It’s an MMORPG. This kind of argument has been debunked enough times for me to just think you’re trolling.
then they put stuff in cave or castle where you can’t fly without aggroing stuff.
not that any of this really matter for where you’ll spend most of your gametime : raid, dungeon and BGs
Human warrior alt doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I don’t know that landing at tp there will be a party of horde there?
LOL… you remind me of a climate activist…
30 years ago it was an ice age… debunked
20 years ago it was global warming… debunked
10 years ago Miami was going to be under water… debunked
Now its in 10 years the earth will stop spinning…
So for 14 years it was WPVP that died because of flying… now that everyone and their mother can see it was NOT flying that killed it… debunked!
We change the story to flying destroyed the entire world…
I tell you what… the “boggie man” syndrome is in FULL effect on flying…
You honestly couldn’t be more wrong while simultaneously missing the point. Bravo.
- Your first three points are fake news
- I’ve never been a climate activist (I may actually be closer to the opposite)
- I don’t PvP and don’t like it much so I’ve never had an opinion on WPvP
- The biggest casualty of flying was always the integrity of the world, and I’ve always said so. If you don’t know why that’s so it’s because you don’t understand.
Some people think being slowed down is fun, maybe, for some peoples personal definition of fun.
Some people enjoy CBT, most would not describe CBT as something that sounds fun and they absolutely have to try.
Hell, I was on a Normal server, and I still engaged in some fun PvP battles, around the forts in Hellfire and the Towers in Auchindun. And we all know about Halruaa. Sure, the bonus from capping the objectives was only a few percent, or getting some item turn-ins in Nagrand, but it was enough to make even a hardcore anti-PvP player like me flag and put in work.
Timmy!! Why the hell do you have your finger in your sisters but?!?!?!?!
i could not find the doll?
Assuming you lived through this and were old enough to have an opinion; neat. It would have been a relatively stupid argument, even at the time, though.
“Global warming” is, and always was, a misnomer. Internally speaking researchers always called it “climate change” because not everywhere was going to get warmer necessarily. More that the whole world, on average, would see warm spots that would change the dynamics of weather and the environment.
However it’s not only not been debunked but among the people who actually know what they’re looking at it becomes increasingly apparent that it’s happening. A scientist who disagrees needs to find evidence it’s not happening; the vast majority agree it’s happening. Evangelicals, conservatives with no actual scientific background, or politicians, however, are incapable of “debunking” anything here.
Climate change is widely accepted in the scientific community. They’re the ones who’d actually know if it’s happening. Disregarding them because someone without a proper background, proper research, or proper methodology, is a fools errand.
To be fair only the most extremist (read: alarmist) of climate change supporters believed it was going to be that bad. Most understood that wasn’t the case.
This is a case of some people who “have a degree” making claims that are sensationalist. Those kinds of claims spread like wildfire because people like sensationalism. The vast majority of the actual scientific community, those who study for knowledge and practicality, never thought that was a realistic outlook.
I imagine this is hyperbole, but you do know that no one thinks the planet is going to stop spinning, right? Well, actually, I’m sure someone does. There’s a conspiracy theory for everything, so I suppose someone thinks the planet is about to randomly stop.
Climate change research makes no suggestions that the world is going to end in the next ten years. Nor the next century. In fact climate change data doesn’t indicate that the world is going to end at all. The world will carry on in some fashion regardless of the climate.
The problem is the evolution of weather patterns and how they’ll affect humans and the animals they rely on. We’re concerned that the climate will change enough to become a problem for humans, and not just for a few years. We know better than to think that “the world will end”, it’s just that the human world (read: civilization, economy, food production) will be severely disrupted.
The above all said, I don’t think flying killed the world. I think flying was just a drop in the bucket along with every other change that made the game different. Flying is just a really easy scapegoat because it’s easy to create connections between flying and problems even if they’re not related. Correlation is not causation and all that.
As for climate change, I wouldn’t call it the boogie man effect. At the most basic level the changes people call for to “fix” climate change are honestly positive things to do for society anyway.
There’s no harm in averting climate change because it’s all beneficial things we’d be doing, even if the actual problem wasn’t real. The boogie man effect tends to describe things that we do wrong to avoid something bad; not things we do right because we’re cautious.
1 Like
The aggro area of those mobs probably don’t even cover 1% of the airspace you can fly around in. Hold space bar for a few seconds to remove all dangers. That’s very different from land.
There is not only NOT a consensus among scientists about this, there is a growing vocal group of senior scientists actively opposed to the theory. So there’s that.
It’s political. It always was.
This is politically driven news. Also known as fake news or fake science.
97% of actively researching and publishing scientists agree that climate change is happening. It’s not only a consensus but an almost complete majority.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
It’s a lot less political than you think, it’s just that politics tends to make it seem that way while arguing 80 different views using the same data and the fringe data.
Scientists agree, almost universally, that climate change is real. Just 3% disagree. That’s so small that it’s hard to argue the 3% are a true counter argument.
1 Like
Nothing wrong with flying in tbc. There was plenty of pvp at ogrila and skettis.
1 Like
That’s an interesting position, as I always thought it was not the popularity of a theory but the facts that determined scientific truth? Galileo might have something to say about that.
The science is far from conclusive. There is evidence the current highly politicized position is not only wrong, but insidiously wrong. Of course it’s all drowned out in emotive virtue signaling:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/Before you launch the inevitable attack against who is linking where, here’s one from your own site, NASA, confirming a total mass gain of ice in Antartica (despite the media hysteria over ice loss):
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-lossesI don’t actually have a dog in the fight. The truth will out, and I’m not a scientist so everything is second hand knowledge (or worse considering so much is filtered through the MSM). I do find the correlation between loud climate activism, political leanings, and forced money grabs to be very suspicious. So should you.
1 Like
Looks like I pulled one in on my post… lol at the alarmist!
weak argument, but sure I should automatically gimp my self in a world that would go more efficient than me, playing the same game is how MMOs work.
comparing classic wpvp to vanilla wpvp is like comparing chocolate milk to water.
Even on Pservers the wpvp was different and more blizz vanilla like.
Classic really is far from any vanilla experience.
Sour grapes, meet Hyperbole.
Facts meet millennials who watch youtubers give poor information and opinions based off someone elses memory.
1 Like