Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

Post by mattmanser » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 1:45 PM UTC

cabalamat wrote: post #155

statictype wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.

> It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place. I wouldn't characterise it as spamming. He's sending the messages on one of his own twitter accounts. If he was auto-replying on other people's blogs, he might more accurately be accused of spamming.

Post by grammaton » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 1:53 PM UTC

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--…

Post by jberryman » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:15 PM UTC

alextgordon wrote: post #174

demallien wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, here's the thing. We know that CO2 absorbs light energy in the frequencies reflected by the Earth more than the frequencies that arrive from the sun. That is, any CO2 that you have in your atmosphere is going to lead to an increase in the rate of absorbtion of energy from the sun on a planetary scale. The spectrum of Earth's reflected light has been confirmed by satellites, the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 has be…

I just want to say: Thank you. This is the first time someone has actually explained the science without bullshit or a large number of holes ("oh look here's a graph with CO2, and here's a graph with temperature, they seem to be doing the same thing - that explains everything ").

Post by cabalamat » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:19 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #181

cabalamat wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place. I wouldn't characterise it as spamming. He's sending the messages on one of his own twitter accounts. If he was auto-replying on other people's blogs, he might more accurately be accused of spamming.

Go look at the account: http://twitter.com/ai_agw It's not one of his accounts, it's a spam bot. A tongue in cheek, funny pictures, really obvious to computer scientist 'hey I'm a bot' account, but it's still a twitter spam bot. And the bot is auto replying to random people's tweets. It clearly says so in the article.

Post by rick888 » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 2:52 PM UTC

anthonyb wrote: post #51

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…

>> 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 information that has been falsified.... Thank you for proving my point so concisely.