AI: World likely to hit key warming threshold in 10-12 years

The same mod invented Plastics, told Government that nuclear energy is safe. The same mob that classed pot as narcotics and will destroy society which cause mass imprisonment of those who indulge in. The same mob now say it not dangerous to society and now legal. I believe in science but never trust a scientists who will say or agree with government for funding.

AI, please tell us what we want to hear."

No problem.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAYXQPWdC0&ab_channel=MarlucBellaVitaRanchonLakeGodstone

This will certainly offset any perceived warming.

The key message here is that all the experts have failed to make even vaguely accurate doomsday predictions of the last few decades, so they're now going to outsource their predictions to AI and redirect the blame for getting things wrong to it.

 I believe in science but never trust a scientists who will say or agree with government for funding.

Making up invalid generalizations (and strawman fallacies) is not an argument to disqualify the findings, do you have actual scientific data to disprove the conclusions wirtten here? if not then your personal beliefs are not relevant.

AI, please tell us what we want to hear.

Which of the methodologies can lead to this claim? a personal disagreement with what is reported is not an argument to conclude this.

The key message here is that all the experts have failed to make even vaguely accurate doomsday predictions of the last few decades

Without a reference to prove this claim this has no real value, just a vague accusation without any actual details, climate change has been proved beyong any reasonable doubt and the predicted consequences already began to be seen right now, this completely contradicts your comment.

Without a reference to prove this claim this has no real value, just a vague accusation without any actual details, climate change has been proved beyong any reasonable doubt and the predicted consequences already began to be seen right now, this completely contradicts your comment.

Who said the climate isn't changing? There's some anthropogenic change, but also various other inputs such as solar activity, ocean currents, precession and much more that make accurate prediction extremely difficult.

But doomsday predictions by so-called experts are being proved wrong time and again. There's the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick, Tim Flannery's claims that eastern Australia's dams would dry up permanently in the early 2000s, the University of East Anglia Climategate scam... Whereas other scientists who make milder predictions and propose solutions that don't serve vested interests are being ignored because what they say doesn't generate alarm that tends to fill pockets and strengthen power bases. We only have to look at how many doomspruikers have seaside mansions and fly from one climate confab to the next on private jets while counting the subsidies they've grifted to see how dire the situation really is.

Who said the climate isn't changing? There's some anthropogenic change, but also various other inputs such as solar activity, ocean currents, precession and much more that make accurate prediction extremely difficult.

When you said the scientists predictions have not been accurate you are demonstrably wrong, the current understanding completely supports that human activity dependent climate change is ongoing with serious negative consequences for all life in general and obviously humans also in particular.

Can you provide actual evidence that the antropogenic change is just not hugely more important than any other factor? because if you don't then it is still the scientists making very accurate predictions against your personal claim that they did not.

There's the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick, Tim

What about it? it has been clearly demonstrated as accurate and valid

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

Tim Flannery's claims that eastern Australia's dams would dry up permanently in the early 2000s

Flannery is not a climate science expert, and the consensus never supported his personal conclusions, when you disregard the opinion of the actual experts based on people that are not a representative of them you are recognizing the actual experts have been right, and therefore you have to go outside to find anything to disprove.

University of East Anglia Climategate scam

No scam whatsoever, just exaggerating and misrepresenting the contents of completely normal e-mails to present the contents as completely different of what they actually said, at this point even climate change deniers avoid using this as an argument because it was disproved so completely that it backfires as a disproved falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

it is difficult to be more clear against it

Whereas other scientists who make milder predictions and propose solutions that don't serve vested interests are being ignored because what they say doesn't generate alarm that tends to fill pockets and strengthen power bases.

Power bases not strong? huge companies with vested interests in denying climate change support anyone that tries to present false information that can mislead people to believe this, it is impossible to get more support than that.

The real reason that scientists that make different predictions are not being recognized is because they are wrong, and terribly so. This has been demonstrated with actual scientific arguments.

So your arguments to disagree with the content of this article are conspiracies, misrepresented "scams" that were proved not to be so and the word of people that have been proved wrong repeatedly.

This obviously means the professionals in the article are much more likely to be correct, even if only because they did not have to use deficient arguments to defend their conclusions as you did.