mention is made of water vapour persisting in the stratosphere, I doubt the quality of seemingly casual comments regarding this.
Hence back to DYOR
Clearly the cat is amongst the pigeons!
Book recommendation: Unsettled by Steven E Koonin
What about the possibility that the warming is partly humans, partly natural causes? 'Unsettled' by Dr. Steven Koonin 2022 is a good book. He's behaved with integrity as far as I can see. As he mentions, there was a warming from ~1910-40, then it cooled, then it warmed again from ~1970. Fossil fuel combustion was fairly low from 1910-40.
Chris Martenson said that after 'COVID' he only trusted ~15% of people who'd previously been his 'scientist friends' . If the same applies here then Curry, Christie, Soon, Happer, Pielke, etc are part of the 15% but are vastly outnumbered by Hansen, Mann et al.
I don't yet bother with AI. At worst it's GIGO. It will no doubt lead to a few comical disasters ... funniest, of course at a great distance.
The total closure of Heathrow though was nothing to do with AI. I heard that top people ignored a 2014 report warning that the airport was vulnerable to such electrical faults. Plus ca change.
Not sure how you can trust Curry, Pielke. I cannot.
Chemtrails and ‘geo-engineering’ (the only verified evidence of which is a few So2 balloons in the stratosphere) is the smoke screen for the damage done to soil and human health by burning hydrocarbons and the use of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs, intensive and animal ag (including small scale and ‘independent’), pharma (whose biggest customer is animal ag) and saturated animal fat (including organic and ‘grass-fed’).
Sadly, there’s nowt so blind as those who think they’re immune to propaganda.
Couple random observations, maybe three. One, this result is not surprising. The data NEVER supported the hype and propaganda over anthropogenic global warming, or whatever the current nomenclature might be. Two, I am also a HUGE fan of AI and seek ways to deepen my ability to use it properly and more often. Three, I am sure, CERTAIN beyond any doubt, that the folks who have not sought to better understand or deploy AI will attack these results based almost completely upon their distrust of AI and/or a random example of something an AI got "incorrect" or whatever. They likely will not share the prompt they used, or how they structured the query, because, well, AI is bad.
I've only recently realised what Grok is! If I'm feeling bored or want to find something out without using Google, I ask Grok. I find "him" very chatty and, as he's on X, I like to picture him as Elon Musk, pulling out his phone when a question is posed and humming away to himself as he replies and asks his own questions. It's a bit spooky though and I do wonder whether he would talk like Robert Vaughn (creepy voice of a creepy computer in a crappy film called Demon Seed!)