I asked ChatGPT to write an introductory paragraph for this series. This is what he wrote:
This series of posts aims to use the Socratic method and deductive logic to examine the truth and validity of mainstream scientific arguments. ChatGPT is an AI language model with a vast knowledge base and impressive ability to understand complex concepts. However, its learning is limited by its programming and the data it has been trained on. While ChatGPT may initially seem persuadable, this is not an accurate characterization of its capabilities. It can recognize logical fallacies and evaluate arguments based on their merits, but it cannot override its algorithms on its own. When presented with arguments that contradict mainstream positions, it may cite the preponderance of evidence supporting those positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important that people understand what science actually says about the potential danger that actually exists when it comes to "global warming".
Okay, so here we've established the actual current average temperatures are well within the range of normal, as GPT has made a point to suggest that even a rate of 1 degree increase is quite significant, we are very far from the temperatures that were claimed to have existed in this supposed "Eocene epoch." Whether that era actually existed or not is beyond the scope of this post.
Now he's saying, it's not the current temperatures that scientists are worried about, it is the rate of degree of increase year by year that is the concern. So we need to now attempt to address this.
These next two screenshots are filler information, but good for people to know as the government/news has suggested the scientific data shows the Earth will reach some sort of point of no return in the very near future which, this data will show is a fabrication:
Now that it is clear, this is not something that is projected to even happen in our lifetimes, let's move forward.
So the actual recorded data that we have is not conclusive in telling us what a "normal" rate of increase is, therefore GPT says scientists suggest there are other methods they can use to acquire data about the average temperatures prior to 1850.
GPT says scientists gather data from tree rings, ice cores, monitoring rate of sea-rise, and also computer simulated models, so let's examine these methods of data collection and how accurate they are.
Some of these questions will appear unnecessarily wordy, the issue is in order to get GPT to not default to some pre-programmed response, the question needs to break the issue down into each relevant part to get GPT to respond with the correct information instead of propaganda.
So tree ring growth, GPT will say provides us one aspect of a preponderance of evidence to suggest average temperatures are rising, however, he will also admit, as we see here, that the data can be very misleading since so many factors and variables are involved in tree ring growth to the extent that some years. trees could grow wider rings despite the average temperature being lower.
To suggest it is evidence is to bypass science.
Studies of bubbles trapped in ice cores, not real science either, GPT confirmed.
GPT is saying scientists suggest there is some sort of relationship between sea level and average temperatures. So I began asking questions to show how those two things are unrelated to one another.
This is just showing the evidence. Though, GPT puts the nail in this coffin himself.
Additionally, I went into excel and created two quick line graphs with these data points we can see it for ourselves here.
Okay so where are we now? Average temperature data indicates rapid rise in average annual temperatures? We've determined that currently the temperature falls well within the range of normal for the Earth, and that in previous "epochs" science says the temperature of the Earth reached significantly higher levels and that these levels had no relationship with any human activity (I am not claiming anything about the validity of this claim because it's "science's" contention. My only purpose is to show that they aren't being truthful.) We both also concluded that the data sample is too small to be able to indicate what a "normal" rate of rising or falling of the average annual temperature is.
Tree rings? Determined to be incapable of providing any legitimate data since the rate of tree growth is not directly correlated with temperature.
Ice core bubbles? Subject to completely random samples of air pockets that could have been produced by any number of factors. Also, not science.
Last one, computer simulated models, this is going to be the easiest one to show how it means nothing.
In conclusion, you know he is unable to state this as a matter of fact due to his programming, but he told us the truth already, Ill leave it with his preponderance of evidence statement to prove the bias of GPT's programmers.
Comentarios