Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually, let me repeat.

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

You can debate it all you want but the entire thing still boils down to a group trying to create a scandal by taking words out of context then repeating it till people think it was actually an issue.

Did they do anything out of the ordinary----NO.

So why is an issue???-----because FOX said so. Over and over an over and when it was settled that there was no scandal they did come out and admit they were cleared??? ONCE but that sure hasn't stopped them from continuing the attack. But that's right they don't have to tell the truth on the programing that's not dubbed as hard news which is most of it.

There is a scandal but is with the media.

FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science
TIMELINE: Fox News' Role In The "Climate Of Doubt"
After extensive reporting on "Climategate," Special Report ignores Penn State scientist's exoneration

If you want to talk about a group that consistently hides information, twists information, or outright lies about the information on climate change well that would be the group denying climate change. FOX and Rupert Murdoch seem to be the spokesmen but not the only ones the list goes on and on but very few if any in the actual scientific field.

Oh well believe what you want..I know you will. I know all of this had been presented to you before...well maybe not the info about the concerted effort by Rightwing media to distort the information at least not the sources I listed for it.

I need a BOT because these conversations are tedious it is always the same thing or variations of the same thing. Next someone will try to make this about Al Gore...opps that already happened.

You understand that the bot didn't "out debate" anyone in the classic sense. It merely did what most people pass off as debate these days - it likely flooded people's lists with replies and spam until they shut up which is the usual tactic of handling someone saying something you don't like.

You don't actually debate them on the merits, and no, spamming links at someone is not debating them on the merits, you simply find ways to make sure they can't speak their own mind for one reason or another.

Spambot is likely getting ignored at a rapid rate.

reply to post by ketsuko


Well because the account is closed not I can't show you your wrong. That's my fault I should have copy and pasted one of the debates from the account when I wrote the thread because it was funny.

The bot was winning debates. It only debated people who posted about things like "the solar system is warming", "climategate proves its a conspiracy","there is no consensus","we're heading into an ice age","it's a 1500 year cycle","CO2 is plant food","Arctic sea ice extent was lower in the past", and other tired arguments that anyone could easily debate with a little actual understanding on the matter. Most of the people sputtering those types of arguments hadn't even done the slightest bit of research into what they were saying.

It couldn't debate people who had their own theory on the matter but examples like those it could simply because anyone could if they spent a little time looking up the facts.

Here is a list of common climate denier arguments and then what science actually says on the matter.link

reply to post by Grimpachi

Discussed, yes. Hypothesis presented, yes. Explanation found and proven? No!

See, there's the disconnect. The dataset is flawed, but that's apparently not something you can debate. You keep trying to twist this back to political or ad hominem arguments. It's not about someone making a claim that I am repeating. It's about the assertion I made, by myself, using scientific reasoning, based on your link: the dataset is admittedly flawed.

As far as FoxNews is concerned, I haven't seen an episode in, what? Around ten years now. They're too opinionated. I tired easily of O'Reilly's constant browbeating of his targets using his "No-Spin" but well-twisted agenda. I tired even easier of Hannity's self-aggrandizing attitude and condescending questions. I'm not even sure they are still on the air, and if not, who replaced them. So you'll have to find another stick to beat that dead horse with. Sorry to bust up an otherwise perfectly good canned response.

I don't watch any news shows about science, as a matter of fact. After the Great Global Warming Debacle (call it GGWD for short; I'm gonna start using that) I simply don't trust the media to know an atom from a cabbage plant. Instead I read scientific journals for my science info. Any links I use are quick searches made on the spur of the moment for supporting sites others can read. The info is all in my mind before I post.

As for Al Gore... well, what can I say? The bumbler decided to play scientist to pad his wallet with carbon credit profits and fell flat on his face. I laughed so hard at "An Inconvenient Truth" that my sides were hurting halfway through; it should have been labelled a comedy. If the rest of the GGWD supporters had let him fall on his face all by himself, he wouldn't be the unofficial spokesman for the GGWD. But, instead, the Global Warming advocates at the time hailed him as some sort of scientific brain and a hero to the cause. Now they get to sleep in the bed they made.

Nice tries though.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Grimpachi


It's still not winning debates.

There is a reason why you aren't supposed to just post links here without posting your own thoughts on the information in it, often with relevant out-takes in quotes.

Unless this spambot is capable of doing that ... it's not debating. It's just spamming links. I know of someone who "debates" this way, and it gets tiresome. Most people aren't conceding. They're likely just ignoring it.

reply to post by ketsuko


Perhaps you skipped over the OP but why do you think it just spams links?

from the OP

Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its tweets have no idea they’re not conversing with a real human being. Some of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and many days, says Leck. That’s in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor continues to throw the same arguments at it.

reply to post by TheRedneck


See I knew you believe whatever you wanted.LOL

I see you don't care to actually talk about the OP but you want to debate "the data set" this is the wrong place. I have already provided the info on the matter its been settled for years except for those who ignore facts.You say its flawed well that is your opinion and you are welcome to it however the more I debate you on it the more the thread drifts. I am glad you don't get your science from FOX but that is why I didn't say they were the only ones. They are just at the forefront.

The entire thing was made into a scandal because of some out of context words. Not because of the data. You call it flawed well again its your opinion and not shared by the scientific community. If you have a paper published showing why then please PM me with it. I will be happy to read it even better if it has been peer reviewed.

I do respect the opinions of those in the field as people should. We can not all be Einstien or Hawking but I am sure even they relied on the experts outside their field of study on matters they didn't specialize in.

I did EOD in the military but you would'n't want me to design a house we rely on people to specialize in their fields and that goes for all walks of life. I have seen your theory about volcanoes in the arctic it was interesting but ............ well anyway it is an idea.

So do you have anything to add about the BOT?

reply to post by Grimpachi

True, this thread is not specifically about the tree ring data, but then again, you brought it up.

I think I made my feelings clear about the bot earlier. It's a machine; machines can't think; ergo, machines cannot debate. Machines can only follow programming. I was just checking the thread to see how it was going and saw your assertion. I couldn't in good conscience allow that to slide unchallenged.

TheRedneck