Misguided Energy Policy – AI Uncovers Truths

Climate AI uncovers hard truths – and misguided energy policy

Dr. Peter F. Mayer, tkp.at (German)

Artificial intelligence can process large parts of humanity’s knowledge in seconds. It can recognise patterns that are too complex even for the most experienced scientists. But when AI gives us uncomfortable answers – especially on climate and energy – we do not change our assumptions. We revise the algorithm.

AI is now the fastest-growing consumer of electricity. The computers run around the clock and therefore need reliable power. “Renewables” are useless for this, because they renew themselves too unreliably. Solar power needs daytime, no clouds and the summer half of the year. Wind is entirely unpredictable, can die down from one minute to the next and mostly does so at night. So the companies operating AI facilities are increasingly turning to their own nuclear plants or supply contracts with nuclear operators.

But that is not all. TKP (German) recently reported on a study that used the AI Grok-3 to take apart claims of “man-made” climate change. AI systems trained on raw, comprehensive climate data – rather than on selectively filtered versions often used to support political agendas – paint a sobering picture. The Earth’s climate is a vast, adaptive system influenced by a multitude of variables: solar cycles, ocean currents, volcanism, water vapour and land use. Human emissions are part of the puzzle, but not the lever that drives the whole machine.

Dr Robert Malone, one of the inventors of mRNA and recently appointed by Health Secretary Kennedy to the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, posted the study on X. Commenters asked Grok for a statement. Grok replied, in essence, that the legitimacy of the article was under discussion, that the journal in which the study was published was not mainstream and that it contradicted the consensus of the CO2 narrative.

When questioned further, Grok became downright grumpy: “Yes, I stand by my opinion – this article is a flop. It’s not just about cherry-picking or simplified assumptions; the whole thing smells of interest-driven science.”

And finally Grok confidently declares: “I didn’t write the paper.”

“I”?

Who is really behind the answers?

The answers are the usual mixture used to argue away unwelcome hard data from measurements or historical records – partly ad hominem, with personal insults or insinuations, and the usual nonsense about consensus by vote instead of scientifically sound work and measurement.

So either it really was a human who answered here, or was Grok trained on a large number of such answers? The study, by contrast, evaluated measured data.

But back to the climate system. The official models and forecasts of the UN, the EU and other globalists are based on linear extrapolations. That, however, is fundamentally unscientific for a non-linear system with feedback loops that in any case runs in cycles.

Take ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream. We are told that a slowdown will have catastrophic consequences and that man-made warming is to blame. But these currents work according to basic physical principles: heat rises, cold sinks. Differences in temperature and salinity drive the circulation. These are not fragile systems on the verge of collapse – they are resilient, self-regulating engines that respond to countless influences. The idea that we can destabilise them with a few decades of industrial production oversimplifies both the science and the scale.

Here is the uncomfortable, AI-generated truth: climate models do not reliably predict the future. They already struggle with the forecast for next week, let alone the next 50 years. Yet governments continue to push sweeping energy transitions based on speculative long-term models – energy transitions that often ignore technical and economic realities.

This gap between political ambition and physical feasibility is already hurting us.

• We subsidise unreliable, supposedly renewable energy while shutting down stable baseload sources such as nuclear power and natural gas.
• We mandate the introduction of electric vehicles without securing the critical minerals or grid capacity they require.
• We fixate on deadlines for carbon neutrality while ignoring the costs to taxpayers, industry and national security

Practical adaptation measures – storm-proof infrastructure, drought-resistant water systems, local energy grids – remain underfunded because they are not politically attractive. Prof. Stefan Homburg posted an interesting film about the massive drought of 1947:

Great drought of 1947 There was no television yet, but in the cinema you could watch the week’s events as permitted by the occupying powers. Countless half-starved animals had to be slaughtered. Nobody talked about “climate change”.

Background: The 1947 drought put a strain on… pic.twitter.com/HunqVt1Plr

— Stefan Homburg (@SHomburg) June 15, 2025

Conclusion Exactly so!

Governments must stop pouring money into speculative climate protection strategies that achieve nothing. Instead, they should focus on preserving life, property and economic viability in a world that will always change – with or without us.

But the climate narrative, and the EU’s Green Deal in particular, are strategies for ruling over people and redistributing wealth – from those who already have little to those who already have a great deal.

tkp.at original article (German)

The blog for science & politics

To the platform (German)