Climate Realism It took years to review climate science propositions; therefore, read Scott Waldman's recent E&E news article titled “Is climate change a threat? It depends? It's exciting. [emphasis, links added]
This article highlights how Grok, an AI chatbot developed by XAI, raised a debate on the causes and consequences of climate change in a balanced way.
In this way, Grok is getting rid of qualified AI models such as Chatgpt and Google's Gemini, which both torture the so-called “scientific consensus” that humans are causing dangerous climate change.
As Waldman points out, Grok's approach is a deliberate shift by Xai under the guidance of Elon Musk, making Grok “politically neutral” and expanding the minority, climate change skepticism, and views against mainstream bias.
The public should applaud this bold move to take root in science.
Waldman noted that when asked whether climate change is an urgent threat, Groke acknowledged NOAA and NASA data, but also highlighted the views of skeptics like Bjørn Lomborg who argued adaptability is more cost-effective than cutting sharp power generation.
Grok even questioned the reliability of the climate model, noting:[s]The OME model shows gradual changes over the centuries, rather than about to collapse, which gives technical solutions (such as carbon capture). ”
In a world, this subtle reaction is the breath of fresh air, where AI models often reflect on terrorist narratives without censorship. By introducing both sides, Groke embodies the skepticism that has driven scientific progress in history and is a return to basic scientific principles.
The E&E News Quotation quotes climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who lamented that Grok included “the key points of the highly respected Danier conversation.”
But Desler missed this: Science is not a dissent about silence. This is about testing hypotheses about reality.
History is filled with examples of “consensus” science, which is wrong, and Groke’s willingness to challenge climate orthodoxy is a tribute to this truth.
My friend's debunking of the “scientific consensus” @Tomanelson. pic.twitter.com/tnbhyp1auc
— Chris Martz (@chrismartzwx) December 8, 2024
Take plate tectonics as an example, it was ridiculed for decades until overwhelming evidence forced the paradigm shift in the 1960s. Or consider the eugenics movement recognized by major scientists in the early 20th century, which is now widely condemned as pseudoscience.
Even in medicine, the bacterial theory of disease was dismissed by medical institutions until Louis Pasteur and others proved it.
These examples suggest that consensus may be a barrier to truth, which makes Groke’s skeptical criticism of mainstream climate crisis narratives valuable.
One of the reasons for caution and doubt about the “consensus” claim on climate change is the record of failed forecasts of climate disasters. Waldman's article also highlights Grok's point of view: “Eutral remarks from both sides have put water in trouble.” This is point-to-point.
For decades, alarmists have peddled unfulfilled apocalyptic predictions, eroding trust in climate science. Grok's refusal to buy the “We'll All Die” narrative is commendable, especially when you look at the failed predictions.
- Polar Bear Extinction: In 2008, Al Gore and others claimed that polar bears were on the verge of extinction due to Arctic ice. However, as climate realism records, polar bear populations have remained stable or grown, with no evidence of climate-driven collapse.
- A snowless winter: In the early 2000s, climate models predicted that in places like the UK, snow would become the “past”. Instead, Watt recorded repeated snowfalls, debunking this claim.
- Disastrous sea level rise: In 1989, the United Nations predicted that the entire country would be submerged in 2000 due to the rising oceans. At a glance, sea levels rise at a stable, manageable rate of about 1-3 mm per year. There is no acceleration associated with CO2 emissions.
- Hurricane Doomsday: After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Al Gore and other climate alerts linked global warming to more frequent and intense hurricanes, but never achieved and connected to Watts with no apparent trend in hurricane frequency or intensity in the past century. In fact, from 2009 to 2017, the United States has recently experienced the least amount of hurricane hit in any eight years of history.
These fake predictions highlight why Groke's caution about “imminent collapse” is justified.
E&E News article notes that Groke's view is that “rich countries can mitigate impacts through infrastructure such as the Dutch sea wall,” which coincides with evidence of human resilience in the real world.
For example, due to engineering rather than panic, the Netherlands has flourished below sea level for centuries.
Waldman's potential for Grok's “skepticism” about climate science has raised concerns, citing an AI engineer who claims Grok has “misleading claims” 10% of the time.
The myth of global warming failed. pain. All studies show that there has not been warming for decades. In despair, these strange madmen were hijacked “climate change.” OK, no. Flooding in the flood area. Wildfires in high-fire risk areas. Where storms are prone to occur. pic.twitter.com/d8idmawk5e
— Peter Clack (@peterdclack) March 19, 2025
However, this criticism assumes that IPCC and mainstream models are accurate or correct, which is historically and data-contradictory. What Waldman calls “full of climate denials” X post is a feature, not a bug.
Platforms like X allow original, unfiltered perspectives to challenge the sanitized narrative of traditional media. By taking advantage of this, Grok ensures a wider field of view, even if it wrinkles the feathers.
The article also mentions Musk's complex stance – while supporting Trump, raising a carbon removal game, which calls climate change an expensive “scam.”
This duality reflects Grok's balanced output: it references NOAA and NASA data, but does not accept it uncritically with the assertion or bow as dogma. This is the kind of artificial intelligence we need – not only will it echo the loudest sound, but it also needs to dig into the truth, even if it is inconvenient.
In a world where AI increasingly shapes public perception, Groke’s commitment to questioning climate narratives is a triumph of science and rationality.
As Waldman's article inadvertently suggests, Grok is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and that's what we're here Climate Realism Can fall behind.
Top photo of UMA Media, Airam Dato-On overwrites text via PEXELS
Read more in Climate Realism
