global warming

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Ah, M. le Marquis - you may have missed the discussion over on Civ2\Multiplaying in which SlowThinker stated that taking one hour to consider his first move would be typical - extrapolating from this I meant the actual elapsed time to make 113 game turns

So did I!

[TCO]

Are the blackheads mentioned in the manual or the help screens?

[Straybow]

No, black faces are not mentioned in Civilpedia, and I can't find the manual.

[TCO]

I liked it better when we were off topic...

[debeest]

Straybow, I certainly agree with you that McCarthyism (with its censorship, loyalty oaths, propaganda, House Un-American Activities Committee, blacklists, and persecution and deliberate destruction of the lives of hundreds of innocent American citizens, out of a misguided fear of reduced American power) can't really be compared with advocating control of global warming (which might cost a lot of money, out of a possibly misguided fear of massive environmental havoc encompassing the entire planet). Especially in terms of "political correctness," which is what I was discussing, there's no comparison at all. The right wing required, with draconian penalties, that everyone toe the political line. The left wing discusses the issue and urges action. I'm glad you agree.


I was interested to find the following in today's San Jose Mercury, taken from the New York Times (probably at least a day earlier):

"U.S. acknowledges ills of global warming:
In report to U.N., Bush administration proposes no remedies

"In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States [the EPA, I believe] has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.

"In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions -- mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.

"But while the report says the United States will be substantially changed in the next few decades -- "very likely" seeing the disruption of snow-fed water supplies, more stifling heat waves and the permanent disappearance of Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes, for example -- it does not propose any major shift in administration policy on greenhouse gases.

"…

"Yet the new report's predictions present a sharp contrast to the administration's previous statements on climate change, in which Bush always spoke in generalities and stressed the need for much more research to resolve scientific questions.

"The new report puts a substantial distance between the administration and the energy industry and related companies, such as automakers, many of which have continued to run publicity and lobbying campaigns questioning the validity of the science pointing to damaging outcomes from global warming. …"


I think it's safe to say that Bush administration environmental appointees such as Christie Whitman (EPA) and Gale Norton (Interior) have ready access to lots of people who (1) are better informed on global warming issues than you and I are, (2) are likely to be better suited to evaluate the data on this subject than you and I are, and (3) are desperately eager to determine that global warming isn't happening, isn't caused by humans, and isn't harmful.

Let's have a show of hands:

How many people here believe that the Bush administration, in spite of a massive corporate lobbying, advertising, and research program, has allowed itself to be bamboozled and helplessly led around by the nose, by a bunch of flaming liberals with no regard for sound science?

And how many believe that the dismissal of global warming concerns as nothing but "political correctness" is, itself, nothing but political correctness -- which is the only point I'm trying to make.

I rest my case.

[Scouse Gits]

I wish I had a copy of Kermit's popcorn packets - and let's cool some Rose ...

A very strong argument debeest - I wonder how the counter will proceed?

SG[1]

[TCO]

let me see the report.

Every time some report comes out that says human activities may create GW, the report morphs into articles with a declarative statement that humans do cause GW.

You earlier put yourself in the "possible danger camp", debeest. Are you now switching to the "strong beleiver camp"? Get a bit more info before making the jump...

[debeest]

GP, if you read more carefully, you will understand better. I've consistently argued, not that global warming is a pending disaster caused by humans, but that there is a "possible danger." My main point, again, is that those who dismiss the concern as entirely political and with no scientific basis are in fact dismissing it on a political rather than scientific basis. When I quote a story about the Bush administration acknowledging that there is a concern, I'm not expressing any "strong believer" stance of my own; I'm pointing out that even a conservative driven by an overwhelming deference to corporate goals can no longer deny that there is a reasonable concern.

Are you claiming that the New York Times described the report inaccurately? Have you seen the report yet? "Get a bit more info before making the jump..."

[debeest]

SG[1], yours is not the first Kermit reference in this thread, I think, but I haven't a clue what you're referring to. Can you enlighten me?

[La Fayette]

You would also enlighten me...
I suspect that Kermit has something to do with Ming and multiplayer, since rah mentioned it once IIRC. That leaves it perfectly unclear.

[SlowThinker]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Humans don't live that long, silly

Did I ever say I am a human?

Originally posted by Straybow
I'm amazed he's every finished a game, or did he say once that he hasn't?

Yes, he said it.

[TCO]

Re Kermit: Check out Ming's avatar.

Debeest, I'll go look at the story. I got the impression from your post that you WERE jumping into the strong believer crowd. That seemed like the way you described the article/report.

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by GP
Re Kermit: Check out Ming's avatar.

Could you be more specific? The word 'Kermit' is not in my dictionary.

[JCP]

Originally posted by La Fayette
The word 'Kermit' is not in my dictionary.

In France too, Kermit is the frog in the muppets show.
In the past, this character was used by a satirical TV show about the former President : "Kermitterand"
But Idon't know why the new Ming's avatar is Kermit.

[Campo]

From CNN.com, dated today 6/4/02:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan has ratified the Kyoto protocol on global warming that it signed at a United Nations climate conference in 1997...

With Russia seen likely to comply by the end of the year, the protocol is now just one step away from coming into effect.

Thirty-nine nations that have signed the treaty have yet to ratify it while the United States, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, has rejected it altogether.

The pact would have required the United States to cut emissions by seven percent from 1990 levels, a condition the Bush administration argued would harm the U.S. economy.

The European Union, which ratified the treaty as a bloc on Friday, took the opportunity to criticize the U.S. stance.

In a U.S. government report issued on Friday, however, the administration acknowledged for the first time that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would increase significantly over the next two decades, due mainly to human activities.

It forecast that its total greenhouse gas emissions would increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/04/japan.kyoto.reut/index.html