Why are people so fast to point blame?

Telarith - Sanctuary

Hunter_PT - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Why do people always think BB is ever needed lol. No FB up till 79 should EVER need BB. Only times BB is needed is TT/FF/WB/Zhen.

Did you mean FB 69? 79 is able to be solo healed by a lvl 48 cleric, so no idea why BB would be needed there.

EDIT: For the global warming thing, all these items that are found to be insignificant, do they take the possibility that collectively they might have a noticeable effect into consideration?

Aadi - Lost City

I read the first page, skip to the end, and this is about global warming now...?

Solandri - Heavens Tear

Kuschel - Lost City wrote: »

My first char before I rerolled was EP... it's not easy when your tank sucks. Sometimes, like previously said, you need to keep that tank alive because if you stop healing he'll die. If he dies, then everyone dies. I'd rather have all my DD die than the whole pt wipe and boss reset.

You need to keep in mind what the goal is. If the goal is to kill a TT boss for drops, then yeah, the priority is to keep the tank alive so the group doesn't wipe and the boss gets killed.

But in this case, the goal was to complete a BH. i.e. Everyone needs to be alive to get credit for the kill. So the priority shifts to killing the boss while everyone is alive. You don't get BH until you're 10-20 levels higher than the FB, so any decent cleric + tank should be able to afford the extra heals to keep other party members alive. (Not to mention in this case there were 2 clerics in the group. Absolutely no excuse for letting a non-tank die.)

Hunter_PT - Heavens Tear

Telarith - Sanctuary wrote: »

Did you mean FB 69? 79 is able to be solo healed by a lvl 48 cleric, so no idea why BB would be needed there.

I never said it was b:surrender. I cant say any higher than FB79 because i haven't done them but up untill FB79 BB is not needed (including FB79).

Saitada - Sanctuary

MANray_ - Sanctuary wrote: »

You make your case in a well reasoned and articulate fashion, i take no offense at being addressed with intelligence. Much like you i believe in questioning authority and in not accepting such things as contradict available evidence. Skepticism is a healthy habit.

I do stand by my statement AGW is supported by an overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific comunity; All Nobel laureates in science (unlike the fields of peace and literature, still a worthy accomplishment) who have publicly spoken on the issue (a majority), all scientific bodies of standing in the world, including those dependant on the UN system (whatever criticisms may be leveled at this body, it houses through it's programs the most inclusive of technically profficient scientific institutions) as well the science academies of most G20 countries (including my own) and of every industrialized nation (including the USA). No recognized scientific body or even individual college has challenged this consensus, and to most scientists the debate centers about the effects and costs, not wether the problem exists.

As for the incident at the University of East Anglia no evidence of wrong doing has emerged (as a lawyer i'm somewhat punctual about these things) despite an ongoing investigation by the UK's government. The allegations are based on documents obtained through hacking and have yet to be reviewed in a court of law. Furthermore all they really point to is mishandling of access to information by skeptics and unflattering remarks about them. No published research has been tainted or questioned because of this.

As for urban heat islands the issue was dutifully addressed by the third report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (a body composed by scientists of international standing and often charged with undermining the dangers of AGW by other researchers) and found to have no significant impact based on published studies which addressed it's effect.

As for the impact of solar variation this has been debunked by published science as well, the effect having been accounted for in climate models and considered unsignificant. This is the position of all Astronomical Societies that have spoken on the issue (including the Americans) and NASA.

As for the argument that temperatures have failed to rise in the last 15 years the only available evidence comes from temperature records in the United States alone, and whose validity has now been questioned by several researchers. I do keep up with British newscasts (printed journalism has unfortunately continued to suffer the trend towards becoming a tabloid press) and not so long ago i remember watching in the BBC Hardtalk series allegations being raised against American interest groups of providing ample funds to any researcher willing to debunk AGW.

Now, i have up until this point based most of my argument on published, peer reviewed science. To me the important evidence lies however in who are the skeptics on the technical side of the issue. Indeed all are American or American funded scientists (a mere handful) of little repute and no international standing. Given there is a heated political debate in the United States (to all practical purposes one of the world's leading polluters and a non signatory to Kyoto) i would question the true goals behind such skeptics.
The USA has rich coal deposits it would become unable to exploit were such measures as demanded by scientists be implemented. Also there is the alegation about transfer of wealth, and heavy opposition towards cap and trade.

It is from politically motivated interest groups and media personalities that the controvery has arisen, not really from within scientific comunity where such things are handled through research. I do question the sources on the other side of the debate, their methods and their motivations.

This is a debate that should be handled by scientists, and on that front it is no longer even considered a matter of dispute.

Sai, i have little doubt you've already heard my arguments and that you've had good reasons to dismiss them. I do want to make it clear that in no way do i question your sincerity on this, nor your integrity. I believe you're honestly arguing what you believe to be the truth. I also think it remains a matter of respect to respond to a well formulated post and i have done so. While debate is healthy i do think this is not an appropiate forum to discuss this matter, and while in no way would i begrudge you a public response, for my part i'll only continue this debate through pms or in an appropiate setting. i have been guilty of less than apropiate behaviour in here and do wish to correct that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html#

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/ipcc_international_pack_of_cli.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html

Pay close attention to the BBC interview with Phil Jones the former head of CRU, particularly questions D and N.

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

~Saitada

p.s. While this only covers some of the information I have dug through (and most of it not on these websites, but I doubt you want me to lay out hundreds of links to dig through when I can summarize things fairly well by the links provided), it sets it out in a pretty fair light, and raises a lot of questions. Especially when Phil Jones the former head of CRU himself says the science isn't settled.

So... take that as you will. Oh also, check these three links out...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

MANray_ - Sanctuary

Thanks for the info, i'll be looking at all the links you've provided and give you my thoughts on it on a pm over the weekend. Seems you really have done a good bit of research and i would like to pay this due attention.

Smobo - Heavens Tear

Its your fault people are so quick to irrationally blame people for things they can't control. b:angry

But seriously, people deflect blame so they themselves can't be shown as wrong in some way.

Foxx - Heavens Tear

Agro doesnt "bounce around" onto you unless you pull it off the barbarian. You were attacking the same target as the barbarian weren't you?
The rules for agro are very deterministic. If you keep your damage under control you wont pull agro. Thats not to say you messes up, since the barbarian may have sucked and (for example) not cast any taunt spells. But your description of agro bouncing around onto you before you pulled agro is quite wrong.

As for laying blame, sounds like a combination of factors. Clerics not watching healing bars, tank possibly not generating enough agro, tank possibly charging in without clearing adds. Your play may have been under par, but doesnt sound like you had much to do with the wipe.