Not really. I love Oblivion. I just didn't like Fallout. It seemed too repetitive. Personal opinion and nothing else.Demut said:Vilge just can’t cope with the amount of freedom he is given there, eh ;D ?
Not really. I love Oblivion. I just didn't like Fallout. It seemed too repetitive. Personal opinion and nothing else.Demut said:Vilge just can’t cope with the amount of freedom he is given there, eh ;D ?
In general it expresses amusement. So I guess disagreement.DanConnors said:Lulz? Meaning agreement or disagreement?
Well, there is something we have in common. Though I’m not sure whether I’ll use the AMR this time. Right now I’ve got the regular .308 sniper (not hunting) rifle with carbon parts and a silencer. Also, it’s kebab not kebob ;3DanConnors said:I prefer decapitating a deathclaw at 500 yards with my .50 caliber sniper rifle.
When I played Gears of War, I killed more enemies with my chainsaw than bullets. Lets just say I like melle butchery better.As for why I do not like Fallout, it's concept is a weak copy of Oblivion, and overall, it's an overkill.Demut said:In general it expresses amusement. So I guess disagreement.Demut said:Lulz? Meaning agreement or disagreement?Well, there is something we have in common. Though I’m not sure whether I’ll use the AMR this time. Right now I’ve got the regular .308 sniper (not hunting) rifle with carbon parts and a silencer. Also, it’s kebab not kebob ;3Demut said:I prefer decapitating a deathclaw at 500 yards with my .50 caliber sniper rifle.
Actually it does. Or at least it does if you skilled the way I did and used all modifications. Oh and of course you gotta sneak.DanConnors said:The .308 sniper rifle is good, but it just doesn't have the stopping power to nail a deathclaw with one shot.
Forced to? Well, in any case, now you can probably forget about getting power armor. I think that if you don’t get on their good side (giving them ED-E and all that) you won’t be taught how to use it.DanConnors said:One disappointment with New Vegas is I can't use power armor yet, and I'm at level 26. I was forced to wipe out the only Brotherhood of Steel encampment I've found so far, so I may have to be satisfied without it.
Yay, layman science.See, my main problem with this kind of conspiracy theory is that they dismiss the evidence at hand. Or worse, corrupting it. I mean do you really think that “Greenpeace, Sierra Club, third worlders” have some kind of monopoly on scientific studies? Do you believe that all those scientists secretly agreed upon the same thesis? Or that every single one of them was bribed by the respective governments?But alright, let’s do this from the very beginning. What do you believe is the cause of global warming if not an anthropogenous one? Or do you even deny the claim that the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere increased recently?edit: In hindsight, let’s address your argument concerning exhalation in detail so we have at least one thing off our list:• There is a natural, closed cycle in the atmosphere: the carbon cycle. Huge amounts of CO2 are exhaled for example by animals (including us) and processed by plants or released by rotting vegetation in autumn and absorbed in spring. So normally the amount of CO2 would be constant if not for extraordinary events. Since the latest ice age the CO2 concentration was relatively constant around 280ppm for millennia.• Certain events can throw this stable cycle off balance. During the ice ages of the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration declined to ca. 180ppm just to increase in the warm stage to 280 to 300ppm at max. So even during the ice ages the carbon cycle leveled out, just on a generally lower niveau.• Since the industrial revolution mankind increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even though they only account for a fraction in comparison to the whole carbon cycle. But imagine a tub in which 100 liters pour in each hour and the same amount drains off. When even a small interference makes it so that 101 liters pour in but the outlet is only increased by 0,5 liters than the tub runs over eventually. Of course the atmosphere can’t “run over” but the concentration of greenhouse gases increases nevertheless. This is why the overall increase of over 380ppm today can only be caused by humanity.DanConnors said:I sat down with a cheap calculator some months ago and tossed in some real numbers. The results were interesting.
1. Unfortunately "scientific data" is always biased to whoever funds the research.2. Rise in global temperature , and their consequent stabilization has occurred in the past. Many times, in fact. It occurs in cycles, and there is no evidence yet to suggest this one is any different.The last time it happened, humans were still living in caves. I presume they did not cause "global warming" at that point by cooking at fireplaces.Demut said:Do you believe that all those scientists secretly agreed upon the same thesis?Or do you even deny the claim that the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere increased recently?
or fartingVilgefortze said:...I presume they did not cause "global warming" at that point by cooking at fireplaces.
So what? My question still stands. Do you believe that all those scientists were bribed? You do know that there are also independent research institutes who support this, right?Vilgefortze said:1. Unfortunately "scientific data" is always biased to whoever funds the research.
People CUT DOWN the vegetation. Also, until you provide me the link that says old growth forests are inefficient, I will disregard your statement. If I remember correctly, old trees store a lot of stuff inside themselves, hence they're more effective.The natural response of the Earth to rising levels of CO2 is an increase of vegetation to handle it. By that I DON'T mean old growth forests; they are extremely inefficient compared to, say, a fast growing wheat field or a forest of pines meant for lumber.
AgreedContrary to general belief the Earth's poles do not point in the same direction perpetually. The Earth wobbles on its axis, one complete wobble over a period of 50 to 60 thousand years. The northern hemisphere now is closer to the sun during winter than it is during summer--over a million miles closer. Twenty-five thousand years ago exactly the opposite was the case, and the northern polar icecap was much larger than Antarctica's.
Agreed. The ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle. The whole point of the Global Warming is to say that this time it isn't occurring naturally. The reason why I support the theory, is that it is better to have "insurance", than it is not.The cause of the wobble is conjectural, but the consensus is that it was caused by a large, relatively recent, impact of a comet or asteroid. The impact caused a mass extinction of species worldwide, and ushered in the beginning of ice ages. The point here is that ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle that's been going on for millions of years.
It's actually scientific name is Global Climate Change, not Global Warming. That means we should measure not the amount of rainfall, but amount of global imbalances. Before you tell me that there are less imbalances too, please give me a link to where you got it from. The only stupid thing about Global Warming, is that experts officially say that at the end of the century the will be from 0.1 to 100 more inches of rainfall.As for the theoretical rise in temperature, there are some indicators that should have been seen but haven't. For instance a general rise in the amount of rain fall should take place. Higher temperatures evaporate more water. More rainfall should cause the Earth's desert areas to shrink, which they haven't. As I pointed out Florida shows no signs of submerging under a rising sea brought on by Antarctic ice melting.
I'm interested, just what news sources do you read. It's not a criticism, it's just that Economist frequently talks about the need to build new nuclear power plants. Also, the greens (tree hugger is not polite) response is more psychological, and it is changing. When you say the opposite is true, could you please explain it? Were there any recent campaign against nuclear reactors?I just want to highlight one logical aspect of your arguments.You say that global warming theory was created by a bunch of scientists/bureaucrats/politicians (I don't care). People unfortunately believed them, and so you're highlighting some illogical actions by them, to show that global warming doesn't exist. Now you're saying even normal people are against nuclear reactors. Either you're saying that everyone (politicians AND normal people) are faking, or there is obviously different reasons for them not to support nuclear powerplants buildings.Finally, if there actually is an acute, dangerous, rise in temperature worldwide, there should be a massive move underway to replace chemical fuel powerplants with nuclear reactors (which release no greenhouse gasses). There isn't; quite the opposite in fact. Mention nuke power to a tree hugger, and he will promptly have an attack of apoplexy. I wonder what your opinion of nuclear reactors is Mr. Demut?
Netopier said:Netopier said:People CUT DOWN the vegetation. Also, until you provide me the link that says old growth forests are inefficient, I will disregard your statement. If I remember correctly, old trees store a lot of stuff inside themselves, hence they're more effective.The natural response of the Earth to rising levels of CO2 is an increase of vegetation to handle it. By that I DON'T mean old growth forests; they are extremely inefficient compared to, say, a fast growing wheat field or a forest of pines meant for lumber.AgreedContrary to general belief the Earth's poles do not point in the same direction perpetually. The Earth wobbles on its axis, one complete wobble over a period of 50 to 60 thousand years. The northern hemisphere now is closer to the sun during winter than it is during summer--over a million miles closer. Twenty-five thousand years ago exactly the opposite was the case, and the northern polar icecap was much larger than Antarctica's.Agreed. The ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle. The whole point of the Global Warming is to say that this time it isn't occurring naturally. The reason why I support the theory, is that it is better to have "insurance", than it is not.The cause of the wobble is conjectural, but the consensus is that it was caused by a large, relatively recent, impact of a comet or asteroid. The impact caused a mass extinction of species worldwide, and ushered in the beginning of ice ages. The point here is that ice ages are a naturally occurring cycle that's been going on for millions of years.It's actually scientific name is Global Climate Change, not Global Warming. That means we should measure not the amount of rainfall, but amount of global imbalances. Before you tell me that there are less imbalances too, please give me a link to where you got it from. The only stupid thing about Global Warming, is that experts officially say that at the end of the century the will be from 0.1 to 100 more inches of rainfall.As for the theoretical rise in temperature, there are some indicators that should have been seen but haven't. For instance a general rise in the amount of rain fall should take place. Higher temperatures evaporate more water. More rainfall should cause the Earth's desert areas to shrink, which they haven't. As I pointed out Florida shows no signs of submerging under a rising sea brought on by Antarctic ice melting.I'm interested, just what news sources do you read. It's not a criticism, it's just that Economist frequently talks about the need to build new nuclear power plants. Also, the greens (tree hugger is not polite) response is more psychological, and it is changing. When you say the opposite is true, could you please explain it? Were there any recent campaign against nuclear reactors?Finally, if there actually is an acute, dangerous, rise in temperature worldwide, there should be a massive move underway to replace chemical fuel powerplants with nuclear reactors (which release no greenhouse gasses). There isn't; quite the opposite in fact. Mention nuke power to a tree hugger, and he will promptly have an attack of apoplexy. I wonder what your opinion of nuclear reactors is Mr. Demut?
Amen.Vilgefortze said:However, this is offtopic, and it's better if we continue this in the Community section.