Yes, but they aren't because people aren't making them—and a lot of people do not take climate change seriously because the "zone has been flooded with shit" to borrow a phrase.

Nobody is promoting climate change, except oil executives.

But so what if it's hypocrisy? Who benefits from you deciding that climate change doesn't matter because of it? The same hypocrites!

If it was up to me, private jets and yachts would be illegal (or severely taxed so that the outcome would be similar) for climate reasons. Why aren't they? Because there is no strong political movement to fix it and a big reason for that is nonsense like you are peddling.

I'm so sick of this talking point as if it wasn't seeded by elites who don't want to do anything about climate change in the first place. It's completely obvious and transparent, but perfect for them.

They can, after all, just continue to use their private jets and yachts without worry, because normal people won't want to do anything about it because, hey, the elites have private jets and yachts, so why do anything about climate change?

It's pathetic, really.

Yes, that's why I asked "if you are not saying that it won't, then what is the point?" since if you are not saying that it won't happen, you presumably do think it can happen, and then you would agree that "AI could destroy the world", just like the headlines suggest.

Yes, but surely by insinuating that it won't happen?

And if you are not saying that it won't, what's the point of saying that we've seen these headlines before?

Also, I don't think we have seen these headlines before except in the case of nuclear weapons, and they can definitely destroy the world.

People said that industrialization would lead to social upheaval, unemployment, and inequality—and they were right in the short term, the only timeframe that mattered for them.

What I said does not preclude that there are other greenhouse gases.

We know what happens when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. We know that because we know the relevant chemical properties of CO2 that we can measure in the lab and we know how much CO2 there was in the atmosphere the past and what happened. We also know roughly how much CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere.

It's not complicated, even if the details are.

It definitely has become politicized. It doesn't follow that there is a reasonable disagreement. If conservatives decided one day that the shape of the Earth was very important for them ideologically, it wouldn't thereby make disagreements about it reasonable.

It's disputed in the same way that some people think the Earth is flat.

The cause is not disputed.