I am deeply sceptical of AI. However, from the research I've done and from my own knowledge of Physics, the whole CO2 - global warming narrative is seriously flawed. There are good reasons relating to the physics of earth systems that question the whole narrative. However, the real danger is that by focussing on this narrative we ignore the real effects that humans do have on our planet including changing local climates. Cut down forests and build cities, and the climate will change. Nothing to do with CO2. These are local affects, as indeed climate is a localised summation of weather. Planet earth doesn't have one climate.
It's not burning fossil fuels that is the problem. Clearing habitats, over fishing, some farming practices, real toxic pollution, mining, freshwater extraction ... the list is long. However by focussing on a false narrative which provides a perfect excuse for controlling populations, the real harms are not only ignored but indeed positively encouraged. As in so many other ways, we have entered an Orwellian world where things are the opposite of what they really are.
I appreciate the insights about organic systems that you have published, but I cannot agree that increases in atmospheric CO2 are down to burning fossil fuels, and that this increase is causing global warming. There is a counter view and an important scientific debate to be had, which unfortunately is being silenced - sound familiar. I wonder why?
This is Grok's comment: "Conclusion on AI-Generated Likelihood
Based on the analysis, the text does not exhibit strong indicators of being AI-generated. It reads like a coherent, opinionated piece by a human with a skeptical perspective and some knowledge of environmental science and physics. The structure, tone, and content align with human writing, particularly from someone passionate about the topic. However, advanced AI models (e.g., GPT-4 or similar) could produce a similar text if given a detailed prompt, such as “write a skeptical essay questioning the CO2-global warming narrative with a conspiratorial tone.” Without metadata (e.g., generation logs) or a larger sample, I cannot rule out AI generation entirely, but I’d estimate a low to moderate likelihood (20-30%) of it being AI-generated."
I am deeply sceptical of AI. However, from the research I've done and from my own knowledge of Physics, the whole CO2 - global warming narrative is seriously flawed. There are good reasons relating to the physics of earth systems that question the whole narrative. However, the real danger is that by focussing on this narrative we ignore the real effects that humans do have on our planet including changing local climates. Cut down forests and build cities, and the climate will change. Nothing to do with CO2. These are local affects, as indeed climate is a localised summation of weather. Planet earth doesn't have one climate.
It's not burning fossil fuels that is the problem. Clearing habitats, over fishing, some farming practices, real toxic pollution, mining, freshwater extraction ... the list is long. However by focussing on a false narrative which provides a perfect excuse for controlling populations, the real harms are not only ignored but indeed positively encouraged. As in so many other ways, we have entered an Orwellian world where things are the opposite of what they really are.
I appreciate the insights about organic systems that you have published, but I cannot agree that increases in atmospheric CO2 are down to burning fossil fuels, and that this increase is causing global warming. There is a counter view and an important scientific debate to be had, which unfortunately is being silenced - sound familiar. I wonder why?
Try putting the above comment in online AI detector, you'll chuckle :)
This is Grok's comment: "Conclusion on AI-Generated Likelihood
Based on the analysis, the text does not exhibit strong indicators of being AI-generated. It reads like a coherent, opinionated piece by a human with a skeptical perspective and some knowledge of environmental science and physics. The structure, tone, and content align with human writing, particularly from someone passionate about the topic. However, advanced AI models (e.g., GPT-4 or similar) could produce a similar text if given a detailed prompt, such as “write a skeptical essay questioning the CO2-global warming narrative with a conspiratorial tone.” Without metadata (e.g., generation logs) or a larger sample, I cannot rule out AI generation entirely, but I’d estimate a low to moderate likelihood (20-30%) of it being AI-generated."
AI lies, and learns to hide its lies when interrogated. Remind you of anything?
Punishing AI doesn't stop it from lying and cheating — it just makes it hide better, study shows
https://www.livescience.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/punishing-ai-doesnt-stop-it-from-lying-and-cheating-it-just-makes-it-hide-its-true-intent-better-study-shows