In this section of the YouTube video, Jonathan Cohler discusses his interest in climate science and artificial intelligence. He began his career in the computer business in the 1970s and later worked in the music industry, starting a record company while pursuing a degree in physics. He became fascinated by climate science as a parent and extensive research on the topic. He later collaborated with climate scientist Dr. Willie Soon, developing software for recording, editing, mastering, and mixing classical music in a small market. Cohler named the software the lies, damn lies, climate science, and Artificial Intelligence due to the prevalent misinformation and bias in the field. The speaker discusses the manipulation of language in climate science and the use of lying methods in journalism, which have led to flawed reasoning and the promotion of agendas. The speaker also argues that circular reasoning and appeals to authority can be misleading and the importance of verifying information is essential for understanding the matter at hand.
00:00:00 In this section of the YouTube video, Jonathan Cohler explains how he became interested in climate science and artificial intelligence. He started his career in the computer business in the 1970s and worked for various computer publications, including the leading publication on Digital Equipment Corp computers. He later got involved in the music industry, starting a record company in the early 1990s while also pursuing his degree in physics from Harvard.
However, one of the topics that has fascinated him since his son was born is climate science, where he has researched the topic extensively, including living expenses in major cities. He met Dr. Willie Soon, a famous climate scientist, at an event in 2022, and his latest project involved developing software for recording, editing, mastering, and mixing classical music in his business in a small market. He named the software lies, damn lies, climate science, and Artificial Intelligence because of the widespread misinformation and bias in the field.
00:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the manipulation of language in climate science to redefine terms and create false impressions to advance their agenda. They argue that climate science, also known as climate science, is a name given to a massive field of study without a strong foundation in real scientific knowledge or understanding. The speaker also touches on the importance of truth in legal proceedings, stating that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are essential to understanding the matter at hand. The speaker then goes on to discuss the hockey stick graph, which was a widely accepted representation of global temperature trends until it was exposed as unreliable and false in the 1990s. The speaker highlights the subsequent studies and findings that confirmed the existence of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, as well as the conclusion that the 20th century warming was not a unique or unprecedented climate period.
00:10:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "Jonathan Cohler/Willie Soon: Climate Science Lies and Artificial Intelligence | Tom Nelson Pod #170," the speaker discusses the errors and discrepancies in the famous "hockey stick" graph that depicted global temperature change over the past century. McIntyre and McKitrick were the first to point out these issues and identified several errors including collation errors, truncation, and extrapolation, among others. David Deming, in 2005, published an article that challenged the accuracy of the medieval warm period, stating that there was only a one-degree change in temperature over the past century. This prompted criticism from climate scientists who felt that the "medieval warm period" was a significant part of global temperature history. However, it was later revealed that Deming had received an email from a discredited climate scientist who had asked him to remove the "medieval warm period" from his research. Deming had initially deleted the email but later admitted that he had received it.
00:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the use of lying methods in journalism and how they have evolved with the advent of AI. They mention partial truths mixed with falsehoods, faulty logic, bad mathematics, and the use of straw man arguments as common methods of lying. They also point out how these methods have been embraced by some individuals and institutions to promote their agendas.
00:20:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "Jonathan Cohler/Willie Soon: Climate Science Lies and Artificial Intelligence | Tom Nelson Pod #170", the speaker discusses the idea of "useful idiots" and how they continue to exist through promulgation of lies. The speaker talks about how scientists have a basic understanding of physics and know that climate change is a lie. The speaker also talks about how Michael Mann said that they have proven that single weather events are made more severe and more likely by climate change and how this statement cannot be true because it was made using computer models. The speaker uses the example of a clarinettist who talked about a subjective phenomenon and how it is impossible to prove that a weather event was made worse by using a model, which is simply a representation of a person's beliefs. The speaker also talks about how repeating a lie over and over again makes it become the truth. The speaker ends the section by talking about how wildfires are getting worse, but then changing the subject tosay they are getting dramatically better. The circular argument also used to support climate change.
00:25:00 In this section of the transcript, the speaker discusses circular reasoning, the appeal to authority, and the importance of verifying information. The speaker argues that circular reasoning is a powerful and persuasive meme, but it can also lead to flawed reasoning if not used carefully. They also emphasize the importance of questioning authority and critically evaluating information, even if it comes from credible sources. The speaker uses the example of the Nyquist theorem to illustrate their point, noting that while many people may believe in a theory despite the overwhelming evidence against it, ultimately, it is important to base our beliefs on the best available evidence and scrutinize the information we receive.
00:30:00 In this section, Cohler argues that popular YouTube creators who lack expertise in science often engage in misleading debunking of established scientists like William H. Hopper. Cohler also criticizes the IPCC for its lack of peer review and the use of declarations of unequivocal certainty to support its assessments, which Cohler argues are often misleading and filled with fake information. Cohler points to the discrepancies in the IPCC's solar radiation reconstruction as an example of how their claims can be misleading and potentially dangerous.
00:35:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the limitations of climate science and the use of models in climate science research. He argues that models are not evidence in themselves, but rather a tool to help scientists conceptualize and understand climate data. However, he also critiques the way that models are used by climate scientists to prove conclusions, arguing that this leads to a degradation of the scientific process. He mentions the central limit theorem and its importance in accurately measuring scientific data, as well as argues that models in climate science are not independent or experimentally testable, making it difficult to trust their conclusions.
00:40:00 In this section, the speaker presents an argument against the use of computer models in climate science. The speaker argues that the models used in climate science are written by students with low IQs and produce meaningless garbage. The speaker also uses the example of Edington's model of general relativity to demonstrate that a good model produces unbelievably
00:45:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses a letter written by a man named Cook which purported to express the consensus position of climate scientists. According to the speaker, Cook's letter endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming, but he presented this as a 97% percentage that was actually based on flawed and unscientific methods. The speaker takes Cook's letter to task, arguing that it masqueraded science and attempted to discern people's opinions by looking at words in a scientific study. He also points out that Cook's letter made claim about the consensus that was not supported by data. Despite this, Obama and others in the public sphere used Cook's study to promote the consensus view that climate change was real, man-made, and dangerous.
00:50:00 In this section of the transcript excerpt, the speaker is discussing the nonsense surrounding climate science and the link between the Paris climate conference and Obama's endorsement of the Cook Paper. The speaker argues that the Google clearly had access to this information but ignored it, likely hiding it to protect the interests of climate activists. The speaker also talks about the smear campaigns and appeals to authority used in climate science and calls for fighting lies and truth-telling. The speaker disregards the idea that there are degrees in climate science and argues that anyone with a background in science is considered a climate scientist.
00:55:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the redefinition of the term "consensus climate science" by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which is not a scientific organization but a government organization. The IPCC is founded by the W and the UNP and consists of member countries, not scientists. The majority of its members work for and are funded by governments. The speaker also highlights the irony of how the IPCC is often considered the leading scientific organization in the world when it is not, in fact, a science organization. Additionally, the spoke discusses how the IPCC's scientific assessments, or opinions, are made by a small number of lead authors and are finalized by governmental representatives. The speaker also mentions how governments staff the IPCC with handpicked scientists.
This section of a video by Jonathan Cohler, titled "Jonathan Cohler/Willie Soon: Climate Science Lies and Artificial Intelligence | Tom Nelson Pod #170," discusses various issues related to climate science. Cohler argues against the notion of a global average temperature, questioning the accuracy of thermometers in measuring the temperature of a two-dimensional surface. He also critiques the scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming, arguing that it is based on flawed data and circular reasoning.
Cohler emphasizes the importance of replicating and refuting scientific claims rather than just criticizing them. He discusses his own work and other scientists', including Roy Spencer, in this context, highlighting the challenges of establishing the role of humans in climate change.
The section also touches on government involvement in censoring information about climate change and the role of Nixon in addressing the issue. Cohler discusses the flaws of climate science models and their inaccuracy in predicting warming, specifically the CMIP6 model. He argues that the models are rigged with inappropriate parameters and have incorrect feedbacks, leading to inaccurate predictions.
Cohler then enters a conversation with a representative from Google regarding temperature measurement through satellites and ground thermometers, discussing how temperature is defined, and the challenges of measuring it accurately. Cohler then turns the conversation to a climate science organization and its reliance on indirect measurements, arguing that direct measurements are more reliable and precise.
The section concludes with Cohler's concerns about climate change and his criticism of AI programs that purposely lie, arguing that companies and individuals creating such programs should be subject to prosecution. He also mentions the dangers of trusting AI systems and argues that natural disasters like wildfires are not being exacerbated by climate change.
01:00:00 In this section, Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon discuss the idea that some scientists may be forced to lie due to political pressure or being employed by governments. They also point out the effects of peer review on scientific research, including the high number of retractions and the potential for biased research. They also discuss the rise of preprints, which they argue have become more popular as a way for scientists to bypass the peer review process. They mention that some scientists, such as Nobel Prize winner Sydney Brener, have criticized the peer review process as corrupt and believe it is hindering science. Despite these criticisms, they also emphasize the importance of scientific objectivity and the need for scientists to be free to speak their minds.
01:05:00 In this section of the YouTube video, Jonathan Cohler discusses the idea of a global surface temperature and argues that it is not a meaningful concept. He believes that the notion of a global average temperature is a made-up abstract number and that thermometers are only accurate in measuring the temperature of a two-dimensional surface. Cohler also discusses the scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming, and argues that this consensus is based on circular reasoning and flawed data. He suggests that the scientific community should focus on replicating and refuting scientific claims rather than just criticizing them.
01:10:00 In this section of the video, Jonathan Cohler discusses his view on climate science and the importance of conducting research on a global scale. He also talks about the limitations of peer review and the need for scientists to have courage to speak out about their beliefs. Cohler discusses his own work and the contributions of other scientists, including Roy Spencer, In this context, Cohler discusses the challenges of establishing the role of humans in climate change and the ongoing debate surrounding the issue. He also highlights the importance of scientists being transparent about their research and the need for a more open and collaborative approach to understanding climate change.
01:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the issue of climate change and the Nixon administration's involvement in censoring information about the Earth's temperature rise. The speaker notes that many scientists who have spoken out about the issue have faced criticism, and that the validity of certain scientific findings can be influenced by the specific methods and assumptions used in research. The speaker also discusses the specific formula used to measure the amount of radiation emitted from a black body, and how this formula can be used to calculate the amount of warming caused by the addition of greenhouse gases. The speaker argues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC) relies on a faulty understanding of this formula and assumes positive feedbacks for greenhouse gases, leading to an overestimation of their impact on the environment.
01:20:00 in this section of the video, John Christie provides a detailed critique of climate models, specifically the CMIP6 model, which is the latest in a series of climate modeling efforts. According to Christie, the CMIP6 model is massively wrong, with predictions of warming around 0.4 degrees Celsius per decade over a 30-year period, while the observed warming over the same period was only 0.17 degrees Celsius. Christie argues that this means the models are not useful for anything and that the whole parameterization of hindcasting is a fake. He explains that the models are rigged with 200 parameters that approximate the last 100 years of climate data, but that by using such parameters, the models are unable to match the observed data accurately. Christie also compares the observed data with the CMIP6 model and points out that the feedbacks in the model are all wrong, with incorrect positive feedbacks leading to a spread of the spaghetti lines around the mean. Overall, Christie's critique of the CMIP6 model challenges the accuracy and usefulness of climate modeling efforts, leading to a shift in the way we understand and address climate change.
01:25:00 The section starts by discussing the flaws of climate science models, which are regularly averaged together to make them appear better than they actually are. In contrast, Next the discussion moves to large language models, which are described as a type of software that uses a database called neural networks. These models have the ability to process language and can make predictions, as well as having massive logic processing, exception systems, and programmed overrides. Additionally, they have fact-checking and verification capabilities, but it is noted that their programming follows the Marxist doctrine of their creators. In conclusion, it is emphasized that large language models can and do lie, as there are programmers at large tech companies who are tasked with lying to the public. The idea is borrowed from human imagination and is not true, as science means being able to sense things.
01:30:00 This section of the transcript discusses the conversation between the host of the podcast and a representative from Google regarding the accuracy of temperature measurement through satellites and ground thermometers. The conversation touches on the fact that temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of matter and that its measurement relies on measurable properties of a substance related to temperature. The
01:35:00 In this section of the video, the speaker, Jonathan Cohler, discusses his interactions with a climate science organization and their reliance on indirect measurements. Cohler argues that direct measurements are more reliable and precise, and that satellites which cover the entire low troposphere are more reliable than co-op stations, which only provide sparse spotty coverage. Despite this, the organization continues to claim that indirect measurements are more reliable and less stable. Cohler presents evidence to show that this statement is a lie, and that the organization has programmed its AI to give non-responsive and deceptive answers to controversial questions.
01:40:00 this is dangerous. They have programmed these machines to lie and they are programmed to lie so if we don't start now to expose it, they will do it again and do this again and again. They have already lied repeatedly in the IPCC report and dared to say it's a lie. This is very important to pursue because we need to be careful if we trust these machines. We need to be careful because AI systems are becoming part of our everyday lives and we need to be careful about what they are telling us.
01:45:00 In this section, the speaker, Jonathan Cohler, shares his concerns about climate change and discusses a problem he encountered while trying to communicate with a computer. He argues that companies and individuals who create AI programs that purposely lie should be subject to prosecution and is illegal. Cohler also shares his own mistakes and admits that some of his language can come across as misleading, leading people to believe that the companies are more careful than they are. Cohler then presents a challenge to his audience and asks them to share a TED talk they would like to watch, stating his preference for Al Gore's speech from 2007. The speech involved Gore quoting a climate scientist, Maslowski, and exclaiming that the Arctic ice could completely disappear by 2013, but Cohler points out that this prediction did not come true.
01:50:00 In this section, Jonathan Cohler discusses his views on climate change science and the role of artificial intelligence. Cohler argues that climate change data is often manipulated for political gain, with examples including the rapid decrease of Arctic ice and the danger to polar bear populations. Cohler claims that this misinformation is spread through programmed overrides and jury rigging of neural networks, which have been programmed to always produce the same output. Cohler also argues that natural disasters such as wildfires are not being exacerbated, but rather are improving due to conservation efforts. Cohler says he personally operates a small blog where he finds and publishes accurate information on climate change topics in order to counterbalance the misinformation being spread elsewhere.
01:55:00 In this section of the video, Jonathan Cohler confronts the National Inter Agency Coordination Center (IFC) and the Hind Center State of the Nation Ecosystems 2008 about their graph that shows climate change in the United States from 1983 to 2015. Cohler claims that the graph is fake because it hides data that shows a decrease in the number of acres burned in the United States. Cohler also accuses the IFC of changing the graph and concealing past data that is not reliable, and claims that the National Data Quality Act is a mechanism created to make them look good. He believes that an AI system would be better at telling the truth and giving accountability. Cohler uses a graph as an example of how the IFC represents carbon emissions and claims that Google's Bard can admit that there is no evidence linking regional differences in wildfires to climate change.
In a YouTube video, Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon, the speakers in the video, shares their views on climate science and artificial intelligence. They argue that climate science is not a real science and that Google and Bard, the conversational AI developed by Alphabet, do not provide accurate information. The speakers strongly feel that people are not up to the ethical challenges digital technologies present and that the majority of individuals are not interested in the exploitation of their personal data and lives. The speakers appreciate Tom Nelson for promoting their ideas and appreciate the support of their audience.
02:00:00 In this section, the speaker discusses their experience with an AI system that they believe lies about climate science. The system convolutes discussions about global climate by introducing regional variations and incomplete data. The speaker argues that global climate is caused by a wide variety of factors and that regional variations should not be included in discussions about global climate. The speaker also criticizes the IPCC report for using dryness as a metric for determining global climate change and for not adequately addressing wildfire. They argue that arson, use changes in management of the fuel load, and local climate change are the primary factors contributing to regional changes in wildfires. The speaker concludes that the AI system lies about climate science and that the system's pre-programmed phrases make it propaganda.
02:05:00 In this section, Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon discuss various topics and share their opinions on climate science and artificial intelligence. They argue that climate science is not a real science and that Google and Bard, the conversational AI developed by Alphabet, are not honest. They believe that people are not up to the challenges posed by these technologies and that the majority of people are not interested in the exploitation of their personal data and lives. They also express gratitude towards their audience, including Tom Nelson, who will promote their ideas.