- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Getting into a climate change debate on Twitter could be even more exhausting than it sounds now that a software developer named Nigel Leck has automated the process. Tired of arguing with climate change deniers in 140 character quips, the programmer wrote a script to do it for him. Chatbot @AI_AGW scans Twitter every five minutes searching for hundreds of phrases that fit the usual denier argument paradigm. Then it serves them up some science.
...
People on the other end of an argument don’t usually pick up on the fact that they are arguing with a program and will continue the argument. And AI_AGW continues to fire back responses. Even when the tweeter keeps throwing the same argument at the chatbot, it will respond with a variety of different arguments and links.
If the scientist is tired of arguing, maybe he should take up knitting.
I was reading an article this week in a scientifc magazine, and there was an article about a climatologist, who does believe in AGW, who was trying to actually reach across to skeptics and have meanigful discussion with them. In turned she has been spurned by her colleagues for even bothering to reach across the aisle and have those discussion. She likens the AGW scientists to moving from an ivory tower, into a fortress. It is a shame that scientists don't want to have open dialogue about this topic, and this "robot" is just further proof that there is an unwillingness to be open to alternative theories and explanations. I understand there is some dumb commentary on the skeptic side, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate debate to be had regarding models, data collection etc......
I was reading an article this week in a scientifc magazine, and there was an article about a climatologist, who does believe in AGW, who was trying to actually reach across to skeptics and have meanigful discussion with them. In turned she has been spurned by her colleagues for even bothering to reach across the aisle and have those discussion. She likens the AGW scientists to moving from an ivory tower, into a fortress. It is a shame that scientists don't want to have open dialogue about this topic, and this "robot" is just further proof that there is an unwillingness to be open to alternative theories and explanations. I understand there is some dumb commentary on the skeptic side, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate debate to be had regarding models, data collection etc......
I was reading an article this week in a scientifc magazine, and there was an article about a climatologist, who does believe in AGW, who was trying to actually reach across to skeptics and have meanigful discussion with them. In turned she has been spurned by her colleagues for even bothering to reach across the aisle and have those discussion. She likens the AGW scientists to moving from an ivory tower, into a fortress. It is a shame that scientists don't want to have open dialogue about this topic, and this "robot" is just further proof that there is an unwillingness to be open to alternative theories and explanations. I understand there is some dumb commentary on the skeptic side, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate debate to be had regarding models, data collection etc......
Bull****. They offer argument and counterpoint to skeptics all the goddamn time. They publish peer-reviewed papers in direct response to a lot of these wild-ass claims, they create websites that collect arguments and supporting data in direct response to skeptics all the time. Gimme a link to this article you supposedly read. The IPCC reports are not partisan, there's no "aisle" to reach across. They're a report detailing the scientific opinion of that organization. It would be nice if skeptics would, for once, try and discuss science instead of conspiracy theories.
Not bull****, here is your link.
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Scientific American
I think this "bot" that targets skeptics and vomits rhetoric is a very arrogant thing to do. Skeptics have every right to voice their opinions and have them listened to without being so dishonorably disrespected by others. The arrogance within the scientific community is disgusting and repulsive. The theory of AGW is not net in stone and many have legitimate challenges to it. It's flaws have been protected by bias panels that rule in favor of it because they want it to be true.
I was reading an article this week in a scientifc magazine, and there was an article about a climatologist, who does believe in AGW, who was trying to actually reach across to skeptics and have meanigful discussion with them. In turned she has been spurned by her colleagues for even bothering to reach across the aisle and have those discussion. She likens the AGW scientists to moving from an ivory tower, into a fortress. It is a shame that scientists don't want to have open dialogue about this topic, and this "robot" is just further proof that there is an unwillingness to be open to alternative theories and explanations. I understand there is some dumb commentary on the skeptic side, but that doesn't mean that there isn't legitimate debate to be had regarding models, data collection etc......
Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.
It wont do any good. Deniers are determined to keep their head buried in the sand. This whole debate kind of reminds me of those who hold out against the idea of evolution.
It's flaws have been protected by bias panels that rule in favor of it because they want it to be true.
I wonder how hard conservatives would argue against climate change if the oil companies weren't on their side...
I'm more curious how progressives will react when they follow the over consumption angle to its logical conclusion.
The logical conclusion is steadily replacing fossil fuels with nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal energy. The tricky part will be heavy transportation, we'll probably never totally eliminate oil consumption in that area. (good luck running a 747 or train on batteries!) Barring some miracle development in battery technology or some kind of cold fusion science fiction type discovery.
There's no terribly compelling reason we can't eliminate fossil fuels as a source of electrical power and in personal transportation. Is that the logical conclusion you're referring to?
Or is your logical conclusion some absurd scenario that the denialists cook up that no scientist has ever actually proposed or supported?
the logical conclusion is that a decrease in consumption is the solution you seek, but that flys directy in the face of the progressive angle that we must create a suitable living condiitions for everyone regardless of population levels.
two chickens in every pot, and the minute the economy recedes, you all freak out like it's end of times.
good luck coming to any solution in that insane enviroment. You better hope the denialists are on to something, because you will never accept the solutions that would do anything positive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?