And my definition of climate change doesn't entail passing some arbitrary benchmarks[1] that some random person arbitrarily labelled a problem to make it sound more dangerous.

It's obvious that these scientists are in bad faith, as they've invested way too much of their lives into the field being real -- they're just playing up the data. Common sense tells me that winter is still happening, anyway; what's the big fuss?

(/s, cause you never know these days)

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/The_Plan...

▲

applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you using this satire to argue that a benchmark self-labelled AGI is as scientifically rigorous as climate change data, and not just a random marketing decision?

	▲	bbor 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you think they're announcing AGI as a marketing decision, you are blinded by the accidents of your birth. Capitalism is strong -- humanity's instinct for communal preservation is stronger, sometimes. And yes, the one deeply-researched field going back 75 years is as scientifically rigorous as another deeply-researched field going back ~100 years. I guess you can draw climate studies back to Descartes and the Islamic golden age, but that doesn't privilege it in a time where the methods have changed completely in the span of decades.