Climate Alarm Industry Provides Another Absurd Example

Just when you think the climate alarm industry can’t possibly become more absurd, they manage to prove otherwise. A recent report from Inside Climate News, a media outlet backed by left-leaning billionaires, carries a headline that reads: “AI Applications for Oil and Gas Companies Worsen Climate Pollution.”

This article discusses a study published in the journal Nature by the Enabled Emissions Campaign (EEC), an organization formed by two artificial intelligence developers turned climate activists. A quick look online reveals that the EEC is funded by the Oil & Gas Action Network, which, in turn, receives backing from leftwing billionaires and their various philanthropic foundations, including Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

It’s a bit tiresome and completely expected.

The study’s main conclusion is that “AI tools used by oil and gas companies have made production faster, cheaper, and more profitable, expanding output that otherwise wouldn’t happen.” In simpler terms, these AI tools are quite effective at what they’re meant to do.

So, if you have any common sense, you might wonder why this is seen as a bad thing. It seems that the core issue stems from concerns over excessive carbon dioxide — which, by the way, is essential for all life on Earth. The EEC claims that these highly effective AI tools will lead to an increase in global carbon emissions by 0.47 to 1.8 gigatons annually due to the heightened oil and gas output they facilitate.

This kind of self-centered analysis seems to thrive in affluent societies where real problems feel distant. Even more frustrating is the demand from the study’s authors that AI developers must take responsibility for creating tools that are simply too proficient at their intended tasks. It’s amusing, although potentially dangerous for society’s future.

The most ironic part of the Inside Climate News article is when Will Alpine, the study’s lead author, expresses concern that these efficient AI tools lack the ability to differentiate between energy sources, thus benefiting any energy source they’re applied to. Alpine points out that while AI can promote renewable energy and enhance efficiency, it has also significantly boosted the productivity of the fossil fuel industry. Their research indicates that this effect is asymmetric: it serves as an economic lever favoring fossil fuels.

This illustrates the inherent bias of climate activists. If energy sources receive equal support, their vision of a renewable energy transition becomes unattainable. Why? Because the intermittent, weather-dependent alternatives they advocate for can’t match the reliability and effectiveness of fossil fuels.

This reality, underscored by physical laws, underlies their calls for governments to spend trillions on renewable energy incentives, for financial institutions to withdraw support from fossil fuel companies, and now, for AI developers to be held accountable — essentially punished — because their tools don’t make the distinctions that activists deem necessary between “good” and “bad” energy sources.

Any reasonable society aiming for prosperity would reject such ideas as childish thinking about how the world should operate. Yet, in a culture driven by a fervent denial that carbon dioxide is beneficial, this kind of rhetoric is readily published in what used to be a respected scientific journal.

Because, science, or something.

Honestly, it’s hard to believe this is real.