gobal warning?

Does anyone else feel like this is just Microsoft's way of getting more people to build games with XNA? Let's keep in mind that this company's entire empire is built on the fact that, early on, they got more people writing software for their platform than the other guys. It just seems like a new spin on an old tune to me.

What I really wonder is: can they put their money where their mouth is? How big is their ecological footprint?

Decrease Global Warming: Turn off your 360.

Seriously, google Crichton and Global Warming and read the speech titled "UFOs Cause Global Warming" and see what you think after that about the whole climate change issue.

Dammit. What's the deal with everyone hopping on the global warming bandwagon these days?

Sony's already trying to cure cancer. What else do you want?

Seriously, though, it's nice to see game companies take a charitable route. Yes, it's PR for the company involved (Folding@Home, or this deal here,) but it's also good PR for us as gamers.

Hell, Penny-Arcade's Child's Play was born out of the idea that gamers are known as anti-social folks that don't care about anyone else or doing anything to make the world around them a better place. And in my opinion, it's one of the best and worthwhile charities out there, especially when you add the fact that there are no "administrative fees" involved. There are no professional charity workers involved in it, so you don't have to pay anyone.

But the point is (I ramble a lot) that we, as gamers, are fighting a PR war with the likes of soccer Moms and the Jack Thompsons of the world with our image and reputations at stake. I'd rather have the reputation of people with a hobby that are just as charitable as anyone else than a crazed, wild eyed, blood thirsty killer.

So it will have to be a fantasy game since global warming doesn't exsict >.>

So it will have to a fantasy game since global warming doesn't exsict >.>

Hurr... Global Warning indeed...

Sounds stupid. look at all the posts! SO MANY!

HAHAHAHA.

He didn't even mention anything about global warming or ANYthing.... XD sad they don't care about the actual ISSUE's(game's storyline) topic...

I wonder how much warming all those 360s with their

Thats nice, If only M$ would

@CrimsonSin: No... it'll be a spelling game for people who live in a bubble and double post.

(sorry man, nothing personal... but that was too good to pass up)

Oh boy...more propaganda. I'm surprised to see how many posters appear to agree that the issue isn't as resolved as Gore would have everybody believe. Maybe the tide is turning (pun intended).

An earlier poster mentioned Crichton. His book State of Fear is a great place to start, even if it's not his best. But you can easily use google to find plenty of articles about scientists that don't think the picture being painted by pop culture is accurate.

Perhaps I should just create an AI flocking demo in which reporters and politicians flock around the global warming topic as it moves around the globe.

The closer your politicians/reporters get to the topic, the more money they earn.

Or

A sun simulator which shows that when the sun gets warmer, the earth gets warmer too. The only logic solution? Destroy the sun.

This game would just contain a jargon of political spoon fed garbage with no solid facts backing it!

:-p

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04...

If you're trying to do some scientific discovery through Michael Crichton or random Google searches on the Internet, you're not doing it right. Journal articles are where real science is done because they are peer reviewed, meaning a small group of other scientists in their field selected by the publisher need to agree on the science within the article before it is published.

If you look at the real facts, there are very compelling arguments for global warming. Al Gore's movie may have gone wild with the contemplative closeups while he reminisces about his childhood, but the facts about global warming were overall very good. The timeline of the consequences are still up for debate, though.

If you would like to use the Internet to see what actual scientists have to say, go to http://www.realclimate.org/. It's not peer reviewed in the traditional sense, but it's in a blog format where people can comment on posts so any mistakes or misunderstandings are usually resolved.

But back on topic, I'm not crazy about this game contest idea. Are they going to be judged on whether they are factual or just if they're fun to play? By the looks of the comments on this blog, it seems that misinformation is already running rampant and it is likely to only get worse if games sensationalize the issue one way or another. Besides, global warming isn't action-packed like Day After Tomorrow!

Thanks for linking that... it's a great great

Thanks for posting that s

Some reason the site keeps cutting me off and posting my comments half done. Sorry.

Why is MS jumping on board with this? Its because religion is a powerful force, especially when its the has the backing of many powerful people and institutions.

Environmentalism is the new religion for many in the press (esp the BBC), the teaching institutions, policy makers and political leaders. It is a belief system that has dogmas (see below), heretics (global warming 'deniers') , an "Eden" (the era before the industrial age), Hell (the earth if we do nothing to stop the warming), priests (politicians and compliant scientists), Sins (exceeding your allowed carbon footprint, driving an SUV, etc etc).

In order to follow this religion, you must adhere to a belief system. This system is not made up of facts that can be scientifically proven; it is instead a system of value judgments and articles of faith. The tenants of environmentalism and global warming include:

1) Nature and the natural world does not include humans. Humans are the only creatures on earth that have no right to impact their environment.(100% faith based value judgment)

2) There earth has an 'ideal climate' (as opposed to the millennia of drastic environmental changes that have occurred naturally)

3) The earth is warming at a rate that is abnormal (there is no scientific data to prove what is normal and what isn't)

4) Humans are responsible for the 'abnormal' amount of warming in the atmosphere (see above)

5) The earth warming will be overwhelmingly negative for the inhabitants. (history has proven that warming periods in the planet have been a boon to almost all life)

6) The kickback systems that send the planet back into cooling after it reaches a certain level of warming will not do so from this point on ( These systems are only vaguely understood, incredibly complex, and completely ignored by the global warming subscribers)

7) Only western countries are responsible for contributing to this "abnormal warming" (the Kyoto protocol absolves "developing nations" like China and India from its mandates)

8) Somehow, stopping the planet warming a couple of degrees in the next hundred years is FAR more important than solving the real problems of today, i.e. the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Malaria, Slaughter in Darfur, Starvation, Crime, etc etc…

The media loves global warming because they sell fear, and what can be scarier than this monolith of global catastrophe that is always just around the corner. Politicians love global warming because it serves as a vehicle by which they can increase the power of the state and execute control over the lives of the population. And then there are the true believers, people that live in fear that their lives on earth will somehow be less than heaven, and will do anything to change it.

If you want to follow a religion there are far better ones to chose from.

so i take it it's a fictional game contest, based on fictional hysteria reported global warming or the cute new name of "climate change"

Try this again...

I am glad to see so many people more aware of how this is a PR campaign, not science.

I gotta say, I'm so pissed right now because one of the assignments for my wife's government class is to write an opinion paper after viewing "An Inconvenient Truth." What? How can you write an opinion other than "it's right" when you get 2 hours of propaganda with NO rebuttal and NO opposing viewpoint? It's bullshit. It's an experiment that has no other possible outcome beyond believing what the film wants you to believe.

I would be less pissed if I knew that it was an adults-only class, or whatever... but you put this in a classroom with impressionable 18-21 year olds, and they're going to believe it as fact when there is no basis for it.

Are...are some of you morons ACTUALLY telling us to listen to MICHAEL CRICHTON and telling us to take him seriously?

Seriously...a fucking SCIENCE FICTION writer?
Holy shit. No wonder Bush still has 28%.

Here's a nice debunking of Crichton's book:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

And here's a bit about the consensus among scientists about man-made global warming:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-st...

Global climate charts, are not the best method of showing the effect of global warming. This is because global warming is the not the universal effect. Such a concept is really a misnomer, because people in general don't understand the atmospheric effects of increased "greenhouse" gases. Such a term is misleading; the gases do not act like a blanket that traps heat. Gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs act in a way that they are transparent to energy from the sun. However, when the earth reflects this energy back, since energy in to a system, reflects energy out of a system, these gases are absorptive, the gas molecules vibrate, reflecting the energy emitted by the earth back, and trap the energy in the atmosphere longer than it would normally would. This is easily observable, not using temperature charts, but to look at reflected spectra from the earth. You can compare charts for a black body of the earth's mass, compare it to the earth over time. You will notice that where a perfect black body has a nice parabolic curve, the atmosphere's ozone creates a peak at lower wavelengths and a slight trough at higher wavelengths, however as the amount of absorptive gases in the atmosphere increases, it is clearly noticeable that the trough deepens, and the peak rises. This means that even though, as per laws of physics, that energy in equals energy out, that the energy bounces around inside the earth's atmosphere for longer periods of time, while simultaneously more energy is incoming from the sun.

Where this all leads us is a bit up in the air, though, as climate change probably is going to be affected by the addition of such chemicals. Most modern proponents of global warming get most of the details wrong and make wild assumptions, and most opponents (targeting those incorrect assumptions) have the wrong idea. Despite what Chrichton says, there are at least a handful of opponents of global climate change that are definitely supported by corporations, such as Steven Jay Milloy, who runs the Junk Science website, and also holds shares in CSR watch, a corporate pro-free-market libertarian organization which funds attempts to remove social, environmental and other regulation from business. Once you get pas the smoke, there is a real issue, and sensationalism (in some sense, crying wolf), nor sticking our head in the ground isn't going to make it go away. Crying wolf, will do exactly that. Science will be discredited, and the average person, will ignore it. Of course the reverse makes us blind to anything coming our way. Although we do, as Chrichton says, have the potential technology to rectify many potential issues, such as the issue of hunger, with the Green Revolution, we cannot possibly avert issues by ignoring or dismissing an issue.

@JimmyHACK:
You know why they changed the name?

Because people were asking why it was fucking snowing in April if it's global warming.

I'm so tired of this... should we pollute less? Absolutely. Should we try and be more in-tune with the ecosystem? Definitely.

The problem is that most of the ecologically minded people think we should hit the PAUSE button right now, and do EVERYTHING in our power to ensure that it stays exactly the same from here on out. No more endangered species, they should all thrive with our help.

Look, Pandas are dying because they won't mate in the wild. Ones we do breed in captivity and then release... freaking die on their own. Pandas... are a species that clearly nature has tapped to be on its way out. But, since they're cute, we HAVE TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES. Right. because we know what's best.

As many stats are published about what species are wiped from the face of the earth, how rare is it for a comprehensive study to be made about the species emerging and adapting and being discovered?

Not as many, I assure you. The reason for this is that it's not dramatic, but it is the yin to the endangered species yang... it's why we do not see that nature is truly balanced no matter what we do to it.

Judging from the posters above, video games do rot your brain. Christ, even George W. Bush admits global warming is a man-made problem. You guys represent the extremist Exxon-Mobil wing of American politics, and even they've sobered up. When will you?

P.S. If you don't like global warming, you might want to check out the Creation museum. It's right up your alley. Those greedy scientists, always trying to get money for Bible-denying.

@EvilJ: Um, first, there is a basis for believing that global warming is true. It's called science. In terms of overwhelming scientific consensus, there's as much basis for denying global warming as there is for denying the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution.

Second, since when are 18-21 year olds not adults? Try moving out of your mom's basement and get some perspective on life.

I'm still a bit shocked that a guy with a name referring to mastrubation would be calling me a moron, but I'll bite anyways.

Since when did someone being creative automatically make them incapable of being smart? I mean, we're told to listen to Bono and Bruce Springsteen all the time to get our "facts" and how we should vote, etc...

But when a guy writes about a scientific subject 9 times out of 10 and has done the research to back it up... we're supposed to dismiss it?

Crichton is a smart motherfucker. He's done his research, and he was a scientist before he was a writer (in addition, a medical doctor... because you know they hand those degrees out to anyone). There has been a ton of research done based off of ideas and concepts he's put forth in his books.

FUD Tycoon?

@sxp151:
Read the fucking Crichton speech... it's funny how many people defending Global Warming talk about Consensus like that makes it RIGHT or the TRUTH.

And, I love how people are now saying "Hey, even Bush says it's man made." So, one minute he's a drooling retard to you people and now he knows what he's talking about?

I said it once and I'll say it again... I'll trust the guy who does the research and writes a fictional book and calls it a novel more than I'll trust the guy who doesn't do the research and makes a movie based on fictional material and calls it a documentary.

@rancorcrankor: Technically malaria, one of the most deadly, if not the deadliest killer in Sub-Saharan Africa, is actually tied to global climate change.

Mosquitos are insects, and are ectotherms. This means their metabolism is tied to the ambient temperature. In essence, a mosquito egg, larva and pupa, in its aquatic form, has a temperature quota; this is called the degree days. If the temperature increases, then the time needed for an egg to hatch and become an adult decreases. If this occurs, then more life cycles can occur in a shorter period of time. As a result, in any given period of time there is an increase in the number of pregnant females which need one or more blood meals in order to oviposit. This results in an increase in population, an increase in bites. The equation for vectorial capacity is equal to (ma^2VP^n)/-LogeP, and as a result since m and a increase, the vectorial capacity of the mosquito in malarial stricken regions will increase. Also, as temperature warms, mosquitoes will be able to infest a wider range of regions, and it is likely that, not just malaria, but other arthropod vectored illnesses will increase, including yellow fever, dengue, leishmaniasis and typhus. These typically only have light footholds in regions like Europe or East Asia, but with an increase of ideal habitat, the range will increase.

@sxp151:
Oh, and look... I'm working my way through college, I moved out when I was 17 and made something of myself. I served in the military as long as they would have me and then went out and got a job. I have life experience. You go to any college campus and talk to a freshman and see what life experience they have.

Does this sound to anyone else like they just copy/pasted the press release?

@EvilJ: The word "consensus" never means it's "right" or "the truth." It means it's what scientists believe is probably true, based on the evidence they've gathered. It's the nature of science that nothing is ever set in stone. If experiments found a flaw in relativity, most physicists would find another theory that explained nature better. Same with climate change.

Now the fact that Michael Crichton has no credentials doesn't automatically mean he's wrong. But the fact that he's denying a widely-held theory without convincing evidence for its falsity or any compelling alternative makes him...
well...
a crackpot.

Don't worry, science has lots of them. Here's one who denies relativity. He's got as much credibility as Crichton: he writes fanciful sci-fi tales to entertain while insulting real scientists.

@EvilJ: Actually there are quite a few on species emerging, but they are often loudly decried by people that oppose the theory of evolution. If a species is described as evolving, then people oppose it because they don't like the idea that it was allmighty Gawd that created them (and as a result, forces them to face the possibility that death may be the end of it all). For example, a few years backs there was a study on diverging populations of tropical snails. The dexter-sinister shell spiral on the snails seemed to discourage interbreeding between the two, and it was suggested that evolution was working to perhaps separate them into new species. Also, in the Hawaiian islands, drosophila flies are diverging despite being perfectly capable of mating (if forced), proving that a behavioral divide can occur that leads to speciation. As for man made action spurring evolution, we can see it, mainly in microorganisms and of course, insects. Cockroaches and pest insects, like thrips, weevils and scale insects, for example, are developing widespread resistance to pyrethroid pesticides, or in the cases of cockroaches, developing a distaste for the baits we use. Bacteria develop plasmids that code for resistance to antibacterial agents, and in one case of a deadly superbug of Stapholococcus aureus in Australia, even resistance to Lysol and bleach.

Evolution spurred by man often is inconvenient to us, which is perhaps why it doesn't get much press.

Y'know, this is exactly the garbage I expected... if you try and say to people that the end result of our efforts as human being is to NOT trash the earth, to try and make as little negative impact as possible, but that climate change is not a solely man-made issue, they immediately brand you an idiot and tell you about how most scientists believe x y and z.

Here's the thing... Most scientists used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. Most scientists believed that time and space was a constant. Most scientists believed that you couldn't use a live virus vaccine to prevent illness. Most scientists believed that after a nuclear strike, nothing would grow at ground zero for 50 years at least.

Science is made by people who BROKE consensus and PROVED things beyond a shadow of a doubt with facts. They didn't make their case in a TV talk show studio or a movie theater. They made their case in labs and with formulas whose results COULD be duplicated.

I mean, my god... I'm not saying there isn't a climate change. That's irrefutable. But, what I am saying is that to trend it forward for the next 100 years and say "This is how it's going to be, mark your calendars" is ridiculous. We have literally been tracking weather changes for a little more than a century in a real and scientific way. So, we can't even predict what the weather will be like tomorrow over a limited range but we can predict what the weather will be like next century?

We have little to no hard evidence that the change in weather is unnatural. Hell, a two decades ago we didn't know about the El Nino phenomena that has a massive impact on the global weather system. How can we possibly know for a FACT that this is 1. Man-made and thus unnatural, or 2. Preventable in either case?

It's not a fact. It's a widely held belief. And if you really think that most popular beliefs are RIGHT and IRREFUTABLE... well, who is the moron?

I'm currently at the Games 4 Change Festival in NYC in a presentation on various games made under this banner. Microsoft is a sponsor and funds many of these games. Whether you like Microsoft or not, it's a win-win situation for all. It's good for the funding companies and organizations and us gamers for the obvious reasons. But an important positive influence that may be overlooked is that it encourages more people (the next generation of game developers) to become interested in game development and to become activists on various important issues.

"Since when did someone being creative automatically make them incapable of being smart? I mean, we're told to listen to Bono and Bruce Springsteen all the time to get our "facts" and how we should vote, etc..."

No, you aren't. You're told to shut up when you start blabbing off about how celebrities shouldn't go around giving opinions.

"But when a guy writes about a scientific subject 9 times out of 10 and has done the research to back it up... we're supposed to dismiss it?"

Yeah, you are. It's SCIENCE FICTION. He doesn't really know anything.
Oh, or are we still planning to revive dinosaurs with ancient DNA?
Hey, did Crichton get that Washington Post book reviewer sent to jail for child rape yet? Oh, you DID read about that in his last book, right?

Yeah, Crichton is SO based in reality, isn't he?

Michael Crichton engages in something called PSEUDO-SCIENCE.
Because here's what you don't get:
"Crichton is a smart motherfucker. He's done his research, and he was a scientist before he was a writer (in addition, a medical doctor... because you know they hand those degrees out to anyone). There has been a ton of research done based off of ideas and concepts he's put forth in his books."

He's a WRITER. He gets an idea for a book and gathers information that would make that book seem more realistic. It, by nature, is a VERY selective amount of research.

"And, I love how people are now saying "Hey, even Bush says it's man made." So, one minute he's a drooling retard to you people and now he knows what he's talking about?"

No, it means that even if someone as DENSE as Bush can get it through his head, there might be hope, too.

I mean, are you REALLY dumb enough to tell me you're going to believe a sci-fi writer against the OVER WHELMING scientific consensus? From REAL scientists?

Oh, by hey. Don't worry about it. I'm sure everyone else in the world is wrong and it IS just a liberal plot to...what is it this week? Destroy capitalism, still?

Oh, by the way - we STILL don't know with 100% certainty why or how cigarettes cause cancer. I guess we should just wait until the evidence is fully in before we start telling people cigarettes are bad.

Regardless of your stance on global warming, the world is heading slowly towards an energy crisis. Even if you don't think pumping C02 into the atmosphere is the cause of changing weather, we're pumping it because we're consuming it. If we're all going to insist on better graphics better graphics better graphics, then it's time to start building more nuclear power stations.

The alternative of course is to swap your Xbox 360 for a Wii which consumes about a 10th of the power. You might want to get some rechargeable batteries for the Wii-mote though.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm

I would have thought a positive thing for Microsoft to do would be to encourage low wattage hardware rather than "right on" software.

@minister.of.rhetoric: Exactly what I thought when I first read it. There have been a number of 'use XNA to make a game' competitions put out by microsoft recently, and they all have the same things in common: you can only participate if you are part of a university which M$ select, and the winning team may get their game published, but will definitely get an internship at microsoft. It's not that hard to connect the dots: select a subset of universities which perform well in IT, set up a 'competition' to find the best and most motivated students, then offer them a position working for microsoft. It's a bloody recruitment drive! On top of that, if someone's game is good enough for XBLA, then wahey, it's content for free.

The fact that they're piggybacking on the global warming issue is just the icing on the unethical cake.

@minister.of.rhetoric: Exactly what I thought when I first read it. There have been a number of 'use XNA to make a game' competitions put out by microsoft recently, and they all have the same things in common: you can only participate if you are part of a univers