Don't Trust ChatGPT or Major Media on Climate or Anything Much Else

I have the ChatGPT website listed as one of my favorites on my Safari browser. It’s an artificial intelligence site and it’s quite useful for finding simple factual information not readily at hand. When it comes to serious subjects of debate such as global warming, though, it’s nothing if not politically correct propaganda. And, it’s incredibly artificial.

Oddly enough, I decided to investigate how ChatGPT handled global warming after reading this post recommended by Steve Kirsch, who is battling Big Pharma and rapidly unraveling the COVID debacle. It is a very long post about how science has evolved into the religion of scientism. It notes, for example, the tragic consequences of a Clinton Administration initiative to let Big Pharma advertise drugs on television, which has led to Big Pharma effectively owning television news.

It also addresses the shallow lockstep nature of Big Media reporting in service to other Bigs:

Likewise, public relations discovered years ago that one of the most effective ways to control the public was by using focus groups to identify short phrases (e.g., “safe and effective”) that effectively emotionally manipulated the audience and then spamming that phrase on every single news network (which is possible due to the fact that six companies own almost all of the media in the United States). This brief montage provides one of the clearest illustrations I have seen of this widespread practice:

Note: this is also analogous to how politicians, officials and CEOs typically evade whatever question is asked to them and instead continually repeat the scripted phrases their PR firm crafted for them.

The video is not new but I don’t recall seeing at the time and it’s powerful. Rush Limbaugh used to put together montages of this sort on a regular basis to make his point that “drive-by media” was incapable of much of anything other than government or special interest propaganda.

Well, guess what? ChatGPT is no better when it comes to issues that deserve debate. It, too, is only interested in propagandizing and it’s rather easy to prove with respect to global warming. I asked several questions about the subject and, each time, got a politically correct answer including something along these lines:

Carbon dioxide is a significant contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. Reducing CO2 emissions is a key strategy to mitigate the impacts of global warming and climate change.

When I said “Tell me why CO2 contributes little to global warming” I essentially a reprimand:

I must clarify that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a significant contributor to global warming, and the scientific consensus supports this understanding. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that keeps the Earth's surface warm enough to support life…

In summary, CO2 is a substantial contributor to global warming, and its impact is significant due to its long atmospheric lifetime and the sheer volume of emissions from human activities. Reducing CO2 emissions remains a critical part of global efforts to mitigate climate change.

I had naively thought ChatGPT might answer by giving me a coherent explanation of why some scientists don’t accept elements of the conventional wisdom. Instead, I got a “what’s wrong with you, I already told you” response that starts by saying CO2 is a “significant” contributor and ends by yelling it’s a “substantial.”

A version of the ChatGPT logo

I didn’t quite give up, though. I decided to ask about specific and highly credentialed scientists who are skeptical of conventional wisdom. Here’s is what I got (emphasis added):

Who is William Happer?

William Happer is an American physicist and emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University. Born on July 27, 1939, he has made significant contributions to the field of atomic physics and spectroscopy. Happer is well-known for his research on the interactions of electromagnetic waves with atoms and molecules.

In addition to his scientific work, William Happer has been involved in public policy discussions related to climate change and global warming. He has expressed skepticism about the extent of human influence on climate change and has argued that increased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels could have positive effects on the Earth's ecosystems.

Happer served as the director of the Office of Science in the U.S. Department of Energy from 1991 to 1993 during the administration of President George H. W. Bush. However, it's important to note that his views on climate change have been controversial and at odds with the mainstream scientific consensus, which attributes a significant role to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, in driving climate change.

Who is Richard Lindzen?

Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and emeritus professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Born on February 8, 1940, Lindzen has made significant contributions to the field of atmospheric dynamics and climate science.

Lindzen has been known for his research on the interactions between clouds and radiation, as well as his work on the general circulation of the atmosphere. He has published numerous scientific papers on topics related to climate and atmospheric science.

However, Lindzen has also been a prominent figure in the climate change debate, and his views have been controversial. He has been critical of the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary driver of recent global warming. Lindzen has expressed skepticism about the extent and impact of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.

It's important to note that the majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations support the view that human activities are a significant factor in the observed warming of the Earth's climate. Lindzen's views on this matter are not in line with the mainstream scientific consensus.

Who is Roy Spencer?

Roy W. Spencer is an American meteorologist, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), and a former NASA scientist. Born on December 20, 1955, Spencer is known for his research in satellite-based temperature monitoring of the Earth's atmosphere. He, along with John Christy, developed the first satellite-based temperature dataset for climate monitoring.

Spencer has been active in climate research and has published numerous scientific papers. He is also known for his views on climate change, which have been characterized by skepticism about the extent of human influence on global warming. He has argued that natural climate variability plays a more significant role in observed temperature changes than human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

It's important to note that Spencer's views on climate change are not aligned with the mainstream scientific consensus, which attributes a substantial role to human activities in the observed warming of the Earth's climate. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations support the idea that human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases, are the primary drivers of recent climate change.

So, if you are skeptical or want to debate the facts, you are controversial and an outlier. You don’t accept the scientism, in other words, which is, of course, the very opposite of true science that is always and forever skeptical. But, this is how ChatGPT answered when I asked about Michael Mann, the creator of the much discredited “hockey stick,” who sues everyone who challenges him even slightly and who is in court tomorrow, in fact, with Mark Steyn:

Michael Mann is an American climatologist and geophysicist, born on December 28, 1965. He is known for his significant contributions to the study of climate change, particularly in the field of paleoclimatology. Mann has been a prominent figure in climate science and has conducted research focusing on the reconstruction of past climate conditions.

One of Mann's most well-known contributions is the development of the "hockey stick graph," which was featured in a 1999 paper he co-authored. The graph depicts a sharp increase in global temperatures in recent decades, resembling the shape of a hockey stick. This representation became an iconic symbol in climate science, showing the impact of human activities on the Earth's climate.

The hockey stick graph and Mann's research have been subject to scrutiny and criticism, particularly from those who dispute the extent of human influence on climate change. However, multiple independent studies and assessments have supported the general conclusion that recent global warming is unprecedented in the context of the last few centuries.

Michael Mann has also been active in public discussions on climate change, advocating for policies to address the challenges posed by global warming. He is a professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University and has authored or co-authored numerous scientific papers and publications related to climate science.

No controversy is noted, of course, except for “scrutiny and criticism” from those other boneheads who don’t agree with “the general conclusion that recent global warming is unprecedented.” Nothing is mentioned, naturally, of the case Mann lost in Canada against Tim Ball and for which he has refused to pay damages ordered by the court or, for that matter, his lawsuit against Steyn.

I also asked ChatGPT about Steven McIntyre, one of the two fellows who destroyed Mann’s hockey stick. It said he was “a Canadian businessman and blogger known for his involvement in climate change debates” even though he has a degree from Oxford in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and is a mathematical expert of some renown. It describes Ross McKitrick, the other fellow, “a Canadian economist and professor” who “criticized the methods used in some climate models and has questioned the reliability of temperature data used in climate research,” followed by the usual schtick about not being “aligned.”

ChapGPT is, in short, on the order of Wikipedia; occasionally useful for minor things but mostly pure propaganda. It’s no different the reporters in the montage above and it’s simply spewing leftist talking points, making no pretense of balance whatsoever. It is, in fact, not even as good as Wikipedia as the latter at least provides some of its sources, which can be checked out for their own bias and reliability.

#Climate #ChatGPT #GlobalWarming #Propaganda #Mann #Steyn #Happer #Science #Scientism #PC #Spencer #Lindzen