‘We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substanti ation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, ne cessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.’
The source
Grok 3 beta, Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, Willie Soon (2025), A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions, Science of Climate Change (Microsoft Word – SCC-Grok 3-Review-V5-1c3.docx )
My take on it
In a press release co-author Cohler said that ‘this 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.’
Another nail in the coffin of the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis.
But while we wait for rigor mortis, the consequences of this erroneous hypothesis continue to play out in irresponsible and unsustainable energy policies that are taking Australia to the same destination as Germany – industrial, economic and social collapse.
“All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
“This is a post which writes itself in a single graph. We will throw other graphs in because we like controversy. Figure 1, from the NOAA, shows CO2 launching upward since 1960 on the left side, with graphs of tide gauge data from multiple stations on the right. The data on the right stays perfectly straight while the data on the left is springing upward, ostensibly causing global energy increases in the ocean in the form of heat.
Referring to the right side above, nobody claims global warming started prior to 1900, although they may have to soon because there is literally zero change in slope. The problem with all of this, however, is that it is the smoking gun proof that global warming is not a major effect. For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2. …..
In all cases, there is ZERO curvature in the measured data. This is proof that man has NOT impacted sea level in a measurable way. This is important because oceans, like coffee cups, cannot be deeper on one side for any length of time. Liquids self-level. All of humanities coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”
The source
Jeff Id, on https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/02/zero-change-in-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-for-all-of-recorded-history/
‘For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.’
This article includes a plot of CO2 ‘launching up’ over time, since ~1955.
This article also contains data series of sea level in multiple locations. These reflect a (very minor) slope, and the slope is constant (ie with no curvature).
The implication?
“All of humanities (sic) coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”
For years, the US – and the rest of the Western world—has afforded a climate in which Attorneys General and Senators and Secretaries of State and even Presidents can conspire with university professors and heads of government science institutions and environmental PR companies and green NGOs can exploit green issues in which to wage continual war on both the economy and the consumer, often enriching themselves in the process while the rest of us get poorer and more constrained by needless taxes and regulations. …….
This scam is a disgrace and has gone on far too long.
There are strong differences of opinion on all sorts of things. They persist, regardless of educational level or intellect.
What we espouse, is affected both by what we believe personally, and by what we perceive that others around us believe.
To speak of ‘the science of climate change’ as if it’s unambiguous, stable, complete, or unanimous, is to reflect an ignorance of science itself.
All life forms, plant and animal, respire. They take in oxygen and glucose; and they give out carbon dioxide and water (and energy). Plants also photosynthesise (while there is daylight). Photosynthesis is respiration in reverse. Plants take in carbon dioxide and water (and energy), and they give out oxygen and glucose. Without carbon dioxide, there’d be no oxygen. Sort of takes your breath away, doesn’t it.
There is a tide in the affairs of men. James Delingpole, the author of this piece, refers to a ‘tipping point’, and to ‘a dramatic shift’. Time will tell. The challenge for the strategists is whether to move ‘against the tide’, or to wait until the run is obvious.
We are talking big business. Huge. According to Delingbole, ‘the global decarbonisation industry alone is worth at least $1.5 trillion a year.’ For some it’s a conscience issue, and a policy issue. For some it’s an expense. For some others it’s a revenue line. And for others again, it is all of the above.
