ChatGPT, Artificial intelligence, something EVERYONE can agree is
clear of any liberal bias - Says all of the following;
I asked ChatGPT and it responded;
- ChatGP Says;
- There is
overwhelming scientific
agreement that climate change is real, that human activities are the
dominant cause of the warming observed since the mid-20th century,
and that it poses serious risks.
- Among scientists who actively study
climate, there is
essentially no significant scientific controversy
over whether the Earth is warming.
- Is human activity responsible? The
scientific consensus is also very strong.
- 97% agreement in many earlier studies -
99% or greater agreement among experts - over 99% agreement among
peer-reviewed climate papers.
- The claim that climate change is a hoax
is not regarded as scientifically supported.
Are people already dying because
of climate change?
The scientific evidence indicates yes.
-
Studies have
also attributed thousands of deaths from individual heat waves in
Europe, North America, India, and elsewhere to anthropogenic climate
change.
- The World Health Organization estimates
that climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000
additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 from heat,
malnutrition, malaria, and diarrheal disease alone. This estimate
excludes many other impacts and is generally considered
conservative.
- Does science agree fossil
fuels are a major part of the problem?
Yes. This is one of the strongest areas
of agreement. Burning: coal, oil, natural gas, accounts for the vast
majority of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
Coal is particularly carbon-intensive.
Per unit of electricity generated, coal emits substantially more CO₂
than natural gas.
The IPCC concludes that rapid reductions
in fossil-fuel emissions are necessary to limit warming.
Must fossil fuels be urgently addressed?
The consensus is: Yes, if the goal is to limit warming to
internationally agreed targets such as 1.5°C or well below 2°C above
pre-industrial levels. Scientists generally conclude that this
requires: rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, expansion of
low-carbon electricity, improved efficiency, electrification of
transport and heating, reductions in methane emissions, protection
and restoration of forests deployment of carbon removal where
appropriate, Scientists are less unified on which policies are best
(e.g., carbon taxes, regulations, nuclear power, carbon capture,
renewable subsidies), but
they broadly agree that substantial emissions reductions are needed.
- ChatGPT - Does the Republican
Party, strongly favor the oil and gas industry and does the oil and
gas industry strongly favor the Republican Party?
The short answer is yes.
Does the oil and gas industry generally
favor Republicans? Overall, yes.
- I asked ChatGPT - How active
has this President been in promoting the fossil fuel and Coal agenda
ChatGPT Answer - If by "this President"
you mean
Donald Trump, then the answer is that he
has been among the strongest advocates for expanding fossil fuel
production of any recent U.S. president, particularly during his
second term. His administration has made increasing domestic
production of oil, natural gas, and coal a central policy objective
-
President Trump has placed substantially
greater emphasis on expanding fossil fuel production and has been
considerably more supportive of the coal industry than either Obama
or Biden.
Has this President actively taken
steps to reduce Green Energy initiatives at the same time he is
actively promoting Fossil Fuels?
Yes. Since returning to office in January
2025, President Donald Trump has pursued both objectives
simultaneously:
it is accurate to say that President
Trump has actively promoted fossil fuel development while also
taking significant steps to scale back or redirect a number of
federal green energy and climate initiatives.
- I asked ChatGPT and it answered
Is it true
that there was an article published around mid 201x that researched
US politicians public remarks disclaiming Climate change as a
reality or human caused. That article cited some 150 - 160
politicians remarks disclaiming Climate change and indicating that
all but one of those were Republican politicians?
In 2019, the organization
identified 150 members of Congress whom it classified as denying or
casting doubt on the scientific consensus that climate change is
primarily caused by humans. According to that analysis, all 150 were
Republicans. (The
Guardian)
- I asked ChatGPT;
How many steps have been taken by this
administration or the 2016-2020 administration that opponents call
out as an attempt to undermine or discredit science. has this
administration significantly cut funding for science related
projects including for medicine and medical research?
Yes.
There is substantial documentation that critics—including many
scientists, universities, former government officials, and
scientific organizations—have argued that both the 2017–2021 and
current Trump administrations have taken actions that undermine or
sideline scientific expertise
in some areas.
- Scientists at universities and research
institutions have expressed concern that reductions in grants,
staffing, or long-term funding could slow research, discourage
early-career scientists, and reduce U.S. scientific competitiveness.
- I asked ChatGPT
Within this administration, the 2016 -
2020 administration, within any Republican State administrations,
have proscriptions ever been issued, mandating that employess may
NOT use the term Climate Change in communications?
Overall
The
evidence supports these conclusions:
Yes—but with an important distinction
between documented directives within particular agencies and a
government-wide legal prohibition.
There is credible evidence that employees
in some federal agencies during the first Trump administration were
instructed or advised to avoid using the term "climate change" (or
to substitute other language) in certain communications...
Here are some well-documented examples:
1. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2017)
This is probably the clearest documented case. Emails obtained
by reporters showed that employees in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service were advised to replace: "climate change"
with "weather extremes", "climate change adaptation" with
"resilience to weather extremes", "reduce greenhouse gases" with
language emphasizing soil health.
Internal emails also referred to a "shift
in perspective" under the incoming administration. (Yale E360)
This guidance applied within that agency
rather than across the entire federal government.
2. Department of Energy (2017) - Multiple
news organizations reported that employees in one office of the
United States Department of Energy were instructed to avoid terms
such as:
"climate change", "emissions reduction",
"Paris Agreement" in official written communications. The
department denied there was a formal department-wide ban, saying no
official language prohibition existed. (Axios)
3. Current administration (2025)
More recently, reporting based on internal emails indicated that
employees in the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy were instructed to avoid or rephrase terms
including: "climate change", "green", "decarbonization",
"sustainability", However, the Department of Energy publicly
denied that there was a department-wide directive banning these
terms, stating that no such formal instruction existed across the
department. (WLRN)
What about Republican-led states?
There have also been well-publicized cases at the state level.
One of the best-known involved Florida during the administration of
Governor Rick Scott.
Beginning around 2015, numerous current
and former state employees told reporters they had been instructed
to avoid using terms such as: "climate change", "global warming", in
official communications.
The state denied that any formal written
policy or ban existed, but multiple employees independently
described an informal practice of avoiding those terms. Subsequent
public-records investigations did not uncover a written statewide
prohibition, suggesting that if such guidance existed, it was
conveyed informally rather than through a formal regulation.
Overall
The evidence supports these conclusions:
So it would be accurate to say that there
have been documented cases in which government employees were
directed—formally within some offices or informally in others—to
avoid the phrase "climate change."
- There is a 26 point swing in voting demographics, between
educated White Voters and Non Educated White Voters, AI concurs A
26-point difference in vote share between educational groups is
politically very large.
- In Presidential Effectiveness - rating the Presidents since 1977
- Carter, Reagan, Bush (H), Clinton, Bush (W), Obama, Biden,
Trump - (8) in total number
ChatGPT rates Two Democrats of the
group, HIGHEST in effectiveness, Clinton #1 and Obama #2
- In Discussing "character" evaluation among Presidents
since 1900, Where did ChatGPT rate Trump's character
if we
are specifically ranking presidential character as defined above, I
would place Donald Trump last among presidents since 1900.
due to repeated false
public statements, unwillingness to acknowledge verified election
results after 2020, efforts to pressure officials regarding election
outcomes, personal attacks on opponents and critics, and conduct
that many scholars argue weakened respect for democratic
institutions.
- Which modern president has made the most false or misleading
public statements?
Among presidents since 1900, Donald Trump stands out in the
available empirical record.
|
- After Back and Forth Discussion ChatGPT posits the question;
Is one
side more associated with large-scale disinformation campaigns?
On certain high-impact issues, especially
election denial after 2020, yes, the evidence indicates a greater
level of organized, sustained misinformation within parts of the
conservative media ecosystem.
Were Fox hosts "parroting" Trump?
Some were, yes. There was a notable
alignment between: Trump's claims, some Republican elected
officials' claims, and certain Fox News personalities' messaging.
This alignment was especially visible after: the 2020 election,
claims about voting machines, claims about widespread fraud.
Yes. There is evidence that, in recent
years, certain conservative media ecosystems have been more
responsible for the spread of large-scale, repeatedly debunked
political misinformation, especially regarding the 2020 election,
than their liberal media counterparts.
Yes. Some Fox News personalities
amplified claims associated with Trump even when internal evidence
suggested those claims were questionable. No. That does not mean
every conservative journalist or every Fox employee participated,
nor does it mean liberal outlets are free of bias, mistakes, or
occasional misleading narratives. The most defensible empirical
statement is:
The contemporary misinformation problem
is not evenly distributed across all political media. On some of the
most consequential falsehoods of the last decade, the conservative
media ecosystem, particularly segments aligned with Trump, has
played a disproportionately large role in spreading claims
contradicted by available evidence.
- The major legacy news organizations have a
dramatically stronger record than Fox News. There is no need to
soften that into "a little stronger."
- Again ChatGPT posits the Question and
supplies the answer
Is the conservative media
ecosystem uniquely responsible for some modern misinformation?
On certain issues, especially the 2020
election, there is strong evidence that prominent conservative media
figures and political actors played a major role in spreading claims
that were not supported by evidence. The Dominion litigation
involving Fox News Media was a particularly consequential example
because it exposed internal communications showing tension between
what some individuals privately believed and what some programming
presented publicly.
Yes, there is substantial evidence that
some major conservative media institutions ”particularly parts of
the Fox News ecosystem during and after the 2020 election” played a
significantly larger role in amplifying a specific false narrative
(that the election was stolen through widespread fraud) than
comparable mainstream liberal-leaning news organizations played in
promoting an equivalent, similarly consequential false narrative in
that period. That statement can stand on its own.
- ChatGPT said;
"Fox News: documented examples since 2004
There is no complete lifetime count, but several systematic reviews
and major legal cases give us measurable examples.
1. Election misinformation A review of
Fox programming after the 2020 election found hundreds of instances
where Fox programming questioned the election outcome or promoted
related conspiracy claims.
One analysis counted 774 instances in the
period after Fox called the election, including claims on both
opinion and so-called straight-news programming. (Media
Matters for America)
Another analysis found 120 specific election-related claims casting
doubt on the results or promoting conspiracy theories
in a defined sample period. (Media
Matters for America)
The Dominion case is the most
consequential single event:
Fox settled for (AGREED TO PAY) $787.5 million.
The litigation revealed internal communications showing some Fox
figures privately questioned claims that were being promoted
publicly. (AP
News)
2. COVID misinformation A Media Matters
review
identified hundreds of Fox segments that
it classified as undermining coronavirus science or public-health
measures. It counted at least 325 segments in one examined period
and 547 instances of problematic claims within those segments.
(Media
Matters for America) The important caveat: Media Matters is a
progressive media-monitoring organization, so its methodology should
be examined critically. But the broader conclusion ”that some Fox
personalities promoted COVID claims later contradicted by scientific
evidence” is also supported by independent reporting and academic
research. (Wikipedia)
SUMMARY CONCLUDED
There were (2) followup sessions to
this chat - you can read them here;
if you have the notion
|