AI-Led Study Confirms ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Is a Hoax

Surprise, surprise, surprise: A groundbreaking study led by artificial intelligence (AI) has confirmed that globalist narratives about “climate change” and “global warming” are a hoax.

This from slaynews.com.

xAI’s Grok 3 beta was used to produce the first-ever artificial intelligence-led peer-reviewed climate science paper.

The AI analyzed temperature, sea ice, and atmospheric CO2 data to investigate whether humans are changing the climate through excess emissions.

With political agenda and hunger for grants from the United Nations removed from the equation, the AI-powered machine provided very different results to the climate scientists spouting the “settled science” on “global warming.”

[T]he AI-led study found temperatures change before atmospheric CO2 changes,

and solar activity and natural cycles drive global temperature changes.

Released in February 2025, Grok 3 is designed to solve complex problems. It can retrieve information in real time and provide contextually relevant responses.

Researchers Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon used Grok 3 to scrutinize climate-related datasets and climate change models. They sought to establish whether the anthropogenic global warming narrative is supported by evidence.

The paper they produced states:

This paper aims to rigorously test the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis by integrating unadjusted [observational] datasets with recent analytical frameworks, scrutinizing model performance, isotopic evidence and the IPCC’s solar forcing assumptions to determine whether the prevailing narrative withstands empirical scrutiny.

The observational datasets used in the review include temperature data, sea ice data, and atmospheric CO₂ and isotopic data, using model outputs from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).

Analytical frameworks included Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023), Soon et al. (2023, 2024), Harde (2017, 2022), and Connolly et al. (2023).

In a post on X, Jonathan Cohler announced the paper had been published.

The AI-led and human-checked review found:

 – Human CO₂ (just 4% of the carbon cycle) sinks into oceans and forests in 3-4 years, not centuries like the IPCC claims,

– Temperature leads CO₂, not the reverse – think 800-year ice core lags and 2020’s lockdown “no-blip” at Mauna Loa,

– IPCC models exaggerate warming (0.5°C/decade vs. reality’s 0.13°C), and

– Solar activity and natural cycles steal the show.

The paper concludes:

The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as [Michael E.] Mann, [Gavin A.] Schmidt, and [Zeke] Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

The paper notes that Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather reinforced:

[The] narrative [ ] that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, [totaling] approximately 2,000 GtC since 1750, have increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations from 280 ppm to 420 ppm [through] proxy reconstructions (e.g., the ‘hockey stick’ graph), model validations and retrospective analyses claiming predictive skill.

The “hockey stick” graph illustrates the temperature trends of the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years.

Mann and his colleagues first published the hockey stick graph in 1998. It has since been featured prominently in reports by the IPCC as “evidence” of “global warming.”

At the time, The Telegraph wrote:

Since 2003 [ ], when the statistical methods used to create the ‘hockey stick’ were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves ‘the Hockey Team,’ and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the ‘Hockey Team,’ such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

Despite the known flawed methods and data used in its creation, the “hockey stick” graph remains a key piece of evidence in discussions about global warming and human-induced climate change.

Now, perhaps the time is right to Trust the Science.