ChatGPT has been trained to ignore any information which doesn’t support the climate orthodoxy.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on Is Antarctica Melting? saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun
Why would we expect ChatGPT to be any different from what is permitted on Google, Facebook Wikipedia, and all the other left-wing social media? It’s all going to be a version of what the Biden administration’s left-wing is feeding us on most media.
Shameful! Robots complying with their alarmist masters!
I had a discussion with Chatbot3 in which I convinced them(?) that further increase in CO2 was not a problem:
ChatGPT 3.5
You
Explain William Happer’s findings on infrared absorption by carbon dioxide.
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
William Happer is a physicist who has conducted research and made contributions to various areas of science, including the study of greenhouse gases and their role in climate change. However, it’s important to note that while William Happer has expertise in the field, his views on climate change and the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere are not widely accepted by the scientific community.
Regarding his findings on infrared absorption by carbon dioxide, Happer has focused on the specific wavelengths of infrared radiation that CO2 molecules can absorb and re-emit. He has argued that the absorption capacity of CO2 is already saturated at certain wavelengths, meaning that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere would have minimal additional effect on trapping heat.
Happer’s research suggests that the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 is already efficient in absorbing the available radiation at certain wavelengths, particularly in what he refers to as the “fingerprint region.” According to his findings, the additional CO2 molecules would not significantly contribute to further warming, as they would merely duplicate the absorption already achieved by existing CO2 molecules.
It’s important to note that Happer’s views on this matter have been heavily criticized and disputed by the broader scientific community. The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere do have a significant impact on Earth’s climate. Multiple lines of evidence, including laboratory experiments, satellite observations, and climate modeling, support the understanding that the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases leads to global warming.
It’s also worth mentioning that Happer has been associated with organizations and individuals that promote climate change denial or skepticism. This further underscores the divergence between his views and the scientific consensus on the role of CO2 in climate change.
In summary, while William Happer has conducted research on the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, his conclusions and interpretations are not widely accepted by the scientific community, which maintains that increasing CO2 concentrations are a primary driver of global warming and climate change.
You
while William Happer has conducted research on the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, his conclusions and interpretations are not widely accepted by the scientific community. But are his conclusions true or false?
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
The conclusions and interpretations put forth by William Happer regarding the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide are considered by the majority of the scientific community to be inaccurate or misleading. His views on this topic are not widely accepted because they contradict well-established scientific understanding and empirical evidence.
The scientific consensus, based on extensive research and multiple lines of evidence, is that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lead to a stronger greenhouse effect, resulting in global warming and climate change. The absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 is a well-documented phenomenon, and it is one of the fundamental mechanisms through which greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
While there may be specific wavelengths at which the absorption of CO2 is already saturated, this does not mean that the overall greenhouse effect of increasing CO2 concentrations is negligible. It is important to consider the broader spectrum of infrared radiation and the interactions between various greenhouse gases, including water vapor, which amplifies the warming effect.
It’s worth noting that scientific knowledge and understanding evolve through rigorous peer-reviewed research, experimentation, and consensus-building among experts in the field. While individual scientists may have differing opinions and interpretations, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the view that increasing carbon dioxide levels contribute significantly to global warming and climate change.
You
who said science is not consensus?
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Science is indeed a process that values evidence, critical thinking, and objective analysis. Consensus within the scientific community is an important aspect of scientific progress, but it is not the sole determinant of scientific truth. Scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence, observations, and experimental results supports a particular explanation or theory. It represents the prevailing view among experts in a given field at a specific point in time, based on the available evidence and understanding.
However, it’s important to note that scientific consensus is not fixed or dogmatic. It can change and evolve as new evidence emerges or new interpretations of existing evidence are proposed. Scientific progress often involves questioning established ideas, conducting further research, and refining our understanding of the natural world.
It is worth emphasizing that the scientific method relies on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, peer review, and open discourse among scientists to reach objective conclusions. While consensus is valuable, scientific claims should ultimately be evaluated based on the strength of the evidence and the validity of the methodology used to obtain that evidence.
It is also important to differentiate between scientific consensus and popular opinion or political consensus. Scientific consensus is not determined by popular vote or political agreement but is based on the accumulated knowledge and expertise of scientists working in a specific field. It is a result of ongoing scientific inquiry and critical evaluation.
You
What did Fyneman say about consensus and science
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, made several statements about the relationship between consensus and science. One notable quote attributed to him is:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
This statement reflects Feynman’s emphasis on the importance of questioning and challenging established ideas, even if they come from authoritative figures or a consensus among experts. Feynman believed that the true spirit of science lies in the continuous pursuit of knowledge, skepticism, and an open mind to new possibilities.
Feynman also stressed the significance of empirical evidence and experimentation in scientific inquiry. He famously said: