Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon and Willie Soon have guided xAI’s Grok 3 beta to produce what they call the first-ever AI-led peer-reviewed climate science paper.

The review of temperature, sea ice and atmospheric CO₂ data found that temperatures change before atmospheric CO₂ changes and that solar activity and natural cycles drive global temperature changes.

Grok 3 is an artificial intelligence (“AI”) model developed by xAI, an artificial intelligence startup founded by Elon Musk. Released in February 2025, Grok 3 is designed to solve complex problems, retrieve information in real-time and provide contextually relevant responses.

Researchers used Grok 3 to scrutinise climate-related datasets and climate change models to establish whether the anthropogenic global warming narrative is supported by evidence.

“This paper aims to rigorously test the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis by integrating unadjusted [observational] datasets with recent analytical frameworks, scrutinising model performance, isotopic evidence and the IPCC’s solar forcing assumptions to determine whether the prevailing narrative withstands empirical scrutiny,” the paper states.

The observational datasets used in the review include temperature data, sea ice data, and atmospheric CO₂ and isotopic data, using model outputs from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s (“IPCC’s”) Sixth Assessment Report (“AR6”).  Analytical frameworks included Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023),  Soon et al. (2023, 2024), Harde (2017, 2022) and Connolly et al. (2023).

Announcing the paper had been published,  Jonathan Cohler tweeted on Friday that the AI-led and human-checked review found:

• Human CO₂ (just 4% of the carbon cycle) sinks into oceans and forests in 3-4 years, not centuries like the IPCC claims.
• Temperature leads CO₂, not the reverse – think 800-year ice core lags and 2020’s lockdown “no-blip” at Mauna Loa.
• IPCC models exaggerate warming (0.5°C/decade vs. reality’s 0.13°C).
• Solar activity and natural cycles steal the show.

“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as [Michael E.] Mann,  [Gavin A.] Schmidt, and [Zeke] Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny,” the paper concludes.

The paper notes that Mann, Schmidt and Hausfather reinforced the “narrative [ ] that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, totalling approximately 2,000 GtC since 1750, have increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations from 280 ppm to 420 ppm” through “proxy reconstructions (e.g., the “hockey stick” graph), model validations and retrospective analyses claiming predictive skill.”

The “hockey stick” graph illustrates the temperature trends of the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years. Mann and his colleagues first published the hockey stick graph in 1998, and it has since been featured prominently in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as evidence of global warming.

In 2009, The Telegraph published an article about leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”).  The leaked e-mails came to be known as Climategate. The Telegraph wrote:

Since 2003 [ ], when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

Climategate is the worst scientific scandal of our generation, The Exposé, 15 July 2023

Despite the known flawed methods and data used in its creation, the “hockey stick” graph remains a key piece of evidence in discussions about global warming and human-induced climate change.

Related: Climategate: BBC’s propaganda falls apart under scrutiny

The following is the press release for the new AI-led paper.  The press release has been written by Grok3. You can read the paper in the journal Science of Climate Change HERE. 

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.

Follow Daily Expose on Telegram