The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I do. You're a climate change denier - case closed!
Mobby, as usual, you are wrong. No climate change denial from my side - climate is changing as it always have. You can't win since you are fighting a lost war (though, isn't that welsh personated )
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Are you actually going to deny this? Do you really want me to embarrass you?
Actually, no, I'm sick of chasing after your erroneous assertions.
I really don't think that you can embarass me, but please try. I assume that you are reffereing to the fact that continious heating has paused for some not known reason.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I'm really struggling to see how this supports your argument at all. Did someone point you to it and say "See, it's all a lie" and you took their word for it?
Last edited by ricketyclik; February 11, 2011, 23:22.
Reason: Took out a link in the quote I wasn't referring to.
Ah that old chestnut. Climate changes, therefore ACC is impossible.
It is the rate of change that is of concern, and AGW theory explains it.
No. the AGW theory doesn't explain it. You think that just because the graphs of AGW matches, then it's true, but while it may be so, it isn't nesseacarily so.
If you have bothered to read the links I provided, then you also know that there are severe faults in the models that are use as evidence for the AGW theory.
Btw., if you know something about science, then you also know that piling up evidence isn't interesting - it's the experiments/research that tries to contradict the theory that is important, because a scientific theory may be supported by hundreds of supportive results, but can be killed by just one that displays it's wrong.
Unfortunatedly, it's considered "bad science" to try to falsify the AGW theory, so hansen et al has big days.
Back to topic (sorry if I got carried away) - the AGW theory, or rather the models used to prove it, has to be modified every year to match the actual climate change.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
No. the AGW theory doesn't explain it. You think that just because the graphs of AGW matches, then it's true, but while it may be so, it isn't nesseacarily so.
If you have bothered to read the links I provided, then you also know that there are severe faults in the models that are use as evidence for the AGW theory.
Btw., if you know something about science, then you also know that piling up evidence isn't interesting - it's the experiments/research that tries to contradict the theory that is important, because a scientific theory may be supported by hundreds of supportive results, but can be killed by just one that displays it's wrong.
Unfortunatedly, it's considered "bad science" to try to falsify the AGW theory, so hansen et al has big days.
Back to topic (sorry if I got carried away) - the AGW theory, or rather the models used to prove it, has to be modified every year to match the actual climate change.
Bull****. Increased GG concentration = more heat. That hasn't been modified EVER.
Detailed global circulation models attempting to predict the outcomes of increased heat do have to be modified, as more is understood and discovered about atmospheric (including oceans) mechanisms, but the basic science has yet to show any cracks.
These GCM's aren't used as proof, but as tools to try to forecast what will happen as a result of global warming, and yes, they have a way to go. I wouldn't be surprised if they can never accurately forecast detailed outcomes.
I've read your links, and I've yet to read any science that counters Planck's law, or basic thermodynamic theory.
I'm really struggling to see how this supports your argument at all. Did someone point you to it and say "See, it's all a lie" and you took their word for it?
No, I used my education and knowledge to figure it out - that is where I probably differ from other - I understand the math, I can understand the models, and I can see/understand the flaws when brighter minds than me explain them.
I know that there are brighter minds than me (no welsh though), but they are not fallible. That said, I'm certainly not able to claim that people smarter than me are rigth or wrong, but it gives me the possibility to evaluate their claims and make a descision on whom I consider most sane.
My opinion has never been based on wich professor has claimed something, but solely upon what what science has produced (including questions).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I've read your links, and I've yet to read any science that counters Planck's law, or basic thermodynamic theory.
Yep, that is someting that you certainly won't find - if you read the Curry site, you will find that ALL agree on this. The scary thing is that you think you will find such - you really think that non AGW'ers doesn't think that proven scientific results arent to be trusted.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
So tell me, how exactly does the paper support your thesis?
Actually, it doesn't as such, it's the coments that does. That, thogh doesn't change the fact that it's a pretty good explanation of some basic scienfics.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Scrap "nt" in arent and it makes sense - crist, what's the problem with you ?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I do not know whether the globe is warming or not warming. That said I would suggest that common sense dictates that there are certain actions we do need to take regardless of whether or not one believes the globe is warming due to human actions. These actions include, but are not limited to:
- cutting pollution (reduce acid rain, smog etc)
- reducing our dependence on fossil fuels (we must run out eventually)
- researching "clean" energy sources (to cut pollution and dependence on fossil fuels)
- management and preservation of eco-systems
- not dumping toxic waste or other rubbish in waterways or otherwise scattering it about the landscape
Edited to insert the word "not" which was inadvertently omitted. See Blackcats post below pointing out absence of word "not".
Tweet
)
Comment