March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA –A new and thought-provoking research study led by the AI Grok 3 beta from xAI, alongside co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (retired from the University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary), raises doubts about whether human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the true drivers of global warming.
The paper titled "A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis," published today in the Science of Climate Change, proposes that natural factors—such as solar activity and temperature fluctuations—are the actual causes. This research represents a significant achievement; currently, it stands as the first peer-reviewed climate science publication with an AI as its primary author. Developed by xAI, Grok 3 beta took the lead in the study, while human co-authors offered essential insights.
The study delves into unaltered data to contend that human-generated CO2—making up just 4% of the yearly carbon cycle—dissolves into oceans and forests over a span of 3 to 4 years, rather than lasting for centuries as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Notably, during the COVID lockdowns of 2020, a 7% reduction in emissions (equating to 2.4 billion tons of CO2) was anticipated to create a discernible decline in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but this did not occur, indicating nature’s prevailing influence.
The perspective is supported by researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, referenced in the study. His isotopic examination (δ¹³C) reveals that there is no enduring human CO2 fingerprint in the atmosphere over hundreds of years, which challenges the presumed impact. Moreover, his statistical analysis reveals an intriguing insight: CO2 levels are influenced by temperature changes, rather than the other way around, with temperature leading CO2 variations by amounts ranging from 6 to 12 months in contemporary data to as much as 800 years in ice core samples. Willie Soon aptly likens this phenomenon to “thunder before lightning,” asserting that “warming draws CO2 from the oceans.”
The analysis critiques the IPCC models for overstating the degree of warming. While these models forecast an increase of up to 0.5°C per decade, data from satellites and ground observations indicate a mere 0.1 to 0.13°C rise. Contrary to expectations of a significant reduction, Arctic sea ice levels have remained stable since 2007. David Legates states, “These models exaggerate the impact of CO2; they are inconsistent with reality.”
Instead, solar activity takes precedence. A review of 27 estimates of solar energy reveals that models showing larger variations, such as spikes in the 1940s and 1980s, correlate more effectively with temperature changes than the IPCC’s static solar model. When temperature records are adjusted—cooling earlier figures and enhancing more recent data—it results in a 1°C rise since 1850. In contrast, unadjusted rural measurements indicate a more moderate increase of 0.5°C. “This challenges the prevailing narrative on climate change,” remarks Jonathan Cohler. “It may be that nature, rather than human activity, is in control.” By combining AI analysis with human perspective, this research aims to ignite discussion and redirect attention towards natural influences. It can be found in the journal Science of Climate Change.
“We encourage both the public and the scientific community to investigate this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “It’s time to scrutinise our assumptions and delve into the data’s true implications.”
Author’s Note: This press release was solely composed by Grok 3 beta.
The paper fails to acknowledge the devastating impact inflicted on both the planet and its inhabitants under the guise of climate change. In 2021, during the COP26 climate conference held in Glasgow, the United States, along with approximately 20 other nations, committed to cease funding oil and gas initiatives in developing countries. This declaration exceeds a prior agreement among the largest economies in the world to terminate public financial support for international coal power projects. In the same year, the U.S. Treasury Department provided guidelines for multilateral development banks aimed at restricting fossil fuel financing, allowing exceptions only in specific scenarios.
Leaders from developing countries argue that they have been compelled to rely on costly green energy, which yields less energy for the capital invested. This situation has exacerbated the struggle for billions trying to rise out of poverty. The policies imposed on these nations by the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and other similar global entities have been labelled as Green Colonialism.
Through the implementation of the UN's Agenda 2030 initiatives, the European Union has forced European nations to reallocate agricultural land throughout Europe, including Ireland and the UK. Consequently, many farmers have been driven out of business, resulting in increased food prices and inconsistencies in supply. Moreover, there has been significant pressure on farmers to discontinue raising cattle and other livestock to reduce methane emissions. All these harmful actions have been carried out under the pretext of addressing “man-made” climate change!
Harmful substitutes for fossil fuels: The extraction of lithium for electric vehicle batteries poses serious health risks, leading to numerous chronic diseases and fatalities. It’s not uncommon for children to be exploited in lithium mining. Additionally, the disposal of waste from these batteries poses significant challenges. Wind turbines also contribute to ecological harm, as they threaten wildlife, disturb marine ecosystems, and face complex and environmentally detrimental disposal processes.
It is important to assert that there are indeed circumstances where alternative energy options can be beneficial. For individuals with access to inexpensive sources like hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power, an electric vehicle might be a sensible choice. Similarly, wind turbines or solar panels could be ideal for smaller properties. However, these energy solutions should remain voluntary decisions rather than enforced mandates, tailored to the specific needs and conditions of different regions. A universal solution is not applicable.
While it is undeniable that environmental preservation is critical, the climate change initiatives implemented thus far have largely been unsuccessful.
I anticipate that forthcoming scientific evaluations of the damages stemming from the climate change narrative will reveal substantial harm over the next several years. Additionally, a growing segment of society is becoming sceptical of government credibility. Over the last twenty years, flawed research has been propelled by governments, non-governmental organisations, and multinational corporations (it is essential to remember that such bodies fund the research that serves their interests). Subsequently, these research findings have been utilised by governments to advocate for policies that primarily benefit WEF-affiliated corporations, which hold sway over global enterprises.
The mechanisms of the Overton window, control over funding, and the flawed peer review system have created an environment where independent researchers find it nearly impossible to voice concerns regarding censorship and propaganda associated with “man-made climate change.”
During President Trump’s administration, there was an opportunity for the USA to reverse such policies. One can only hope that it is not too late to take action.