A study published in Scientific Reports detailed 3,000 people’s conversations with ChatGPT about climate change, finding that about a quarter of the individuals were more open to the idea of climate change after interacting with the AI.
The author of the study, Kaiping Chen, expressed that AI models tend to match users’ opinions, which may or may not agree with supposed “facts,” according to a report from Fast Company.
“You want to make your user happy; otherwise, they’re going to use other chatbots. They’re not going to get onto your platform, right?” Chen said, according to the outlet. “But if you make them happy, maybe they’re not going to learn much from the conversation.”
The study added that after analyzing “20,000 dialogues with 3290 participants differing in gender, race, education, and opinion,” there was “substantively worse user experience among the opinion minority groups,” including “climate deniers” and “racists.”
“GPT-3 used more negative expressions when responding to the education and opinion minority groups,” the study said, offering an explanation for the poor user experience.
American Faith reported that climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry offered a dissenting perspective on what has been described as the “overwhelming scientific consensus” on climate change.
Dr. Curry asserts, “It’s a manufactured consensus,” suggesting that many scientists might be motivated by personal gains, including “fame and fortune.”
Similarly, in a July study titled “Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed,” The Heartland Institute revealed that nearly 96% of U.S. temperature stations, crucial to understanding climate change patterns, do not meet the “acceptable” placement standards set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study, assembled through satellite data and physical survey visits to NOAA stations, indicates that urbanization’s localized effects have corrupted an alarming 96% of these stations.
Most are situated close to asphalt, machinery, and various other objects that generate, trap, or amplify heat, resulting in a heat-bias.
Such station placements are in violation of NOAA’s established guidelines, thereby raising serious doubts about the strength and validity of official assertions regarding long-term climate warming trends in the U.S.
Anthony Watts, Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute and the study’s director, commented, “With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.”
Meanwhile, a study from Canadian and Australian researchers published in the journal Energies claimed that one billion people will die from climate change in the next century.
The study uses the “1000-ton rule,” which stipulates that a “future person is killed every time humanity burns 1000 tons of fossil carbon.”
However, Nobel Prize winner John F. Clauser has argued the mainstream climate narrative “reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”
“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” Clauser stated. “There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”
