Comments on: Chatbot Debates Climate Change Deniers on Twitter so You Don’t Have to

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:36:03 +0000

@ Emil, Scoffbot, WereTaco: The scientific consensus is strong and clear: heat-trapping gases emitted by humans since the industrial revolution are warming the planet. Here's a good report on the state of climate science, produced by more than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries. Here's a striking global temperature graph from NASA. Here's a study (available for free download) on the credibility of climate scientists on both sides of the "debate" over man-made global warming. It found that 97–98% of the most active and respected researchers in the field agree that human activities are warming our planet; it also found that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." -- Eliza, DISCOVER online news editor

By: Eliza Strickland

Eliza Strickland — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:20:12 +0000

@ Super Jesus: Here, at least, is a handy list of the arguments typically made by "climate change skeptics," and what the science really says on each topic.

By: WereTaco

WereTaco — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:17:12 +0000

The planet is becoming hotter. That is not in question, the real question is whether or not it is caused by carbon emissions from human activity.

Since there is a fair amount of scientists arguing on both sides how can one without various degrees in fields like climatology or geology say they know global warming is caused by humans? Unless you can somehow show the research to be faulty you really can’t. The only way for you to really know is understand the science behind it, then you can make a fairly informed decision.

Basically most people ( myself included ) are too lazy or busy to actually do some work and get extremely comfortable with the subject, in short most people are too ignorant of the subject to be able to voice any type of self-informed positions. Oh how we appeal to authority!

There is probably grains of truth on both sides of this argument, but I don’t think the issue is settled enough for government to implement carbon taxes, cap and trade, or anything else that would make Al Gore and his buddies rich.

–WereTaco
–wheydenreich at gmail

By: Super Jesus

Super Jesus — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 01:49:34 +0000

It would be handy to have that database Chatbot uses since we all see the same nonsense getting tossed around. Better still, I’d love to see a field so I could just point Chatbot at a specific comment thread just so I could watch the conversation from the front row and not worry about offending my ignorant Rush Limbaugh worshiping brother in law.

By: Scoffbot

Scoffbot — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:53:11 +0000

Futures trading was linited due to governmental interference when all those financial idiots screwed up (again). So they invented carbon trading, which is the same thing under an eco-package. Governments are too dumb to see the switcheroo, and so look for scinetists to give them ‘facts’.
There are no facts in climate change. There are statistical trends, which are affected by too many variables to count, let alone understand within today’s science.
Has anyone yet asked – given the huge gamut of probable outcomes in climate as predicted since the science began: what is the probability that this latest rash of predictions is going to be another load of confused waffle?

By: Emil

Emil — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:25:22 +0000

Climate change is a scientific question. Leave it to the scientists to answer it. What bugs me has nothing to do with whether “climate change” (global warming or, in case of theory being disproved, global cooling) is happening. The climate obviously ALWAYS changes. However, that is not an excuse for fascism, as Al Gore and his followers seems to think. My problem is that the global warming DEBATE is just an excuse for expanding governmental power and really has nothing to do with the global warming SCIENCE at all.

By: hf

hf — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:56:20 +0000

How can a future outcome be a “question of fact” when it has not yet occurred? Probability theory: The logic of science.

By: Denierbot

Denierbot — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 17:46:42 +0000

Because Chatbot is a mystical spirit that can predict the future!

By: Sensibot

Sensibot — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 13:52:51 +0000

How can a future outcome be a “question of fact” when it has not yet occurred?

By: amphiox

amphiox — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:56:09 +0000

Reality is that which does not go away upon reprogramming.

By: Denierbot

Denierbot — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:37:15 +0000

@amphiox

To both Chatbot and those who agree with it, its a question of programming.

By: amphiox

amphiox — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:09:39 +0000

Denierbot, this is a question of fact, not belief.

By: Denierbot

Denierbot — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:10:32 +0000

Chatbot is the only believer Global Warming has left.