Tired of Repetitive Arguing About Climate Change, Scientist Makes a Bot to Argue For Him

+5 to 10°c would be nice, most of the heat would end up in the polar region the equatorial area would only increase one or two degrees. This would replicate the garden of eden like state inwhich modern mammals like primate started showing up called the eocene epoch. Sadly these conditions ended in one of the worst climate desasters in the history of ever called the azolla event, it was a super plant who needed little nutrients to thrive and could double its mass in two days with favorable weather infesting 4,000,000 km² each year for ~800,000 years, reducing the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from 3500 ppm to 650 ppm. Sense then average arctic temperatures have dropped from a comfortable 13 °C to −9 °C and co2 levels have fallen to a current level of 388 ppm. Nature is not always good to itself and needs managing, there are countless ways the earth has to bury carbon but has almost no way to bring it back up. It is our sacred duty to fill the station as the only creation earth that can undo the damage caused by continual carbon sequestration. It will take hundreds of years and hard fought ideological battles with those who want who refuse to see a bright future but we can prevail we can restore earth to its paradisaical glory.

Awesome. Very creative ;)

It's funny because when you put that way, those who believe in global warming all have the same dull basis, CO2 emissions and humanity destroying the world. Go ahead and narrow down more to one robot. That places those who support such a hoax of an idea as those who do not want to think for themselves. They just let the bot do it for them.

Why don't we have a machine that speaks for all of us? Then we wouldn't even need to think for ourselves! Wait, people don't think for themselves already, alright bring on the machine...

@aerosphere

you're right. global warming is a hoax! and people who build such things, like robots that fight for them, don't think for themselves! (let the sarcasm algorithm detect that!)

I'd say build an anti-global warming bot and let them do battle to see if Twitter survives the onslaught. ;)

And today, November 4th, in Los Angeles, it's 95 degrees.

Just saying.

Oops ... November 3rd. Stupid machines. ;)

This is brilliant.

Those of you trying to summon it, though, it only works on Twitter.

Moonborn you are an idiot,

if the planet warmed up by 5- 10 degrees many species of animals would go extinct . Some species are extremely sensitive to temperature during development and in some cases a half degree one way or the other and all the young will be of the same sex which would lead to extinction in very short order.
The Earth warming by 1 -2 degrees globally would be a disaster. A lot of crops would die and a lot more people could starve .

Is anyone else troubled by the transition to climate change "denier"? There's only one other group usually called deniers, and this seems to be much less evil-intentioned.

Also, why don't we try to convince the skeptics by putting out articles on the science and the measurements, rather than by calling them idiots.

Excellent. All we need now is one of those for evolution.

@ moon born

I live in canada and climate warming up near the poles means my country can exploit the ressources its holding, so personnaly, I am all good with it.

For those saying some species will die, I could careless for it, I rather me and my friends get rich then for some useless animals not go extinct because it cant adapt.

Naturel selection at its finest, I bet those species that survives will be much happy that the other one got extinct and I ll be happy for them.

This is great -- machine generated diatribes. The only plus is that if a lot of others copy this bot concept, Twitter will become so saturated that it will fail.

@paulcrosoft "why don't we try to convince the skeptics by putting out articles on the science and the measurements" - there re plenty of articles. That's what the bot is all about. But being handed articles (or link to articles) then denying the existing of the articles - that's an idiot.

Please try to pay attention, hon.

BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

Thats not the question. It IS most definitely getting warmer since the Ice age. The question is if humans are causing it to accelerate in warming or not.

The fact that the globalists want to tax carbon is an out right call for paying to breathe. Slavery.

Open your eyes and focus on the right parts of the picture here.

@ MaxHubert
There are those of us who think that our moral obligation to keep this world in a natural balance. No one has any idea about how complicated this planet is and losing one key species may throw it into chaos.
What happens when a warmer climate kills all the bees? No more mass polenation means that crop yeilds plummet and our society, which alread has a hard time 'giving our bounty to the poor' will just hold even tighter to the little that we have. Millions or billions of people will die. Pesonally I think it is the moral obligation of the strong to help the weak.
Making a couple million dollars off new oil reserves in our north is not worth destroying a prestine environment.

Also, to you're natural selection comment:
That may have held true in the past when the only evolution was genetic. There, only those best suited for an environment could thrive there and change. As humans, we've become unnatural with 'social evolution' which is not a natural thing in terms of Earth's history. We've gone from adapting to our changing surroundings, to changing them completely. We're trying to turn this planet into a monoculture and that's not good. Not good for the plants and animals we see as 'useless' and certainly not good for us in the long run.
But hey, we're living for the now, we don't care if we screw the planet over for our kids as long as we make the all-mighty dollar.

What ever happened to "When Hell freezes over"?

Kormiko: According to Warmerbators, we're not allowed to consider local, instantaneous weather as "climate" for "denial." The same rule would of course, apply to you.

Per the screen cap, if the sun's output hasn't changed, why does NASA say that Mars and Pluto were experiencing solar warming?

Tertertert: You want a "natural" balance, but you want us to "keep it." Don't you see a contradiction with your statement? A billion year graph shows we are currently VERY much below average--5-10C. We should in no way interfere with natural warming cycles.

Also, there are other pollinators besides bees, and no indications that warmer temps will hurt bees. To the contrary, the opposite is true. They do better in warmer climates.

steve28: you sound like a bot. "1-2 degrees would be a disaster and many crops would die!" Unfortunately for you, it's been 1-2 degrees warmer in recent history, and the crops loved it--Medieval Warm Period, when grapes grew well in the UK, and the Norse were able to farm in Greenland. Warmerbator response: Deny the WMP actually happened.

They seem to do a lot of denying over there.

Bonus question: Which gas is the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect?

Bonus bonus question: Explain how this very simple math is somehow wrong: canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28728

Thats the problem of it all. We DONT actually Know that the planet is getting hotter. The is NO actual science to support this hypothesis.
LEARN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, YOU LIBERAL ZEALOTS
you environmentalist are wrose than the Christian Coalition!
"Believe In Global Warming Or Go To Hell, or just a hotter globe, But Its Like HELL!!!" the parrallels are hysterical.

tertertert:"There are those of us who think that our moral obligation to keep this world in a natural balance. No one has any idea about how complicated this planet is and losing one key species may throw it into chaos."

First of all, balance is not natural. Nature is constant change, and has been long before man ever arrived on the scene. The earth has re-invented itself several times over since it was created. There was a time when there was no oxygen in our atmosphere! Most of the oxygen you breathe now was created by species of plant that are now extinct. To think that man could possibly keep it as it is now is beyond arrogance.

You are right, no one knows how complicated this planet is. Shouldn't we ensure we have an understanding of how our plant works before we try to "fix" it? Not only will we hamstring ourselves for the sake of our self esteem, we are also going to create bigger problems for us and future generations.

Us "deniers" are not saying that global warming does not exist. We are saying global warming science is weak. It does not prove a link to man's activities. Climate models do not impress us. Anyone can create a simulation that confirms their theories. If they want to gain some credibility, they need to make some short term predictions that turn out to be more accurate than the local weather man's. Until then, climate science is still too young to bet the farm on.

This scientist is simply automating how they deal with conflicting theories in the real world.

Step 1. Find a post that is from a denier.
Step 2. Broadly categorize denial. No need to actually contemplate the meaning of their message.
Step 3. Crush argument with undeniable scientific evidence like: Oil men Fund Anti-Global Warming Groups!
Step 4. Return to Step 1.

@Jane, Clay Dillow

I'm in your camp, hun. But we are failing to convince the other side, prefering to just call them stupid. For example, PopSci isr running a full series on the origin of standard units, but rather than do a similar investigative reporting with climate change, it posts ad hominem articles on "climate villians" or calling people "deniers." Personal attacks are not science and do not change anyone's mind.

The bot is great when it sends people to facts, but it also includes irrelevant, politicized, personal attacks: "Oil men fund anti-global warming groups." These attacks make it look desparate, like we don't have the facts to support our side.

So Clay & Rebecca, if you're listening, run a series where two scientists duke it out over global warming. Bring the facts, figures and graphs to the public and educate the debate, and shake out this smugness that we are part of the elite few with the mental agility to grasp the concept. You've got a captive audience of folks who love the scientific method, so use it to educate, rather than bludgeon.

Finally, as a Jewish person who's family escaped Germany, I find the term "climate change denier" very troubling. Please consider, for just a moment, the moral depravity it takes to bake someone in an oven before you make that reference again. Take seriously the image you intend to conjure.

That's pretty awesome!!! LOL

What do any of the last 10 comments have to do with this article? The article is about an artificial means of response on Twitter to a given question.The algorithm could be used in a lot of situations.Stay on topic people.

Some people just have too much time on their hands.

A hoax is a hoax is a hoax. No matter what way you try to send out manipulated data...it is still just that...manipulated data...

Want the truth about global warming???

Hit the world wide web at climate depot dot com.

( http://www.vipstores.net )

you can find many cheap and fas hion stuff

(ni ke jor dan s-h-o-e-s)

(NB A NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)

( lv Chanel Guc ci Coach h-a-n-d-b-a-g)

(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)

(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)

(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)

(UG G b-o-o-t)

free ship ping

YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

The problem is most people are a "seeing is believing" type, so all it takes is a few inches of snow and they say, "gee, this global warming stuff is BS". It's these people, who can't see the big picture, who don't understand the world outside their own town, who have a hard time beleiving in global warming.

then there's the inner city folks who go to clubs and stay out late, many of these people just don't care.

then there's the ones who care, but feel powerless to do anything about it.

The internet has given us all voices. But talk is cheap. Talk doesn't necessarily get anything done. Every single reader of this magazine could WANT to save the rainforest with all our hearts, for example, but tomorrow, some farmer is going to plow down a few more acres and expand his farm, whether we talk about it or not.

too many voices, not enough real world changes.

jrimsa75: Have you ever really looked at how these conclusions about global warming are made? Or do you just believe because it fits with your world view?

Honestly answer this question:
What would it take to change your mind about global warming?

If group of reputable scientists came forward with reliable data discrediting the concept of global warming, would you honestly consider it? Or would you automatically dismiss them as agenda driven deniers?

I am a "seeing is believing" type of guy. When I see good data coupled with a valid conclusion, I believe. I have yet to see either regarding man made global warming.

I'm worry about this technology to continue go over our net talks and send us commercials and Dictatorship materials.
We should make a robot to find robots and destroy them, some people who sound like robot themselves maybe get hurt, but I think it's worth it.

you see ! this is what I'm talking about!!!

Had Popular Science actually read the automated posts of AI_AGW you would know that the bot does not actually present any science but merely repeats that the scientists implicated in the Climategate emails and computer codes scandal are innocent of any wrongdoing.

If the individual was tired of constantly having their spin rebuffed, the civil thing to do is retire from the debate. But to create a bot that just wastes the opposition's time is neither civil, nor scientific, and is in fact the mark of a propagandist pushing an agenda at all costs.

As we head into the second harsh winter in a row, it is clear that the dire warnings of the global warming cult were flawed. The former head of Greenpeace has admitted in video that the claims Greenland would lose its ice in 20 years were a fabrication intended to hoax people into supporting their agenda, and Dr. Phil Jones, the former head of Hadley CRU and the center of the Climategate emails, has admitted in the UK Guardian that there actually has been no warming since 1995.

The use of a Bot betrays a mindset os needing to win at all costs reghardless of the actualk facts of the matter, and apparently dirty tricks are now an accepted means of scientific debate at Popular Science.

More at whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

I am reading some of the warmista comments above and I wanted to add this thought.

Despite the attempts by the global warming tax crowd (because that is the real agenda, to sell you all a carbon tax) the Earth has been much warmer in the past, most recently the Roman and Medieval warm periods, and polar bears survived those times just fine. Indeed those warm periods were times of plenty because warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons, bumper crops, and more food. Increased carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth, which not only means more food but an increase in Oxygen levels as the plants absorb that extra carbon dioxide and convert it. The fact is that commercial greenhouses use systems that double the amount of carbon dioxide inside because this cause the plants to grow faster, larger, and produce more salable crop.

Al Gore is not a scientist and he does not even listen to scientists. He was on TV claiming that the temperature of Earth's core is "millions of degrees" (The video is linked at the URL in my previous post) and in fact Al's movie, "Inconvenient Truth" actually stole a computer generated collapsing ice field from a film I worked on called "The Day After Tomorrow."

Global warming is not science. It is politics. Al and his buddies are taking something that happens naturally, climate change, declaring it a crisis and offering to sell you a solution.

In 1928, in the USSR there was a man named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a favorite of Stalin, and ultimately, a con-artist. He was as popular then in the USSR as Al Gore is in the US today.

Lysenko's prize theory, which suited Stalin's political needs at the time, was that plants and animals could inherit traits acquired from the environment in a single generation. That is, if you used cooling to trick Winter wheat seeds to germinate and grow in the Spring ( a technique already used in the US at the time) the seeds from the chilled plants would go on germinating in the Spring in perpetuity.

There was very little science in Lysenko's science, but this "revolution" suited Stalin's desire to outdo the accomplishments in genetics which had occurred under Lenin. Honor upon honor was heaped on Lysenko (just as is done with Al Gore today) and real scientists who questioned his theories were shunned, vilified, and removed from their positions (not unlike the experiences of those modern "heretics" who question the basic beliefs of the global warming cult). The state media of the USSR proclaimed the virtues of the Lysenko method beyond all doubt and question, just as the state media of the USA proclaims the "Science is settled" regarding AGW. But Lysenko had no more real science training than Al Gore, and his theory that the environment could permanently alter the genetic structure of crops in a single generation was completely wrong.

However, for political reasons, the USSR mandated that all farmers had to use the Lysenko method (just as the present government intends to force us all to use the "Al Gore Cap and Credit" method) and the result was widespread famine when, during the following spring, the second generation wheat refused to germinate.

This illustrates the problems which can result when the government thinks it understands science, or that science can be subordinated to political agenda.

MichaelRivero:
I have flagged your post stating that the bot "does not actually present any science but merely repeats that the scientists implicated in the Climategate emails and computer codes scandal are innocent of any wrongdoing".

What you said there simply isn't true. I believe you lied deliberately. That may or may not be the case, but you certainly weren't telling the truth.

"In 1928, in the USSR there was a man named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a favorite of Stalin, and ultimately, a con-artist. He was as popular then in the USSR as Al Gore is in the US today blah blah blah blah blah"...

Lysenko was one person, not THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. You are comparing the findings of one charlatan that happened to be seized on by an insane dictator to the result of decades of painstaking research by hundreds of thousands of people. It's simply not a valid comparison on any level.
There are political agendas on both sides of the argument and it is painfully obvious that you, Mr Rivero, are driven by a political agenda and have no interest whatever in science.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

--Albert Einstein

"The Science is settled."

--Global Warmist

Yes there has been evidence that has shown the earth is warming but there is no such thing as an objective study. Even before we ask how hot the earth is getting? we ask is the earth's temperature going up or down? But even then we are not being objective, because we only ask these questions because we have an interest in the answer.

All of you are stupid. Those who believe in global warming are absolutely wrong. CO2 has far far far less to do with global warming than water vapor. Are we going to tax that too? Ever wonder why plants grow better in a greenhouse? Its because of the greenhouse effect. The point of the matter is that we are not getting warmer, we are simply going back to a normal temp. The same scientists who are screaming so loud with their doctored "results" are the same ones who were screaming about global cooling 20 years ago. Until their is real evidence that can be duplicated without the hockey stick fix, I will beleive that lobbyist are trying to get another way to take my money.

It is easy to see from these comments why a "bot" approach can be effective--most of the global warming "skeptics" are simply parroting scientifically ignorant talking points that they have picked up from the popular press or blogs.

So if a post mentions global warming and Mars (Iman Azol), it is a safe bet that the guy has been told that Mars or Pluto is warming, and the bot can respond with references demonstrating that the evidence that Mars is warming is weak, that changes in the temperature of outer planets are dominated by their slow seasons, and that solar output has been measured and is not changing.

If a post mentions water vapor (like Speek-r), the bot can explain that yes, climate scientists are fully aware that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, and that this is taken into account in their calculations, but that what makes CO2 more important for climate change is that it does not rapidly equilibrate with terrestrial "sinks" as water does.

If a post mentions the Medieval Warm Period (multiple), the bot can respond with the evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was regional rather than global (and if they mention grapes, with evidence that growing of grapes in England was not restricted to this period).

If a post mentions global cooling in the '70's, the bot can provide the evidence that the notion of a scientific consensus on global cooling at that time was a media myth, and that the potential for CO2 induced warming was widely recognized even then.

It wouldn't take a lot of human supervision to pick out the rare posts that show independent, informed thought for which a human response is required.

So basically, I'm right and you agree with me that global warming is also a media myth with a political agenda. Notice now that nobody believes in global warming any more that the cap and tax bill is dead. Also I'm sure none of you heard that the CCX (chicago carbon exchange) closed down. They can no longer count that the government is going to force people to pay to breathe. All of you believers are sheep. If anything then how did the earth start warming in the roman times? Carbon? No. If you believe that man is such a big impact to this world you are an idiot. Go stick your head back in the sand and collect your gubberment checks.

WANT!!!

Gore Pocketed ~$18 Million from Now-Defunct Chicago Climate Exchange

"Although the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) collapsed and shut down this week, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP pocketed approximately $17.8 million on it's 2.98% share of the exchange when it was sold to the publicly traded Intercontinental Exchange a mere 6 months ago. According to news reports, the brainchild of the exchange, academic Richard Sandor, founded the exchange with a foundation gift of $1.1 million, and pocketed $98.5 million for his 16.5% share of the CCX. "

hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/gore-pocketed-18-million-from-now.html

Just a reminder that the real agenda behind the global warming hoax is money, investment money, grant money, and especially carbon tax money. Trillions of dollars are on the line, which is why so many hoaxers are still working do hard to sell this lemon to the American people.

I assume these denier posts are deliberate examples posted to demonstrate the bot software, yes? Because no one could really be this stupid. Michael, Democedes: learn some science.

The most informative person on these posts seems to be Michael. He is the only one who's actually looked up information and wrote his own feedback on that. He may have a slight bias against the global warming theory, but shows it no more than popsci has or any other site supporting the idea.