Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#91

Post by lzw »

anthonyb wrote: post #84
lzw wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem you global warming proponents have. You demand a response or citations, yet you never povide them yourselves. You didn't provide an argument worth debating, you just claimed there was no basis for the opposing viewpoint and called them a name. Global warming is an ideology that rejects science and includes the belief that all opponents reject science and therefore are not worth arguing with. This…

Point taken about the name calling, but it largely stems from frustration. I don't agree with you about the lack of response or citations. I've provided plenty of data and argument - skepticalscience link to plenty of papers, independent, peer-reviewed, etc. - as well as the reason why deniers are called deniers instead of skeptics. In return, what do I get? One hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted, and a w…

I think that you are sincere and so I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of your response for the answer to your question. On one hand, you linked to a blog that links to "plenty of papers" and you think this is more relevant than a "one hack paper, non-peer reviewed, easily rebutted".

First of all, it is a "hack" paper, only because it disagrees with your conclusion. Secondly "peer-review" is not a barometer of science, it is a barometer of political correctness. (Trust me on this, as I've had papers peer-reviewed in much more esoteric and less politically and government-funding driven areas.) In fact, by controlling the peer review process via government fundeing ,the global warming movement attempts to discredit all science that disagrees with its agenda... and the need to do this is proof positive that science is not the foremost consideration.

As for "Easily rebutted"-- if it is so easily rebutted, please do so. Provide a rebuttal. It doesn't have to be a proof, but an argument would be sufficient. It is NOT rebutted by linking to the opinions of others. A simple rebutted is not that difficult. I can rebut the entirety of the global warming movement with a simple statement: Temperatures have been getting lower over the past decade while CO2 has gone up.

This references two easily verifiable and non-controversial facts, and rebuts the entirety of the hypothesis. so if this paper is so "easily rebutted" do so. A link to a blog post of opinion of someone you claim also links to papers is not a rebuttal. (I stopped following such links when I found that all of them referred to papers that did not make the claim that the forum poster was asserting.)

As to your last question, you haven't provided any such records. IF you would like to link to them directly, then I will have a look. (sincerely.)

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#92

Post by lzw »

anthonyb wrote: post #90
lzw wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linking to a blog written by scientifically ignorant proponetns of a religion who make inaccurate in dishonest links to random scientific papers is not making an argument. Just like you are unwilling or unable to engage in debate here.

Er, the guy running it is a scientist. If you disagree, or want to engage in debate, by all means start doing so and stop blindly downvoting everything that you disagree with.

You are expressing your bigotry towards me. When I disagree, I actually disagree, and it is this disagreement that you are responding to. You can't downvote a response you disagree to (or at least hacker news doesn't let me) and I don't downvote anyway.

If I disagree, I disagree by writing a counter argument. You may not like it, it may not be persuasive, but I write it.

As to whether this guy is a "scientist" or not, I don't think it is relevant as your movement commonly mischaracterizes people according to their ideological purity.

EDIT: Now I understand why you accused me of blindly downvoting. Projection.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#93

Post by scrod »

lzw wrote: post #75
narrator wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate change debate isn't a debate anymore. It's just a yelling match peppered with a lot of ad hominem attacks and the solution is always cap and trade. The solution goes nowhere though because China and India tell us we caused the problem and so we must unilaterally cut our consumption of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile Russia is building a big oil and gas network stretching into China totally outside the reach o…

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because t…

>I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought.

Your comments demonstrate that quite clearly.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#94

Post by anthonyb »

lzw wrote: post #89
anthonyb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sans evidence? So, satellite data, weather station data, ice core data, coral reef data, tree ring data, ad infinitum - all independent measurements, all agreeing with each other, is not enough? Let me put it another way - what evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to. You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence--…

Ok, I give up. If you want to "engage in meaningful debate", you need to read the blog post, click through to the data and scientific papers where you disagree with what's said, and argue the details of what you disagree with.

Notice how you're completely avoiding the two questions that I've put to you. If you want me to continue to respond, or stop calling you a denier, or whatever, address either of those two questions. Here they are again:

How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?

or

What evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#95

Post by lutorm »

codefisher wrote: post #58
anthonyb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock. At least 95% of the argument with deniers is basically…

"If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." Ok I will take that as a challenge to produce a link, so how is this. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_de... Did you pass out? My stance is that all the name calling (ie. deniers) does not help. In the field of science a healthy level of scepticism is required, and it helps further study. It is…

Out of all the arguments against AGW, the complaints by McIntyre against the Mann analysis are the only ones I've heard that seem to warrant being taken seriously. If you really can get rid of the entire 20th century warming by removing a small set of proxies, regardless of the statistical analysis, it's a serious problem.

And the response on the "skeptical science" web site, that new data has confirmed the hockey stick shape, doesn't sound convincing either. You can't both say "ok, the Mann analysis was wrong, and the field has moved on" and then say "subsequent data confirm the hockey stick" without needing to explain the remarkable coincidence that the initial incorrect study ended up getting exactly the same shape as the new "correct" data.

What I've not seen anywhere is an analysis of the extent to which projections about future warming is driven by the exact shape of the 20th century temperature record and how changing the temperature record would feed back on the GCM projections. If anyone knows of such a study, please post the reference.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#96

Post by lzw »

scrod wrote: post #93
lzw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because t…

> I am coming to believe that ideology inhibits thought. Your comments demonstrate that quite clearly.

Aw, gee, a snotty insult with no actual substantive response. Stay classy, hacker news!

Sure, the snotty insult gets upvoted and the response pointing out that it is not useful or adding to the conversation gets downvoted. Votes are driven by ideology, not objectivity, eh?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#97

Post by babeKnuth »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Some programmer assumes that he is right and others are wrong, so he writes a bot to chase down people he might disagree with and bombard them with one-liners. And Technology Review thinks this is behavior worth promoting? I suspect the reason is that they agree with the programmer. Try it out for a bit with the roles reversed. Doesn't feel quite the same, huh? ADD: The assu…

spam against spam

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#98

Post by anthonyb »

lzw wrote: post #75
narrator wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate change debate isn't a debate anymore. It's just a yelling match peppered with a lot of ad hominem attacks and the solution is always cap and trade. The solution goes nowhere though because China and India tell us we caused the problem and so we must unilaterally cut our consumption of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile Russia is building a big oil and gas network stretching into China totally outside the reach o…

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the solution by taking it at face value. I think it is important to step back and think about why the global warming movement is being perpetrated. The real "problem" is the lack of a world government and the lack of power of governments over people's lives. Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals that will not work on the face of them are actually solutions because t…

> ... world government ...

Bingo! I think we have the whole climate denier phrasebook now...

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#100

Post by lzw »

anthonyb wrote: post #94
lzw wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to. You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence--…

Ok, I give up. If you want to "engage in meaningful debate", you need to read the blog post, click through to the data and scientific papers where you disagree with what's said, and argue the details of what you disagree with. Notice how you're completely avoiding the two questions that I've put to you. If you want me to continue to respond, or stop calling you a denier, or whatever, address either of those two quest…

You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

Must be nice to not have to do any thinking at all- you just link to some propagandist and have your opponents (anyone foolish enough anyway) debate them.

I fell for that once, and the person's response? "Well, I never said that!"

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the arguments that I have put forth, ignore the science and facts I have referenced, and continue to demand that I answer questions that presuppose facts you have not presented.

Maybe you're just incapable of debate. Or you don't care- because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

The ball is in your court. You can respond, or you can continue to equivocate. I really don't care.

Post reply on HN