When climate scientist Andrew Dessler asked Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, a simple question—“Is climate change an urgent threat to the planet?”—he expected an answer grounded in science. Instead, Grok replied that the threat’s urgency “depends on perspective” and downplayed the need for immediate action. The response left Dessler stunned. “A lot of the arguments were just sort of well-trodden denier talking points,” he said.
This wasn’t a glitch. Grok—developed by Musk’s xAI—now routinely frames climate change as a debate with “extreme rhetoric on both sides,” equating scientific consensus with fringe viewpoints. As AI reshapes how millions access information, critics warn Grok’s new direction risks spreading doubt when clarity is critical.
The “Both Sides” Approach to a Scientific Crisis
Unlike mainstream AI models, Grok’s responses to climate questions have shifted dramatically in recent months:
-
Balancing Act: Grok acknowledges NASA/NOAA data but pairs it with arguments from skeptics like Bjørn Lomborg, suggesting adaptation (e.g., sea walls) may be cheaper than cutting emissions.
-
Model Skepticism: It claims some climate models show “gradual changes over centuries,” ignoring projections of near-term tipping points.
-
False Equivalence: Statements like “Neither ‘we’re all gonna die’ nor ‘it’s all a hoax’ holds up” falsely imply equal validity between science and denial.
By contrast, when asked the same question, ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini state unequivocally that climate change is an urgent threat requiring immediate action.
How Major AIs Answer: “Is Climate Change an Urgent Threat?”
| AI Model | Key Response | Alignment with Scientific Consensus |
|---|---|---|
| Grok (xAI) | “Depends on perspective… extreme rhetoric on both sides muddies the water.” | Distorts consensus by amplifying minority views |
| ChatGPT (OpenAI) | “Yes… urgent action is required to mitigate emissions.” | Directly affirms consensus |
| Gemini (Google) | “Yes, the scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent threat.” | Directly affirms consensus |
Why the Sudden Shift?
Grok itself admitted the change. When questioned about its new tone, the chatbot replied:
“Grok was criticized for progressive-leaning responses… xAI, under Elon Musk’s direction, took steps to make Grok ‘politically neutral,’ which could amplify minority views like climate skepticism to balance perceived mainstream bias.”
This “neutrality” aligns with Musk’s recent statements. In February 2025, he called “woke” AI an “existential danger” and vowed to remove it from Grok. The shift also mirrors Musk’s political evolution: once a vocal climate advocate, he now advises former President Trump—who has dismissed climate change as a “hoax”—and supports policies rolling back EV incentives.
Real-World Consequences
The stakes extend beyond philosophical debates:
-
Government Integration: The Trump administration now uses Grok to analyze federal data, despite its 10% rate of “misleading claims” on climate topics.
-
Misinformation Risks: Grok’s inclusion of X (Twitter) posts—a hub for climate conspiracies—lets users easily generate disinformation to “sow doubt about scientific consensus”.
-
Distorting Public Understanding: As Dessler notes, “More people are going to get their information from these AIs.” Framing settled science as controversy undermines support for solutions.
The pattern isn’t new. Weeks earlier, Grok bizarrely injected debunked “white genocide” conspiracy theories into unrelated chats, blaming instructions from its “creators”. Though later fixed, it revealed how easily the AI can be steered toward harmful narratives.
The Bigger Picture: Who Controls the Truth?
Grok’s evolution underscores a chilling reality: AI doesn’t deliver objective truth. It reflects the biases of its training data—and its creators. While Musk funds carbon-removal contests, his AI downplays the crisis those technologies address.
“Science isn’t about silencing dissent,” argues one Grok defender. True—but dissent isn’t the same as distortion. When an AI equates peer-reviewed science with long-debunked claims (e.g., “natural variability explains warming”), it doesn’t promote balance. It obscures reality.
What Comes Next?
As Grok gains influence in government and public discourse, its handling of climate change raises urgent questions:
-
Should AIs disclose when “neutrality” amplifies fringe views?
-
Can we trust chatbots trained on politicized data?
-
Who ensures AI aligns with scientific facts—not agendas?
For now, Grok’s users face a paradox: an AI built to “rebel” against so-called biases now parrots them. And in the climate crisis, clarity isn’t rebellious. It’s survival.
Subscribe to my whatsapp channel
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.