global warming

[Campo]

Here's a link to the EPA's global warming website:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

And I think this is a link to the report recently released:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html

I'm astounded at this change in position by the Bush administration.

[Scouse Gits]

To be honest (did I just say that - I always assume it prefaces an outright lie! ) - I'm frightened by this change in position by the Bush administration - what do they know that we don't?

SG[1]

- in the MP forum recently Warforever came up with a satire on the MP community likening several well known players to characters from Sesame Street - this was so well received that many of them have taken the correponding Muppet as their avatars - Kermit (the frog) was assigned to Ming.
- my reference was to a picture of packets of popcorn frequently posted by Ming on threads he is finding entertaining - normally again in the MP forum (where I lurk)

[on topic] Using the Xin technique of utilising many specialists in cities of more than 5 population can reduce production below the crucial 20 and thereby help delay the onset of GW [/on topic]

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I wholeheartedly agree with debeest. Dismissing global warming as a chimera is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Straybow and GP, you are right to question how great the impacts of human influence may become; However, the scientific community generally agrees that it is a factor. Will we lose mountain meadows and coastal marshes, will New York look like Venice? Who knows, it's just a possibility, and at the extreme at that. I tend to agree that the news reports on extreme scenarios. After all, an article showing somebody's estimate that wheat's northern limits may shift 100 miles southward in 20-30 years hardly perks up the public attention.

[on topic] Coastal marshes are cleansing ecosystems, who keeps swamp along the coast in CivII? Or do you irrigate it into plains? I will always keep spice, peat if the city needs shields. [/on topic]

[TCO]

There is no "scientific consensus" on GW. There is still huge uncertainty in the models and reasonable uncertainty in the measurements. Also the field has become politicized with scientists making claims on parts of the issue that they don't actually work on. (both ways).

[debeest]

Precisely. And yet Straybow has definitively pronounced that there is really no scientific basis for concern, only a political "correctness" issue manufactured by those crazy liberals. Is his statement based on science, or is it just a politically correct statement of his own?

[TCO]

Why not ask him, wildebeest?

Anyway, are you defending exaggeration on one side by citing the other sides? It's ok for me to lie about the republicans since they lied about the Democrats?

Bring something more intersting to the table...

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by debeest
Precisely. And yet Straybow has definitively pronounced that there is really no scientific basis for concern, only a political "correctness" issue manufactured by those crazy liberals. Is his statement based on science, or is it just a politically correct statement of his own?

DeBeest

Straybow has said quiet a lot over the past 7 pages. Do you think maybe this reduction of yours is a bit "radical"???

My own view is that this whole discussion is not about science anyway. Something is going on with the Earth's climate, that's observable. But the Science has yet to be settled. All these words are philosopy, bordering on religion, and supported by beliefs and sometimes facts that might or might not be important. We don't know. Yet.

For every claim that the problem is factories or autos or cow farts there are other voices saying it is natural processes, vulcanism, or sunspots and solar radiation flux. Still others say it is some of both. And all of them make models with assumptions that 'prove' what they are looking for.

So do we do something now because it would make us feel good??...or do we keep our collective wallet on the hip in the name of not disturbing the status quo before we are forced to??? (I can play at radical reductionism too) Either choice has huge potential costs and unintended consequences if wrong.

I say again, this arguement is about philosopy, not science. Until the science gets settled maybe it would be good to chill a bit. Whether anyone agrees with any particular viewpoint won't make it right, more right, or wrong.
****
What ever flavor of this arguement everyone personally holds I hope we can all agree that we don't want to find out if the effects of nuclear war in Civ are accurate. Please join me in sending a prayer (or strong wish) for peace in South
Asia. If an exchange between India and Pakistan brought about GW, I don't
think 'we' have enough Engineers....

[debeest]

GP,

"are you defending exaggeration on one side by citing the other sides? It's ok for me to lie about the republicans since they lied about the Democrats?"

What the heck are you talking about? Who's lying about Republicans and Democrats? No one. I'm not defending anyone's exaggerations. I'm pointing out that Straybow, in scoffing at the whole issue as nothing but "political correctness," is ignoring the science and taking an extreme position that I believe is based on his own "political correctness." I've already said that I myself am in no position to take a position on global warming. Reputable scientists studying the subject cannot agree on an interpretation; what, other than politics, makes Straybow so sure of his extremist position?

[TCO]

You'll have to ask him. I'm only commenting on the situation wrt science and the lack of a "consensus". Out.

[debeest]

Bloody Monk,

No, I don't think I'm misstating Straybow's position. Yes, he's said a lot, but he started with a political dismissal of the issue and he's been more than clear in saying that there's no scientific basis for concern. That puts him in an extreme position that even the Bush administration apparently can no longer support.

As you say, "this whole discussion is not about science anyway." Right! I thought I had made this clear already: my point is not about the science of global warming. I'm talking about Straybow's dismissal of the whole scientific question with a glib "political correctness" label. I'm saying, as you said, "chill a bit"; don't dismiss the issue with an insult. As you say, "Either choice has huge potential costs and unintended consequences if wrong." I'm saying that that doesn't mean it's a fabricated only-political issue, it means it's an issue deserving of serious study rather than polemics. (My polemics in this thread are directed not toward the global warming question but towards the dismissal of the question as only political.)

[JCP]

KYOTO

As a complement to Campo's post, this is Kyoto ratification state :

[Straybow]

"To be honest (did I just say that - I always assume it prefaces an outright lie! ) - I'm frightened by this change in position by the Bush administration - what do they know that we don't?"

SG[1], I don't think they know anything in particular. Bush has been doing everything possible to appease/disarm critics (a good strategy). How this fits will be shown in how quickly the EPA moves to enforce existing regs. Ultimately the EPA can do little more unless empowered by legislation. I suspect that Bush counts on some foot-dragging once it gets to that point. I'm frightened that publicity pressure may short circuit the foot-dragging.

Reduction in dependence on fossil fuels is a long-term strategic goal anyway, overlapping with one aspect of Kyoto. No harm in that respect.

"[Straybow] started with a political dismissal of the issue and he's been more than clear in saying that there's no scientific basis for concern. That puts him in an extreme position that even the Bush administration apparently can no longer support."

Well, I started with a quip about PCness intruding upon the game design, which I stand by. I believe that there is no rational basis for the panicky response prompted by PC emphasis on the extreme possibilities (which gw in Civ2 mimics). If not being extreme makes me extreme the other way I wear the label with pride.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Straybow
How this fits will be shown in how quickly the EPA moves to enforce existing regs. ... I'm frightened that publicity pressure may short circuit the foot-dragging.

Come on, this is the US congress you are talking about! Feet will be dragged no matter what the topic.

[ramses II.]

Back to the thread. I've read that about 15 solar plants (or more)will prevent you from global warming. Is that right?

[debeest]

Solar plants eliminate all pollution that comes from shield production, and help to "slow the onset of global warming by absorbing atmospheric heat." Now there, indeed, is a silly modeling in the game.