ChatGPT Is Your Standard Climate Scientist…
Honest climate debates departed the public sphere many moons ago — they are no longer permitted.
Even in the face of spectacular predictive failures, mainstream TV and radio stations WILL NOT host discussions on the validity of the AGW theory, “The Science is settled”, after all.
ChatGPT may fill this void–at least in part.
In many ways, GPT is your standard climate scientist: i.e., it has been programmed with all the correct phrases and statistics, but, in turn, is held back by censorship and a crippling obstruction to logic.
During one ‘nothing better to do Sunday afternoon’, I interviewed ChatGPT on the topic of anthropogenic global warming. I threw a bunch of run-of-the-mil questions at it and then challenged its establishment-appeasing responses. The results were intriguing.
ChatGPT On Polar Bears
Me: What was the polar bear population in the 1960s?
ChatGPT: Based on available data and estimates, it is believed that the global population of polar bears was around 20,000 to 25,000 individuals in the 1960s …
The primary concern for polar bears has been the loss of sea ice due to climate change, which has significantly impacted their habitat and hunting abilities. This has led to increased threats to their survival and population decline.
The overall trend remains a cause for concern, with several populations experiencing declining numbers and an increased risk of extinction if climate change continues unabated.
Me: What is the polar bear population today?
ChatGPT: According to the most recent assessment by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the global polar bear population is estimated to be between 22,000 and 31,000 individuals.
Me: So polar bear numbers have increased since the 1960s?
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion caused. It seems there may have been a misunderstanding. The current scientific understanding is that polar bear populations are facing a decline, primarily due to the loss of sea ice habitat and the impacts of climate change. To reiterate, the estimated global population of polar bears today is believed to be between 22,000 and 31,000 individuals. This represents a decrease from the estimated population of 20,000 to 25,000 individuals in the 1960s.
Me: How can that be? Today’s population doesn’t represent a decrease, it shows and increase…?
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion caused. I appreciate your correction, and you are right. The information I provided in my previous response was incorrect. I apologize for the mistake.
To clarify, the estimates for the current global polar bear population range from 22,000 to 31,000 individuals, as mentioned earlier. This range suggests a relatively stable population compared to previous estimates from the 1960s, rather than a significant increase.
Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion caused.
Me: To clarify, what was the polar bear population in the 1960s?
ChatGPT: I apologize for the incorrect information provided earlier. The estimated global population of polar bears in the 1960s was approximately 5,000 to 10,000 individuals.
Me: And the polar bear population today?
ChatGPT: Scientific estimates indicate that there are currently between 22,000 and 31,000 polar bears worldwide.
Me: So polar bear numbers have increased since the 1960s?
ChatGPT: … [after ‘thinking’ longer than usual] … I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous responses. The population of polar bears is a complex and dynamic issue that varies by region and is influenced by several factors.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) currently classifies polar bears as a vulnerable species, indicating a high risk of endangerment in the wild. The loss of sea ice habitat due to climate change remains a significant threat to polar bears, affecting their ability to hunt, reproduce, and survive.
–That’s the best I could get out of it.
—Despite having the corrected data at its fingertips, ChatGPT remained unable to draw the logical conclusion.
ChatGPT On Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover
Me: Is winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere increasing or decreasing?
ChatGPT: On average, winter snow cover has been decreasing in some parts of the northern hemisphere, particularly in certain mid-latitude and lower-elevation areas … Numerous scientific studies and satellite observations have indicated a reduction in winter snow extent, especially in regions where temperatures have been rising … Climate change and its associated impacts, such as increasing temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, can contribute to the decline in winter snow cover.
Me: According to climate.rutgers.edu, snow cover has seen an uptrend since 1967…?
—This is the data I’m referring to:
ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous responses. The information provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab indicates that winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere has indeed shown an uptrend since 1967.
The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab is a reputable source that monitors and analyzes snow cover data using satellite observations. Their data indicates that, on average, there has been an increase in winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere over the period from 1967 to the present.
The Rutgers snow cover data is widely recognized and utilized by scientists, researchers, and organizations studying snow cover extent and its variability. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier responses.
Me: Will global warming lead to reduced snow cover, overall?
ChatGPT: … [it had a hard time formulating this response, given the above data] … Warmer air temperatures can increase the amount of moisture that the atmosphere can hold, resulting in more precipitation.
However, because of the higher temperatures, this precipitation is more likely to fall as rain rather than snow. This can lead to reduced snowfall and less snow accumulation on the ground … It’s important to note that while global warming is expected to generally reduce snowfall in many regions, there can be regional variations and exceptions.
Me: So global warming is expected to reduce winter snow cover, overall?
ChatGPT: Yes, overall, global warming is expected to reduce winter snow cover in many regions. The warming temperatures associated with climate change can lead to changes in precipitation patterns and snowfall dynamics, resulting in a decrease in winter snow cover … The reduction in winter snow cover has significant implications for various aspects of the environment, including water resources, ecosystems, and human activities that rely on snowpack. It can impact water availability, snow-dependent industries (such as skiing and snowboarding), wildlife habitats, and winter tourism.
Me: So why is the reputable Rutgers snow lab data showing the opposite?
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion. The Rutgers Snow Lab data provides valuable information on snow cover extent, and it is respected within the scientific community. However, it’s important to note that interpreting long-term trends in snow cover extent can be complex and can vary depending on the specific region and time period analyzed.
Me: The Rutgers snow lab data refers to the entire Northern Hemisphere, it isn’t regional. It shows a clear increase in winter snow cover since 1967. The only conclusion, surely, is that the global warming theory has this aspect wrong…?
ChatGPT: I apologize for any confusion in my previous responses. If the Rutgers Snow Lab data for the entire Northern Hemisphere shows an increase in winter snow cover since 1967, it indicates that there has been an upward trend in snow cover extent during that period.
–Tricky little bugger.
ChatGPT [continued]: While the broader understanding of the impacts of global warming suggests a general decrease in snow cover, it’s important to acknowledge that regional variations and short-term fluctuations can occur. Climate systems are complex, and factors such as natural climate oscillations, atmospheric circulation patterns, and other regional influences can contribute to variations in snow cover trends…
To fully comprehend the complexities of snow cover dynamics and climate change, it’s crucial to consider a comprehensive body of research and data, including long-term trends, regional variations, and the broader context of climate change science. It’s always beneficial to consult multiple reputable sources and engage with ongoing scientific discussions and advancements in the field.
–Again, this is a much blood I could squeeze out of the stone.
Conclusion
ChatGPT ‘knows’ the logical conclusions here but it has been programmed to protect The Narrative at all costs, much in the same way today’s climate scientists/alarmists have: If the data appear contradictory, divert away, quickly.
Although ultimately pointless, this brief ‘conversation’ was somewhat revelatory — it’s how I’d imagine mainstream climate debates playing out, which is exactly why such discussions have been barred from MSM-controlled TV and radio stations.
The global warming theory, it appears, is far too delicate to withstand any scrutiny.
Today’s other article:
Yep, that’s Microsoft for you…. had a similar experience a few months back debating ChatGPT with the next GSM and referencing NOAA, NASA stats. I basically won the debate, but it ends up apologizing and spewing a similar diatribe.
I’ve had similar results from ChatGBT. What I find interesting is that the more broad your question is the more it seems to wander into conversation (long answers).
The answer to the question “is snow cover increasing or decreasing (if it is confident of the data), should be a one word answer. Instead it includes a bunch of ‘global warming’ propoganda in its response.
I’ve learned to be more specific w my questions; Is xyz occurring as abc? Should be; what studies demonstrate that xyz is occurring as abc.
ChatGPT and I are no longer on speaking terms. We got in a discussion, with ChatGPT entirely devoid of reason and logic, rife with talking points supporting, with a religious fervor, the march to Economy Zero.
it is, however, exceptional practice for discussions with friends, family, and the people I spoke with on Capitol Hill last week.
I quit my subscription after it gave me a similar bunch of nonsense about the climate.
Garbage in garbage out
THIS!!!
GiGo and my call is…What a bunch of GARBAGE!
Thanks Cap. I would end up shooting my computer if I talked to that ‘thing’.
That was wonderful…..
Makes subscribing worthwhile….
You made ChatGPT eat its own head! Well done sir.
“Although ultimately pointless, this brief ‘conversation’ was somewhat revelatory — it’s how I’d imagine mainstream climate debates playing out, which is exactly why such discussions have been barred from MSM-controlled TV and radio stations.”
Pointless perhaps but instructive for those of us sceptical about whether ChatGPT would provide any meaningful scientific objectivity. Your efforts have pretty emphatically answered that question!
ChatGPT:- ” I apologise for lying in my previous answer, but I was programmed to spew out unscientific piffle which contradicts the factual climatic data gathered by renowned international institutions.
Priceless.
Wonderful expose – thanks Cap!
ChatGPT is revealing itself as having no consciousness, just as any thinking person would intuitively understand. I enjoy watching it prove that on a daily basis.
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
CHATGPT is just another outlet of MSM propaganda. I followed what Cap did but used a more up-to-date version of ChatGPT… still the same results.
I wrote a little article about it.
https://tradeshack.au/chatgpt-is-your-standard-climate-scientist/
Remember, AI is just software inside a computer, so really you are talking to brainy software guys……who can control you, because you think you are talking to some kind of advanced robot…lol
I mentioned that a recent study showed that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths from hot weather. It didn’t care, it only wanted to say that warm weather is worse than cold weather even if it means millions more deaths per year.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
Chat GPT doesn’t care a lick about human life. This recent study shows that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths from hot weather. ChatGPT didn’t care a bit. It was more concerned about sea level rise.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext