"the world's number one source for food cooked on rollers."

I'll have to say that 7-Eleven beats out BP.

Stupid Al Gore.

We get it. It's hot.

I think the press release should have been titled EA and BP collaborate to include education about how not evil BP is compared to other companies in Sim City Societies.

As a note, Civilization also had a global warming threat, if your civilization was polluting too much praries would turn into desert, etc... I think it was in civilization 2 (which is nearly 10 years old !) yay for Sid Meier !

whats next, terrorists? or how about, bush?

I really like that idea. It sounds fun and educational and very much in line with what I like from a SimCity game.

However, it also sounds a lot like meaningless PR from British Petroleum, which I am not fond of.

Wow, it's about time they added more fantasy elements to those Sim City games.

Anyone who's actually watched "An Inconveinent Truth" and paid attention ti the data Gore presents on his little graphs would relaize how he proves his own theories wrong with his own data. But nevermind that because hollywood is backing Gore so he must be right, and any scientist who disagrees is a madman. Yes, the world is getting hotter, but the jury's still out on whether or not we cause it, but don't let humility get in the way of your arrogance in thinking that you can actually change the fucking climate. I'm all for reducing pollution and cleaning up the earth, it needs to be done, but this alarmist crap needs to stop til it's proven one way or the other

@hexode: I wonder, though if that was meant to actually represent global warming or if it was just to symbolize that is pollution is bad and ruins the land.

[rant]That's the one thing that I don't get about people who spend so much time trying to disprove global warming. You're kind of playing devil's advocate there. Whether or not global warming caused by humans is real, pollution is still bad and we should try to reduce emissions as much as possible. [/rant]

"low-carbon power options like hydrogen"

sorry, but with current tech, hydrogen for fuel cells is still largely obtained from hydrocarbons. There's some progress in this area about using water as a source but so far it hasn't been done on a large scale.

And this will affect my hyper religious totalitarian regime I plan to build how, exactly?

I thought so...

global warming is one of the biggest lies ever believed

people don't confuse wide-spread pollution with "global warming": the former is man-made and the latter is part of this planet's life cycle

Love the global warming denial in this thread. Time to play bingo!

global warming, which may or may not exist depending on your viewpoint.

There's no question that it exists even among the naysayers, and saying otherwise would be irresponsible on a different type of site.

The question is whether it's man-made or a natural phenomenon, and whether it's responsible for some of the things we've seen in the past couple years. But it is a factual statement to say that the Earth has gotten warmer over the past 20 years.

I think it's interesting how global warming is basically a political issue in only one country: America.

We have the largest economy and we produce the most waste and we are also the ones who reject the ideas behind Global Warming...

Lot's of atmospheric scientists in here! Thanks guys, I was almost starting to believe the eviden...I mean 'Hollywood hype.'

Now I'm free to pollute and waste at will! Take that polar ice caps and third world countries! Your ass is mine!

Hmm, does this qualify as viral marketing? EA announces that they will be including global warming in the game and now the blogs are going to have people arguing about whether or not global warming exists and thus spending more times in articles about SimCity Societies.

@ceilingFANBOY: Nobosy is trying to "disprove" global warming. The argument is whether or not we as humans actually have any effect on the climate. Only idiots argue about not wanting to stop pollution, which you hardly see. Of course, if you happen to be in the camp that doesn't take Gore's pseudo-science to heart, you're labeled as someone who doesn't care about the earth and an idiot. Everyone knows what pollution does to the earth, and it's a fact that we cause pollution. But there is no solid, fool-proof information that we cause something as natural as climate changing. Watch an inconveinent truth, the pause it when he shows different climate scenarios from the past few centuries....see if you notice a pattern.

What I think is interesting is that since America has the highest carbon emissions per capita (last I read, Australia was number two, and China had highest overall emissions, but lower emissions per capita than US or Australia), we get blamed for drout and famine in regions like Northern Africa, which then angers the locals and inspires more of them to join terrorist groups, etc.

What this game is suggesting is that a local area's carbon emissions impact that local area's weather, which really isn't the issue. The issue is global. Local areas contribute to a wider, global issue. The game is over-simplifying the issue just for the sake of being pompous and high-minded.
But I guess I can forgive it for that. I think the game basically only interests me because even before this turn of events, it appealed mostly to my inner pompous high-minded windbag.

@doubtful: See, perfect example. Someone who tries to tie pollution in with global warming. Yes doubtful, by not believing that global warming is man-made that means that those people want you to pollute and there will be no consequences. Good try though, keep trying to ridicule those who know the difference between pollution and climate change by promoting them as one and the same

Blah blah blah. I'm still more interested to see what Tilted Mill is going to do with the SimCity franchise.

@minister.of.rhetoric:

The game is over-simplifying the issue just for the sake of being pompous and high-minded.

I think it's more for the $$$ BP is throwing EA to help them sell the 'we're not an evil oil company' line.

@doubtful:
Yeah, I saw @ceilingFANBOY post the same thing, and I agree. I just didn't think it was worth re-posting someone's idea and making it sound like it was an idea of my own. :)

If you'll recall, the evidence shows that there is one very real link between humans and global warming, and I think it's time we all thank Crecente for doing his part to save the earth.

@doubtful: i think you're both right, also... EA is banking on getting plenty of $$$ and possibly good publicity out of this too

we're all talking about it now so... well played EA

well played

Is that an actual ingame shot? Looks baaaad....

My favorite thing about global warming is one of the jokes in the strip Get Fuzzy from real recently. When told that methane produced by cows on "factory farms" impacts global warming, the cat says:

OK, solution: Grass flavored Tums. Problem solved. Put on a coat.

Otherwise, I wonder if it'll be one of those things like Nuclear Winter that we look back on and laugh at the science-based PR campaign behind. The two are pretty similar in that they're both very persuasive arguments to take action on something we already should: Don't blow each other up with nukes and don't pollute. In the end, doing something right for the wrong reasons is still kind of doing somethng right... or at least that's the only mindset that I can comprehend behind the whole global warming thing.

But, for the record, not believing that global warming is a human-made event doesn't mean that someone is "pro-pollution" or saying that it's not happening. Climate change is a natural part of the world... hell, we only came out of a mini-ice age a few centuries ago. Whether or not we're causing the climate change is really quite a moot point.

We should just strive to do what's right for where we live regardless of whether it's causing the planet to heat up at an extra degree a half-century or not. I just wish people could do it without having to be scared into it (for instance, the group in Europe saying that heart attacks will likely be on the rise due to a 2 degree increase in temperature over the next 25 years).

@I_Hate_This_Place:

Good try though, keep trying to ridicule those who know the difference between pollution and climate change by promoting them as one and the same.

I wasn't trying to ridicule anyone, it's the natural conclusion most people will reach if you lie to them and convince them we don't have an impact on the planet's climate.

Anyone who believes that we can keep pumping millions tons of gases into the atmosphere that wouldn't naturally be there and at the same time destroy the Earth's natural method of dealing with said gases by removing vast amounts of forest doesn't have an effect on the environment is being obtuse.

We are obviously having an impact, but no amount of science, evidence, or logic will ever convince deniers. You'll always have an excuse or caveat.

I guess I should be happy that you think pollution is a bad thing, but you're a minority among those who deny humans are impacting the environment. Most of the rest choose to drive gas guzzling SUVS, live in huge houses, and eat too much meat.

I do know the difference between pollution and climate change. One is a cause and one is an effect.

Well, you have to remember two things when you are referring to "evidence" and "Global Warming".

1)Most of the computer data (including the Hockey stick chart, as it has been known to be called) have been debunked.

2)NASA just recently found out that their satellites were incorrectly recording temperature. These readings had claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record, but after the bug fix it was found that 1998 was not the hottest year ever. In fact, the title was returned to the previous year holder...1932.

I'll add another bit of info just for fun. You must remember that for any bit of information that is going to be considered as "science" must pass the scientific method to be rightfully included as real science. However, The Global Warming Theory (and it still should be rightfully considered as such) cannot pass the stage of "form a theory". Step two is "testing your hypothesis" but since GW cannot be tested then it cannot pass onward through the process of becoming an actual scientific study.

When theories that zealous scientists fail to prove reach this problem they create a scenario called "consensus" and try to pass it off as actual study. Since it cannot be tested or approved by the scientists in question they take a poll to see if people agree that it is "probably" happening and because many of these climate scientists depend on grant money to fund their much needed unproved theory they will most likely agree that is "could be" happening.

So, they point at a rock somewhere and say that OMG IT IZ TEH MELTING and bam...they think they have proven global warming. Yet, in the same instance they fail to mention things like: The medieval warming period, the fact that it has naturally been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age (DUR), the fact that the westerlies of Antartica grew in size of up to 6.5 gigatons of ice last year, or that Greenland actually used to be warm enough for nordic seaman to take port and make a living growing grape vineyards because of its sunny and warm climate at the time during the last warming period.

Oh, they also fail to mention the fact that the Sun has been in a very active heating phase for the past 15 years which is, as solar scientists can tell you, will be ending in 2011 when the Sun enters its Schwab cycle. What this cycle means is that the Sun will go through a 15 year or more period where there will be literally very few to NO sunspots on the Sun.

Last time that happened? the mini-ice age. Hope this is enough info to at least prove "I know what I am talking about"

I should have known this would turn into a godforsaken political debate. All you non-believers, I guess the jury's still out on evolution and gravity right? Yea, shut the fuck up, immediately. Thanks. We'll make sure your kids are the first to drown when sea levels rise to unmanageable levels because of global warming.

As for the topic at hand, I'm definitely getting this new simcity.

Also, Ecco the dolphin contained evolution "whether you believe" in it or not.

The difference?

A higher percentage of bone-fide scientists (IE, not directly funded by oil companies) believe in global warming than in Darwinian evolution (like maybe one guy believes in Lamark).

Seriously, we all know that truth is not absultute and there is no way to know everything, but since every prediction by Global Warming scientists in the 1980's has more or less come true, isn't it time to drop all the "maybe" and "it's controversial" nonsense? People aught to watch "After the Warming" with James Burke.

@Gagamus:
I gotta say that this is the biggest reason a conversation about global warming can't be had civilly. Either you're a believer or an idiot. Me? I dunno. I do know that we shouldn't dump all that shit into the air that we have been, and that since we live here, we should try and do more good than harm. That said, I don't know how comfortable I am with the whole thing basically being a PR campaign instead of being treated like legitimate scientific theory. I understand that it's what's necessary to get people to change their behavior, you have to scare the hell out of them, but the difference between evolution and gravity is that they have a lot more than just "consensus" to back it up.

I really think that the more accurate theory that this compares to is Nuclear Winter. It was a scientific theory run like a PR campaign to scare people into rallying for their governments to disarm and stand down before a "nuclear holocaust" took place. They completely ignored the only real effects of nuclear detonation in a "real world" setting and created a possible outcome using data that was questionable at best and completely made up at worst. The result? Rachel Carson writes Silent Spring and gets millions of people to believe that, yes, if nukes are launched, not only will it kill a bunch of humans, but all life on earth.

In my mind, global warming and nuclear winter amount to the same thing: Ego. The ego of the human race to think that we, an insignifcant species, have the ability to now-and-forever erase life on earth and destroy our planet.

@Gagamus: Actually, the jury is still out on Evolution. Obviously the jury isn't out on Gravity considering the scientific method could actually be used to test Gravity and of course it passed the test.

Evolution, like Global Warming, cannot be tested and is unable to move past the first step of the scientific method: "Form a theory" and cannot be considered as true scientific worth until it can be tested. Also considering that the Precambrian Explosion (no, it has nothing to do with the big bang) has never been explained or the fact that a transitional species has NEVER been found kinda shoots holes in that whole evolution thing.

Oh, to bring up Darwin and his galapagos studies he claimed that by last year that the radical enviroment changes of the Galapagos would produce a new species of Finch. Well, there were 13 species of Finch found in the galapagos when he studied them.

Can you guess how many there are now? Ohhhh 13.

Without fanning the flames, I am somewhat concerned about how this will play out. Mostly because of the passage of time. Yes, in terms of the planet's history, global warming is pretty fast. But in terms of how humanity perceives time, even in accelerated Sim time, Global Warming is going to be a relatively slow process. Its not something that can be switched on or off like Godzilla or the other usual Sim disasters. Still, I like the concept, and I hope this pans out to be good.

Regardless of whether or not people believe its real, its good to see Global Warming explored, even if its in a fictional context.

@Aurvant: Let's see...

1)Most of the computer data (including the Hockey stick chart, as it has been known to be called) have been debunked.

This is how science works. It hasn't been debunked, it's been updated with better numbers. The overall information was correct from the beginning and today's info demonstrates this in hard number form. You're wrong.

2)This is a bunch of drivel just tossed together. The hottest year on record has NOTHING to do with the overall trend of global warming.

Also, Global Warming is NOT untestable. You're also confusing SCIENTIFIC with Falsafiable, a Popperian INTERPRETATION of Science. However, Global Warming is a hypothesis based on strong evidence, much like the Pangaea and Darwinian Evolution hypothesises. Sure, they're just theories, so's Gravity. Jump off a building an tell me if you're still skeptical of the unproved.
The link between HIV and AIDS was just a theory for the longest time to. You should have been telling people it's okay to get that.
Global warming has had some of the best research of all time, and the evidence also makes sense based on basic chemistry and historical analysis.

If you understood the basic laws governing heat on our planet, you would know that a change of a few degrees to the positive would be enough to kill off all phytoplankton on earth, removing a large percentage of our oxygen. Whether or not there is a mini-Ice Age (in fact climate scientists predict a mini-cooling in Europe for a few years due in part to the exact condition you're describing), the long-term effects of Global Warming are far more worrying and realistically so.
Seriously, read a book by a bone-fide scientist and not someone paid by Exxon-Mobil. If you really think a bunch of ignorant bullies (IE: Scientists) created a scientific consensus just to screw with your SUV usage, you're beyond delusional.

Here's my honest statement: I am willing to give you $50 000 if by the year 2050 there is not major ecological catastrophe in the most populous regions in the world, unless we have made major steps to combat Global Warming in the intervening period. I'm willing to give this to you personally, on the condition you'll give that money to disaster relief in the region should you turn out to be wrong.

If this idea appeals to you, and you're willing to put your money where your rhetoric is, respond, and I'll figure out a way to exchange emails. I would reccomend reading some good books first.

And let's all remember that this is the same BP that as recently as this summer was dumping toxins into Lake Michigan.

@شاه: i'm still kind of upset that SimCity 4 was made to look so much like its mainstream cousin, The Sims

but now they have Societies looking like Windows Vista for Kids?

is this really the type of interface people like now a days? the Mac does it pretty nice and sophisticated but everything else that has tried to copy that whole candy-land look just looks like dummed down kiddie crap to me

the worst offender being Office 2007... ugh

i hope the gameplay is spot on though, SimCity games have never let me down in that regard but i'm going to keep my fingers crossed just in case

@ego531: "A higher percentage of bone-fide scientists (IE, not directly funded by oil companies) believe in global warming than in Darwinian evolution (like maybe one guy believes in Lamark)."

Are you friggin' kidding me?! Not to argue against global warming, but, sheesh, we've only had climatological models for 20 years versus the models (and evidence) for evolution spanning 150 years PLUS selective breeding spanning more than 2000 years.

@jephs_mun:

Definitely need a warning for him.

Maybe if everyone would just do COMMON FREAKING SENSE things like, oh I don't know, recycling as much as possible, using energy efficient light bulbs, stop using plastic bags, and other such-like things, we all wouldn't have to sit around arguing about whether or not something truly exists and could just live our lives knowing that we're at least doing SOMETHING to help with pollution in the world rather than just sit around and argue whether or not global warming is man-made or just part of the planets natural life cycle.

The most pathetic thing BY FAR that I see on the Internet every single day is people arguing with each other, calling everyone names about something that they apparently have a strong opinion about, but these same people won't actually do something about it in their life. They're content to just bitch and moan on the 'net because it's easy.

If you haven't figured it out yet, you're part of the problem, not the solution. No matter what "cause" it's for.

@Aurvant:

Obviously the jury isn't out on Gravity considering the scientific method could actually be used to test Gravity and of course it passed the test.

Actually, gravitation or attraction is observable, but gravity is not.

There are several theories of gravity, but none have a testable cause. Which is why gravity remains a theory and does not meet the scientific method's standard of proof.

But you don't see people our there denying gravity's existence, and if you did, you'd call them crazy.