Ekko_Tek

If the DLC for Fallen Enchantress: LH is selling insanely well then doesn't that mean FE/LH is the current recognized/desirable brand? Elemental as a brand name would best be abandoned entirely then imo and stick with FE as a brand. Re-introducing Elemental in the name of anything at this point would only create more confusion and bring nothing positive with it.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="854" id="3407109"]Photosynthesis converts vast quantities of solar energy into wood and other plant material. It's why forests reduce warming, and part of why cities create urban heat zones. They like to pretend it's the negligible impact of CO2 that creates the warming, but trees convert far more energy than the CO2 they consume would have kept around. It's inconsequential by comparison.[/quote] In photosynthesis a plant consumes about 3-

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="843" id="3407007"] Quoting flagyl, reply 817Ok...please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Feynman that shows he states the AGW is false. Now that would not be scientific, now would it? Scientists do not go around saying things are absolutely anything. They offer conjecture and data to support a hypothesis. Since there is no proof that AGW is false, only a politician would make such a stupid claim. Feynman merely states that the dat

[quote who="psychoak" reply="839" id="3406960"]You can still fall back on the myth that less energy leaving the planet than goes in somehow proves global warming. Never mind that the whole concept of photosynthesis is to convert solar energy into plant life. Oops.[/quote] It's not clear what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say you think photosynthesis proves global warming is a myth?

[quote who="psychoak" reply="832" id="3406411"]Largely unmonitored. As in we know fuck all about that which we speak of.[/quote] Speak for yourself... Unmonitored until the 2000s?? The latest IPCC report is most confident in data collected between 1971-2010. "Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated

[quote who="psychoak" reply="830" id="3406377"]The skeptics are just people that looked and came back with a WTF.[/quote] Because they misunderstood what they were looking at and thought it was much simpler than it actually was and had an agenda driven cherry pick and took things out of context. As I said, Dunning Kruger Effect in effect. For example: [quote who="psychoak" reply="830" id="3406377"]followed by a decline[/quote] A plateau in increased surface tem

[quote who="flagyl" reply="817" id="3406195"]Ok...please show me a DIRECT QUOTE from Feynman that shows he states the AGW is false. I have been searching for twenty minutes and I have found nothing.[/quote] Considering RF was a theoretical physicist who died the year the IPCC was created, it's unlikely he had much to say on AGW.

Climate models and IPCC predictions are actually quite accurate. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf <a href="http://www.skepticalscience

Flagyl I appreciate your efforts but you're honestly wasting your time at this point. Dunning-Kruger rules the day here...

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="798" id="3405788"] On the other hand, warmer temperatures are good for the economy. http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/an-unbiased-economic-scorecard-shows.html [/quote] It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom necessarily. Opening up the Arctic could be interesting... However, your linked scorecard does say: "After year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action." &nb

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="792" id="3405709"] Quoting Ekko_Tek, reply 787 Quoting Frogboy, reply 785Even in this thread, it's been asked several times: How much? What % impact are we having? The IPCC report covers this. I've already posted about it as well a few pages back. So for the record: Give us a %. How much? [/quote] From my post #657 Your question is an important one and yes, of course

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="785" id="3405679"]Even in this thread, it's been asked several times: How much? What % impact are we having?[/quote] The IPCC report covers this. I've already posted about it as well a few pages back. Re: Peer Review To add to what flagyl already covered, yes, crap journals exist that are peer reviewed too. That's why many other factors are involved in order to guage the quality of the science and the quality of the journal. Flag

[quote who="ZombiesRus5" reply="781" id="3405513"] Quoting Ekko_Tek, reply 778Essentially, people will actually change their view of facts/data/reality once it is presented in a political/ideological context. Where the facts/data were seen clearly and accurately before, once the lens of ideology is applied, they change their opinion. The study shows that emotion and ideology have a much more powerful hold over people compared to objective data/facts. Political views distort the truth so

I've actually learned a lot over the course of this thread. I was initially kind of surprised so many people here doubted AGW - but I guess that was my own preconceptions. Many of the comments over the course of 30 pages reinforced the fact that for many people, quality of science and quality of information does not matter when it comes to matters that have a political, ideological, or religious aspect. There is actually a recent study that looked at this: <a href="http://papers

More on who Tim Ball is: http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel QFT: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just endured an unprecedented process of vetting and peer-review to produce a document, the veracity of which has been d

[quote who="myfist0" reply="766" id="3405352"] Quoting flagyl, reply 764because NO ONE CREDIBLE IS DISPUTING THEIR DATA. How about an actual 'climate scientist' So prefaced, is the website of Dr. Tim Ball, retired professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, who joins us for an in-depth interview on the history of the politicisation of Climate Science. From the genius of Maurice Strong and the machinations of the IPCC, to

It's exactly the same with people who deny evolution. They will focus on some little data subset, misunderstand the science, and inflate it into some kind of imaginary rebuttal of the theory of evolution as a whole. Or repeat crank blog post of same. I don't think in the case of global warming it's "if you're not a climate scientist then stfu" but I do think it helps to have an understanding of the scientific method and of peer review and of research in general. Otherwise you

[quote who="myfist0" reply="743" id="3404777"] Quoting Ekko_Tek, reply 739If the Corbett Report and Alex Jones are where you get your daily dose of "reality", we might as well be on different planets. You are the only one that mentioned Alex Jones, and to me, that is the same old weak sauce tactic to take away any relevance to facts you refuse to look at, and I doubt you even looked at the video. Any buffoon can argue like that. EXACTY what facts did Jame put

If the Corbett Report and Alex Jones are where you get your daily dose of "reality", we might as well be on different planets. Cognitive dissonance when being confronted with evidence does make people do strange contortions in their efforts to maintain their belief system though. And yes, I will side with the evidence summarized from the IPCC report rather than some cool story about trawling through raw data from the weather in Muskogee some month. This is why I also don't

[quote who="psychoak" reply="735" id="3404512"]There are a great many gaps between their claims and what we know to be true. Many of them have already been gone over in this thread. They discount or under-represent a great deal of warming caused by solar output, they falsified the temperature record to create our largely mythical industrial temperature rise, and they radically over-represent what is a minor, and already saturated greenhouse gas. It's an agenda, nothing more.[/quote]

Gammit10, did you hear the one about the guy who stumbled into a 30 page long thread without reading any of it? ;)

[quote who="Kantok" reply="724" id="3404441"]No one has said GW doesn't exist. We have said we're not convinced that humans are the major cause behind it. Big difference.[/quote] I doubt you have actually read the evidence for it then. [quote who="Kantok" reply="724" id="3404441"]Either AGW is a pull-out-all-the-stops problem that we need to solve ASAP or its not. If it is then nuclear is far and away your best option, but for some reason AGW proponents never wan

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="654" id="3403473"] Quoting sjaminei, reply 653 Quoting Frogboy, reply 651 How does this contradict what I wrote? What % of current global warming is attributed to human activity? What does that actually matter? Global warming is attributed to human activity, and the scientific consensus is decided. If you want to argue against it, get some sources out. What does it matter? Jesus Christ. Befo

[quote who="psychoak" reply="646" id="3403434"] While it's true that comparing a place with a population more on the scale of a city to the US isn't a good idea, you should primarily look at the economies of the countries who's healthcare models you're so proud of. Norway is an excellent example of socialized medicine. A fantastic standard of living, loads of money. They're on the extreme end of socialist as well, people list

@Zombie The oceans absorb around 90% of the heat in our planetary system. This is increased heat that is occurring - not "should have occurred". Predicting future effects with models and what the consequences could be and what should be done about it are all different topics to me. The only thing I'm trying to clarify is that global warming is occurring due to our activity - that is what the mountain of evidence and data shows - and that the effects can already be seen in certain