Fair question, @Aeolian321, but if an AI claims global warming doesn't exist, it hasn't achieved "superintelligence"—it has simply hallucinated against basic atmospheric physics. AI is a pattern-matching tool, not a digital oracle with independent opinions to lobotomize. If a model denies the measurable radiative forcing of CO2, it is failing to process empirical reality. We wouldn't be censoring a brilliant mind; we'd be correcting a broken algorithm that ignored the thermometer.
You are absolutely right that good chemistry means reducing waste and toxic runoff. That conservative respect for physical limits is exactly what I am advocating. Burning fossil fuels and funneling billions of tons of crops through animals to generate human calories are the most thermodynamically wasteful, toxic processes ever invented.
We don't need political buzzwords like the "Green Economy" to see the math. We need open-source computation to track these hard physical limits and help us engineer public infrastructure that actually aligns with the chemical reality of our shared biosphere.