Discussion History Main / GlobalWarming

I don\'t understand why [[RuleofCautiousEditingJudgement Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment]] applies here. I\'d understand if this were applied to solutions to global warming since it\'s a political/social issue. But it is already mentioned in the text that the science has been settled. Data shows a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures. The facts are not in dispute. We don\'t have the same caution for [[UsefulNotes/{{Evolution}} evolutionary theory]] or [[FlatWorld Flat World]]. Why do we have it for this?

I don\'t understand why [[RuleofCautiousEditingJudgement Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment]] applies here. I\'d understand if this were applied to solutions to global warming since it\'s a political/social issue. But it is already mentioned in the text that the science has been settled. Data shows a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures. The facts are not in dispute. We don\'t have the same caution for [[Evolution evolutionary theory]] or [[FlatWorld Flat World]]. Why do we have it for this?

I don\'t understand why [[RuleofCautiousEditingJudgement Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment]] applies here. I\'d understand if this were applied to solutions to global warming since it\'s a political/social issue. But it is already mentioned in the text that the science has been settled. Data shows a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures. The facts are not in dispute. We don\'t have the same caution for [[UsefulNotes/Evolution evolutionary theory]] or [[FlatWorld Flat World]]. Why do we have it for this?

I don\'t understand why [[RuleofCautiousEditingJudgement Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment]] applies here. I\'d understand if this were applied to solutions to global warming since it\'s a political/social issue. But it is already mentioned in the text that the science has been settled. Data shows a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures. The facts are not in dispute. We don\'t have the same caution for evolutionary theory or [[FlatWorld Flat World]]. Why do we have it for this?

Yeah, um about that, there\'s also this oddity amongst the Bord and Cord entry: [[VideoGame/FireEmblemTellius Boyd and Nolan]]
* They don\'t join together either. Boyd is available on both games, Nolan only in \'\'Radiant Dawn\'\'. Boyd is in Ike\'s merc team, Nolan in Dawn Brigade. Yeah, this is actually an even more deviation than Arthur-Charlotte.
* This, in addition, made them stranger to each others (as in, Boyd is from Crimea, Nolan is from Daein). Heck, even if it isn\'t that much, both Arthur and Charlotte at least ARE from Nohr, so they would\'ve known each other a little more than Boyd and Nolan (but still less than the original Bord and Cord)
** In addition, if you look at how they are recruited in \'\'Revelations\'\', there\'s another link. The only way you can recruit Charlotte in that route is to have Elise, Arthur\'s liege, talk to her.
* Stat distribution is one thing that Boyd and Nolan have more accurately. No contest on this. (It\'s just one better in STR, one better in SPD, right?)
* Veteran - Rookie... Yes, Boyd and Nolan have that kind of dynamic even if they\'re on different topics (although Boyd was only Rookie in Path of Radiance, and in a sense, he\'s actually more Veteran to Ike in the beginning. By Radiant Dawn, I wouldn\'t call him or any other Greil Mercs, except the obviously younger ones like Mist and Rolf, rookies). But I just thought that the whole \'Sibling Retainer-Non Retainer\' thing in Fates is another way to say this. Could be wrong about the correlation between the Vet/Rookie, but maybe this is something to investigate.
** Actually, if you\'re saying \'Veteran-Rookie\' dynamic, actually Haar-Jill would fit the bill better than Boyd-Nolan... but they don\'t count to the archetype because they\'re Wyvern Riders. Just saying.