Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

And yet in MI its getting warmer.

 

It would be very bad news if it was not getting warmer anywhere.

 

Having had anti-CO2 nonscience relentlessly drummed into their heads since kindergarten, and even before...

 

Well at some point reality smacks the young in the face. Hard.

Then they tend to learn.

As the demand for EVs, the next wonder of the age, collapses- so will the climate change hog wash once they figure out you're just wasting money and breath on "you can't get there from here".

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...ould-be-a-lack-of-demand-for-evs/71291494007/

 

I submitted you data to AI, and here's the output: Also, I would like @557 to weigh in on my reply to your data.

*****************************************************

The Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) graph does show variability over time, which can include periods of decline. However, it’s important to understand that climate change impacts on cyclones are complex and can’t be reduced to a single metric like ACE123.

While the ACE index provides a measure of cyclone activity, it doesn’t capture all aspects of how climate change might influence cyclones. For instance, climate change can affect cyclones in a variety of ways: an intensification of rainfall and wind speed, a decrease in overall frequency, an increase in the frequency of very intense storms and a poleward extension of where the cyclones reach maximum intensity are among the possible consequences of human-induced climate change2.

Moreover, climate change is expected to make storms more intense even if the overall number decreases2. A study found that with 2 °C (3.6 °F) warming, a greater percentage (+13%) of tropical cyclones are expected to reach Category 4 and 5 strength2.

Therefore, while the ACE graph is a useful tool for understanding trends in cyclone activity, it doesn’t provide a complete picture of how climate change is impacting these storms. It’s also crucial to remember that climate is measured over long periods, and short-term fluctuations don’t necessarily contradict the long-term trends associated with climate change123.

The implication that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not a fact is not accurate. The scientific consensus on AGW is robust and has been strengthening over time12345.

A study by Cook et al. (2013) reported a 97% scientific consensus on AGW, based on a study of 11,944 abstracts in peer-reviewed science journals from 1991-20113. This estimate was corroborated by a complementary survey of the authors of the papers3.

In a more recent study, it was found that out of all survey respondents who answered the primary question about the cause of global warming (n = 2,54, 91.1 percent responded that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity2. This is roughly 11 percentage points higher than the 80 percent agreement found by a similar study in 2009 when asking a similar question about AGW2. In addition, the authors found that 100 percent of the most actively publishing climate experts—those who had published 20 or more climate papers each between 2015 and 2019—accept that global warming is human-caused2.

Therefore, the data presented in these studies strongly supports the scientific consensus that AGW is a fact. The consensus among scientists on the basic tenets of AGW is nearly unanimous5.

 

Hmmm. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is not a single metric. From a recent study showing decline in ACE.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL095774

ACE includes metrics your AI bot claims it does not.

I wouldn’t trust it as it’s not accurate and it’s easily shown to be inaccurate. I wouldn’t put blind faith in a source that is often inaccurate.

 

Really?? You do realize that ChatGPT is just autofill on steroids, right? It just repeats what it sees on the Net. It looks very impressive, but in fact has no idea what it is talking about.

 

Just more "consensus" claptrap. You are arguing models against empirical data. You lose. And please don't waste my time with any more AI replies. GIGO.

 

Thanks for confirming my point. But, your premise isn't accurate. I detail nuance when nuance is necessary.

 

But isn't that what we do, back up our opinions referring links on the internet? It's just a tool to achieve a faster, more robust, result. It brings forth details we might not have thought of.

However, your comment indicates to me you have a misunderstanding on the nature of AI, and it's not quite right. I use several AIs, (ChatGTP doesn't access the internet, so I avoid it most of the time when internet access is required for my answer).

AIs have passed medial exams, law exams, are used in engineering and medical prognostications, and has beaten the world grandmaster at chess, and so forth. Yes, data points have to be fact checked (I'll try to input something to more than one Ai) but the AI I use sources it's data points, which, if you read my comment, you'll see the annotations.

BING AI, response;

While it’s true that both autofill and I, Bing, use machine learning algorithms to predict and generate text, the comparison might be a bit oversimplified. Autofill typically predicts words or short phrases based on common patterns or personal typing history. On the other hand, I am designed to understand context, answer questions, generate creative content, and even perform web searches to provide up-to-date information. So while we both operate on the principle of predicting text, the complexity and capabilities are quite different.

Not bad for something that doesn't know what it is talking about.

Think of it this way, your brain is a Volkswagen and AI is a Corvette. And when AI is to be coupled with quantum computers, it will become like supersonic jet.

 

That might be what you do, but I prefer to understand the issues and come to independent judgment.

If -- as is apparently the case -- the result you want is regurgitation of whatever is most commonly said.

And often misses the actual point if enough of its sources do.

It's better than yours.

It doesn't matter. ChatGPT was trained on the Internet corpus, just like the rest of them.

That just means it faithfully copies any mistake that is popular enough. That is why they often turn racist, combative, etc.

Like Clever Hans the horse, it's very impressive -- if you don't understand what is actually happening.

I'll stick with valid and accurate analogies, thanks.

 

All that matters is the argument.

If you disagree, debate/discuss, etc., the argument, forward the discourse, which is the reason why we are here.

That is why your point is meaningless.

 

Well, no. If you're using AI then you're not presenting an argument. You're presenting a carnival attraction.

 

No you repeated nonsense. As you pretty much always do. Note using chatgpt for actual science is the moral equivalent of examining the entrails of a goat except that you can at least have the remains of the goat for supper later so there is at least some use to be made of the goat.

 

I don't use chatgpt for science, I use it for editing my writing, and offering ideas I might not have thought of.

For science, I go elsewhere. Note that AI is used in engineering, programming, has passed the medical exam, the law exam, is used in medicine for prognostication, even beat the world grandmaster at chess, and Chinese GO, and achieves advances by leaps and bounds yearly. Don't be fooled by poor AI output, because output is more often commensurate with the skill of the prompt engineer, the fellow inputting to it.

Keep in mind the following point;

All that matters is the argument. How we arrive at our arguments is irrelevant to the discourse.

The argument is all that matters.

Anyone or anything can be wrong, so, If you disagree, then state your case, give your examples, link to your sources, etc.

That moves the discourse forward, which, in my view is the reason for being here.

 

The accumulation of actual data says you are wrong. That is the only argument that matters. The actual accumulation of data and its increasing study over the last thirty years says you are wrong, what you believe contrary to the data is utterly inconsequential.

 

Right. And AI-sourced nonscience is still nonscience. We don't need AI to tell us that anti-fossil-fuel nonscience is far commoner on the Internet than scientifically credible climate realism.

AI-sourced "argument" is effectively an argumentum ad populorum fallacy.

That is why your point is meaningless.

 

Your comment does not offer a counter argument to point raised.

I won't repeat this comment. Please contribute to the debate, offer something to refute the point or points raised, or add to it.

Comments that do not rise above a mere 'you are wrong', which is essentially what you wrote, are not arguments because they do not forward the discourse,. they lack elaboration, robustness, sources, etc.

Remember, the point raised was 'all that matters is the argument'. You've not countered, nor contributed, to that point.

Please offer something more substantive. Thank you.

 

In a debate forum, all that matters is the argument.

If you have a dispute with the OP, state your case, give your examples if any, source your back up links, if you have them.

The more the merrier.

You have made a vacuous claim, which is to say, an unsubstantiated claim.

That 'all that matters is the argument' is self evident.

Can we agree on what an argument is?

To me, it is a well stated, well thought out, opinion/path of reasoning based on solid logic, and hopefully it's based on either well known and stated examples and/or can be substantiated with hard data, facts, consensus among credible persons, and the like. It is rare that an argument cannot be challenged but that's the whole point, to debate.

Now, do you, or do you not, have issues with the OP you'd care to discuss, debate, etc.?

If so, let's see what you got.

Now, please, let's contribute to the topic under discussion.

 

"'~ According to " government experts " , the way our climate changes here in California we should all be dead by now ... !!

Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

~ Thank you .

 

That's just nonsense. You have not offered an argument. That's my point.

 

Give the a guy a break, AI is the next best thing to MSM and leagues above what he must think he can come up with

 

Pursuant to my 495 since I couldn't get the edit done in time.
The thread is about the topic of Climate change in general and CO2 in particular. The evidence which is the data we have currently available does not merely suggest that current increases in CO2 have had no impact on the weather it almost literally screams it. The increase in CO2 in since the early when the alarmists first began to scream in essence that we were all going to die if we didn't bow down and worship at the altar of ever more intrusive government, is a paltry 3 parts per million. At that rate we will be hard pressed to break 450 parts per million by the end of the century. Not only that major storms aren't cooperating with the predictors of climate catastrophe. They have been fewer and weaker over the last few decades especially so for those that make land fall. In short most of the pro alarmist arguments are telling us to ignore actual data and support the alarmist narrative.

 

Your point is a cop out.

Please offer a counter argument to points raised.