Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense • Hacker News Board

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#111

Post by lzw » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:43 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #95

codefisher wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 st…

The projections are based completely on the temperature record, and changing the temperature record would produce different projections. The projections are essentially fudged to get the result that is desired for political reasons.

I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to many arguments against AGW, or maybe not many good ones. But since you have an open mind, I'd suggest you look into the absorbtion of IR By CO2, the actual proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the lack of tropophere warming (where it should show up) and the historical correlation of CO2 and temperasture-- CO2 has been a lagging indicator and has, in the past, been much higher than it is now from natural events without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. These are basic facts that don't take much analysis and greatly undermine the AGW theory. Also, the planet is getting colder in recent years (past decade) while CO2 has been rising.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#112

Post by rtp » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:45 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #79

glhaynes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. Excuse me?

The brilliant thing about the global warming debate for proponents is that because they are not even aware of the science inovlved, but firmly convinced that they are on the side of "science" they can say whatever they want. You think some of it hasn't been falsified? Provide a citation please! See what I did there? Also brilliant about their position is that it is completely unfalsifiable (if I'm understanding it co…

You don't understand it correctly. Models are supposed to fit the evidence, otherwise they're incorrect. That's how science works. Say you've gathered evidence of the big bang. You create a model for it. Then, suddenly, for some reason observations and measurements of background radiation doesn't fit your model. If that is so, you'll have to either adjust your model as to fit the data, or throw it away and build a new model that fits the data.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#113

Post by anthonyb » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:46 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #109

anthonyb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my previous replies. You still haven't answered any of my original arguments, btw.

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses. If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#114

Post by lotharbot » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:48 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #55

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…

I never had the patience to argue with climate skeptics because I figure once in a lifetime is enough and I wasted my youth arguing with creationists. It would be trivial, given a database of counterarguments to creationist talking points, to write a chatbot to argue with creationists. There are only so many times you can explain to people that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the earth because the e…

Pick any religious, political, or philosophical position. Chances are, most holders of that position make similar statements about it most of the time, and detractors give pretty similar critical responses. It would be trivial to write a chat bot, either pro or con, for a lot of topics.

Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only the other guy's, and it doesn't give you any opportunity to learn or be exposed to novel ideas.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#115

Post by demallien » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:51 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #73

JabavuAdams wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, you didn't understand it correctly. The bot provides citations. Suppose that human-caused global warming is false. It would still be possible (and common) to make erroneous arguments about how humans aren't causing global warming. Skepticism is great, but most people's pro-X or anti-X nonsense isn't thoughtful skepticism. It's noise. This is a way of injecting signal back into the noise.

You realize that you're defending a bot which provides random citations base on key phrases found in twitter posts on the claim that "most people's ... nonsense isn't ...skepticism, It's noise"? Here is someone providing no thought and adding nothing to the discussion, by definition, he is providing noise. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean what they say is nonsense. The primary attribute of the glo…

Not once have I seen a global warming proponent who was willing to debate it on a scientific basis,

Science is not done by debate. The issues are too complex to be conveyable in the cut and thrust of a discussion. There is a reason that the gold standard of scientific research is the peer review journal and not debates.

Until you understand this point, you aren't able to understand how wrong you are on this subject. The reason no one knowledgeable will engage in a debate is that they know how long it will take to explain to you all of the experiments that have been done that lead them to the conclusion that human-caused global warming is real. By explaining the experiments, I mean explaining in detail the methodology, the results, and the mathematical analysis. It is literally years of work. But here's the thing. Scientists themselves have done that work. Each experiments methodology and analysis is reviewed thoroughly by knowledgeable people before the result is accepted by the community.

Once you have educated yourself on this huge body of work, you too will understand the futility of engaging in a "debate" with someone too ignorant to know what they don't know. You will also understand just how strong the evidence for GW is.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#116

Post by lzw » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:51 AM UTC

anthonyb wrote: post #106

lzw wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'll put the argument (against the paper) in simple terms: The SPPI paper says that land weather station data is broken, temperatures are being reported as much higher than they should be, it's all the urban heat island, etc. Yet the satellite data strongly corresponds with the land based temperatures and also shows an increase. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/surface_satellite_compa... (or read the damn blo…

First off, you've confused me with codefisher. Codefisher made his point by providing a link to support his argument, which you said couldn't be done because you said there was no science supporting his argument. Now you're changing the subject, and attacking me, including engaging in name calling, and dishonesty, trying to force me to defend a position that I have never taken.

And even so, you are easily defeated because you have provided no evidence supporting your position. You're taking some date, and asserting that it says something without considering the nature of that data and what it is actually measuring.

The thing that has tripped you up is that you think you're referring to science when you're actually referring to propaganda. People have massaged the numbers to support a hypothesis, and you link to it, thinking it is factual. It isn't. (otherwise there is no way the rural and urban areas would show the same warming, unless there was no such thing as a heat island effect, a position I presume you are not taking.)

Thus you have jumped the gun, insulted me, and made erronous arguments while ignoring, multiple times, it being pointed out that you're doing so, because you won't pay close enough attention to notice that you're attacking a person who didn't make the claim you erronously assumed.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#117

Post by lzw » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:52 AM UTC

anthonyb wrote: post #113

lzw wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another form of insult. You lie about what I have said in order to characterize me in a negative way. Ad hominem. Reality is, I have responded to your "Arguments" such that they are, and you have simply ignored my responses. If science is really on your side, why so evasive? Why are you arguing to the person rather than to the point?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1867943

You link to a place where you confused me with someone else, as justification for making personal attacks?

So, you refuse to respond to arguments, you admit it, and you demand that people make arguments to someone else, and then you lie about me to accuse me of being evasive, and then you link to an argument you made where you confused me with someone else (after ignoring my previous arguments) to support the claim that I'm ignoring your arguments?

In short, you have attacked me, lied about me, ignored my argumments, not provided any arguments of your own, and instead linked to someone else's blog and demanded that your opponents debate them.

I think I'm done. You can continue to be evasive or make personal attacks. I can't stop you. But there is no point in wasting any more time on you.

You have, by the way, proven my point, by once again being a supporter of AGW who: 1. Is not familiar with the science. 2. Is unwilling or unable to make arguments. 3. Is unequipped to respond to scientific arguments. 4. Who rests their advocacy on the claims of others that tehy assert are "Scientists" 5. Engages in personal attack. 6. Engages in dishonest statements. 7. Rejects the scientific method.

You have demonstrated all of these, and this forces me to remain convinced in my belief that advocates of AGW are anti-science religious zealots.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#118

Post by brazzy » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:53 AM UTC

lzw wrote: post #101

anthonyb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I sure wish you would actually respond to the arguments, maybe make salient points. Instead of simply snidely characterizing everyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Also: It reflects on the nature of hacker news that the snotty response has upvotes.

You have yet to provide any arguments. Snide and snotty counterfactual statements are what you have provided.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#119

Post by anthonyb » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:56 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #95

codefisher wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 st…

You mean this page? http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

My reading of it is that the original Mann analysis stands up, ie. Mann 1999 is largely correct, and that McIntyre's analysis is flawed. The Wahl 2007 paper contains some "interesting" language:

"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. ... Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination ... leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous."

"without statistical and climatological merit" - heh. Them's scientific fighting words.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#120

Post by jjs » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 6:59 AM UTC

nutjob123 wrote: post #61

electromagnetic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been fascinated with the idea of an ocean arcology being built in shallow waters and instead of starting 'ground' up, but simply start construction of several concrete boat foundations. When positioned, simply continue constructing. As the boat gets taller, it will displace to a greater depth until it eventually hits the ocean floor. It would be a very modular way to construct an ocean city. Get them within 500m…

I'm in. Can we call it Atlantis?

How 'bout Rapture? (cf. Bioshock)