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 following:
* No Problem
* No Harm
* Wait and See (we don't have enough proof, so let's wait and see if something changes - this argument is made quite often by AGW proponents, and is even referenced in the deck of cards)
* Stifles Innovation (pushing money into clean energy stifles non-clean energy innovation - this claim was made with regards to California Proposition 23)
* Already Highly Regulated (made by auto companies and oil companies)
* Jobs (hello prop 23 proponents again)
* Red Herring (claims of Neptune's warming is a red herring)
* Federal Issue (AGW-funding companies claim that California's tougher emission standards are illegal)
* Duh! (AGW proponents saying that they understand the science better than the scientists who are writing the papers, even claiming that the few papers that they have read make them better experts than people who have been studying the issues for decades)
* Nit Pick (this is what you are doing, right now)
* Muddy the Waters (and again with prop 23)
* Poison the Well (this is also what you are doing, right now)
* Exploit Others' Ignorance (hello prop 23 again)
* Temper Tantrum (this is what targets of the bot do when chatted into a corner)
* You're a Ninny (you are doing this)
* Big Government (any regulation is big government)
* We'll Lose Money (hey, back to prop 23 again)
[1] Actually having examined the evidence at Nasa, from climate scientists, etc., to the best of my ability (I'm not a climate scientist, I am a applied theoretical computer scientist with experience in distributed systems, search, and simulation), the evidence supporting global warming is orders of magnitude more compelling to me than the lack of evidence offered by AGW proponents. Others with differing experience and expertise are welcome to disagree with my judgement of who to believe, as you have. And a healthy dose of skepticism is great for science. But the behavior of AGW proponents is not skepticism, it's denialism.
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.
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 following: * No Problem * No Harm * Wait and See (we don't have enough proof, so let's wait and see if something changes - this argument is made quite often by AGW proponents, and is even referenced in the deck of cards) * Stifles Innovation (pushing money into clean energy stifles non-clean energy innovation - this claim was made with regards to California Proposition 23) * Already Highly Regulated (made by auto companies and oil companies) * Jobs (hello prop 23 proponents again) * Red Herring (claims of Neptune's warming is a red herring) * Federal Issue (AGW-funding companies claim that California's tougher emission standards are illegal) * Duh! (AGW proponents saying that they understand the science better than the scientists who are writing the papers, even claiming that the few papers that they have read make them better experts than people who have been studying the issues for decades) * Nit Pick (this is what you are doing, right now) * Muddy the Waters (and again with prop 23) * Poison the Well (this is also what you are doing, right now) * Exploit Others' Ignorance (hello prop 23 again) * Temper Tantrum (this is what targets of the bot do when chatted into a corner) * You're a Ninny (you are doing this) * Big Government (any regulation is big government) * We'll Lose Money (hey, back to prop 23 again)
[1] Actually having examined the evidence at Nasa, from climate scientists, etc., to the best of my ability (I'm not a climate scientist, I am a applied theoretical computer scientist with experience in distributed systems, search, and simulation), the evidence supporting global warming is orders of magnitude more compelling to me than the lack of evidence offered by AGW proponents. Others with differing experience and expertise are welcome to disagree with my judgement of who to believe, as you have. And a healthy dose of skepticism is great for science. But the behavior of AGW proponents is not skepticism, it's denialism.
Regards.