Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue For

[MKULTRABOY]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

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.

Sorry, the intellect of the opposition to the global warming issue can essentially be defeated by a collection of logic circuits and recorded messages.

 

[Barbbtx]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

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.

Darrell Issa will be holding hearings on the politicization of science. That will include investigating Climategate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Darrell Issa will be holding hearings on the politicization of science. That will include investigating Climategate.

You mean the politization of science that has been occuring since at least 2000?

 

[Barbbtx]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

I wonder how hard conservatives would argue against climate change if the oil companies weren't on their side...

Anyone with two brain cell knows there is climate change. Always has been always will be, with or without man.
The question is , are we causing it and can we change it?
A cap and trade bill that will devastate what's left of the economy is not the answer. We need to look at those who gain to profit from such a bill. Follow the money.
We will still always need oil, so I don't know what your point is there.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

I take it your definition of "suitable living conditions" is an American level of electricity and resource consumption. That's probably where your mistake is happening.

oh, so from that reply, you are saying that America consuming at a far, far higher rate then the rest of the world (outside of China, which provides us with the goods we consume) isn't really the concern.

good to know.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

oh, so from that reply, you are saying that America consuming at a far, far higher rate then the rest of the world (outside of China, which provides us with the goods we consume) isn't really the concern.

good to know.

No. Precisely the opposite.
You can create suitable living conditions without our level of consumption. I thought my point was obvious.

Anyone with two brain cell knows there is climate change. Always has been always will be, with or without man.
The question is , are we causing it and can we change it?
A cap and trade bill that will devastate what's left of the economy is not the answer. We need to look at those who gain to profit from such a bill. Follow the money.
We will still always need oil, so I don't know what your point is there.

We are causing the current warming trend, and we can change it by decreasing our output of CO2. I know some people disagree on that mark, but to those people I ask: The world is currently warming. The cause is not the sun (it's been flat for 50 years). The physical properties of CO2 absorbing longwave infrared radiation are well established and calculated. If not CO2, what is causing the current warming trend? Don't say "natural cycles." That's like saying "magic." What physical mechanism is responsible for the current warming trend, if not CO2?

Cap and Trade was successful with acid rain pollutants in the US and was hailed as a good free market solution as opposed to hard caps, because it creates a competitive market advantage for companies that work efficiently. Market forces being what they are, emissions of the acid rain pollutants dropped off significantly, and therefore so did acid rain. Hooray! I see no compelling reason that CO2 couldn't be handled the same way. Do you want government-dictated standards that all businesses must comply with regardless of cost, or do you want a market-driven pressure to get businesses to do it in a manner that best benefits their business?

If you have another option, I'm open to it. A pure free market will not solve this problem. It's cheaper for a company to run with zero emissions controls on their coal plant, therefore a company would be more competitive by doing it that way. I can't see what market force would push people away from cheaper coal power towards more expensive slightly-cleaner coal (a plant with some emissions control) or an even more expensive nuclear power source.

We'll always need oil, but changing over to other sources of power will significantly decrease demand for oil/coal. Lower demand means lower sales volume and lower prices, thereby decreasing profit. The oil industry has trillions of barrels of oil left that they'd like to sell us, it's a huge profit for them to spend a few million dollars per year on clouding the CO2 issue, thereby delaying legislation that could cost them billions.

I'm not convinced Cap and Trade would "devastate" the economy. The amendment to the Clean Air Act that was passed under Bush Sr. in 1990 didn't "devastate" anything.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

No. Precisely the opposite.

You can create suitable living conditions without our level of consumption. I thought my point was obvious.

So in addition to solar, wind, etc, etc, you plan on introducing some laws that reduce our level of consumption?

you might think your point of view is obvious, but it isn't for me.

It sounds like the plan is to artifically raise the cost of energy so high as to prevent people from consuming? Is that correct?

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

So in addition to solar, wind, etc, etc, you plan on introducing some laws that reduce our level of consumption?

you might think your point of view is obvious, but it isn't for me.

It sounds like the plan is to artifically raise the cost of energy so high as to prevent people from consuming? Is that correct?

No. The plan is to raise the cost of consuming fossil fuels so that the market adjusts towards alternative sources. There's no practical upper limit to the amount of energy we can get from solar, wind, or nuclear sources.

 

[Barbbtx]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

I wonder how hard conservatives would argue against climate change if the oil companies weren't on their side...

Marathon Pundit: BP supports Democrats' cap and trade tax bill

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

No. The plan is to raise the cost of consuming fossil fuels so that the market adjusts towards alternative sources. There's no practical upper limit to the amount of energy we can get from solar, wind, or nuclear sources.

how is that different then what I said?

An increase in the cost of the cheapest source of energy makes energy more expensive. This will certainly reduce consumption.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

how is that different then what I said?

An increase in the cost of the cheapest source of energy makes energy more expensive. This will certainly reduce consumption.

Until technology on those other sources improves to make them cheaper, yes, probably. The market would also have greater incentive to fund that research, so that technology is likely to improve faster.

Do you really have to get $3 toys or a can of beans shipped 12000 miles to maintain a good quality of life?

edit: or drive a 1500 pound vehicle powered by burning gasoline at 20% efficiency by yourself 20 miles to work every day?

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Until technology on those other sources improves to make them cheaper, yes, probably. The market would also have greater incentive to fund that research, so that technology is likely to improve faster.

let's eliminate the probably line. It will be more expensive. you can close your eyes, say a prayer, and hope smarter people then you or I find a cheaper alternative, but that isn't reality, that is wishful thinking

Do you really have to get $3 toys or a can of beans shipped 12000 miles to maintain a good quality of life?

edit: or drive a 1500 pound vehicle powered by burning gasoline at 20% efficiency by yourself 20 miles to work every day?

No. We don't need access to every fruits and vegetables all 4 seasons either.

I just want some honesty from all parties. If your solution is to artifically raise energy costs in the hopes that it lowers consumption, be up front about it.

In the meantime, I will openly question why it is we will not allow our economy to recede, even though it is said that we consume far too much. How wise is it to live under a monetary system that requires we don't allow our consumption to decrease? Why must we be so fearful of the debt we compiled that the minute we see a slowdown, we have to prop up consumption just so our debt doesn't appear too staggering as a percentage of GDP.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

let's eliminate the probably line. It will be more expensive. you can close your eyes, say a prayer, and hope smarter people then you or I find a cheaper alternative, but that isn't reality, that is wishful thinking

Solar panels get cheaper and more efficient all the time. Nuclear power would be cheaper if we standardized the design and approval process. Batteries in electric cars are getting cheaper. It's not wishful thinking, it's what technology always does.

Yes. Prices will be higher in the short term. That will probably reduce consumption.

No. We don't need access to every fruits and vegetables all 4 seasons either.

I just want some honesty from all parties. If your solution is to artifically raise energy costs in the hopes that it lowers consumption, be up front about it.

In the meantime, I will openly question why it is we will not allow our economy to recede, even though it is said that we consume far too much. How wise is it to live under a monetary system that requires we don't allow our consumption to decrease? Why must we be so fearful of the debt we compiled that the minute we see a slowdown, we have to prop up consumption just so our debt doesn't appear too staggering as a percentage of GDP.

That's more political and social than economic.

We can reduce consumption and still live well. If not raising price, what method would you use for reducing the use of fossil fuels?

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Also worth noting: Gas is cheaper at the pump, but what does it cost our grandchildren? The damage we're causing is passing that cost onto them.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Solar panels get cheaper and more efficient all the time. Nuclear power would be cheaper if we standardized the design and approval process. Batteries in electric cars are getting cheaper. It's not wishful thinking, it's what technology always does.

technological advances can also help the current market leader. Simply pointing to technology as the how isn't enough.

Yes. Prices will be higher in the short term. That will probably reduce consumption.

And they will probably remain higher since all you did was introduce artifical price increases and then crossed some fingers.

That's more political and social than economic.

We can reduce consumption and still live well. If not raising price, what method would you use for reducing the use of fossil fuels?

In the current climate, it will be hard to reduce consumption and not send the economy into a tailspin. Any decrease in consumption would need to be met with an approximate net increase in exports - imports.

The solution I like is to go back to an economy based on savings, not debt. We would stop looking at deflation as evil and we would live within our means. It is a complete reversal of the progressive view of the last century.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

technological advances can also help the current market leader. Simply pointing to technology as the how isn't enough.

And they will probably remain higher since all you did was introduce artifical price increases and then crossed some fingers.

Probably. So?

In the current climate, it will be hard to reduce consumption and not send the economy into a tailspin. Any decrease in consumption would need to be met with an approximate net increase in exports - imports.

The solution I like is to go back to an economy based on savings, not debt. We would stop looking at deflation as evil and we would live within our means. It is a complete reversal of the progressive view of the last century.

So, what, impose massive government regulation on business and individuals that prevents us from borrowing money? Sounds great for the economy!

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Probably. So?

So we agree on this point and can move on.

So, what, impose massive government regulation on business and individuals that prevents us from borrowing money? Sounds great for the economy!

It sounds like a body builder telling him that steroids aren't an option any more.

You aren't going to see the gains you were used to seeing, but you were cheating anyway. Now maybe you can have kids that won't suffer from your artificial gains. :-0

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

So we agree on this point and can move on.




It sounds like a body builder telling him that steroids aren't an option any more.

You aren't going to see the gains you were used to seeing, but you were cheating anyway. Now maybe you can have kids that won't suffer from your artificial gains. :-0

Why don't you explain how one would implement your debt-free society?

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Why don't you explain how one would implement your debt-free society?

debt-free?

Did I say that? Sorry if I did. You can still borrow money, but you won't be able to monetize your debt.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

debt-free?

Did I say that? Sorry if I did. You can still borrow money, but you won't be able to monetize your debt.

And you think that will have some major impact on how much gasoline I buy?

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

And you think that will have some major impact on how much gasoline I buy?

that would have a major impact on what everyone buys.

fuel costs are heavily subsidized right now - and that is only possible because we can monetize our debt. We spend as much on ou rmilitary as all the other countes combined. Do you seriously think we could spend the money we spend today on defense if we couldn't monetize debt?

The entire economic climate would be dramatically different. and yes, this country would likely not benefit from being able to import cheap goods and export monetized debt, but the world would benefit, and if there is any truth to man made global warming, this would be a big help in that too.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

that would have a major impact on what everyone buys.

fuel costs are heavily subsidized right now - and that is only possible because we can monetize our debt. We spend as much on ou rmilitary as all the other countes combined. Do you seriously think we could spend the money we spend today on defense if we couldn't monetize debt?

The entire economic climate would be dramatically different. and yes, this country would likely not benefit from being able to import cheap goods and export monetized debt, but the world would benefit, and if there is any truth to man made global warming, this would be a big help in that too.

I think you're overestimating the influence, but in any case, it still doesn't solve the problem of oil being cheaper, and the scientific reality that it causes a warming planet.

Increased instances of crop failure and decreasing usable land for growing will have a serious, direct impact on the world.

 

[ARealConservative]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

I think you're overestimating the influence

I don't believe I am.

but in any case, it still doesn't solve the problem of oil being cheaper, and the scientific reality that it causes a warming planet.

it explains how nation a uses so much more fossil fuels then other nations of similar size, while nation b uses almost as much to feed nation a's appetite.

if we see a major decrease in fossil fuel usage, does the price still matter?

 

[Deuce]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

I don't believe I am.



it explains how nation a uses so much more fossil fuels then other nations of similar size, while nation b uses almost as much to feed nation a's appetite.

if we see a major decrease in fossil fuel usage, does the price still matter?

If we maintained the current ratio of fossil fuel usage to clean energy usage, there's no reasonable level we could decrease consumption to that wouldn't still drive global temperatures. It would help, but not solve the problem.

 

[bowerbird]

Re: Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue

Absolute genius. I feel like that robot must feel, sometimes. Get spammed with the same arguments over and over, point out their flaws and show evidence only to have the other guy just ignore it and move onto the next talking point. Repeat ten or twelve times then he goes away, declaring victory. The next guy immediately takes his place and repeats the same arguments.

I can't even remember the last time I heard a NEW argument from a skeptic.

I know it just cycles through

CO2 is not to blame -> there is not enough CO2 to change anything -> no one has proven that CO2 is changing the climate - > it is all ALGORES fault - > the sun is to blame - > The moon is to blame - > the earth's core is to blame - > and finally

THEY ARE ALL OUT TO GET US!!