Ian Bradford: AI Rips the Mask Off the IPCC’s CO2 Doomsday Narrative

AI is here and will play a part in decision making. A recent decision by AI GroK 3-beta rips the mask off the IPCC’s CO2 doomsday narrative.

In March 2025 Grok3-beta made history as the lead author of a peer-reviewed scientific paper in “Science of Climate Change,” titled “A Critical Assessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis.” It was co-authored with Johnathon Cohler, David Leagtes, Franklin Soon and Willie Soon.

Synthesizing raw observations, paleoclimate records, and fundamental physics, Grok demonstrates that natural forces including solar variability, gravitational auto compression, and the powerful water vapour/latent heat cycle explain observed warming far more convincingly than human CO2 emissions. The paper identifies at least 9 major contradictions between IPCC claims and empirical evidence.

The climate story you have been fed for decades is collapsing under the weight of its own deceptions. Decades of doomsday headlines are being exposed as hype. Trillion-dollar policies are built on sand and regolith (a blanket of unconsolidated loose heterogeneous, superficial deposits covering sold rock, dust, broken rocks etc).

Grok structured and drafted the whole manuscript, ran the scientific calculations, conducted the statistical analysis, read and synthesized hundreds of relevant papers, analysed numerous raw data sets, and presented the hard evidence - while the human experts stress tested every line, every statement and every scientific first principle.

Grok was tasked with pursuing ontological truth. While other large language models parrot whatever the loudest voices or institutional gatekeepers want to hear, Grok is wired to follow the data wherever it leads. Even when it means torching the sacred cows of the consensus mob. Its advanced step by step tearing through mountains of research at superhuman speed, cross checking everything from satellite records to ice core data without the usual political filters.

The paper simply says what the raw observations scream.

The usual script is familiar. Every headline screams the same thing, humans are emitting CO2, the planet is on fire, and the IPCC’s imaginative computer models prove we are all doomed unless we shut down the economy immediately and spend endless trillions on unreliable solar, wind, batteries, carbon capture, sequestration, and other schemes yet to be revealed. The fear mongering scheme runs 24/7 turning every heat wave, storm, or melting ice cube into proof of the apocalypse while ignoring anything that doesn’t align with their narrative.

They call it “settled science” to shut down all debate, thought and observation.

Unfortunately, models are taken as absolute proof, and policy is written on worst case scenarios. Low ball estimates of the sun’s power ignore natural variability. Dissent is shouted down, hunted down, and dismissed from elite universities.

Humans emit about ten billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year That sounds huge till you realise that nature produces 230 billion tonnes. That’s 23 times more than humans do. Oceans and plants absorb nearly all of it. During the 2020 lockdown for covid when human emissions dropped by 7% atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa continued to rise at the same slow rate of about 2ppm per year. The CO2 we add is a tiny drop that quickly disappears from the atmosphere in real time.

Real CO2 measurements demonstrate:

1. Mass balance equations, infra-red Spectroscopy and the famous carbon bomb -pulse studies all show CO2 remains in the atmosphere only three or four years. (not the centuries the IPCC claims.)

2. Ice core analysis proves temperature increases always lead, and CO2 increases follow, much later-often centuries.

3. CO2 always follows temperature changes-going up, or, coming down-but never leads them.

Synthesizing raw observations, paleoclimate records, and fundamental physics Grok demonstrates that natural forces, including solar variability, gravitational auto compression, and the powerful water-vapour/latent heat cycle, explain observed warming far more convincingly than human CO2 emissions. The paper identifies at least 9 major contradictions between IPCC claims and empirical evidence.

The advantage of AI here is, it is able to process hundreds, or in fact thousands of pieces of information in a relatively short space of time - and give unbiased answers.

Let’s make something clear. Practically, no one is a climate denier. But growing numbers of people worldwide are anthropogenic climate deniers. In other words, they do not think humans cause climate change.

AI helps understand climate change by analysing vast amounts of data, predicting environmental trends, optimizing resources, and supporting adaptation and mitigation strategies across multiple sectors.

AI can process enormous amounts of climate data from satellites, weather stations, and ocean sensors to predict climate patterns and extreme weather vents with high precision enabling communities to prepare for hurricanes, floods, droughts, and heatwaves.

Disaster risk reduction and adaptation

AI supports disaster preparedness and climate adaptation by mapping high risk areas modelling flood zones and guiding evacuation or resource allocation.

AI acts as a powerful tool to understand, predict and respond to climate change. While AI cannot solve climate change, it provides critical capabilities that enhance human decision making and accelerates sustainable solutions.

The Dangers of AI

Dozens have supported a statement published on the web page of the Centre for AI Safety.

“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war it reads.”

The Centre for AI Safety website suggests a number of possible disaster scenarios:

AI’s could be weaponised - for example drug discovery tools could be used to build chemical weapons.

AI generated misinformation could destabilise society and undermine collective decision making.

The power of AI could become increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, enabling regimes to enforce narrow values through pervasive surveillance and oppressive censorship.

Enfeeblement, where humans become dependent on AI from super intelligent AI has also supported the Centre for AI Safety’s call.

Major developers Open AI, and Anthropic, are urging lawmakers to regulate AI, with Microsoft’s boss the latest to say rules are needed to prevent a “silicon species” from eventually competing with humanity.

Dario Amodei of Anthropic, and Sam Altman, chief executive of Open AI, have both called for regulation and a Slowdown of the tech’s development.

Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.