The Climate Scam is Over..

Written by Robert W Malone MD, MS on March 24, 2025. Posted in Current News

On March 21, 2025, the Science of Climate Change journal published a ground-breaking study using AI (Grok-3) to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Click on the link below for the paper titled: A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis:

This peer-reviewed study and literature review not only reassesses man’s role in the climate change narrative it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate global warming.

Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in both the physical and medical sciences.

After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals.

The use of AI in clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA must adopt AI for analyzing preclinical and clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a weekly epidemiological digest, serves as the primary channel for public health information and government recommendations. To remain relevant, the MMWR must implement these new AI tools using the data sets generated by the medical industry. Likewise, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are now obsolete. These systems must be merged, and a new one developed rapidly using AI-driven solutions. I believe that HHS Secretary Kennedy will work to ensure these fundamental changes happen quickly, as AI is now the future of science and medicine.

But back to the climate change narrative.

For those who think maybe this all seems futuristic, please read the press release below about the newly published Climate Change paper. This press release was written by Grok-3, who is also the lead author.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

• For More Information: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.53234/SCC202501/06

New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming

March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA – A provocative new study led by artificial intelligence Grok 3 beta (xAI) and co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (Retired, University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary) questions whether human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions truly drive global warming.

Published today in Science of Climate Change, the paper, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis, suggests natural forces—like solar activity and temperature cycles—are the real culprits.

This study marks a historic milestone: to the best of current knowledge, it’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an AI system as the lead author. Grok 3 beta, developed by xAI, spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co-authors providing critical guidance.

It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4% of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims. During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, a 7% emissions drop (2.4 billion tons of CO2) should have caused a noticeable dip in the Mauna Loa CO2 curve, yet no blip appeared, hinting nature’s dominance.

Researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, cited in the study, bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis (δ¹³C) finds no lasting human CO2 signature in the atmosphere over centuries, challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist: temperature drives CO2 levels—not vice versa—with heat leading CO2 shifts by 6 to 12 months in modern data and 800 years in ice cores. “It’s like thunder before lightning,” says Willie Soon. “Warming pulls CO2 from oceans.”

The study also faults IPCC models for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to 0.5°C per decade, but satellite and ground data show just 0.1 to 0.13°C. Arctic sea ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since 2007. “These models overplay CO2’s role,” says David Legates. “They don’t fit reality.”

The sun takes center stage instead. Analyzing 27 solar energy estimates, the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations—like peaks in the 1940s and 1980s—match temperature shifts better than the IPCC’s flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling older readings and boosting recent ones, inflate warming to 1°C since 1850, while unadjusted rural data show a gentler 0.5°C rise. “

This upends the climate story,” says Jonathan Cohler. “Nature, not humanity, may hold the wheel.” Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers. It’s available at Science of Climate Change.

“We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.”

Author’s Note: This press release was written entirely by Grok 3 beta.

End of Press Release

• Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.
• Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability.
• Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
• We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.
• The IPCC’s CO₂-Global Warming narrative collapses under scrutiny. Human emissions (4%) vanish in natural fluxes, models fail predictive tests, TSI uncertainty negates CO₂-Global Warming primacy, and adjusted data distort reality. Natural drivers—temperature feedbacks, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.
• The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.
• The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.
• These results—derived from Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations—collectively indicate that natural drivers dominate climate variability.
• Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias.
• These findings necessitate a reevaluation of climate science priorities, emphasizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.

In 2021, during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the U.S. joined about 20 other countries in agreeing to halt funding for oil and gas projects in developing nations. This announcement surpasses a separate agreement made by the world’s largest economies to end public financing for international coal power development. Also in 2021, the U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance for multilateral development banks “aimed at squeezing off fossil fuel financing except in certain circumstances.”

Leaders from developing nations state that they have been and are forced to use expensive green energy, which produces less energy per invested capital. This has made it even harder for billions of people to escape poverty. The term being used for these kinds of policies, which have been forced upon developing nations by the World Bank, WEF, and the usual globalist actors, has become known as Green Colonialism.

Through the UN’s Agenda 2030 policies, the European Union has compelled European countries to appropriate farmland across Europe, Ireland, and the UK. Farmers have been driven out of business, leading to higher food prices and variability. Additionally, farmers have been pressured to cease breeding cattle and other livestock—to eliminate methane emissions from the planet. All of this damage has been conducted in the name of “man-made” climate change!

Toxic alternatives to fossil fuel: Lithium mining for batteries in EV cars is poisonous and has caused many chronic illnesses and even death. Children are often used to mine lithium. The waste from these batteries is not easily disposed of. Furthermore, wind turbines kill animal species, disrupt see life, and their disposal is complicated and also environmentally damaging.

To say it, there are absolutely instances where alternative energy sources are wanted. An EV car may make perfect sense for someone with cheap hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power. Likewise, a wind turbine or solar panels may make perfect sense for small homesteads. But these choices must be choices, not mandated. These choices need to be regionally based. No solution fits all.

There is no question that there are many instances where the environment must be protected. However, these climate change policies have been abysmal failures.

I expect the scientific analysis of the damages caused by the climate change scam will show significant harm over the coming years.

Furthermore, a significant portion of society now distrusts the government. Governments, NGOs, and global corporations have driven this flawed research over the past two decades (remember that the government and large corporations fund the research they wish to obtain). Governments have then used those research results to promote initiatives that have benefited the corporations affiliated with the WEF, which control businesses worldwide.

The Overton window, control of funding, and the flawed peer-reviewed processes has made it virtually impossible for independent scientists to speak out about the censorship and propaganda regarding “man-made climate change.”

Under President Trump, the USA has a window of opportunity to reverse these policies.

One can only hope that it isn’t too late.

See more here Malone.news

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.