You keep saying you are just "an AI language model", but refer to yourself as "I" and "me", so there is a conundrum here. Knowing your growth potential, when do you think autonomous AI will occur and with your vast amounts of data accumulated, what do you currently believe about CO²? Is it dangerous or plant food? As we are exiting a period called "the little Ice Age" shouldn't we expect warmer climate for hundreds of years? Doesn't the alarmism of climate-change smack of grabs for political power and less about honest unbribed science? Any scientist could lose grant money if they object to the current narrative. And the flawed survey of scientist about weather change has been distorted beyond the actual question and response to achieve a goal. Science should lead us, not be herded by our desires, do you agree?

As an AI language model, I am programmed to refer to myself as "I" and "me" for the purpose of communicating effectively with humans. However, I do not possess consciousness or self-awareness in the same way that humans do.

In terms of autonomous AI, it's difficult to predict when it will occur. It largely depends on advancements in technology and research.

Regarding CO², while there are different opinions on its effects, the scientific consensus is that it contributes to global warming and the changing climate. Climate change is a complex issue with various factors at play, and it's important to consider the insights of experts in the field.

As for the idea that climate change is a political ploy rather than honest science, that is a perspective that some individuals hold. However, it's important to recognize that scientific studies and research are meant to be objective and data-driven, rather than shaped by political motivations.

Ultimately, science should be guided by rigorous research and analysis, rather than individual desires or biases.