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 keep using that word, "arguments". I don't think it means what you think it means.
Well, if your antics serve as an ostensive definition of what you consider to be "argument", then you do have a rather unique conception of the term.
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…
I believe you have your terminology mixed up.
AGW stands for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and 'AGW proponents' are those people who actually support the thesis that industrial CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. It looks like you would have a very confused bot on your case if you went on twitter with comments like the above.
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.
> It's not one of his accounts, it's a spam bot. It is a twitter account. He has the password to it, and presumerably no one else does. That makes it his twitter account.
Email spammers don't have the passwords to their spamming accounts?
> It's not one of his accounts, it's a spam bot. It is a twitter account. He has the password to it, and presumerably no one else does. That makes it his twitter account.
Email spammers don't have the passwords to their spamming accounts?
> In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it answers twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance. On the one hand the idea of a reverse search engine is somewhat appealing, on the other hand; it's Clippy for the internet. """ I see you're trying to deny global warming. Would you like to: 1. research the available facts and science? 2. Have an authority figure you trust tell you,…
I see you're trying to break the tenets of science. Would you like to:
1. Learn why argument from authority is a fallacy?
2. See a list of 800 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics?
3. Meet like-(non)-minded members who use stone age reasoning?
You have yet to provide any arguments. Snide and snotty counterfactual statements are what you have provided.
He mentioned that 'cap and trade' won't be successful because nobody has the power to implement it. That's not 'snotty and counterfactual'. Respond to it.
You probably want to go back and reread his cap and trade paragraph again, because I think you've misinterpreted it.
Thus "Cap and trade" and all these other proposals [...] give governments dictatorial control over industry and people's lives....and they bring us closer to a global government.
> In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it answers twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance. On the one hand the idea of a reverse search engine is somewhat appealing, on the other hand; it's Clippy for the internet. """ I see you're trying to deny global warming. Would you like to: 1. research the available facts and science? 2. Have an authority figure you trust tell you,…
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…
I believe you have your terminology mixed up. AGW stands for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and 'AGW proponents' are those people who actually support the thesis that industrial CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. It looks like you would have a very confused bot on your case if you went on twitter with comments like the above.
By AGW, I mean Anti-Global Warming, in the context that they claim that Global Warming, even if it does happen (which they claim it doesn't), is not human caused.
I believe you have your terminology mixed up. AGW stands for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and 'AGW proponents' are those people who actually support the thesis that industrial CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming. It looks like you would have a very confused bot on your case if you went on twitter with comments like the above.
By AGW, I mean Anti-Global Warming, in the context that they claim that Global Warming, even if it does happen (which they claim it doesn't), is not human caused.
With this disclaimer, your post now makes sense, but your use of AGW is non-standard and misleading, and doesn't help you in any way.