Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Mammon Cultist

Sissyl's page

8,780 posts (9,855 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*

Sissyl- Our large canine friend didn't say he got all that from independent research. Much of his post is describing what the scientific community would have to do avoid sources you call tainted or biased.

Sissyl, you have made 2 claims on this thread that are demonstrably wrong. One about the reasonable environmental record of awful regimes in the former USSR, China and Cuba. At least about the USSR this is not only mistaken but the opposite is true to an extraordinary degree. A little research will verify this.

And your claim Greenpeace organised the clubbing of seals so they can film it for propaganda purposes is just silly.

thaX has also made at least 2 factual errors, about CFCs and the last ice age.

But none of this has lead to any revision of your views. And why should it? You believe the scientific community is concealing data, biased et al when its conclusions are opposed to yours.

And if the scientific community were to go through all the rather preposterous steps Big Norse Wolf outlined and they still concluded what they do now, you still would not believe them.

Scott Betts- Its good to see someone who understands the scientific method. But as I suggested to Big Norse Wolf, we are wasting effort on this thread.

If you can show a person's premises are false and they revise their views, there is a point to discussion. If it makes no difference, there is not.

All right. We have a claim that I have made two demonstrably false claims on this thread: environment in authoritarian regimes, and Greenpeace clubbing seals. I will bring up the first now and save the second for later when I have more time.

My stance was: Authoritarian regimes are awful for the environment. Therefore, if you discuss things from an environmental standpoint, authoritarianism is a bad idea. Still, I have gotten some people claiming that China and Soviet were great for the environment n earlier threads, based on the state propaganda from those states. I claim that these people are naive, and I stand by that claim. This is what I have argued in this thread. So, what of what I wrote is "demonstrably false", Joynt? Do tell.

I will get back to you on Greenpeace clubbing seals, and we shall see if it is "just silly". Be sure to decide if you still stand by that viewpoint.


Irontruth: Not at all. Just saying that environmentalists screaming might not be the best qualification of a true statement.

BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"??? Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*


BigNorseWolf wrote:

So its only real science if...

-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.

-They have no relationships with any existing universities

-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.

-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.

-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data

-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo

-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the proffessors involved in the old research.. but since proffessors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't recieve any training at all.

-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.

-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own

and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.

No. Other. Field of science or human endeavor has ever been held to that standard. None. Its beyond unrealistic. Its whole heartedly throwing yourself into the arms of epistemic nihlism and ONLY for one side of the issue and only for one issue. It's deciding your position by the evidence rather than the other way around.

Its worse than the David Chapelle "Reasonable doubt" skit.

Indeed, that is a very tall order. Lucky how I never claimed all that, huh? It would be very interesting to see you support each of those points with quotes from me. Very interesting indeed.


In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.

The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.


Joynt Jezebel wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I disconnected from hentai after Urotsukidoji and La Blue Girl. I suppose I don't have much to add.
You certainly don't look disconnected from Hentai. I mean look at your head.

OMG, it's a tentacle monster???


Yeah, about that... we recently had the coldest May in ages. If that is pointed out to the AGWers, it's called cherry picking. Weather, not climate, you know? And yet... every time there is a warm month, the very same AGWers holler about it, and it's not cherry picking, somehow. If one month's temperatures is weather, not climate, how is it relevant to scream about one warm month?


Women too, if they want to?

BESM had an unofficial addition about sex, BBSW. It contained rules for playing in the hentaiverse. The most important rule was that the amount of sex people got was inversely proportional to the amount of sex they wanted. It certainly seems to be the truth from my admittedly little experience.


But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC? There are huge fields of science funded in other ways, via the universities. They could do their science in peace and don't make the public play for attention at all. Wouldn't that be a better alternative?


Lord Snow wrote:

This video, I find, raises the point in a succinct and convincing manner. The speaker is an educator with a very firm grasp on the scientific method and with current scientific knowledge. He most certainly is not a high ranking member of Greenpeace or any other organization.

Climate change has to do with measuring an incredibly complex system. One can't expect the scientific community to reach the same level of agreement on it as they did on, say, Newtonian mechanics, at the time. The picture is always going to be messy and hard to see in its entirety. It is only a matter of statistics that some scientist would go down routes that lead to counter evidence. Mostly that comes from just not understanding (and quite possibly not having the capability of understanding) such a system to its fullest. Too many parameters.

Is Climate Change being mishandled by the media? Yes, of course. Is it being tugged at by politicians on both sides? Obviously. Has it been inspected rigorously by actual experts with good methodology and pure intent? Yes. It was. And the results speak for themselves. To the best of human knowledge there's a good reason to suspect human intervention may be a key component of a global change of climate.

Okay, question. Let us assume all climatologists are squeaky clean. It sounds as if the IPCC are most of the source of what is wrong with climate science. Why do the key scientists then not speak out against them?


What I said was that IF there is a distortion due to unreported results, it is pretty clear which direction that would take. I did not say anything about the existence of unreported results beyond that it is a rather common thing in science, common enough, as was pointed out above, to be called "the File Drawer problem".

If you wish to contend what I say, you therefore need to either attack my argument that conclusions could be drawn about the direction of the skew, or the existence of unreported results. Anything else is merely you sitting on that train of thought you describe and putting up straw men. You can do better than that, Rynjin.


I did not say that, Rynjin. Don't put words in my mouth. It's rude. If you had arguments to discuss with, you wouldn't need to be rude and insulting.


Indeed, you won't know that. What could make it easier to determine the direction of the skew due to unreported results is to see if the researchers have a vested interest. And of course, they do. Given the scrutiny of the field by the sceptics, and given the importance to give the impression of "the science is settled", it's a simple matter of the politicos at the top of the dung heap getting the money to the various researchers, who in turn know enough not to rock the boat by publishing things that could be interpreted as "the science is NOT settled". Given this, we can comfortably and confidently say that if real results were not being reported, it would be those NOT supporting AGW. True, it COULD be a career move to debunk AGW - but believe that each and every one of those involved know the field would be completely dismantled if that were to happen.


The problem is that the reported results of the scientific work in the issue are skewed because certain results are not reported, and other results that would have needed a second look never get it, thereby distorting the conclusions in the issue.


bugleyman wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things...

I'm really not sure how you're attaching an "if" there.

We've made more progress in understanding the world in the 400 years since Galileo than in the 40,000 years before before him (granted, Galileo as the father of the scientific method could be debated, but if anything, the advent of the scientific method is even more recent than 400 years). So yeah, science is good at figuring out things. :P

You don't have to convince me that the scientific method is a good thing. It doesn't mean the process is inviolable. Let's take an example:

The issue of negative results: Journals want people to buy their issues. So, they publish stuff that is as attention grabbing as possible. New! Spectacular! Interesting! That sells. However, one of the parts of the scientific method that can truly change our perception of something is when a study is replicated - and the original positive findings do not stand for scrutiny. Keep in mind that roughly one in twenty correlations found to be significant (at p < 0.05) ARE products of random chance. But, replications are no fun. They are very far from bestsellers, so journals don't want them, and scientists don't want to do them. Even worse: This applies to a much larger group of studies: those that did not find a significance. If you send in a study to a journal where you have diligently researched whether A correlates to B and you didn't get any significant results, it's not going to be a success story... even though from a larger viewpoint, it may well be a vital piece of information that there is no significant correlation. Sooo... what happens is that once the data is in, if the study design showed no positive correlations, the study gets dumped in a drawer and never sent in to a journal.


Oh really? Well, your opinion is noted, thejeff. That doesn't make it valid, nor does your referring to an AGW propaganda site exactly infuse your opinion with rightness. Propaganda will be propaganda. By the way, the explanation given in your precious site is inconclusive.


And if science IS such a good tool for figuring out things, it behooves everyone involved not to fall to sub-par methods, redefinition of the peer-review process, hiding declines, adding random numbers to various matrices of data, just to mention a few things that WERE found to be very significant with the Climategate emails.

Hiding the decline, for those interested, refers to having a decline in the sixties for the global warmth curves according to the historical data sets produced by the climate models. The sixties had no such decline for real, which would make the veracity of the climate model questionable. Instead of being honest about it, see, a prediction model that exactly matches in historical data will have very little if any predictive power, the originator of that email chose to replace the climate model data for the period in question with tree ring data from a study. The serious part is not what was done, because the model data from the sixties WAS wrong, but that it was done without clearly showing that it was done, and was done in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth.

When stuff is leaked, the people it was leaked from ALWAYS claim that nothing was found. And it's never really true.


Unrelated papers? Sure. We will know once their work has been properly charted in a transparency process.


AGW may well be real, though what has gotten out about it into mainstream information is too riddled with weasel-talk, idiot soundbites and screaming nastiness to tell. Lots of people have done a miserable job at communicating it. They have also strayed from proper scientific methods, as shown by their ideas about consensus relaying truth.

So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.

These people demand the ages old dreams of the environmentalist mindset, which is a) a truly massive cost, b) won't solve the problem and c) will not get popular support. All of these mean it won't happen. Humanity is as it is, and it is possible we can't deal with this. Throwing out the good things we do have won't improve anything.

If the IPCC stopped throwing uncountable billions at the ghost of CO2 PPMs, which have not helped, and put a massive effort into developing the entire fissile cycle of uranium and fusion plants, the problem would be far more likely to be treatable. Solar and wind is cute, not a cure.


I disconnected from hentai after Urotsukidoji and La Blue Girl. I suppose I don't have much to add.


The problem is, as I did get agreement on, that the media f@!%s things up. Simplified sound bites and idiot-level reasoning like "the science is settled" is simply not enough for a complex issue like this. Even so, one would have thought that the people responsible for spreading the message would have an interest in NOT dumbing it down too far, and especially problematic is the promotion of a solid lack of grasp of what the scientific method means. Science is a way to systematically observe the world to divine (probable) truth. To do this job, however, there is a whole infrastructure of people and processes. Usually, they stay in tune and function as intended. However, the system has MANY weaknesses. With the exact wrong people and policies involved at the exact wrong positions, the result is NOT truth. Factors that can skew the process are legion. Bad science is nothing new, nor is entire fields falling to pseudoscientific junk and becoming propaganda machineries for the state.

It is NOT enough to say "science says" these days, and especially not in the field of climatology. Go figure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been called paranoid, a conspiracy nut, and worse so many times on these boards that I honestly don't care anymore. Perhaps it would be a good thing for me to explain my view of it.

I am an old-school liberal at heart. One of the closest ideological descriptions of my world-view can be found in The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. In short: The state has its role, quite a bit beyond the night watch state of the neolibs, in that it is the best actor for setting the playing field and a rather loose set of rules that are relatively unchanging, predictable and that do not apply differently to different people. It should not, however, keep making millions of little rules for shaping society - society can do that itself. Nor should it establish central plans, because the people in charge of administering those could never know enough for them to work, at least not in a way that supports a good life for the citizens involved. The scepticism against national decision-making is pretty strong, but even more so is that against international decision-making, because that is very far from democratic. Democracy is important, but is not merely a matter of choosing between two alternatives provided from a set establishment. It covers principles of freedom of speech, freedom of information, rule of law, transparency, accountability, the right to partake in the political life, and so on.

Why don't I trust the idea of AGW?

Because, at heart, the medial image of it has been mishandled to an awesome degree. Suddenly one day, it went worldwide with weeks of screaming in the media about the horrors of it all. There was no end to the doomsaying. Sea level rise!!! The forests will all rot away due to bugs!!! The POLAR BEARS WILL ALL DIE!!! IT WILL NEVER SNOW AGAIN!!! EVERY HUMAN CITY EXCEPT MEXICO CITY WILL DROWN IN TEN YEARS!!!!!!!11one

A few years into this, the temperatures have not risen further. The polar bears are apparently breeding like crazy despite not having styrofoam ice floes to cling to. People question, and the message is adapted. Global warming didn't materialize, so now it's climate change instead. Every year, a new explanation is advanced in the media for the absence of rising temperatures: It's the Gulf Stream. It's El Nino. Next year it's La Nina. The articles about it are copy-paste: Global warming didn't happen because <this year's somewhat famous weather phenomenon>. That won't save us next year, though, because reasons!!!

Doing some reading up on it, I find that more or less everyone at the top levels of the Climate Lobby is a former or current member of Greenpeace or the WWF. Greenpeace were the guys who sent out actors to club seals and torture kangaroos for money to "raise awareness" in the nineties. WWF is doing massive money by acting as the oil sector's conscience and ethics provider when the oil companies want to exploit untouched wilderness. In one particularly interesting case, they were paid by Big Oil to declare a part of New Guinea a natural reserve - meaning they could kick out all the indigenous, primitive human tribes living there. Kindly enough, the WWF also kept supporting the company's rights to drill for oil in those forests afterward. Greenpeace has time and time again been criticized for being antidemocratic. By and large, antidemocratic sentiment runs high through the environmental lobby, given by such suggestions as to "suspend democracy until the crisis is over". These guys are not the ones I want in charge of anything.

Looking further, I find Agenda 21, a massive central plan document, signed in 91, IIRC, by over a hundred world leaders. This document sets up what every little bit of resources on Earth will be used for. Private property and democracy doesn't seem to enter into it whatsoever. I believe democracy isn't even mentioned. Which is odd, because nondemocratic regimes have a stunning track record of a) destroying the environment and b) then lying about doing so. Some people are naive enough to buy their b@&$++*@.

Regarding the IPCC, it's mainly two things: First, their stated task, their raison d'etre, is to find scientific support FOR AGW. Not figure out how the environment works. Not find the reason for global warming, but find a way to explain it by humanity's actions. I should say it comes as no susprise they found such evidence. Second, it's their quality Assurance process. The big seller is their "Information for policy-makers" or whatever it's called. It's a relatively brief summary of the stuff the IPCC has found. But when you check who gets the final editing pass on it, it's again all people from the upper levels of Greenpeace and such. And, given that opinions that didn't even come from scientific research data, like the "all glaciers will be gone in 35 years" sound bite, get in, the only possible conclusion is that their entire quality process is useless. Which in turn begs the question: How reliable is the rest of it?

There is more, but I would just like to add one. The pro-AGW crowd has a language that is purely awful. People who do not agree with them are called "deniers", likely to make an association to holocaust deniers. They are called crackpots, kooks, nutjobs, conspiracy nuts, and so on. Every dissenting opinion is explained by money from oil companies. It is a recurring motif with tobacco companies.

At some point, really whatever their science says, it is enough. It isn't even primarily the science parts that are f*!%ed up, but the politicos and the media handling. I suppose a part of it is that the message has been simplified to the level of "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD!!!", but I will have no part of it under these circumstances. I AM willing to listen, but as it stands, the people involved have done everything possible to alienate me. If the situation is as dire as they make it out to be, the VERY LAST THING WE NEED is an authoritarian, undemocratic, centrally planned world. Say what you will about democracy, but it is a flexible system, and can change according to need. And, to me, democracy will always be a central issue in any large scale plans.

So, feel free to call me paranoid now.


Rynjin wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.

A few things.

1.) I'm not sure why you think shooting down people's ideas in this forum even matters. Nobody here is an expert on this. They're not SUPPOSED to be able to come up with good, scientifically sound solutions. Saying "Oh yeah? Give me a good solution!" to some schmuck on the internet for a world-spanning problem and then feeling smug when *gasp* nobody can come up with a single fool-proof plan is ludicrous.

2.) You...seriously don't see the point in slowing the rate of worsening?

It gives you more time to come up with a permanent solution. Just because AIDS is incurable doesn't mean the drug cocktails they take to prolong their lives are POINTLESS.

Is it less effective than a permanent solution? Well, yeah.

Is it still better than doing nothing at all? Also as obviously, yes. In time X, the worsening will be Y. How is in time X the worsening being Y-1, or even Y/2 a bad thing?

1. The levels of things that would have to be done to have done penance enough for our sinful lifestyles in the eyes of the AGW synod are so far beyond "Add more solar and wind, tax energy more, work to increase efficiency and do more research" that it might be different worlds we're talking about here. The people pushing the AGW agenda are dead serious when they say they want humanity's carbon emissions to be ZERO within the foreseeable future. ZERO. As in, NONE. No food production. No travel. No heating. No waste. No pets. No production. No communication. No nothing. Stamped earth floors and no cooked foods. Nothing that could produce any sort of CO2 AT ALL. Think about it, and do so sincerely. What would it mean? How would we all live if their central plans (Agenda 21 comes to mind...) are implemented? How many of us would they allow to live, to "save the planet"? The only large capacity energy production that doesn't produce carbon emissions is nuclear power - but the SAME PEOPLE want to shut down every single reactor. Also consider whether or not the people at the top of such a system would be exempt from all these limits or not.

2. Not really. With more time spent, we get more problems related to this to solve. So the issue becomes: If we can't solve the problem, and we know we can't given the dangers even with ZERO emissions, we are going to effectively make it worse - and the sacrifices we would have to make to do even the little we do would be gigantic.

What we should be doing is take a leaf from the book of bacteria instead. When exposed to environmental damage such as heat, bacteria increase their rate of mutation, to increase the chance of some part surviving. Shut down international oversight and coordination, so that each country can find what solutions are possible without stifling limits. Let people explore societies of different kinds. Send people into space. Build underwater habitats. Make genetic modifications of various species to see what can help. Test various substances. Develop new energy sources... but under a huge, inflexible central plan, none of that is going to happen.

The AGW posse is clamoring for a static, sorry, SUSTAINABLE world with tight controls of every aspect of human life, and with no intention of keeping democracy working. It is a world without hope. Whether or not that is what you want for your children, consider: Democratic states have at least been honest about the environmental damage they have caused. China and Soviet, apparently, by contrast, didn't cause any such damage. If you believe authoritarianism has an answer for any problem, much less one of this caliber, you're just dead wrong.


Ooookay. We do have some concrete suggestions. Let's take it from the top.

thejeff wrote:
More support for development of renewable energy, less for fossil fuels - including restrictions on further exploration.

So, wind and solar? Everyone's best friends in this discussion, but a deplorably useless fraction of energy produced. Heavily dependent on research before it will be anything but a fringe phenomenon. Has some points, such as smaller wind turbines for private energy production. Also, biofuels have so far been shown to take up unacceptable amounts of land that could be used for food.

thejeff wrote:
Carbon taxes, preferably with a per capita rebate, mitigating the cost to the poor while still discouraging use.

Carbon taxes. This would depend largely on the amounts talked about. Since you're claiming there would not be a focus on the individual, I assume the individual carbon taxes would be pretty much negligible? If so, where would the gains come from? Note also that the carbon credits have been a massive failure.

thejeff wrote:
Zoning changes and building code changes to increase efficiency.

Zoning changes? What do you mean by that? Building code changes are great, efficiency is great, but the houses already existant will be slowly replaced over, say, about a century. Do the maths for the extreme savings to be found here.

thejeff wrote:
More research into atmospheric scrubbing.

Carbon sequestering? SO2 in the stratosphere? Sounds lovely, but I have not heard one useful thing that might come out of this so far. Very much research needed, no?

All in all, then, what you are suggesting is not even going to improve things, maybe only slow the rate of worsening. What it means in concrete terms is that in time X, things will still have gotten worse than they are now. You will excuse me if I don't really see the point.

Caineach wrote:
1. Encourage municipalities to invest in solar and wind infrastructure to replace aging coal and oil. Encourage local governmental takeover of power grids. This has drastically reduced electric costs pretty much everywhere it has been implemented and cut down on greenhouse gasses.

More solar and wind. See above. Expropriation of power grids sounds like it would pretty much shut down every sort of private investment in power grids, and we recently discussed just how MASSIVE the private industry was compared to the government. It... doesn't sound like it would improve things. I could be wrong.

Caineach wrote:
2. Invest in controls software to optimize power production efficiency. Some areas that have done this have decreased redundant power from fossil plants that are more reliable by as much as half.

Ah yes. The smart power grids, the ones that let the government check every detail of what every person connects to the power grid, down to the type of water boiler used, for how many seconds, and so on. Pretty thought. Still, probably points to be had here if you're willing to accept that level of Big Brother intrusion.

Caineach wrote:
2a. Replace oil and coal backup power plants with natural gas ones, since they have drastically lower emissions but maintain the reliability.

Possibly. Go for it.

Caineach wrote:
3. Invest in nuclear power. Tell people worried about radiation to STFU, because they have no idea what they are talking about.

Except the people in charge in these issues (IPCC, Greenpeace, etc) ABSOLUTELY ABHOR nuclear power. It's almost as if they want to remove the low-emission methods of energy production we do know about so that everyone will be forced to accept their programs of energy saving and repentance for our sinful lives...

Caineach wrote:
4. Invest heavily in electric passenger cars. Re-institute the manditory electric vehicle requirements California had on car manufacturers to force them to start investing and developing the technology. Accept that the vehicles are still a few years away from profitability.

Electric cars are good. But they require massive amounts of Lithium as it stands, for only a moderate cut in emissions.

Caineach wrote:
5. Implement a tax on emissions from large industry. Corporations will optimize to reduce costs. Right now they can ignore carbon emissions because there is no cost associated with them. Implementing a cost for destroying the environment allows us to invest in remediation techniques or encourage them to find other methods to do what they need to do.

The problem here is that adding such a tax will only give profits to the countries that do not implement that tax. There may be a solution for that, of course. The problem with remediation techniques is that the CO2 still gets into the atmosphere - and the AGW preachers are still claiming that even with NO further emissions, it's uncertain whether complete and utter disaster can be averted.

Caineach wrote:
6. Don't charge a flat rate for electric costs. Make the first X watt hours have a lower cost than the next y. Users who use more electricity get charged increasingly higher costs. Scale this also off of when power is consumed to discourage use at peak times.

Is this the part where the individual level is hit?

All in all, better. Still unrealistic to believe it will be enough to appease the AGW high priests.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
A national energy grid with silver wires- this is necessary because power is easiest to make in the places where there aren't a lot of people but has to get to where the people are. Case in point..

Replace the national power grid? Are you aware of the sheer, gigantic scale of such a project?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finish Yucca mountain

It could be a good idea, but it would be a VERY MUCH better idea to complete the fissile cycle by building a large number of breed reactors. That way, we wouldn't face the loss of nuclear raw materials in 50-150 years. Also, it is dead in the water because OMG NUCLEAR!!!

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Put nuclear reactors nearish by to help power the country.

See above.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Set up wind farms

There ARE wind farms. They are producing very little energy, in the grand scale of things.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
More research into alternate fuels

Research is good, but doesn't solve our problems as they are. Also, alternate fuels need land.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
More forest land. Part of our CO2 problem is that the correcting mechanism has been weakened

Yes, trees are good. But again, it needs land. Land currently used for food production.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
More research into battery storage. Seriously, if you can get a carbon ultracapacitor to work most of the problems with solar go away over night

Research again. No protests from me.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Solar freaking roadways. or at least walk ways.

Replacing a significant part of the road network by solar roadways is a cost big enough that it's difficult to imagine. Niche use, yes. Large scale solution, no.

Come on, you guys. The only scenarios the AGW politicos say MAY save us are the ones with NO FURTHER CARBON EMISSIONS WHATSOEVER. What you have suggested doesn't even approach that. You can do better than that.


So, thejeff, since you're the resident inquisitor of AGW here: What do you ACTUALLY suggest we do? Your above post makes no concrete claims to anything: You say that shutting down all fossil fuel use would be a good start, of course moderated by the fact that the consequences would be too drastic. You say we should move "much harder than we are" from fossil fuels. What does that mean? How should it be implemented? If we accept everything the AGW preachers say, you know the emission cuts needed are rather massive. At the very least, FAR more than you will EVER get people to agree to voluntarily. So, do you support forcible, massive cuts of emissions, at the individual level?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I once made a character for Fallout. She had a 1 Intelligence/Intellect/Whatever.

She approached a villager and talked to him:

"Hnnnnnghhhh... wheeeer caaaaaave....?"

The very reasonable response:

"Go away. You're too stupid to talk to."

So, I made a new character, one that did not have a miserable intelligence stat. And you know what? I had fun despite not having uber-godly fighting stats! Yes, really! It's true!


But you know... what if... what the climate scientists want to do is not make molto dinero, but have grants enough to work, travel to interesting places, and have people listen to them? What if there are certain people who want massive international influence and do want the dineros? Isn't that enough profit to motivate people to toe the official line? And as for climatologists... from what I understand, it's a case of "If you want to publish a paper on squirrels, you can forget it, unless you write about how squirrels are impacted by MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING". Enough subversion of scientific journal boards would quite effectively strip any possibility of even publishing a dissenting account, and indeed make sure those who did not agree with the official line do not work as climatologists. And of course, the strategy of infiltrating and taking over boards of journals that do not follow the official line was confirmed in the Climategate emails. They called it "redefining the peer-review process", IIRC. And the obedient climatologists do get their grants today. And the certain people do have massive international influence today. And a dissenting opinion is impossible, because a) there are no journals left that would publish anything that questions the official line, and b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above.

Very neat. And hey, it doesn't even require a massive global conspiracy, just a bit of tomfoolery through the climatology field's infrastructure. The scientists support the doomsayings and grabs of influence of the certain people, and the certain people provide for grants for the scientists, through various state administrations.

It can happen to a field. It has happened before. Call it a circle-jerk or a club of reciprocal admiration, it is what happens when no other lines are allowed. For examples, consider the field of Racial biology. If someone wasn't a racial biologist, they were of course not allowed to have an opinion, much less criticise the work happening in the field. It had political support in shockingly large parts of the West for several decades, simply because THEY WERE USEFUL to the politicians of the time, as justifications for declarations of crises. In Sweden, the idea of a genetic/ethnic crisis as cause for massive policy changes was not cleaned out until 1950, and even after this remained in various specific situations such as forced sterilization programs.

Science does not thrive on uniformity. Science thrives in an environment where differing standpoints clash and break against one another. Consensus is not and has never been a part of the scientific method.


Regarding the original topic... It was not that long ago that certain environmental groups screamed about how "in fifty years, the atmosphere will be torn from the Earth because sinful consumerism and pollution". I have yet to see the first signs of this. And of course, any disaster that will happen in fifty years, like any advance that will happen in fifty years, such as fusion power, is bunk until proven otherwise. Notably, the disaster in global w... Sorry, climate change, was updated in 2010 to happen in 2060, from 2050 before then.

The world is a much better place when you realize there are MANY people who survive and thrive because people listen to doomsayings motivated by cherrypicking numbers and bad scientific methods.


As I understand it, there is a chicken and egg situation regarding gender dysphoria and depression. It is not just that you get depression from gender issues, it is also that you start questioning yourself more when severely depressed, which can give you gender issues. Sorry if this is a misunderstanding. Either way:

You are going to have to be in decent psychiatric shape to handle a transition process.

Depression is THE GREAT ENEMY. It paints everything you look at black, including yourself, your family, your future, your past. And always, always, always, you find a reason that can explain it to your satisfaction. "I am depressed because my back hurts, and if it didn't, I would be perfectly healthy and live a good life!"... Only the back pain gets fixed, and your life is not better at all. Depression is like smoking: Whatever the measure, it hurts you. It digs to your core and steps on it. If you are religious, it makes God stop caring about you and denies you God's presence. If you love music, it turns it into rattling discord. And so on.

The good news is that treating depression is pretty simple today. A month on relatively mild medication clears it up and returns you to who you ought to be, someone who can be happy or sad in the right situations. Someone with an emotional range.

Now, all the above is certainly not denying gender dysphoria. I would say that if you go through treatment for depression, the gender dysphoria most likely remains if that is the problem.

Either way, it is probably a good thing to try if your life feels hopeless or miserable.


Not to mention that a few years earlier, Twin Peaks had people religiously following various multi-episode story arcs. Really, you want to discuss the roots of longer stories in speculative TV, as well as supernatural elements, Twin Peaks looms pretty large.


... The eyes, the eyes, the awful knowing eyes!!! They're all GREEN!!!


Ketchup is wonderful on hot dogs, with fries, and on pasta, especially pasta bolognese. This is objectively true, by the way, and people who think different are wrong. Mayonnaise is usually disgusting. Hot dogs need either ketchup and hot mustard, or chili and garlic. Fish and chips are sacrilege without salt and vinegar.


Mom's mighty latte to Purple leader: Lotus approved.

Mom's mighty latte to Springfield retirement castle: Permission granted. Whippershappers designated Iron horde not staying off target area: Lawn. Contact Obvious ninja regarding possible coordinated strike.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE KROGAN!!!


No. FF7 was never a mature game. It has no blood, no sex, fantasy violence, no drugs, no swearing, no nudity... if the Honeybee inn scenes are a problem (which they are only culturally, not rating-wise), then remove them.


Admittedly. Well, you what I refer to. The problem there is really not Cloud in the dress, but the roles of Tifa and Aeris in that scene.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hummus and avocado salad you say? OMG, that is awesome! I gonna make some too!


Mom's mighty latte to Purple Leader: Request position.


Trans cloud as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

ME 2 was a brilliant game... Excepting certain things. Like the very beginning. And then Shepard returning under a new flag and everyone acting like it doesn't matter. And the final boss, dear lord. These things aren't cringe-worthy, but awesomely stupid.

ME3 was better, but suffered from having to resolve everything from ME1 and 2. The ending was really an okay part of it all, both original and extended editions.


Rereading Twilight.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

But... damn, without Garrus, things will be UNCALIBRATED!!! Or, maybe, perhaps, he calibrated stuff enough to last for a few hundred years...


VIII, VII, XIII-2, X. In that order, from most awesome down. VI was a very shallow game despite a few great moments. IX had flat, useless characters. Again, some neat parts.


They said it was healthy eating all those vitamin supplements, homeopathic pills, ayurvedic stuff, traditional chinese medicines, herbal teas, immune system boosters, fatty acid supplements, protein bars, detox treatments, aromatherapy, spinal restructuring... Now, after doing all that for six months, I am completely balanced. There are things that have me slightly worried, of course, such as red dots all over my skin, which has turned an interesting shade of orange, large hairy tufts on no less than forty three places, no excrements for three weeks, and strange geometric patterns in my entire field of vision. oh, and I fall asleep all the time. It is good to be balanced, though.

The next poster finds this awesome!


Could be.


Problem is, Ekaterin isn't very appealing as a character.


It is a good idea to play at the level of the others. To really be there, not "holding back for emergencies", as it is so often phrased. See, the feeling of being overshadowed doesn't take into account what others DO, but what they CAN do. Take the opportunity to goof out and make a character built around a theme, take suboptimal options. Enjoy the game AS IT IS BEING PLAYED.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, we find a need to define an act of passion. I would consider almost every part of a succubus' body ripe for such, not merely her lips, with her being an incarnation of mortal desire and all. Thus, it becomes more an issue of logistics than action economy. Since she is a Medium creature, it is obvious that she could be adjacent to eight Medium creatures in a two-dimensional situation, but if you added in a third dimension, that number rises dramatically to twenty-six. Since we're grappling, we can add in the grappling creature in the same square, for nine or twenty-seven, respectively. I am uncertain if more than two creatures can grapple in one square. If we add in a bigger succubus or smaller other creatures, again, the number rises sharply. Conversely, only four ogres or similar Large creatures could be adjacent to her on a flat map. Thus, to optimize this situation, it is obvious that the succubus needs to be flying (preferably levitating), and enlarged as far as possble, with her assai... Vict... Ummm, the other creatures preferably quite small.

Also, move action kisses need to be a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lathiira wrote:
Maybe we should redesign the succubus using the rules for monsters in Unchained in order to fix a few of these problems....

Ravish, grope, fondle, involve in an act of passion, chain up, grapple... But REDESIGN??? That is like a violation of an entirely different order of magnitude.


Someone for everyone: Let us assume for a given person, there are X possible good partners. X will vary, from a definite 0 for some, to a very large number for others. The problem is that many people don't meet enough possible partners in a situation that could lead to a start of a relationship. If you don't meet them, a very large X won't help. So, no, not for everyone, but for most.


133. "SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FREN!!!"

Uhhhh, maybe not.

1 to 50 of 8,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.