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

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#121

Post by brazzy »

lzw wrote: post #78
anthonyb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so overlooking that SPPI are a notorious denier hack site, how do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase? Also, how do you explain the strong correlation between the temperature trends (ie. increase in temperature) between urban and rural areas? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurem... and http://…

You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument". This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not eve…

Your last paragraph very aptly describes your own mode of arguing. Your're not doing your cause any good that way.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#122

Post by lzw »

rtp wrote: post #112
lzw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it.

They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#123

Post by lzw »

ceejayoz wrote: post #59
rick888 wrote: post #45

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." All of the global warming data is based on informatio…

> There is a lot of money in global warming. Those poor, unprofitable energy companies must have trouble fighting all those overly-funded climatologists!

You're being snide, but you're actually correct. Governments have spent billions upon billions to rationalize this political movement. Energy companies are not the only ones under attack, but they are some of the few with enough money to actually do research. Of course most of their money goes into exploration... but they have done science on this topic.

Have you noticed how, when they do so, AGW proponents reject the results out of hand? It is as if you believe politicians would never lie or cheat in order to gain power.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#124

Post by rtp »

lzw wrote: post #122
rtp wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

Yes, when you model the past, that makes sense. What AGW proponents use are models to project the future. But they are inconsistent with the data of the past. They don't fit it. They are simply fantasies to try and lend "scientific" justification to a political movement.

Are you saying that the projections for the future should fit the past? I'm sorry.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#125

Post by anthonyb »

lzw wrote: post #116
anthonyb wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

You, sir, are a troll wobbly. Good day.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#126

Post by Robin_Message »

lzw wrote: post #71
tjmc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's just rallying against this postmodern delusion that all opinions are equally valid, when the weight of scientific evidence is clearly on his side. And he's not exactly chasing people down, he's just responding to people who are deliberately putting their opinions out there.

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is settled science" (with no citations, naturally, not that any legitimat scientist would make such a claim anyway.) The earth is getting colder. The termperature changes we've seen over s…

I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response:

http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report...

Yes, that's right, the Royal Society, which, for those of you who are unfamiliar with science, is the oldest scientific organisation in the world, agrees with the IPCC reports, which I would cite as the secondary scientific evidence. For the primary evidence, just read all the articles cited by the IPCC.

What weighty scientific evidence points against global warming? Or is "real science" being suppressed?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#127

Post by anigbrowl »

lzw wrote: post #111
lutorm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

What is this lack of troposheric warming of which you speak?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measureme...

http://www.earthsystemtrends.org/2009/03/lower-tropospheric-...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&ye...

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#128

Post by DrJosiah »

lzw wrote: post #88
DrJosiah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that he's using psychology, computer science, and climate science to battle global warming denialists. That is actually in support of Science. That was my point, which opposes your seeming claim that his software wasn't using science (where in fact, it does).

Zeolots spamming random paper citations that they've never read to people whose arguments they've never read is not supporting science. It is actually, attempting to stifle science by stifling critical thinking in favor of rote repetition of The Global Warming Faith. Since you used the word "Denialists" I already know you deny the scientific method and actually know nothing about the science of this issue. You're jus…

Did I ever once say that I supported the chatbot? No.

However, I did refer to AGW followers as denialists. Not because I follow the "Global Warming Faith" [1], but because AGW followers' tactics of argumentation (or lack thereof) typically follow the Denialist Deck of Cards: http://www.denialism.com/Deckofcards/deck.html

The vast majority of arguments I've heard from AGW proponents can be categorized into one of the following: * No Problem * No Harm * Wait and See (we don't have enough proof, so let's wait and see if something changes - this argument is made quite often by AGW proponents, and is even referenced in the deck of cards) * Stifles Innovation (pushing money into clean energy stifles non-clean energy innovation - this claim was made with regards to California Proposition 23) * Already Highly Regulated (made by auto companies and oil companies) * Jobs (hello prop 23 proponents again) * Red Herring (claims of Neptune's warming is a red herring) * Federal Issue (AGW-funding companies claim that California's tougher emission standards are illegal) * Duh! (AGW proponents saying that they understand the science better than the scientists who are writing the papers, even claiming that the few papers that they have read make them better experts than people who have been studying the issues for decades) * Nit Pick (this is what you are doing, right now) * Muddy the Waters (and again with prop 23) * Poison the Well (this is also what you are doing, right now) * Exploit Others' Ignorance (hello prop 23 again) * Temper Tantrum (this is what targets of the bot do when chatted into a corner) * You're a Ninny (you are doing this) * Big Government (any regulation is big government) * We'll Lose Money (hey, back to prop 23 again)

[1] Actually having examined the evidence at Nasa, from climate scientists, etc., to the best of my ability (I'm not a climate scientist, I am a applied theoretical computer scientist with experience in distributed systems, search, and simulation), the evidence supporting global warming is orders of magnitude more compelling to me than the lack of evidence offered by AGW proponents. Others with differing experience and expertise are welcome to disagree with my judgement of who to believe, as you have. And a healthy dose of skepticism is great for science. But the behavior of AGW proponents is not skepticism, it's denialism.

Regards.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

Robin_Message wrote: post #126
lzw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the weight of scientific evidence is not on his side. The science clearly points against the global warming hypothesis. It is merely that there is a political/religious/ideological movement to claim that "global warming is settled science" (with no citations, naturally, not that any legitimat scientist would make such a claim anyway.) The earth is getting colder. The termperature changes we've seen over s…

I would downvote you, but I want people to see this response: http://royalsociety.org/The-Science-of-Climate-Change-report... Yes, that's right, the Royal Society , which, for those of you who are unfamiliar with science, is the oldest scientific organisation in the world, agrees with the IPCC reports, which I would cite as the secondary scientific evidence. For the primary evidence, just read all the articles cited…

Doubtless they're just one of the oldest parts of the one world government conspiracy...

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#130

Post by InclinedPlane »

cromulent wrote: post #108
InclinedPlane wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "unable to sway" you mean "unable to sway everyone without any effort and with almost no delay". How many people believed in evolution in 1500? How many people believed the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion in 1900? It's possible to convince people of the value of scientific inquiry and the truth of the results of scientific research, but sometimes it takes a lot more time and effort than anyone would wish. On the…

The idea that Galileo's life was in danger is itself dogma. He put himself into trouble by using the Pope's views in the form of his bot Simplicio, embarrassing the Pope. He was in trouble, but not in physical danger. The irony is that the Church was open to heliocentrism, but demanded more scientific proof before teaching it.

Galileo was convicted of heresy, placed under house arrest for 9 years (until his death), and his books were banned. He could easily have been placed in prison rather than house arrest, at the whim of the Inquisition, the same Inquisition that executed Bruno 30 years prior and tortured and then imprisoned Campanella for 27 years. The idea that Galileo was never in any danger (assuming that one can write off house arrest as non-dangerous) is patently ridiculous.
Post reply on HN