taks

i said he did not understand logic, which he does not. his argument was nothing but logical fallacy. that you choose not to understand is no surprise. um, i was merely responding to mkreku's lack of understanding of logic, something i've seen over and over for the past several years. there was no particular reference to that specific comment, which was quoted only because i replied to his comment. that particular statement, actually, the one you "specifically quoted" was two logical fallacies in one to boot. "i love it when taks gets going on his right wing nonsense" argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association. duh. no, mkreku is a proven dolt. i like to pick on him, i admit, but nowhere has he made a single logical argument. hate to tell you but a circular argument is a logical fallacy. i'll spare you for being not only ignorant but an ass as well. also, if you read carefully, i did not say that a circular argument is a tautology, i said that what withteeth was referring to was a circular argument OR a tautology, though they are related. you understand what a tautology is, yet not grammar. good deal. given that you failed to understand either point, or why i was criticizing mkreku's logical debate ability, i'm not surprised. taks

oh, my, gawd. yet another. ok, he said i'm wrong because i'm right wing. poisoning the well. of course, i've lobbed some insults myself (though i never said he was wrong because he's an idiot, just an idiot), so i can give him a pass on the ad-hominem. however, it is also a red-herring since my political views, views that he apparently does not understand, are immaterial to the discussion. he also said "why don't you prove CO2 is NOT the cause." that's what is called a strawman. i never said CO2 had NO impact, merely that it is not the primary impact. the hypothesis i'm attempting to falsify is that CO2 is the primary forcer, period. moving the goalposts to what amounts to proving a negative (as trueneutral correctly points out) is a strawman, period. he also makes an appeal to consequences, i.e. "what if we're wrong?" that's 4 but i credit him on 1 so only 3. oops, this actually counts as two because it is also an appeal to fear, yet another red herring, so that's 4. oh yeah, "prove that CO2 is not the cause" is also an argument ad ignorantium, and argument from ignorance. plus one more, makes 5. i could also call this a bifurcation, the black and white fallacy, because it's not as simple as CO2 is or is not a cause of global warming. certainly it has some impact, so it is not "either all or nothing." but i'll leave that be since it is subtle. the fact that folks like mkreku and others believe in consensus is an appeal to the many, i.e. the bandwagon fallacy. up to 6. i've gotten through C, shall i continue, or are you convinced of your own ignorance yet? um, do you know what a tautology is? "A truth-functionally compound proposition which is true for every possible combination of truth-values of its components." not sure how you can get a tautology out of anything here, and i've clearly exposed his logical failures. yours included. thanks for trying, however. it wasn't all that fun since you guys are so easy to pick apart. taks

That is my view as well. that's actually _mostly_ my view as well. i understand complex feedback systems well enough, however, to know that there's no such thing as the tipping point the alarmists are warning of, at least not given the current state of affairs on the earth. if our steady increase in CO2 was dangerous, temperatures would be climbing exponentially due to the instability of the system (there's no way for me to explain to you why that is... GD might recall from his control theory classwork, however - put a pole in the right half of the s-plane GD, hehe). the "exaggeration" is there, and our presence is impacting the general climate. las vegas and phoenix both generate their own weather, btw (if you want a link mkreku, just visit the freaking place or ask someone that has), and cities are most certainly warmer than surrounding lands due to the massive amounts of concrete in them, which holds heat. but CO2, sitting at 380 ppmv, which is 0.038% of the atmosphere by particle (about 0.03% by mass as i recall), is not impacting anything significantly. oh, btw, check the latest satellite data for a laugh. the global temp has shown a slight declining trend since 1998. taks

i think we all know the obvious exception. btw, that's pretty strong evidence that the sun is the major player. certainly CO2 and other gasses play a part, but very minimal. the fact that temperature historically increases before CO2 certainly is strong evidence that the whole concept of cause-effect is reversed from what folks like mkreku want to believe. mkreku's entire argument is, as trueneutral pointed out, "taks is right wing and disagrees with me politically therefore he must be wrong." of course, he made a few points that were worth pointing out so i'll respond in kind. first of all, nearly everything i stated is either public knowledge or readily available on the wiki. to expect somebody to fill their post is a cop-out when you don't have an argument. mkreku doesn't, which is evidenced by his hypocrisy of lambasting me repeatedly for not posting links, yet failing to do the same until the very end of his post. indeed, not one of his arguments actually addressed anything i said directly, and only used some fallacious arguments in his defense. next, i find it humorous that mkreku has the nerve to question my education when he has none, or very litter. kyrsten byrnes, i high school student, has enough education to understand why nearly every statement al gore made is incorrect, yet here you need references to the UK decision that there are 9 major inaccuracies? a high school student has a better grasp on science than mkreku and he is arrogant enough to question another's education? laughable. also, regarding this moronic statement: first, i'd like to find a region of "right wing" that includes atheistic, pro-choice, dead-heads that are against the death penalty because clearly YOUR ideology is lacking in something... oh yeah, intelligence. anyway, my understanding of numbers is quite apparent to most other than yourself. certainly correlation is not causation, but al gore sells it as such in his movie. this is one of his biggest points. he puts up a graph and says that every time CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. he's correct, it does. however, what he fails to mention, which is one of the 9 points ruled on by the UK courts, is that temperature ALWAYS rises first. your statement that we don't have enough knowledge to make a reliable analysis fails on two points. first, YOU are making an assumption that CO2 is causing warming yet you sit here and say we don't have enough information. second, correlation does indeed imply at least some causation, like it or not. that the correlation exists over six hundred and fifty thousand freaking years is clear evidence that there is a cause-effect relationship. unfortunately for the activist world, since temperature precedes CO2 rise, that means temperature is the cause, not the effect. oops. uh, TRILLIONS of dollars, not just "some money." what if you're wrong and we wreck the economy? what then. you think socialism is gonna bail your dumb ass out then? get a clue. btw, we know what happens when the world is warmer: there are more species, more crops, more life in general. we've got hundreds of millions of years of evidence to support that. as for all your responses to "many scientists," besides the obvious mcintyre and mckittrick, roger pielke sr., richard lindzen, timothy ball and a host of other well-known names, there are the 19,000 people that signed this petition. don't get me wrong, this does not make their view correct in any way. however, it does support my statements that a lot of scientists disagree. once i have my phd (yeah, mkreku, it is from a real school and quite a well known adviser, but you're just jealous that you aren't smart enough, right?), i'll be on that list. not necessarily. as noted, each planet is different. each has different mass, different albedo (sort of the reflection coefficient of sorts), different atmosphere. they will each be impacted in a drastically different manner from an input change. the one thing they all have in common, besides increasing temperatures, is the fact that their primary energy source is the sun. btw, the solar irradiance is not only limited to visible light, and heat (infrared). and the solar influence correlates much better with temperature than CO2 does. we all know that CO2 has risen fairly steadily since the early 1900s, yet somehow, the global temperature went DOWN (check GISS if you're so concerned einstein) from the mid 30s to the mid 70s. if CO2 is the cause, why the hell did temperature go down? oh, i know, because that's the only thing that fits your simple view of the world. taks

um, not sure where you have been but ozone depletion has nothing to do with GW. in fact, not only is it unconnected, but it is not related to man-made activities, either. in spite of the elimination of CFCs from the world marketplace, the "hole" continues to wax and wane as it always has. sorry man, but you missed the boat yet again. first of all, consensus is meaningless. get that into your head. second of all, the "consensus" is manufactured by the media and the activists pushing for such things. it is true the planet is warming, but i also dare anyone to provide direct evidence that CO2 is causing it. this is a no-brainer. hint: i wouldn't consult the likes of mkreku for help. why do you people really think that what gets printed in the news MUST be correct? are you that blind? taks

it's been a half hour and no response? maybe it's simply because you haven't visited (mkreku), or maybe, just maybe, because you really don't have a clue. what's funny is your ONLY argument is that a) i have my opinion because i'm "right wing" and therefore i must be wrong and b) i don't think socialism can work and therefore i'm extra wrong. the sad part is that you really think these things matter (albeit both of your assertions are incorrect, duh). we have met yrkoon's match. taks

i'll issue a challenge to any of you wanna be scientists that haven't ever had a lick of statistical signal processing, or even any advanced statistics or mathematics courses: explain how CO2 is warming the planet when the 650,000 year record that gore touts as "evidence" clearly shows that temperature ALWAYS rises before CO2 content rises? if you can actually explain this idea, keeping in mind what is known as the principle of causality, heck, why not mention the principle of causality in your "proof," i'll concede. taks

no, i'm sorry, that is not true. there is no evidence to support this. simply showing the planet is warming is nonsense. it does this all the time. it also cools all the time. harken back to a little thing called the maunder minimum and you'll see what happens when things cool off. the thrust of the film is completely baseless. if all of his scientific "facts" are in fact wrong, how can any of his conclusions be even close to correct? really, does ANYONE UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD??? no mkreku, you don't. why don't you try to show us the side view of antarctica and claim it is warming again... taks

i'm curious how your simple mind can come to the conclusion that this has anything to do with "right wing"??? what i have that you don't is extensive training in statistics, statistical data analysis methods and above all, i understand logic. something that apparently fails you. um, the US is 1/3 the entire global economy you dolt. all socialist economies WILL crumble, and the evidence has already shown that nearly all have. god you're an imbecile. taks

that's absolutely untrue. most scientists believe only one thing about GW: the planet has warmed. in fact, most also acknowledge that it has been flat, with a slight down-trend over the course of the last decade. the whole "consensus" idea is a myth. scientists get signed on to the "consensus" simply by agreeing to one single point, and suddenly "they're in." i can't recall when consensus actually meant anything anyway. it is largely a media and activist ploy to lend credence to an idea that is otherwise unpalatable. funny, but not many of the skeptics are businessmen. many scientists, and the number is growing, disagree with most of the hypothesis for one simple reason: a lack of evidence other than things have warmed a bit. i'm just an amateur that knows how to analyze data. it's got nothing to do with profits, though i must admit i'm very leery of the people of the US being hit with a tax bill that covers india and china's so-called "green" transgressions. utter nonsense, and any one else in the world that pays taxes should be outraged as well. taks

it ended up just my dude, F12/WM7, with my other two compatriots taking a dirt nap. i had about half the critters left, 10 heal potions, a half a pack of cigarettes, it was dark and i was wearing sun glasses. i got busy running from the two things that could hurt me, killed off the spellcaster types (they had a seemingly endless supply of something that did 30-40 per shot), then notification came that it was "time" to do the final deed, which went over quickly. i decided to restart and actually get a few companions in tow next time. there's at least two side-quests plus the one dude i got... taks

and whatever you do, don't publish any threats towards any government officials (particularly the president) or the secret service. they take all of those seriously, even if it is obvious they are meant in jest. taks

it is advisable to hold off on the event that ends act I until you actually recruit more than just one guy. ooooooof! taks

yes, that's the idea, but it has no basis in science. every time you hear someone spouting about "increased precipitation" or "more storms," it is almost always in an anecdotal context. the activists have positioned themselves in such a way that no matter what weather happens, it is due to global warming. it's a joke and anyone with a serious scientific background of any kind can see through the charade. sadly, the general population listens to the likes of gore. most definitely. what would russia give to have a longer growing season? taks

none of which has any basis in the reality of what happens when the planet warms. these are highly exaggerated claims coming from a few highly motivated pseudo-scientists pushing an obvious agenda. poverty is probably the key here, and limiting the ability to generate CO2, at least during our lifetimes, will only mean increased poverty. taks edit: i should add, ultimately we will need to either a) develop fusion technology or b) come to grips with the fact that nuclear energy is really safer for the people, as well as the planet and we should adopt it as the defacto source of energy. "a" is unlikely. "b" could happen quite quickly (other than for transportation) if the damned activists would get off that hobby-horse as well. we will run out of fossil-fuels looooong before they can do any irreparable harm, and we will run out of them regardless of what measures are taken to curb their use today (which would inevitably only delay whatever impending doom the doom-mongers are wishing upon us).

warmer does not equate to "harsher." indeed, more species flourish in warmer, rather than cooler, temperature climes. there are orders of magnitudes of more deaths every year related to colder temperatures rather than warmer. if anything, a warmer planet would be a benefit, not a detriment. this is nothing more than a myth perpetuated by the green activists, gore included. taks

11, actually, but some reports are now saying 9. which was utter nonsense. gore's key claim was the chart showing CO2 and temp with the mention that "see, every time CO2 rises, so does temperature." the fact that temp rises first, the obvious error, typically by 800 years, often as many as 2000, changes the entire thrust of his film from scientific to science fiction, just on that one point alone. yassir arafat is another winner of the "prestigious" nobel peace prize. ya got an activist organization awarding yet another activist an award... hardly a surprise. taks

the warpriest aura thing does the same, and yes, it is annoying. PATCH IT OUT OF THE GAME! i'm going to start over and actually work my way through act I rather than jump right to the... event. man that was tough. gonna be a F13/WM7 when i restart. taks

i was, but i need to start over. i think i did the fastest act I in history. big mistake. i'm going to actually attempt to recruit a few folks next time, i.e., i'll complete the side-quests! taks

yeah, but tim offers sheets of corroded copper and a bell without a ringer, albeit with some nice hats. you could try to ring that bell with a hammer only to find it isn't even a bell, but a pile 'o crap. taks

i agree. it should be possible to make the game challenging, while providing sufficient loot, without scaling _everything_ appropriately. rasheman should be no different than athkatla, save a general population used to some fighting, i.e., i'd expect the thugs to be a little tougher due to the circumstances surrounding the city (much more war-like than athkatla), but not the same level as i am. they should all be equally poor, however, as everywhere else. leaving 4k in gold in a dirt pile seems excessive. so far, this is my only complaint. i quite like the game. quite a lot. of course, my winders box decided to reboot on me when i was working with the barbarian troupe. i heard it happening, actually - the computer always makes a different sound when winders is attempting to shut down. normally it won't shut down if something is running, but apparently winders did not care about NWN2 and did it anyway. grrr. taks

nope, he got yoshi's island, and i got MotB... installation happiness underway! oh, i got the last copy. the guy seemed surprised and noted "huh, i guess they're really selling quick." taks

that settles it... i'm stopping at GameStop tonight. of course, since i'm watching the squirt tonight that means he's coming with me, and i'll be forced to buy him a DS game as well (the 4-year old is nearly finished with super mario). taks

yeah, so far i think the reigning opinion is that 8600 SLI is a waste of money, with performance less than the cheaper single slot 8800 solution. maybe you could start with ONE of the 8800s and then, when affordable, buy the second? taks

Shipping on the 9th seems to be the case in this instance. Which would explain why it didn't get released early like Europe. the bastards! yes, my son and i went in to gamestop after i picked him up from school, but alas, we left without the goods. he then berated me for not getting him a DS game, of course. taks