Game News Support Nazism by Supporting Grimoire

[Saint_Proverbius]

You sound really intellamajehnt and whatnot! I'll bet the other halfwits are really impressed with you.

Listen, if you have 3 buckets holding 8 gallons and 2 buckets holding 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have? Getting this question right was what convinced President Camacho to ask me about the agricultural problem!

Must I spell out the point? The point is that saying that CO2 is killing the planet by saying, "LOOK AT VENUS!" is stupid because Venus and Earth's atmospheres are radically difficult. The CO2 on Venus is throughout the entire atmosphere and the vast, vast majority of it. The CO2 on Earth is barely a fraction of a percent and it's lower to the surface.

In short, I was AGREEING with you. Learn the difference between an argument and an agreement and you may come off to being as close to smart as you think you are.

 

[kingcomrade]

Nobody here is making you look smart, Cleve.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .037% CO2. Most of Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is lighter than CO2. N2 has a molecular weight of 14 while CO2 has a molecular weight of 22. The majority of CO2 on Earth isn't way the hell up there like it is on Venus. The majority of it is close to the ground. Nitrogen does a damned good job of keeping that mean old CO2 down.

In short, Venus needs way more nitrogen.

Actually, Venus needs more water, because on Earth the water cycle controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (it works a bit like a thermostat - if you try increase CO2, it removes more, if you try remove more CO2, it removes less, keeping it in balance. This only works if the changes occur over ~10,000 years, much longer than changes we're currently seeing). Doesn't change the fact that Venus is hotter because it has more CO2. Even climate-change skeptics wouldn't debate that.

Venus is hotter because it is closer to the sun, cosmic brain boy. It's got more CO2 because it is hotter, period. Is mercury even hotter because of the CO2 concentration? This is too easy.

The truth is, I'm not that smart a guy. I only come off looking good when compared to the rest of mankind. I'm a complete idiot and probably one of the brightest people you will ever meet. That's why everything is relative.

 

[Moggs]

Moggs, you are far, far outside the power curve intellectually.

Thanks!

You're a funny little man. I'd like to shave your skull and beat it like a bongo to the tune of "Stormy Weather."

Oh. Can we set a date? Who buys the plane tickets? Seriously though, this has been a fun distraction, but I'd better get back to work. You're familiar with the concept?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Actually, Venus needs more water, because on Earth the water cycle controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (it works a bit like a thermostat - if you try increase CO2, it removes more, if you try remove more CO2, it removes less, keeping it in balance. This only works if the changes occur over ~10,000 years, much longer than changes we're currently seeing). Doesn't change the fact that Venus is hotter because it has more CO2. Even climate-change skeptics wouldn't debate that.

Venus needs a lot of things, but water won't really help much if the CO2 is the majority of the upper atmosphere. If you condense it down some by adding a gas that's lighter than the CO2, you reduce the greenhouse effect. Distance from the surface is a fundamental part of it. After all, the planet's surface also radiates heat, so the farther away the highly concentrated greenhouse gas is, the more heat is bounced back. It's refraction, baby!

Planets also don't need an atmosphere to be heated or cooled either. Look at Mars, it barely has shit for an atmosphere being a third the size of Earth, and it was warming up at the same time this little blue marble was. Europa was as well. Cleve was right about warming effects on other planets and moons heating up during the late 1980s and 1990s as well.

Then again, I'm old enough to remember the claims back in the 1980s that by the year 2000, Global Warming was going to submerge Manhattan. Last I checked, it's still above water, so they just pushed that date back to 2050 or some such.

 

[Moggs]

Venus is hotter because it is closer to the son, cosmic brain boy. It's got more CO2 because it is hotter, period. Is mercury even hotter because of the CO2 concentration? This is too easy.

Damn you, I'll bite. I'm going to get fired at this rate...

Anyhooo, yes, Venus is closer to the Sun, well spotted. This increase in solar flux makes Venus' blackbody temperature (assuming no atmosphere) hotter than Earth, but not as hot as Mercury. However, and here's the point I made, it turns out Venus is hotter than it should be at that distance. Much hotter. That's the greenhouse effect of the CO2. It makes it even hotter than Mercury.

Let me recap: Venus should be around 50 degrees based on its distance from the Sun, but it's actually 500. That's a big difference. From the greenhouse effect of CO2. Got it?

Please Cleve, even the History of Art majors my Intro to Astronomy class (who, while intelligent, do not have a scientific background) manage to understand that concept.

 

[kingcomrade]

Maybe Cleve's posts are like performance art about the ambiguous form and function of the Internet, about which nothing is certain.

 

[Moggs]

Venus needs a lot of things, but water won't really help much if the CO2 is the majority of the upper atmosphere. If you condense it down some by adding a gas that's lighter than the CO2, you reduce the greenhouse effect. Distance from the surface is a fundamental part of it. After all, the planet's surface also radiates heat, so the farther away the highly concentrated greenhouse gas is, the more heat is bounced back. It's refraction, baby!

Planets also don't need an atmosphere to be heated or cooled either. Look at Mars, it barely has shit for an atmosphere being a third the size of Earth, and it was warming up at the same time this little blue marble was. Europa was as well. Cleve was right about warming effects on other planets and moons heating up during the late 1980s and 1990s as well.

Then again, I'm old enough to remember the claims back in the 1980s that by the year 2000, Global Warming was going to submerge Manhattan. Last I checked, it's still above water, so they just pushed that date back to 2050 or some such.

Lordy, I'm regretting getting into this at all...

I'm not sure I follow your arguments about height of CO2 at all. I presume you mean reflection (bouncing of light rays), not refraction (bending of light rays)? And the amount of heat radiated by a planet and the amount of CO2 that radiated heat has to travel through are the same, regardless of the "height" of the CO2?

Be very skeptical about "climate change" on other planets, especially when this climate change is over periods comparable to the orbital or spin periods. These two can couple together in some fairly complex ways (precession and nutation). We expect the temperature to change over a planet's orbit/spin. They are called day/night and seasons. Mars is particularly complex as when the north pole is facing the Sun, the CO2 polar cap melts, increasing the greenhouse effect (this happens once every Martian year). It also results in a huge pressure difference with the freezing south pole, resulting in massive winds and dust storms. These change the colour of the planet (18th century scientists thought they were vegetation growth), which change the amount of reflected sunlight, which changes the temperature. None of these effects are climate change, or indeed comparable to anything that happens on Earth.

"Global warming" is not a good term for what happens. It's a very non-linear system, so climate change will cause some regions to warm, some to freeze.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

turning our farmland into nature reserves or tourist attractions for yuppies...

That's ridiculously naive thinking, if there's no farmers, then there'd be no farm animals and that land would become prime real estate to build upon.

 

[DefJam101]

Maunder's minimum in 2012, will stay that cold for at least 200 years afterward

Um, trust me when I say I know a little more about this than you, and frankly, that's complete bollocks. With some of the press releases coming out, I can understand how you'd conclude that, but it's simply not the case. Yes, this solar cycle is weaker than it was expected to be, but it's really no different to the 1960s. It's not a big change in the Sun's behaviour like the Maunder min was.

You keep sneering as if it's all the fault of evil capitalism, but it's all the fault of evil solar cycles. No political system is going to ever be able to achieve the fertility of the world as it was at the end of the last decade.

If the sun decides to chill for a couple of centuries (people like me say millennia) and it already has, then this party is permanently over.

Actually, the coincidence of the Maunder minimum and freezing of the Thames aside, there's little-to-no evidence for solar activity (with is all the Maunder min is - there's no change in the Sun's temperature or heat output, another big misconception) affecting climate. Any "solar forcing" is hundreds of times weaker than a what small change in the C02 concentration in our atmosphere would produce.

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

You seem to have picked up on a few controversial science topics (and it's always good to listen to the scientists, don't get me wrong) but come to the wrong conclusions. Easy to do without really reading up on the subject, which no-one outside the field really has time to do. The danger is that scientists sometimes feel the need to hype their findings to get the public interested, but it can lead to a whole heap of misunderstanding.

Can I hold you to that?

So nobody outside the field has access to the special edjumifacational knowledge, is that what you're saying? Without having my penis branded in a secret ceremony of paleoclimatologists, I can never hope to understand these things?

Sounds like the way mediocre people use social engineering to insure their jobs.

How about this?

My native intelligence is like a royal genetic flush to your social pair of deuces. I can learn more about climatology in one year of reading (I've actually been studying the subject for 9 years now) than you can in eight years of university including your doctorate, which was probably a bizarre screed about the danger posed by decomposing baby nappies to the earth's orbit.

It's not that you don't know it. You don't even know what you don't know. What little you think you do know, is all wrong.

Like "Not Sure" in IDIOCRACY, it's not that I'm all that smart ... it's that you make me look good, relatively speaking.

So you're saying our ancestors from 1820's (first recognition that end of 20th century would usher in new Ice Age) right through to 1970's got it wrong, but the latest crop of subliterate Playstation specialists got it right? (Evil farting cows are destroying the air and warming the planet)

Scientists were certain the end of the interglacial was at hand within 50 years in 1955 and they weren't wrong. You were. Every 11,500 years like clockwork. Guess how long ago the last Ice Age was? Exactly. In 2012 there is going to be the mother of solar maximums and after that this planet is going to cool for a long time in an environment of radically reduced solar output.

... and you think rice is expensive now.

You think we have resource conflicts at the present? You have not seen anything. Wait until spring doesn't show up in North America until June and only stays until the end of August. Summer won't come at all. Then you'll see some resource conflicts.

Trust me, you don't even know what you don't know. Like those guys in the Army I told you about, you don't even recognize when you've been lapped.

From this point on in the thread I will be running through Cleve's posts and highlighting any:

- Personal assumptions about the other personal
- Ad hominems
- "Straw Man" arguments
- Other fallacies as well as anecdotal evidence (his army stories, for instance)

His response to my autism/AS comment (which wasn't directed at him) compelled me to do this.

 

[aron searle]

From this point on in the thread I will be running through Cleve's posts and highlighting any:

- Personal assumptions about the other personal
- Ad hominems
- "Straw Man" arguments
- Other fallacies as well as anecdotal evidence (his army stories, for instance)

So you're pretty much gonna quote every post of his?

 

[DefJam101]

Look Cleve, best current scientific knowledge contradicts your claims about the solar cycle and its effect on the Earth's climate. That's it. You're entitled to *believe* whatever the hell you like. Doesn't make it scientific anymore than claiming the world is 5000 years old because some book says it is.

I'm not claiming you, or anyone else, is *not capable* of understanding the science behind all this. I'm just saying at the moment you don't, meaning your claims are ignorant.

And if we go about stating that there's so much more we don't know than we do know, and everything we know is wrong, as you suggest, then we may as well give up on science altogether, right? Well, sorry, but it's served us pretty well so far. It's enabled an era of uneducated argument between people that have never met, for example.

My point is - I get lectured all the time by Gore's useful idiots on the "current scientific knowledge" without those people realizing they are feeding me the equivalent of neolithic superstition that has nothing at all to do with what the best climatologists in the field believe is about to happen.

For example ... you think a new Ice Age is fringe science? Do tell? Is it fringe with Gray, Hansen, Keeling, Bryson and Schreuder?

Now I am aware the dirty peasants, who are rife with what can only be called intellectual STDs they have caught off televitz, are of this opinion. They don't know what they don't know either.
To answer your question, yes, I think it is time that ordinary human beings stopped pretending to be scientists. They are decline scientists, which is to say they are political scientists and socialist scientists which is to say there is nothing scientific about most scientists nowadays. I do not believe the common man should put on a turban and strut about trying to sound intellamajehnt and stuff. Irregardless of what Oprah has told him.

Moggs, you are far, far outside the power curve intellectually. You're so far outside it, you now believe you are in the middle of it. In fact, you're in the middle of a bunch of made up voodoo that our average IQ-97 nation thinks is scienmahjific.

So you're pretty much gonna quote every post of his?

Yes.

 

[Krancor]

Case in point: the extra solar heat received by Venus (because of its proximity to the Sun) should mean its temperature is maybe 20 degrees hotter than Earth. In actual fact, it's 500 degrees hotter, because it has so much more C02 in its atmosphere.

Venus's atmosphere is 96% CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .037% CO2. Most of Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is lighter than CO2. N2 has a molecular weight of 14 while CO2 has a molecular weight of 22. The majority of CO2 on Earth isn't way the hell up there like it is on Venus. The majority of it is close to the ground. Nitrogen does a damned good job of keeping that mean old CO2 down.

In short, Venus needs way more nitrogen.

You sound really intellamajehnt and whatnot! I'll bet the other halfwits are really impressed with you.

Listen, if you have 3 buckets holding 8 gallons and 2 buckets holding 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have? Getting this question right was what convinced President Camacho to ask me about the agricultural problem!

CO2 doesn't mean anything, doesn't control anything and doesn't affect anything. It has been much higher and much colder, far less and much warmer. CO2 means nothing in the history of this planet and outside of increasing crop harvests has virtually no effect on climate of any kind.

I heard different on the televitz device! It must be true.

Well, there is a pretty easy way for someone logical to see that co2 does have an effect. If you trace back in time on the earth, you get more and more heat and more and more co2 the further back you go, to the point where the earth was boiling and had no free oxygen.

It's not proof of causality, but it should be enough to make any reasonable person cautious. It's overwhelming coicindence to think that there has been a dramatic warming trend beyond what has been seen in tens of thousands of years at the exact same time societies have industrialized.

The sun's activity is variable, but there has not been any measured increase in output in recent times. If anything we should be heading into a huge cold spell right now as happens every 800 years...but we haven't.

It will be funny as hell if you sweat to death with amongst all your rice. I bet you'll deny that global warming has anything (which will be undeniable at that point) has anything to do with co2 right up til the end.

In a way, I guess it's better. I have to think humanity is too stupid to live. Maybe we'll save some peaceful aliens from having to fight us later on.

 

[luckyb0y]

Maybe Cleve's posts are like performance art about the ambiguous form and function of the Internet, about which nothing is certain.

Funny that. No, seriously. Why people still bother to argue with him?

Also I think Cleve must be some sort of Space Marine.
titanium bones...check
superhuman strenght...check
socially challenged...check
military minded...check
fanatical...check
boneheaded...check

better not argue with an angry spece marine lads

Also this is a joke and is not supposed to offend anyone.

I actually think it would be quite nice to discuss with Cleve as he clearly is more intelligent and knowledgable than most people here or anywhere (don't let that get to your head though) but it's just a gigantic monologue about his mental and physical superiority. He doesn't even bother to present counter-arguments, just spews bullshit that we're too stupid and infected with televised consensus. Shooting down all the arguments in this way gets really tiresome and makes you look bad. If you consider yourself so smart you must think that you are some sort of teacher or guru or whatnot, otherwise I can't understand why you are trying so hard to peddle your beliefs. If that is the case why get annoyed with your students - what exactly do you want to achieve here. We already know there is no way to convince you about anything as you are to full of yourself to actually admit being wrong. If you want to sway anyone to your side that is probably the worst thing you can do. If you don't respect people they won't respect you.

 

[Krancor]

Also, call me an elitist asshole but I have to laugh that someone who tells a story about their experiences as a PFC think it lends weight to anything they say. Though actually I would expect these kinds of stupid rants from the 18 year old retards who enlist.

 

[Kingston]

 

[Jeff Graw]

Listen, if you have 3 buckets holding 8 gallons and 2 buckets holding 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have? Getting this question right was what convinced President Camacho to ask me about the agricultural problem!

You can have three or more buckets. You could have 2 buckets holding 7 gallons and one more holding the last gallon gallon, but you could also have buckets you're keeping secret or you forgot you had.

 

[DefJam101]

You sound really intellamajehnt and whatnot! I'll bet the other halfwits are really impressed with you.

Listen, if you have 3 buckets holding 8 gallons and 2 buckets holding 7 gallons, how many buckets do you have? Getting this question right was what convinced President Camacho to ask me about the agricultural problem!

CO2 doesn't mean anything, doesn't control anything and doesn't affect anything. It has been much higher and much colder, far less and much warmer. CO2 means nothing in the history of this planet and outside of increasing crop harvests has virtually no effect on climate of any kind.

I heard different on the televitz device! It must be true.

Amazing. If you cut out all the fallacious and unsupported bullshit, his post is only 1 sentence long.

This post is longer!

 

[Vagiel]

I do not mean to get off topic (whatever that may be) but since mr Blakemore is around i would really like to hear some things about grimoire. Would you like to tell us a few things about the current status i am actually quit a lot more interested in this game after seeing your posts.

 

[DefJam101]

I do not mean to get off topic (whatever that may be) but since mr Blakemore is around i would really like to hear some things about grimoire. Would you like to tell us a few things about the current status i am actually quit a lot more interested in this game after seeing your posts.

That's the most on-topic thing said so far.

 

[Krancor]

If it ever comes out I'll buy it. He needs to just get it out. Stop adding content and just tie up glaring bugs and put it out the door. You can polish 100 years but it will never be perfect.

 

[Jasede]

Yes, Krancor, you really never met someone with Asperger's!

Not that that's a bad thing.

 

[Keldorn]

What the OP neglects, is that by boycotting Cleve's project, you simply facilitate his bunker mentality and hardline, extremist views.

Normally, as people age, they mellow in their beliefs. On top of that, if their professional CRPG projects are embraced by a widely diverse variety of folks, it will ideologically soften them up even more.

This is an irrefutable humanitarian axiom.


But maybe Cleve is actually FRIGHTENED of expanding his horizons via omnibenevolent, all-encompassing centrism. Maybe he finds obsessive-compulsive zoning more comforting and self-validating. Such is the delusion of hyper-isolationism.

 

[DefJam101]

Yes, Krancor, you really never met someone with Asperger's!

Not that that's a bad thing.

According to Cleve, he probably never will!

One of the distinguishing traits of Asperger's is the virtual inability to understand why others can't reach conclusions identical to yours. All people with Asperger's tend to be extremely closeminded by the standards of ordinary people, who are in fact born closeminded and stay that way to the grave. Your description of your friends is in fact probably just the usual vaccine-generated retard autist. The chances of your actually meeting somebody in your lifetime with genuine Asperger's is about a million to one.

You cannot imagine what it is to stand alone on a plateau by yourself for forty-five years without a single person envying you the location in all that time ... then to wake up one morning to a crowd of a million people all claiming they were there first.

Personally, I have never met another person I thought had Asperger's. I suspect it is one of the rarest psychological afflictions a person can manifest.

I have met hundreds of autistic types with some Aspergerish qualities. As soon as they spoke, you could see the group-consensus reality generator in their heads was fully intact, perhaps just running slightly askew. As for someone so extreme like me, always wanted to but never met'em. Their speech gives them away in a microsecond.

There was a guy at work claiming to have Asperger's last year, I didn't tell him I was the real thing. He was big on talking about global warming - which of course, nobody with Asperger's would ever fall for, not even for a microsecond. Global warming has no representation in the real world outside of televitz.

*snip* I might as well not even talk to this guy.



(I'm still highlighting his fallacious bullshit, by the way.)

Add a new category to that original list:

- Statements relative to his ego, with no factual support other than his ego.

 

[Keldorn]

There is *currently* no use in talking to him, because he is in a self-repressed, inverted creative genius mode.

Meaning, the appropriate places where he should be directing his boundless imagination and spiritual energy are being neglected, and instead, he's heaping truckloads of said psycho-cosmic energy into the hyper-isolationist bunker, where it does no good at all.

 

[dagorkan]

Has anybody here actually finished the beta/demo of Grimoire?

I wandered around a forest, fought some creatures and spoke to a fairy but didn't know what I was supposed to do. I still have it installed but the game was slow as fuck on my computer.

edit:
OK I discovered a walkthrough, I'm going to see if I can get DosBox to work better this time.