You do realize the CO2 levels were double than they are now back in the ice age right?

You do realize the number one contributor of green house gas is the Ocean right?

What is number 2?

The Rain Forest. Oh but we must save what is the number one cause of such green house gas effects, but stop humanity and cars, etc since they are only causing .01% supposedly.

Wake up man. It is about CONTROL. Nothing more nothing less. They have you in it (control).

EnigmaNemesis

Gagamus

cliffski

So I clicked on all your links. The National Geographic describes a crackpot theory about the sun warming which the article discredits by quoting other scientists. (Hint: his model says carbon dioxide has no noticeable effect on the temperature of the earth, which is obviously false. Earth would be a lot colder if there were no carbon dioxide to trap heat.)

The NASA site has some stuff about the climate on Mars, and does not attribute this to either the heating up of the sun or your galactic region.

And your last site... Holy shit that's wrong. For everyone else, the site that says the Earth is warming because of the movement of the galaxy also says...

Wait for it...

The Earth will end in 2012! Because the Mayans predicted it! Wow, what a credible scientific resource!

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

I worded it funny ... but here is the gist of it...

[news.nationalgeographic.com]
[science.nasa.gov]

[curezone.com]

"The Overall Biggest contributing Cause to GLOBAL WARMING, and the melting of the polar icecaps of -- both -- Earth and Mars is
caused by our arrival into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space:"

So yeah, go ahead Gore and followers. Think we can stop something on a galactic scale. Good luck.

It is about control.

EnigmaNemesis

A decent attempt to stay "neutral" there, Fahey, but we all know how the sentence should have ended:

"...global warming, which may or may not exist depending on your political affiliation."

strangepork

Because we're yet to get any huge changes on earth because of this. My point isn't that I think it's fake, I think it's real.. I just don't think they should be adding this if you're not really going to spend 500+ years in game.

Gigith

I mean, I've seen some bullshit, but this takes the galactic cake. Do you perchance work for Exxil-Moron?

sxp151, the happy-headed nose

But I don't buy the whole 'carbon credit' thing. It's basically environmental indulgences that keep companies from having to make any real contribution or sacrifice.

Sabre_Justice: Okay, no more long name.

Starting your car or not isn't going to change what the Galactic phenomenon is going through. It is just another money sink and control factor for political groups. Things like this are ALWAYS about control.

EnigmaNemesis

Zach Isso

Reiichi

Neopolitian

male roof blower (CFB)

That aside...

We do need to change how we live if for no other reason than (selfishly) our quality of life. No one likes living in shit, and sometimes, that's where we're headed.

Evil J

Arguing that there ISN'T a climate change is foolish, but it's only slightly more foolish than thinking that you can prove human impact on a climate system when we've only been collecting detailed data for the last few decades and only recording it in a reliable way for the last century or so. That said, ask any statistician and they'll tell you that by manipulating the right numbers, anyone can prove nearly anything if you just believe the numbers they spit out. That goes for BOTH sides of the argument.

All of that aside, I see the global warming PR campaign (and it is a PR campaign whether it's "true" or not), I see it more as a way that Al Gore and others are basically holding a pistol to the head of a cute baby harp seal and saying "Stop polluting or the seal gets it, and then maybe YOU are next!".

All of it really reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer. As a child of the 80s, that was all I ever heard about. Supposedly, we were going to have to be living underground to avoid getting cancer by this point if you believed the hysterics. Now, the hole is actually declining in size. Is it because of the reduction of aerosol? Maybe, maybe not. We know most propellants do deplete Ozone. That's a proven fact. Was it the only reason that the hole opened up? Who knows. The hole over the Antarctic actually flucuates in size due to the seasons for reasons that they really can't explain. They can say that on average, the size of the hole is on a declining trend and has been since about 1999 (despite having a record breaking year in 2003). Point being, there is more to this planet's living systems than we know, and to assume that we have any kind of complete control over it... is absurd.

All of THAT aside...

We should pollute less, and while I'm ambivalent about Climate Change as a PR campaign, I do think the end result and the intentions behind it are actually good. I'm not saying Al Gore is Satan, but I think the whole thing plays into our ego as a human race and that fear is a good motivator.

Evil J

On another note: THIS IS A GAME. Keep that in mind.

Sim City never was, isn't and never will be an acuratte portrait of reality. But it does take natural disasters, political problems, and everyday life situations, oversimplify them, and use it as something interesting for gaming experience.

As for pollution, it's always nice to have some iniciatives to block/ try to solve it. Who the f*ck cares about minor details. The truth is: We need to stop polluting, and we need to stop now.

Global warming might be (or might not be) only ONE of the thousands of problems that modern society faces everyday because of unresponsible pollution.

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

@Applekid: There are other methods of determining the climate for a certain time period other than being there at that time. Go take a Geology class. Also, within the science community there is huge support for global warming being human influenced.

male roof blower (CFB)

As for me? I'll probably be too old to remember you by the time 2050 rolls around considering i'll be over 70. Oh, and you know I'm right about dealing with more pressing issues than Global Warming. It's just that fighting other issues doesn't fit your anti-capitalist agenda of removing all those big evil oil companies out there.

Be glad i'm not making that bet with you Ego. I'd be taking your cash and investing it in Exxon Mobil so that my heirs can reel in the sweet sweet flow of black gold. ;P

Aurvant

Some of you may agree with this, but what other interest groups would you be happy to let jerk around with your favorite franchises?

Oh well. I was on the fence about buying societies anyway.

rateoforange

There's conservation, and there's worrying about every little thing you do and thinking its all worth the trouble.

taidan19

BP are pretty responsible in what they do and they're taking global warming and carbon footprints seriously. They're spending 1 billion dollars in the city I live in (Hull, UK) to build an ethanol fuel plant (they're going to be making wheat into petrol!).

Sure, they're one of the companies that pump the oil and gas we all burn everyday. But as long as governments allow society to be so reliant on fossil fuels, someone needs to do it.

DynamoMatt

ego531

I work in this field, there is no jury out on this. This isn't a he-said-she-said political football, global warming is real, it is caused DIRECTLY by human activity, and there is absolute data on this. And the most likely result we are seeing falls outside the conservative estimates of the scientific communities' consensus, and falls on the side of the worse, and far less preventable.

A factor people also forget, is for the last 150 years we have been pumping particulate pollution into the air (volcanic activity also contributed to this), this has had the effect of blocking solar radiation, and lowering temperatures from what they otherwise would have been. Now, as countries across the world strive to lower pollution, the level of particulate pollution is dropping, and we are receiving more solar radiation. Global temperatures were already on the rise before this, so couple the two together and you have a far worse scenario.

Skeptics of this are not principled dissenters, they represent a powerful and well funded disinformation campaign by the richest industries on the planet, probably the proportionally richest in the history of the world. All they have are 'doubts', and no data to refute anything.

But if you people insist on seeing both sides as selfishly interested parties, then just ask, whose views pose the greatest risk? If conservative corporations are wrong, then we have the greatest environmental crisis in human history. We will have global food shortages, the largest refugee crisis of all time, mass extinctions, and a global economic downturn to last for generations. If SCIENTISTS are wrong, then the worse case scenario is a few wealthy industries would have made a couple billion less, and all those Earth days will have been for naught. We would all have driven around in silly little clean clean cars for nothing. Of course we would have a cleaner more stable environment, a booming green energy market, and we wouldn't be relying on a highly toxic and inefficient fuel that is largely found in an area of the world that hates us.

So give up the 'skeptic' BS, at this point I don't think anyone is buying it anymore.

Kanti

[www.chicagotribune.com],0,660106.story

Nekura20x6

There is just as much evidence to say that the climate is -shifting- towards a new ecological balance rather than failing and leaving us all to die in a horrible heatwave. The world will find a balance to compensate for any temperature change that we or the Sun will push upon it. There are more imperative measures to be taken in dealing with actual threats to our ecosystem at the moment.

For example: The Super Volcano of Yellowstone Caldera. It is a much more imminent threat to our health and enviromental wellbeing than say...someone driving an SUV. I wont take your bet because while I dont think Global Warming will be our undoing I wont say that there wont be another ecological disaster that will.

Still, at least you were the first person to approach my information with your own. i may not agree with you but I respect you for doing your homework.

Aurvant

thsprgrmscks

FanDam

Polyh3dron

Candlejack

It was in the original Civ as well, which was released in 1991. So yeah, old news. :)

Khab

The problem most people have with global warming is this: if you're comparing it to gravity, it's not that people are saying that gravity doesn't exist, it's more that they're saying we can't prove that gravity exists because of US. A lot of people who don't agree with global warming proponents are the people who are saying that they can unequivocally state that the climate change is directly caused by human beings. That's not something that can be proven without ignoring prior climate shifts (the mini-ice age and the medieval warming period).

I think that the reason that most skeptics disagree with the Global Warming Theory is that they see it as the same as someone saying 'The reason the apple fell out of the tree and struck the earth instead of going upward into space is because humans were nearby'.

Evil J

I really feel that most of these global warming proponents are exactly like Easter Christians who are eager to show off how pious they are at church but even more eager to get out quickly because they got more sinnin' to do.

Evil J

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.

doubtful

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.

mva5580

Definitely need a warning for him.

Ignatius

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.

Applekid

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

BigChiefSmokem

bangbangblah

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.

ego531

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

PlaidNinja

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.

Aurvant

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.

Evil J

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.

ego531

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

Gagamus

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"

Aurvant

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.

doubtful

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).

Evil J

Candlejack

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

well played

BigChiefSmokem

dan

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

A Pimp Named DaveR

I_Hate_This_Place

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.

minister.of.rhetoric

I_Hate_This_Place

male roof blower (CFB)

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

doubtful

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

jwrose

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.

badasscat

luxarific

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

BigChiefSmokem

I thought so...

jaredgood1

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.

cyhborg

[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]

male roof blower (CFB)

I_Hate_This_Place

Aurvant

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

iwanttobeasleep

jephs_mun

hexode

male roof blower (CFB)

We get it. It's hot.

Dead Air ummm Dead Air

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

Agies