AI - Artificial Intelligence or Academized Isolating

Gerd De Ley, a Belgian actor and writer, once said, “When the silent majority opens its mouth, it is usually to yawn.” Typically, the left is very raucous and holds more animated protests, rallies, and marches. I have always said it was because many of their artificial, abstract, and factitious issues require an abundance of marketing. It seems with less clatter, excepting perhaps podcasts, conservatives are the more silent group, or at least less boisterous.

In the climate change arena, more progressive politicians, governmentally monetized scientists, academicians, and journalists are global warming advocates. As a result, they produce more documentation – semi-factual, defectively data-driven, or otherwise. Data, the backbone of research, is compromised by scientists who consistently manipulate, massage, and make up data to generate desired results. If doubts exist and publications are written factually, many jobs will be terminated. In monetary gain, traitors are few.

So, largely based on the mindset of consensus, which in itself is a mathematical fallacy, paper upon paper is produced. And what parrots these papers? Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI does not pursue critical thinking, certainly not yet, but rather harvests all the human-generated data, information, and analysis, and from that, deduces conclusions.

Here are responses to the question, “Is climate change real?” from two large language model (LLM) AI applications:

• Open AI ChatGPT acknowledges that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activities. It states that the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human actions release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which trap heat and cause the Earth's temperature to rise." In addition, it states, “ChatGPT acknowledges that the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence, including observations, measurements, experiments, and modeling, and is reflected in reports by international scientific organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

• Google Gemini states, “Yes, climate change is a real phenomenon supported by extensive scientific evidence. Scientific Consensus: Climate scientists widely agree that the Earth's climate is warming rapidly. Human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are the main cause.

However, the xAI’s Grok, another LLM is a little more suspicious, stating, “Climate change is a serious threat with urgent aspects, but its immediacy depends on perspective, geography, and timeframe,” and further adds, “extreme rhetoric on both sides muddies the water. Neither ‘we’re all gonna die’ nor ‘it’s all a hoax’ holds up.

Google’s analysis of Grok’s assessment is, “This approach, intended to make Grok more "politically neutral," has raised concerns among climate scientists”, and, “Critics argue that by giving weight to discredited views, Grok is undermining the scientific consensus and potentially spreading misinformation”.

xAI was founded by Elon Musk, so the progressive political advocacy and monetized scientists would immediately find the Grok AI problematic. Ever since Musk’s alliance with President Donald Trump, and even with his withdrawal from a 6-month directorship of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), he has been unashamedly and constantly vilified by the left.

One can clearly see with both ChatGPT and Gemini the value of consensus and the avoidance of most or all documentation, data, and deliberation refuting human-induced climate change. The reason people still direct the information into these AI systems – most of these large software firms characterize themselves as bipartisan, but history tells us this is not the case. The unjust and undeserved purging and exclusion of conservative content and divergent climate views conveys a very different story.

While I believe Artificial Intelligence will serve humanity extremely well in many different aspects in the future, if people swear by it as being wholly truthful and candid, we are in a considerable dilemma, both humanistically and politically.

The late Wayne Dyer a self-help author and motivational speaker, once said, “The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about”. The quote also works in the reverse, as in, “The highest form of ignorance is when you accept something you don't know anything about.” Acceptance of the theory of climate change fits very much into the latter.

Always remember that, in its infancy, and we are still there, Artificial Intelligence’s tour guides are humans.