Krazikarl

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="482" id="3402441"]"Huge"? None of the food production and energy production that we enjoy today can be traced to government funding unless you bend over backwards and try to argue that Agent Orange purchases from Monsanto somehow helped in the development of genetically modified food or something.[/quote] Have you ever even heard of the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Energy? Man, you are really just being silly here. I mean, I

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="482" id="3402441"]You are seriously going to try to claim that frakking, deep oil drilling, etc. or that GM foods and such were thanks to the government? Come on. Be serious. If you can't concede even a minor point like this how do you expect to have a discussion on something where the issues are more debatable?[/quote] You are profoundly ignorant here. We have an entire CABINENT LEVEL DEPARTMENT whose goal is to "end hunger in the United States

[quote who="Kantok" reply="471" id="3402321"]Randomness has nothing to do with it. Good job killing that straw man you built though. He's dead. [/quote] Randomness has everything to do with your primary concern - that the models don't good predictions over the short term, and therefore shouldn't be trusted over medium terms. I mean, you were claiming that the models are not trustworthy over 50 years, which is clearly a reasonable timescale.

[quote who="Kantok" reply="473" id="3402327"]All this for a theory that no one ever bothers to actually prove that humans are a significant contributor to the cause, that the problem is catastrophic and near term and that we can realistically do something about it. [/quote] Did you actually bother to read the MASSIVE IPCC report that everybody was talking about? It covers, in substantial detail, why humans are a massive contributor to the cause and why the problem is rea

[quote who="Kantok" reply="467" id="3402310"]Because any predictions about certain doom, or more realistically, the predictions about the effects of current actions on the world some point far into the future, inherently become less accurate the further in time you travel from the present moment. This is the very nature of science and probability. [/quote] This is actually incorrect when modeling a stochastic process like, say, the climate. If you are modeling a process

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="466" id="3402303"]No, what we don't like is having people telling other people what to do with the point of a gun. Energy and food production improvements didn't occur because the government mandated it. [/quote] Actually, those changes did happen, in part, because of the government. The government does thinks like mandating fuel standards for vehicles, or pollution standards for factories, which has had large effects on the energ

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="464" id="3402263"]Every generation has its "Cause" to worry about. History tends to make these causes seem absurd with the benefit of hindsight. Worse, many of these causes led to a great deal of evil being done in their name.[/quote] A lot of those major problems were only avoided with MASSIVE scientific and engineering efforts. For example, global food problems were addressed by huge efforts in genetics, which allowed us to grow more food more consi

I actually mostly ganked mid the most that game. I did the very early gank top (that got the ghost, passive, and kill to top), but after that I was going mid to try and make up for the fact that their mid started off with a first blood due to shenanigans.

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="396" id="3400299"]No, I am showing you that you are wrong. You stated that it was the vast majority of scientists. I am showing you it is not. And also backing up my statement with scientific data. That is how it is supposed to be done. I am sorry you think it is spam. It is actually educational for most people.[/quote] You are using the Chewbacca defense: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

[quote who="myfist0" reply="385" id="3399948"]And what astronomers with telescopes know about climate science? Not one article on GW.[/quote] Um what? Astronomers think about stuff like this all the time. Many astronomers study other planets, including their atmospheres. This includes questions like "Why did Venus experience a runaway Greenhouse effect (and therefore catastrophic global warming)?" and "Why is Mars's atmosphere so thin, but relatively abundant i

From what I can tell, he is spamming a bunch of links debunking a study that I never cited anywhere (the 97% thing). But since he can't deal with the argument that I am actually making (basically IPCC plus national academics of science and other organizations), he is moving the goalposts to the argument that he thinks he can actually debunk.

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="361" id="3399707"]Um, ever heard of the Oregon Petition? Over 31,000 is not "small percentage".[/quote] You mean the petition that was signed by "Britney Spears"..multiple times? The petition that was signed by multiple characters from Star Wars? The one that was signed by Charles Darwin? By members of the Spice Girls? By names like "I.C.Ewe"? Come on now. I point out that every major national academy of science ag

In fact, if you read the wikipedia (I know, I know) summary on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change You get this nice little (cited) summary: "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geolo

[quote who="psychoak" reply="353" id="3399675"] Karl, basically you're going over previously shredded points that have zero basis in fact, or are just purposefully misleading statements. The 97% support for AGW among scientists is a lie, pure and simple. A group took peer reviewed papers, discounted everything but the ones that picked a side, and among that fraction of a percent of the papers, they had 97% support for AGW. It's more along

And, from the big IPCC report: "Scientists are 90% sure that 1981-2010 was the warmest such span in the last eight centuries, and there's a 66% chance that it was the warmest 30-year period in the last 1,400 years. While the last 15 years have not warmed as quickly, we've seen steady warming over most of the globe, and we haven't seen a below-average temperature month since February 1985. <p class="cnn_storypgraphtx

Yeah, and I'd consider your objections to one very obscure method for measuring climate change to be cherry picking. Come on now. There are a huge number of different methods for measuring temperature changes. Let's not go over whether one use of one method may have been flawed. I'll give you a spoiler alert - at least one attempt to measure temperatures was flawed. But it doesn't invalidate the entire field.

[quote who="Kantok" reply="343" id="3399602"] Quoting Krazikarl, reply 342 EVERYBODY IS AGREEING THAT ITS HAPPENING AND THAT HUMANS ARE TO BLAME. No, they're not agreeing with that. Not at all. And the fact that AGW true believes keep insisting that everyone really agrees with them when in fact everyone doesn't is what makes this whole thing more akin to religion than science. Insisting, capitalizing, jumping up an

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="341" id="3399583"]Point 2: The models predicted the current warming lull[/quote] There is no lull as explicitly stated in your own link and as stated in my link. The "lull" mostly comes from people cherry picking data points to do REALLY shady short term data manipulation (for example, choosing certain 17 year time frames because you know the numbers will work out to give you a result that you want ahead of time). The rate of temperature increa

[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="340" id="3399582"] Quoting Krazikarl, reply 333As I showed in links about a few month ago (which you largely ignored because they were inconvenient to your argument), various models (from decades ago) based on our current theories of Climate Change have been successful in predicting current climate change. That would be a neat trick if you could reproduce it. However since the IPCC and everyone else has acknowledged that the models DO NO

Let's go to a neutral party in the debate: the insurance industry. After all, climate change is a massive deal to them, and they have to get it right or they lose many billions of dollars. And they overwhelmingly side with professional scientists: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/09/how-the-insurance-industry-is-dealing-with-climate-change/</

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="336" id="3399484"] I guess the absence of (predicted) warming for 2 decades is just one of those 'fine details'. So be it.[/quote] Yeah, go ahead and go back to my previous posts in this thread from a while back. You seem to have ignored them once again because they aren't convenient to your argument. You are good at this. I linked multiple well regarded scientific sources that indicated that there has been measurab

[quote who="Daiwa" reply="330" id="3399436"]You say AGW is the theory 'that makes the most sense with what we currently know' - If a theory fails to conform with or explain reality, and provides no reliable predictive capability, the theory is incorrect. The best polish I could put on AGW theory is that it's incomplete but I'm not sure that's really a fair description. The argument for me is not about GW/AGW it's about what is proposed to do about it - bett

[quote who="ZombiesRus5" reply="324" id="3399414"]Like the article states Mercury does NOT have an atmosphere. He should probably recheck his facts.[/quote] Meh, actual science generally isn't that cut and dried and is more about context. For all intents and purposes, Mercury doesn't really have an atmosphere. Anybody interested in what is generally called atmospheric science will usually say that Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere because what Mercury does hav

[quote who="Thundercles" reply="4227" id="3398222"]You guys went up against 5 Diamond players your first game and decided not to follow extremely basic Blue invasion defense protocol when you had a Mummy jungler. All the sadness that happened afterward could probably be traced back to no one watching the center river invasion route, and I feel any recriminations on Nades could have waited until the game was over. He probably could have blown his summoners just so he could die immediatel

This isn't just an in game problem. With the splitter, my entire connection is all messed up. Webpages load more slowly (sometimes barely at all), and I can't stream videos very smoothly (sometimes not at all). Without the splitter, everything is fine.