From Technology Review, a case of desperation. “Let the robot handle it”. I have to chuckle though, since the article cites John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” as an “appropriate scientific source”. Also amusing is “the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn’t at liberty to divulge.” Well since he is in New South Wales, I’m thinking this just might be another Tim Lambert aka Deltoid production. Hacker News sums it up pretty well:
> 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.
– Anthony
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.
The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn’t happening or humans aren’t responsible for it.
It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question — tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.
The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn’t at liberty to divulge.
Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its tweets have no idea they’re not conversing with a real human being. Some of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and many days, says Leck. That’s in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor continues to throw the same arguments at it. Leck has even programmed it to debate such esoteric topics as religion – which is where the debates humans have with the bot often wind up.
The whole story is at Technology Review
===========================================================
Here’s Leck’s Twitter feed:
His bio on Twitter says:
“given sufficient evidence I’ll accept a claim as provisionally true.It’s a balance of probabilities,atheist,greenie & a bit of a nerd but mostly harmless:-)”
Seems like a nice enough fellow, just a bit misguided perhaps.
h/t to WUWT reader Don Penim
======================================================
UPDATE: Borepatch writes in with some news that is well worth sharing.
He writes:
I created the Clippy almost a year ago:
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-happens-when-you-run-climate.html
There’s also a ClimateGate Blue Screen Of Death there, too.
I post fairly regularly on AGW issues, and am afraid that I’m one of those “deniers”. My probably two best posts on the subject are here:
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/should-you-be-global-warming-skeptic.html (for a non-technical audience)
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/canals-of-mars-climate-research-unit.html
If you could point attribution my way, this would be some pretty big bragging rights for me here in my little corner of the ‘net.
Thanks.
– Borepatch
Happy to do so! Sometimes humor spreads like wildfire without proper attribution because people are so focused on the funny, they forget the source. Your Clippy parody has been a source of humor for thousands, and we thank you. – Anthony
DirkH: I sometimes pass for human or at least a very smart monkey 🙂
Nigel Leck says:
November 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
“Verity Jones: “The ‘problem’ I have with your bot is that it pushes one viewpoint” Should it give both sides to the earth is flat debate ?”
At least there was verifiable evidence that the earth wasn’t flat.
Verity Jones: and we have verifiable evidence that the earth is warming, co2 levels are increasing and that an increase level of co2 has a warming effect. I think those facts are not in dispute. Correct ?
Don’t feed the Leck-bot, Verity!☺
Tell the whole story please.
We have verifiable evidence that the Earth has warmed recently. However the extent of this warming is well within the range of normal variation. The null hypothesis – that temperature is behaving completely normally – cannot be rejected.
We have verifiable evidence that CO_2 levels have increased recently. We have a reasonable theoretical expectation that increased CO_2 should have a very small warming effect (much smaller indeed than the observed recent warming).
We have an unsupported bizarre hypothesis that the climate is inherently unstable and that water destabilises the climate by causing positive feedback. The suggestion is that this might amplify the small predicted temperature increase due to rising CO_2 levels into something more like the observed recent increase, or indeed into something potentially dangerous or even catastrophic.
Absolutely no evidence supports this positive feedback hypothesis. The overall effect of water is unknown. About the best that can be claimed for the positive feedback hypothesis is that it is hard to disprove. However predictions made using this model have failed the test of observation. For example predicted tropical warming in the upper troposphere is absent.
It is in fact much more likely that water stablises the climate by causing negative feedback. Historically temperatures, while they show considerable natural variation (including periods of significantly warmer temperatures than today), have shown no tendency to spiral out of control, which suggests that climate cannot be inherently unstable as the positive feedback hypothesis imagines.
On top of all this we actually have no evidence that a warmer world would be a less desirable place to live for us or for other life. Indeed despite the most strenuous effeorts of the IPCC the bulk of the evidence that we have suggests that a warmer world is likely to be more hospitable.
Ian H: “unsupported bizarre hypothesis” except that of course from the geologic records we can see that this theory is well supported. The Geologic society can say it so much better than me:-
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf
Nigel – Your comment does not address the issue of positive feedback which is the bizarre hypothesis in question. Nothing like changing the subject if you can’t beat the other guys argument.
But lets talk sea levels then since that seems to be what you want to discuss indead. You quote the 25m figure from 5.2 million years ago as if this is something we might have to worry about soon – flooded cities and all that. In fact the sea level is indeed rising … at the rate of 1.8mm per year, almost all of it due to thermal expension. This has been going on since the end of the last ice age. Eventually this slow and steady expansion will amount to something significant approaching the number you mention – but at 1.8mm per year we can handle it.
Indidentally I forgot to mention in my earlier summary that CO_2 levels increase whenever the temperature of the ocean increases because CO_2 is less soluble in warm water. It is therefore highly debatable whether those higher CO_2 levels you mention between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago were the cause of this higher temperature, or merely a consequence.
OK – so thermal expansion isn’t going to cause a disaster – it is too slow to be problematic unless you are worried about our distant ancestors 3 civilisations from now – and their cities probably will be in different places anyway.
But perhaps the sea might rise faster than that – perhaps … duh duh duh dah … something might melt! Firstly note that for this to be possible you’d have to accept that the bizarre hypothesis I was talking about – the one about feedback from water and an inherently unstable climate – the one you avoided talking about – is actually true. But lets look at this unlikely scenario anyway. While I think the chances of this happening are extremely remote, I don’t rate the probability at zero, and if the consequences were bad enough it might be anough to make me take note.
So lets look at this absolute worst case calamity. If the entire greenland ice sheet were to completely melt global sea levels would rise … 7.2m. OK – that is enough to cause a few problems. People might even have to move! Not exactly a disaster for the human species though and given how unlikely this is? Nah … it won’t happen and I refuse to be scared by extremely unlikely scenarios. After all I might be hit by a comet tomorrow. Life goes on and people adpat. In any case while our civilisation might find this kind of sea level rise a tad inconvenient (depending on how fast it happened), the planet would not be in any kind of danger.
AGW supporters imagine that skeptics are demanding 100% proof, and by that measure, nobody can prove the sun will rise tomorrow. But show me where you can quote a skeptic as saying, “I demand 100% proof” ?
What we do tend to demand, or I for one do anyway,
is the “irrefutable” evidence.
What percentage would you call that? 99%? 95%? Whatever number you like, pick one.
There’s always this little shuffle-dance that goes on when AGWers talk about “irrefutable evidence”. When the skeptics ask to see it, the AGWers say, “oh, but it would be unreasonable to expect it to be 100%, and we are well aware of all the uncertainties to do with clouds, feedbacks, sensitivity, etc.” So when skeptics then reply, “aha, so it isn’t irrefutable! there is room for alternative ideas?” the AGWers say, “oh, you can’t use this as an excuse to ignore the science! we have to do something! the evidence is so great, it is irrefutable!”
If we ask to see what it is that makes it so irrefutable, they counter we are being unrealistic and unreasonable — they say we are taking it to absurd extremes — asking for 100% mathematical proof — and by those extremes you wouldn’t function in life, you would never cross the road.
What this shuffle-dance means is, what it all means is that, “irrefutable” has NO QUANTIFIABLE BASIS. It is your gut judgement against theirs. Except, the AGWers claim it is all “science” but it is actually their gut, or their heart, or their feelings, or their dreams, or whatever.
Then, in a sort of psychological projection move, they accuse the skeptics of being “anti-science”.
Just quantify objectively what “irrefutable” is supposed to mean, please.
Actually the “irrefutable” claim is so vexing because it is effectively false advertising. Lookup “irrefutable” in the dictionary for what it really means.
Meanwhile, false advertising and deceptive methods :
Manipulation of standards
Sellers may manipulate standards to mean something different than their widely-understood meaning.
Hidden fees and surcharges
Service providers often tack on fees and surcharges that are not disclosed to the customer in the advertised price.
So, like “Unlimited” broadband (ie. not subject to limits, but we’ll impose limits anyway). And like, “Irrefutable” evidence (ie. impossible to disprove, but we’ll ignore the counter evidence anyway).
The public is very accustomed to hearing false claims. I suggest that this is why the public themselves reject it.
eadler, while not technically a bot, is often indistinguishable from one, a living example of a succesful Turing test in reverse.
If you have a pet fantasy, assumption or hypothesis that you want validated, this is what you do: You feed it to a model, and as soon as the model regurgitates it back to you — as it will inevitably do — it has become no longer a fantasy or an assumption, but a proven naked fact that the model has *shown* for the world to take notice. It’s like an act of eucharistic transubstantiation, the models clearly endowed with incantatory powers.
Current scientific reasoning seems to be quickly shifting toward this kind of thinking. Years ago I had a discussion with another human bot who informed me that today “everything can be modelled succesfully,” including, he said “the entire universe”. I was duly awed.
SWEET!
It only makes sense that data and predictions generated by computer programs be defended by computer programs.
Ian H: I quoted the geological society of what the past looked like when the co2 levels were at these levels. The IPCC predicted rise is 0.7m->2m which is extremely well supported by the geological record, indeed many would say quite a conservative prediction.
Also it must be noted that you’re giving your calculations and I cite research, there’s the difference between our two positions.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/groups/ourviews_edit/public/Climate%20change%20-%20evidence%20from%20the%20geological%20record.pdf
From the Leckbot’s AlGoreithm link:
“…if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past.”
Most alarmist nonsense is based on “What if” scenarios. Once again, the scientific method is nowhere to be found.
An interesting analysis of the scientific skeptics’ position can be found here. Note that when you take away the wild-eyed, red faced, unscientific arm-waving “what if” conjectures, we’re left with natural variability, which according to Occam’s Razor completely explains the current climate.
All the rest is sugar-coated globaloney being fed to the public in order to scare them into opening their wallets.
Smokey: we can see that the increase in co2 levels have/are changing very suddenly in geologic time in a blink of the eye. Do you dispute this observation ?
Hey, the Leckbot automatically posted some randumb globaloney again!
Smokey: It was a very direct and simple question. Not answering it indicates that you are trying to obscure what you know is happening.
The Leckbot says:
“Do you dispute this observation ?”
I dispute that the Leckbot is human.
First statement in that paper: “Climate change is a defining issue for our time.”
Actually, that is not really the case. There are many other issues that are far more important in this time. I’m not sure why that society feels it can jump from geology to human development so easily, when as experts I’m sure they could claim that only experts in the field of geology are qualified to comment on geology. Yet they feel they know “the issue of our time”, like, the world, and everything.
Big issues in our time: the world is culturally fragmented into several major cultural blocks and stages, with largely incompatible beliefs and worldviews. There are multiple concurrent global cultural wars: as Americans try to modernise the Middle East; as fundamentalist religion is on a resurgence and is spreading in Africa; as Africa still tries to grow out of tribal warlordism; as New Agers try to “care for the planet”; as old power struggles resurface between military blocks; as Europe faces the consequences of its values and wonders what to do next. In half the world they are trying to industrialise, so a Kenyan woman can afford to eat and become an office worker rather than a prostitute. In the other half the comforts of industrialisation for the privileged classes are opening up existential questions about “isn’t there more to life than this?” Spoilt westerners feel consumerism hasn’t made them happy, so bizarrely they’d deny industrialisation to the rest of the world. “Wouldn’t it be better if everything just slowed down, and we had more community, and balance, and a healthier greener environment?” Meanwhile in Afghanistan, a healthy environment is one free of American soldiers and having enough to pay the local warlord. There is a lot of change going on; cultural change, social change, material change, and the world has little room left to thrash things out the way we did in the old days.
The AGW movement believes they are the ones concerned for the planet. Their narrow focus seems to blind them to the fact that their worldview is just one of many competing worldviews. All these competing worldviews are clashing with each other, and they will continue to clash. If AGW supporters think it is tedious arguing with modern skeptics, try arguing with the billions of fundie Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists. These are old movements and they are not going away. Try arguing with the billions of people who are desperately trying to become modern.
In the scale of things, AGW is not a “defining issue”– it is just a few leaves blowing in the wind.
That paper by geologists then goes on to comment about rapidly rising population and climate change:
“pressure for human migration could result on a large scale”
And? What of it? Who is going to change this?
How does climate change make any different the fact that a Nigerian would prefer to live in Europe? How does climate change alter the fact that already, due to dictatorships and warlordism, hundreds of millions are starving now? How does climate change alter whether we are running out of resources? How does climate change stop Africans converting to Islam? (Not that I’m saying they should be stopped, but I’d guess the Western greenies would judge this a bad state of affairs.)
Western scientists are also part of these worldviews. When they open a scientific information paper with that statement, you know what worldview they are embedded inside. But as much as people may desire a united and balanced and healthy environment, you aren’t going to get that by ignoring the desires and wishes and aspirations of billions of people who are different to you because their lives are different. There are 7 billion people on the planet and the vast majority don’t think the way you do. And AWG supporters’ answer to people who don’t think the same is to label them nutty deniers and oil shills. Good luck convincing everyone else. It is just more conflict that you are creating.
So, no, not a “defining issue”.
Stefan: cool, if I’m doing more harm than good for the “AGW is real” side then you should be a strong supporter of my approach correct ?
Funny isn’t
Can I ask if there’s any real skeptics to stand in front of a CO2 laser.
Televised injury waiver followed by a show of up the CO2 science hoax – or your finger being cut off.
It’ll certainly be the former – how about it?