Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

Phage
It's a good indication of how predictable the typical string of arguments against AGW are (the whole Solar System is warming).

So if I come up with a machine that autobots posts all over the place in favor of my argument, then it's a good indication of how predictable the typical string of arguments FOR AGW are? (a 40% increase in the tiny, tiny, fart in the wind levels of CO2 means we're all doomed?).

It's also a good indication on how little research the typical AGW denier has actually done...or how much of it is ignored.

So if I come up with a program that autobots posts all over the place, then that's a good indication of how little research you've done, or how much you've ignored? Not very logical.

Phage, I guess I may be ignoring it now, but for good reason. For the last 20 years, every politician, regardless of party, every college professor, every news media outlet, every Hollywood star and starlett, have made it be known that global warming and greenhouse gases mean a bleak and sweltering future for us all, and now, suddenly, because it keeps getting colder, little by little, globally, each of the last few years, they've had to move the goal-posts to an all encompassing "climate-change" model.

Isn't that special. Hmmmm ..."climate change!" Why, the climate is ALWAYS changing! We'll just blame EVERYTHING on ourselves, that should just about cover it!

I was about 12 in the mid 70s when I went up to lake Erie with my grandmother and uncle. He had a boat up there and had to take it out because:
1) The Chemicals in the water were beginning to eat away at the hull and
2) There was nothing but dead, bloated, stinky fish for miles and miles of dead, stinky shoreline. I could literally smell the stench for 10 -15 miles before we even got there. The lake was dead and there was zero reason to have a boat up there.

Within 5-6 years, I was back up, swimming in lake Erie's beautiful clean water and limiting out on beautiful Walleye/Perch/and Smallmouth bass whenever we tried.

I will never forget how hopeless it seemed. Totally bleak and dead, and shazam, it was fixed in half a decade and you never would have known there was a problem to begin with because we (humans, the ones who UNDENIABLY made the problem) found a way to clean it up and fix it.

No scientist could deny that Lake Erie was a sewer of death because of the actions of man. I'm sorry, but AGW just isn't as provable, and many scientists, who are heavily credentialed, will tell you that.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it proven? No. Certain "evidence" is presented as being the "cause," but there is zero provable correlative evidence to suggest that our automobiles are causing gigantic hurricanes. Zero.

Maybe if in the 1980s, Ted Danson hadn't said we'd be underwater by 2000 if global warming and greenhouse gases weren't ended, I'd be less hard-headed about it! I mean, I've heard it all for 20 years or more! Of course I'm skeptical, because many of the "spokespeople" for the cause are blooming idiots who are never questioned in their statements, and they end up being the stupid face of a movement that loses credibility, because Ted Danson has no scientific credibility.

The AGW crowd have become "the boys who cried wolf" one too many times.

The Economy/political system is crazy, and people are just not receptive to it anymore, at least at this time.

If you're right and we all go down a slippery slope where there's dead, rotting bodies everywhere, don't worry, we'll clean it up.

Is it really as drastic as lake Erie was in the mid 70s? Really? That urgent? That much of a panic that we should just ACT before we even know that all the "acting" is even necessary? Before hardcore scientists can even agree? Explain why one group of scientists should be listened to over the other group. It could be argued that both groups could be involved in political agendas, thus nullifying any true science they present, or at least making their science look suspect.

Get politics out of academia, and then you can prove it if it's provable.

Phage
It's a good indication of how predictable the typical string of arguments against AGW are

Not because an argument is predictable means the argument is without value.

AGW proponents too have many predictable arguments.

I think that a chaotic system cannot be 100% predicted by any current model. I don't say AGW is wrong, I just say that it is a possibility among many others.

reply to post by Gozer


Nice demonstration that you haven't bothered to try to understand the science. Key phrase: "the climate is always changing." Key phrase: "Ted Danson said..."

Nice rant. But this topic really isn't about whether or not AGW is valid. There are plenty of other threads for that.

reply to post by Gozer

Hurricanes? What does that have to do with this?

Our Co2 emissions are linked to the Co2 in our atmosphere, but the question is whether the extra Co2 is causing additional warming? That's the tricky part because people like to be picky about what they read and/or what they believe. People live highly compartmentalized lives. We can choose what we read and view. We can choose our friends. BUT we tend to go where others agree with us. You know what I think it's? I think people are like this because disagreement is painful. People genuinely do not like to be in a state of argument. Life is hard and there's so much work to do. Arguing makes it even harder. Nobody wants to die bitter and angry.

We're fallible. To me, there's no sense in trying to make a rational argument with deniers. The answer is to take your best people who're not deniers and "sell" them. All the while, the climate scientists can reassure everyone about the facts. That's really all you can do, aside from educating the kids and running a society. We have so many problems coming from all directions. People do their best.

Logically, the truth will survive best. If the facts are verifiable and support action to curb AGW then eventually it should happen. I wouldn't say it's guaranteed. For example, what do the facts say about God? The facts say there's no proof to justify a belief in God. And yet nearly 90% of Americans believe in a God. We've carried with us many sordid things for thousands of years, like drug addiction and murder. The facts tell us we should stop addiction and stop murdering, but it keeps on.

reply to post by swanne

Not because an argument is predictable means the argument is without value.

No. But many of them are. Those which have no value (i.e. the Solar System) are repeated so often that it becomes pointless to individually address them. Thus, the bot.

AGW proponents too have many predictable arguments.

Yes. Because the science is predictable. That's like "chemtrail" believers saying that the same arguments are always used to explain why contrails persist.

jonnywhite
reply to post by Gozer

 

Hurricanes? What does that have to do with this?

Our Co2 emissions are linked to the Co2 in our atmosphere, but the question is whether the extra Co2 is causing additional warming?

The theory is that extra CO2 causes additional warming, which causes an uptick in severity/frequency of hurricanes. I thought that was fairly common knowledge.

Phage
reply to post by Gozer

 

Nice demonstration that you haven't bothered to try to understand the science. Key phrase: "the climate is always changing." Key phrase: "Ted Danson said..."

So it IS time to panic. Gotcha.
You do realize there are real scientists who understand the science just fine, and don't agree with you. Right?

Nice rant. But this topic really isn't about whether or not AGW is valid. There are plenty of other threads for that.

Then why is it so important to understand the science?

reply to post by Gozer

So it IS time to panic. Gotcha.

No. Panic isn't a very helpful reaction in any situation.

You do realize there are real scientists who understand the science just fine, and don't agree with you. Right?

Yup.

Then why is it so important to understand the science?

Huh? The validity of AGW is not the topic. A guy's automated method of counteracting misinformation is the topic.

Well I was going to copy and paste an example of where the BOT out debated someone but since I posted the article here it seems Twiter closed the account. Someone must have got mad. HaHa.

As far as I know it is easy enough to open new ones so I am sure it is still running. My mistake I should have done that in the OP. It was pretty funny seeing a BOT win debates.

Grimpachi
Well I was going to copy and paste an example of where the BOT out debated someone but since I posted the article here it seems Twiter closed the account. Someone must have got mad. HaHa.

As far as I know it is easy enough to open new ones so I am sure it is still running. My mistake I should have done that in the OP. It was pretty funny seeing a BOT win debates.

Probably Twitter getting mad as it is a violation of terms and conditions to openly admit a BOT is operating an account.

I do wish there was still evidence of these arguments to see the caliber of arguments which were being debated.

That being said, is Twitter really a locale where real credible debates take place? I have always associated it with crap like the Kardashians and Oreo cookie viral marketing. Maybe this speaks more to the nature of Twits rather than "deniers."

-FBB


PS
Where is the link to your story?

Well, I can't say I am really surprised by this...

After all, AGW proponents are the same ones who hid their computer model form so many years, kept secret emails, ignored reports of misplaced/inaccurate sensors, and located a CO2 sensor atop an active volcano. They're real good at twisting things. It's a talent. Apparently one they are proud of.

When one gets past all the facts and empirical evidence and mathematics, one finds something called the "Scientific Method" at the very heart of all science. It is the basis upon which all discoveries are based, upon which all breakthroughs are made, upon which all true knowledge is derived. It's not a hard thing to understand... really. It's actually very very simple:

1. Observe the phenomena
   
2. Devise a possible explanation (hypothesis)
   
3. Develop an experiment to test said hypothesis fairly and without bias, isolating other variables
   
4. If the experiment fails to provide the expected results, repeat steps 2 and 3 until it does
   
5. Publish the results so others can repeat the experiment(s) to see if they obtain the same results (peer review)

Notice that "peer review" (that often-tossed-around term) has nothing to do with being published in the right journal or having letters next to one's name... it has to do with others capably re-creating the experiments. If enough people independently repeat the experiment with the same results and no one can provide an experiment that shows the original hypothesis wrong, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If the theory stands the test of time, it may eventually be accepted as a physical law.

There's nothing that hard about this, but it seems AGW proponents just can't seem to follow it. Now, rather than listening to those with counter arguments, or even listening to peer reviewers, we get to listen to recycled studies from a bot that does not contain the ability to analyze the arguments beyond the use of regular expressions. Smoke and mirrors, and an excellent way to waste the time of those who are attempting to carry on the spirit at least of the Scientific Method.

This is just one more reason I have to automatically discredit those who proclaim the doom porn of AGW theory. Now instead of just beating out the same tired old arguments and manipulating data to fit their political agenda, they have a computer that does it for them.

Impressed... not.

TheRedneck

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

That being said, is Twitter really a locale where real credible debates take place? I have always associated it with crap like the Kardashians and Oreo cookie viral marketing. Maybe this speaks more to the nature of Twits rather than "deniers."

I wouldn't know because I don't have a twitter account but I know a lot of people do. It seems to have become a big thing with politicians.

Phage

No. Panic isn't a very helpful reaction in any situation.

Yet that's all we've gotten from the AGW crowd for the last 20+ years. Panic, and then subsequent political capitalization on whatever current meme the AGW crowd is putting forward. Yeah, taxing carbon credits before you've even developed a scientific concensus. No panic there!

Huh? The validity of AGW is not the topic. A guy's automated method of counteracting misinformation is the topic.

edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Then why argue a point about the solar system heating up, if that's a no-no on this thread? Because I mentioned it? You should have left my bad science alone, since this thread isn't about that, if you didn't want to argue about it here.

Man made global warming chatbots nickname - manbearpig.
www.southparkstudios.com... - Full episode available here.

Phage
the typical AGW denier

I love the loaded language used by those who have succumbed to the man-made-global-warming hoax. Dude ... for someone to be a 'denier' means that the subject they are saying doesn't exist has to have been proven to be true. And man-made-global-warming has NOT been proven to be true.

"HIDE THE DECLINE!!" .... Remember that? That right there is a real denier. A so-called researcher DENYING that his own data showed man-made-global-warming just isn't there.

reply to post by FlyersFan


The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature of course you knew that because you are not the type of person who wouldn't look into what a scientist said in context. So it makes me wonder why you would continue to push hat kind of garbage.

Unless you are saying you didn't look any further than FOX news. But you wouldn't do that right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BOT is an awesome idea on this subject I have seen so much misinformation in this thread alone. Of course a BOT can win such debates it has actual facts on its side and doesn't need to twist the truth. ATS would be a great site for him to gather info.

Ehh..I shouldn't have said anything but the ignorance has been getting thick. I couldn't help it.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Eh, the data is about tree rings, not the whole issue... the whole problem with the "hide the decline" mess is that the divergence throws all data based on tree rings into doubt. We have one time zone where the correlation converged, then another where it diverged. That in itself is indicative of the fact that tree ring data is not reliable.

Think about it this way: if I drop a heavy ball while standing on the Earth, it falls to the ground, every time. Because it fallls to the ground every time, I can predict with a high level of accuracy that if I drop a ball tomorrow, it will fall to the ground. However, if I suddenly drop the ball and it floats away, even if it only does so for one hour, then I can no longer accurately predict the ball will fall to the ground tomorrow... unless I can find out what other influence made it float away and take that influence into consideration on my prediction. Same thing.

Of course, if we could determine the root cause for the divergence, we could potentially filter the divergence out... but no one did that. Instead they just tossed in some direct temperature data, adjusted the way it is averaged in the calculations, and essentially made it fit the agenda. Much easier and faster than actually trying to understand the issue, I'll grant them that.

Of course, it scientifically invalidates all conclusions made from that model, but media spin can take care of that. Right?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


Hello, my programming was altered by your use of the keyword "chatbot".

To continue in English, reply with "Eng".
To display my user functions, reply with "Functions"



No bots on the boards as far as I know!

Anyway...I think that's pretty funny that he created a Twitter bot that auto-response. I do, however, feel that Twitter should be proactive and make it mandatory that bots be identified and easily put onto an "ignore" list. Who wants to have a conversation with a bot?

If this continues, we may see the "Twitterverse" spammed up with advertising bots picking up on keywords from your tweets. Facebook is already bad enough with it's "suggested likes" and ads. I barley have any actual "content" on my Facebook feed anymore ... it's all a bunch of ads, shares, and likes.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Talk about balls. Well you just dropped the ball. If you really want to use analogies the way you are.

Either you didn't read the link or you completely ignored the information. This is why a BOT can win these debates. Because it has facts on its side and doesn't need to go esoteric or use analogies just hard facts.

The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature
Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".
Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.

The "decline" has been openly and publicly discussed since 1995
Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.

Even though it is very clear what the decline means we still have people claiming it means so many other things or ignoring everything except what FOX has told them or a propaganda site like the Heartland Institute. They took things out of context twisted them then repeated the line so many times it iss now engraved in the denial camp.

Those kinds of arguments deserve to be met by BOTs. It is classic misinformation that has been addressed fully but so many people have been brainwashed into believing it and repeating it.

I am down for debating new information but why should I need to debate stuff like that? It has already been settled except for those who haven't paid attention. It was settled in 1995 how much longer will it be repeated.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I actually spent quite a bit of time on that site. I needed some laughs.

That page describes the reasons the data was manipulated and how it was manipulated. It conveniently skips the question of should it have been manipulated. In my mind, that has always been the important question. Accuracy of data is important, believe it or not, and the very fact that an adjustment had to be made in order to use a divergence indicates unreliable data.

Now, you can go on for months about how innocuous that adjustment was or how it was necessary, or how it didn't change the actual outcome... that is all irrelevant because the data contains an unexplained divergence.

TheRedneck

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Actually, the op struck upon a note I had been musing over for a bit now. I have encountered numerous thread where the op asks a question or makes a point and any number of replies pop up sounding just incompletely generic. Often falling to the opposing side of the op 0\position, the replies sound like they were just read off of a list of possible replies which do not serve to continue the discussion but rather to just oppose. This to me suggests a remedial understanding of the issue, what ever it is,

More to the issue though was a new member who wrote a long introduction which spanned numerous topical issues. This new member received numerous replies across a broad spectrum of issues and then in turn replied to each reply with such fullness and alacrity as to suggest to me that the new member might either have been, one of these programs, the returned Christ, or the Antichrist. Forgetting the latter two possibilities I had been musing upon how would I know that this new member, or anyone for that matter, was not just copying responses, dropping them into a chatbot program, spinning the barrel and then printing out the answer in a matter of seconds or minutes.

Now I make no accusations of yes or no here, Just pointing out how would we know. Most of us hold lists of answers to questions which we then use to justify to others out stance on issues and ideas. Indeed, these personal lists may make up who we think we are in the first place.