I know the following is exceptionally long but I believe it shows the lengths that green pushers have gone to, programming AI to dutifully push their agenda instead of just answering questions with facts.

It is dangerous to our economic survival as a great country that for decades a cabal has, without evidence, indoctrinated the public, especially children, that humans, CO2, and our use of natural resources have caused dire temperature increases and disastrous climate change.

The cabal includes a compliant and non-curious media, educators, scientists who go along, bureaucrats, politicians, and a massive number of companies sucking off the government trough. The swamp is deep.

No matter how far off dire predictions have been, they continue to repeat the talking points that the science is settled.

Anyone who wants to debate or disagree is denigrated as a “denier” and anti-science.

So, instead of just asking Google AI questions, I decided to debate it.

If an 8th-grade student wanted to show that oil causes temperature to rise the last 160 years wouldn’t they do a linear graph? What would the graph show?

An 8th-grade student could use a linear graph to illustrate the relationship between the two factors, but it wouldn’t fully represent the complex reality of climate change. A linear graph can show a correlation between two variables but cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

 It clearly wouldn’t show the graph because it does not show a direct relationship, so AI tried to explain it away?

What would the graph show?

A graph of crude oil use versus temperature would not directly show a relationship because temperature impacts crude oil properties like viscosity and density.

It admitted there was no relationship, but doesn’t care and throws out words like viscosity and density in an attempt to explain it away. The media has never told the public there is no direct relationship as they indoctrinate.

Wouldn’t the crude oil line be a sharp incline going from zero in 1860 to 100 million barrels per day today while the temperature line would fluctuate around 58 degrees?

No, the crude oil production line does not start at zero and rise sharply to 100 million barrels per day.

It lied. Crude oil use did start at zero in 1860.

Did temperatures fluctuate between 1860 to 2000 while oil use rapidly went from zero to 100 million per day?

Yes, average global temperatures fluctuated between 1860 and 2000, though the overall trend was an increase. During the same period, global oil use rose from a nascent industry in the 1860s to approximately 76.5 million barrels per day in 2000.

So here, it admitted that crude oil started at zero and temperatures fluctuated, but didn’t explain why temperatures didn’t correspond with the increase…but still blamed crude oil citing an “overall trend.”

How do you explain to a student that temperatures sometimes went down while crude oil use was rapidly rising?

When explaining to a student why temperatures sometimes went down during periods of rapidly rising crude oil use, you should emphasize that multiple factors influence global temperatures and that short-term trends do not define long-term climate patterns. The apparent cooling was primarily due to two factors: the masking effect of aerosol pollution and natural climate variability.

Somehow, a little aerosol can override the viscosity and density of crude oil and all the other things they say causes warming. What a joke! Why didn’t aerosol sprays cause cooling to go longer since it wasn’t banned until 1994?

If aerosols and natural variables cause cooling, couldn’t natural variables cause warming? 

Yes, natural variables can and do cause periods of global warming, just as they cause periods of cooling. However, the rapid warming seen in recent decades cannot be explained by natural factors alone.

Basically, they say trust the green pushers—whose dire predictions have all been wrong so far.

Couldn’t you agree that there is no linear relationship between the use of oil and temperatures?

There is not a simple linear relationship between global oil use and global temperatures, but the two are strongly linked in a complex way. The release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning oil and other fossil fuels is the dominant driver of climate change.

Could you also agree that there is no linear relationship between rising CO2 from 280 parts per million in the 1800s to 420 parts per million today?

While the increase in CO2 from around 280 ppm to 420 ppm since the late 1800s is a significant driver of warming, the relationship isn’t strictly linear because other factors like solar variations and volcanic aerosols also influence temperature.

It says they don’t care that there is no linear relationship. Trust us. 

So isn’t the correct answer that there is no direct linear relationship between CO2, oil use, gas vehicles on the road, number of people, number of cows, and temperatures because temperatures fluctuated?

The cooling period from approximately 1940 to 1975 was significant, not as a contradiction of global warming, but as a key piece of evidence that helped scientists better understand the complexities of Earth’s climate system.

It says it’s not a contradiction that the earth cooled, when “experts” said it would warm, because it taught scientists that the climate system is complex.

Isn’t it correct to say that the climate and temperatures have fluctuated naturally and cyclically through billions of years?

Yes, it’s correct to say that Earth’s climate and temperatures have fluctuated naturally and cyclically over billions of years due to factors like variations in Earth’s orbit and solar output. However, the rapid warming occurring now is unprecedented in geological history and cannot be explained by these natural cycles, but rather by human activities such as burning fossil fuels.

They agree, but say this little speck of time, 160 years, is different, and we should trust them. Of course they know exactly how the earth warmed and cooled each 160-year cycle, and this is a climate emergency.

Why are people who truthfully say that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally called climate change deniers?

The claim that ‘the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally’ is used to dismiss or deny the scientific consensus on modern, human-caused climate change. While it is a true statement on its own, it functions as a form of climate change denial because it misrepresents established climate science by ignoring crucial context about the current climate situation.

So, they lie about us because we disagree with them.

Isn’t the real reason we are called climate change deniers an effort to mislead the public into believing that we are anti-science?

The label ‘climate change denier’ is used to describe people who reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, and it’s not intended to mislead the public into thinking they’re anti-science. 

Here it lies that they are not trying to mislead the public about us, as they justify a fallacious ad hominem attack.

Won’t children and scientists just go along with the scientific consensus, instead of doing research and asking questions, so they won’t be called climate change deniers?

The response!

An AI Overview is not available for this search.

Why is it scared to answer this easy question?

Wouldn’t it be likely that scientists would agree with the consensus, instead of doing research and asking questions only to be called a climate change denier?

It is false to assume that scientists would simply agree with the consensus on climate change to avoid being called a ‘climate change denier’. Scientific consensus is not based on popular opinion or political pressure.

What a joke of an answer. They pretend that scientists don’t care about money and political pressure.

So, would scientists be willing to be fired and lose government grants and their ability to thrive and feed their families if they dare disagree with the consensus?

It did not answer this logical question. It basically pleaded the Fifth.

Isn’t it an unreliable consensus of scientists if they are essentially put out to pasture and shot if they disagree?

Again, no answer from it.

Can climate consensus ever be wrong?

Yes, any scientific consensus, including the climate consensus, can theoretically be wrong, as all scientific understanding is subject to revision with new evidence. However, the current overwhelming consensus among climate scientists—that the climate is warming due to human activity—is based on vast amounts of evidence and rigorous scientific scrutiny, making it highly unlikely to be incorrect.

Again, trust them. They would never mislead us, never mind that there is no scientific data showing a relationship between any of the variables they say cause warming and temperatures.

Summary of AI’s answers: Scientific data doesn’t matter. Correlation doesn’t matter. It’s okay to slander people who tell the truth about how the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally as “climate change deniers” because the green agenda is right, and silencing dissenters is in the name of science.

And scientists don’t care about money. They always tell the truth. 

The Truth: It has always been a scam about controlling us and transferring money to green pushers.

Image from Grok.