Global Warming. It would be nice if...

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Sticking strictly with game play issues, pollution is poorly executed. Pollution comes into play far too early. Production pollution should not come into play until industrialization, and population pollution not until combustion. When global warming occurs, it should make deserts/plains expand, jungles turn into forests, forests into grassland etc. I dont like the pure randomness of picking which tile changes. Having a grassland that is completely surrounded by other grass turn into plains makes no sense. Having a grassland that borders the plains turn into plains makes great sense. Also, radiation pollution should be a different and substantially harder type of pollution to clean, if at all.

[WarpStorm]

I agree with you Wolf, the terrain that is bad should expand, not random tiles.

[Traelin]

HAHA Tiberius, you sound like Carl Sagan from the '70s when he predicted a serious climactic cooling from pollution and the use of nukes. OH NO! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

So tell me, Tiberius..do you think ALL the Senators support the oil industry? Do you think our politicians enjoy importing oil from the wackos in the MidEast? Hrm, again do your research on how PACs work in this country, which ones funnel their coffers to which candidates, and how those candidates actually vote. Do you think Al Gore and Gray Davis, two very liberal environmentalists, support the oil industry?

2% -- yes that's right -- 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions are from humans. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I think that's pretty darn low. I mean 98% from Mother Nature? What, do you want humans to perform mass suicide, stop breathing, and put an end to Homo Sapiens? My God, they very fact that we breathe and breed like cockroaches causes more problems than our cars.

[Switch]

It seems that people are missing some points in weather. For example, people seem to blame the drought in Western Canada or the floods in Europe on Global Warming. Pah!
The Prairies have been unusually wet recently, and are just returning to normal. The floods in Europe also happened ~100 years ago (otherwise it would've been the biggest flood, not the biggest flood in 100 years). And in fact, the weather is just returning to normal. It is naive to think that the weather is predictable. It has acutally been UNUSUABLY predictable recently, and is normally known to be one of the least predictable things known to man.

The weather is just returning to normal, not getting worse because of our pitiful emmisions. THe only real impact our pollution is having is on cleanliness of air/water/ground, deaths of animals, and strength of the Ozone layer.

We still should reduce pollution for said reasons, but not because of global warming.....

Next time a disaster occurs in Europe, don't come begging the U.S. for help.

Now who's burning the orchard for a few bad apples?
The only thing worse than ignorance is stupid hypocracy.

[Tiberius]

If pollution hurt the american economy, the senat would have voted exactly vice-versa.

They are emphasizing the american rather than the international/global goals, that is.

[itsagreenday]

Tiberius

If pollution hurt the american economy, the senat would have voted exactly vice-versa.

They are emphasizing the american rather than the international/global goals, that is.

Well, of course. No one else looks out for America, so we have to do it ourselves. Apparently, even liberal environmentalist senators thought Kyoto would hurt America more than it would help.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
The only thing worse than ignorance is stupid hypocracy.

You're right Switch, my comment was inappropriate. I think it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have used Ad Hominem attacks when trying to make my point. I also agree with everything you said, especially the fact that we should explore renewable energy sources and decrease pollution, but not because of global warming. It just makes long-term environmental and economic sense.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most is when people incessantly opine about a topic, but have absolutely NO evidence to back things up. I mean we're all talking about a THEORY here, not a FACT.

WRT CivIII, I have serious issues with global warming in the game. The damage caused by global warming in the game is ridiculous and way too random. For a game that's supposed to deal in an abstraction of reality, it fails miserably here. In fact, this is the only serious problem I have with the C3. If they're going to implement an unrealistic global warming scenario, please PLEASE implement the U.N. to have international treaties so I can force the damned AI to clean up their messes!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by itsagreenday
Zachriel

Why would you want to forest grassland after railroad? If it has a bonus resource, mining produces 2 food, 3 shields, without, 2 food, 2 shields, IIRC. Not to mention pollution is cleaned up twice as fast.

For fun, and 'cause it looks cool. The forested area was undeveloped land, so I created a huge French National Park.

Why do real people create real parks, or wonders for that matter? Because they have more productive capacity than they need for basic essentials. "Man does not live by bread alone."

[itsagreenday]

For fun, and 'cause it looks cool. The forested area was undeveloped land, so I created a huge French National Park.

Why do real people create real parks, or wonders for that matter? Because they have more productive capacity than they need for basic essentials. "Man does not live by bread alone."

When I'm in park-building mode, I load up SC3K (and eagerly awaiting SC4).

[Traelin]

Originally posted by itsagreenday


When I'm in park-building mode, I load up SC3K (and eagerly awaiting SC4).

Is SC3K any good? The last one I played was 2K, and I loved it! The Civil Engineering Department at my Alma Mater was actually exploring the idea of using it in a class project.

[metalhead]

*sigh*

At least I'm not the only one who hasn't bought into the global warming BS. I love stating scientific fact and then getting attacked by a bunch of ignoramuses (or is it ignorami?) because of it. It's a shame that people don't read before putting forth an opinion.

To all you euros out there who seem to know what is in the US best interests, the reason we will never respect your opinion on world affairs is because when you need us, we step up and help. When we need you to help us oust a dictator bent on nuclear destruction, you criticize us, hold demonstrations, attack our leaders, etc. And then you sit around and wonder why we're not going to listen to you and go oust Saddam without you. This really burns me up. All the flag waving we saw in Europe after 9/11 was such a sham. It has become obvious now that the time has come to do something about it, you are content to sit on the sidelines and criticize the US for taking action. Shame on you and your governments. I for one am thankful that George W. Bush doesn't take the advice of cowards.

[Demerzel]

mostly we get upset because "you Americans" like to go gung-ho into a situation without thinking through all the consequences first.

Say you did go in and remove Saddam Hussein, would you leave troops there for the next ten years or so whilst the successor regime has a chance to rebuild Iraq into a competent state?

I doubt it, you'll go in and remove Saddam and then you'll leave. Which will leave the EU with a massive headache on its borders and we'll be left to deal with the consequences over the next ten to twenty years. Oh joy, thank you Mr. Bush!

We want to go through all the possible actions to resolve this peacefully first before we commit to a violent solution. Forgive us if that isn't gung-ho enough for you.

I think you'll find that most of the sympathy from the European nations at the 9/11 tradegy and others was quite genuine because maybe, just maybe we've all gone through it before...

Britain had to survive the terror attacks of the IRA and other paramilitary organisations from N. Ireland & Ireland.

Spain has had to deal with the ETA car-bombing their police, judges & politicans

Germany had terrorist attacks against it in the '60s & '70s - i forget the name.

Israel has had to deal with constant suicide-bomb attacks for a long, long time.

This is a small fraction of the terrorist organisations out there and the countries that have been affected.

America hasn't had to deal with terrorism before and it's showed in your post 9/11 actions. Before that it was "naughty, naughty Mr. terrorist. Aren't you a bad boy! Sure we'll let you in Mr. Gerry Adams to get funds for the continuing terrorist actions of the IRA."

Now "it's all terrorists must be hunted down!"
"There is an axis of evil out there which must be destroyed!"

Your actions stink of hypocrisy pure and simple, before you couldn't give a monkeys when people got injured or killed because it didn't affect you. Now it had and you're suddenly telling us how to behave.

I was horrified by the evil actions of the terrorists when they killed so many US citizens and in no way condone their actions. I condone no actions of terrorists, any terrorist action is wrong. Whether it is a suicide bomb, a car bomb or using an airliner to hit civilian towers.

Welcome to the fight against terrorism America, just don't come on to the scene late and trumpet yourselves as the saviour of us all.

Oh and before you accuse of being cowards, what about your beloved president bush? On the days of the attack & the few days after where was he? Mayor Guiliani ( pardon any mis-spelling ) was right there reassuring and helping people. Bush was hiding away in some nuclear bunker. If he wanted to help his nation he should have been where he was needed not hiding away like a coward.

[metalhead]

First of all, Bush was not "hiding away in some bunker." He returned to Washington, I believe either late that night or early the next day. What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1. On 9/12, he was standing at ground zero with his arm around a soot-covered construction worker and a bullhorn in his hand. Not exactly a "bunker". More of a smoking grave for 3,000 Americans.

And no, frankly, it is not gung-ho enough for me. There is no negotiating with these people. They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America. You don't try peaceful resolution with people whose goal it is to destroy you. The chance of a peaceful resolution is zero. Saddam has kicked out UN weapons inspectors too many times to count - and it's not like those inspectors were given real access anyway. Peace, given the current situation is a pipe-dream. Live in the real world and realize that a time comes when peace is no longer viable.

And no, the US has not made a habit of destroying a regime and leaving. Just look at Afghanistan. The US is currently very active in region-stabilization and clearing the way for a less oppressive government. There is no reason to believe the US will just destroy Saddam and leave the region a mess. If you listened to American leaders, you would know that they are commited to the region for the long haul. And seriously, not thinking of the consequences? This plan has been brewing, probably before Bush even took office. The threat of Saddam is not a new one, and I think after 2 years the consequences of such an action have been contemplated.

OK, I'm sure the feelings were genuine. Yes, other nations have dealt with terrorism in the past (although not on nearly as grand of a scale.) But you have to see that when the US resolves to actually do something about it, the support sublimes into nothingness. All of the tough talk we heard out of the EU nations after 9/11 gave me the impression that they would back swift military action against A) the terrorists, and B) those who harbor them, as laid out in the Bush doctrine.

Thanks for the welcome to the fight on terror. Please don't stand in the way of us actually wanting to do something about it. Don't forget that some of your fellow countrymen were likely lost as well.

[Switch]

Warning: RANT

Originally posted by metalhead
First of all, Bush was not "hiding away in some bunker." He returned to Washington, I believe either late that night or early the next day. What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1. On 9/12, he was standing at ground zero with his arm around a soot-covered construction worker and a bullhorn in his hand. Not exactly a "bunker". More of a smoking grave for 3,000 Americans.

True

And no, frankly, it is not gung-ho enough for me. There is no negotiating with these people. They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America.

Just America? So terrorists aren't concerned about other parts of the world, like Beijing, Irish Catholics/Protestants, or other major areas and/or situations?

And no, the US has not made a habit of destroying a regime and leaving. Just look at Afghanistan. The US is currently very active in region-stabilization and clearing the way for a less oppressive government. There is no reason to believe the US will just destroy Saddam and leave the region a mess.

True.

Yes, other nations have dealt with terrorism in the past (although not on nearly as grand of a scale.)

Anyone who doesn't consider WWII terrorism (citizens and soldiers alike were scared) has something wrong in their head. Hitler and his Nazis killed, oh, how many people? ~6 million? No wait, that was just the Jews. 3 million? Or was that for the other kinds of people that Hitler had a distaste for?

Not that I'm making light of 9/11, but you have to realize that there have been terrorist disasters and massacres before, and 9/11 wasn't the biggest one.

Whether you consider Hitler's acts terrorism or not, that doesn't change the fact that Europe has suffered far worse.

Sorry, if my rant was offensive, or just offensively long, please do not take any offense, as none was meant.
I'm only trying to disprove a point not backed up before hand with facts.


And BTW, Traelin, I also meant no offensive with the "stupid hypocracy" comment. I was just annoyed, as it were.

[Demerzel]

Yes british lives were lost in the 9/11 tragedy as were many other nationalities, we all participated in the terror and the sorrow in the aftermath. surely that means you shouldnt look down upon us?

They are irrational and bent one one thing only - the destruction of America.

you've proved my point in one single sentence. just how egotistical are you? iraq & other nations are all out to get you is that it? don't make me laugh. they are in it for their own interests, not to destroy the "might good ol' USA".

re. 9/11 - you must be joking right? we've not lost life on the same scale? so you've suffered more? is not one life lost an absolute tragedy? we should feel humble that we've been lucky and only lost maybe hundreds or a mere thousand lives? the f*cking arrogance of your statement is scary. the 9/11 tragedy was horrible for the terrible loss of life that occured on just the one day ( imagine a country that has to lose life constantly over years and surpass the loss over that time ). Imagine Israeli citizens that lose their friend & relatives daily. 9/11 was for other countries 20 years of terrorism compiled into 1 day - that was why it has stood up in the public's imagination as it has. It doesn't mean we have suffered less than you. We have endured emotional trauma for years and years, your lack of sympathy for us is quite telling.

What he was really doing was flying a zig-zag route and landing periodically in remote locations in order to shake any terrorists aiming for AF1

just how likely is it that terrorists could track AF1 in airplanes or in the ground? did mayor guillani dodge from place to place? no, he was there on the scene, the terrorists hit with one medium of attack - the airliner. once the airports were locked down within an hour of the strike, their method of destruction was taken away from them. why bush had to go on hiding then is beyond me...

If you're committed to working long-term, exactly what percentage of the peacekeeping troops in Bosnia are American? A fair few are French & English IIRC. How many British troops were ( before Turkey took over )/are peacekeeping in Afghanistan? Ever since Vietnam, the American government has gone out of its way to avoid deploying ground troops in another country for any period of time. Other nations have to take up the slack, normally EU troops. We don't mind providing support in the ways we can except when you scorn our contribution.

The EU backed action against Afghanistan but, for some unbelievable reason, want to see proof of terrorist action elsewhere before they deploy troops to fight it. Unbelievable isn't it? We rational people don't feel the need to obliterate every other people at the slightest provocation.

You're welcome to go after terrorists as you wish but remember how you criticised us in the past for doing the same as you're doing now. You can't have it both ways, you can't claim to be the world's policeman but then shirk the responsibility when it gets nasty. You can't go after nations with no real proof when you've stood aloof in the past and criticised.

Oh yes re. Saddam, you could have removed him in 1990 if you wished but you chose not to because the coalition would have fallen apart as it will now if you try something. Remember America that your will is not dominant, you have to keep your allies and generally allies support their friends unless they have a good not to. If you're wrong, we won't support you regardless how much we're "cowards" suddenly

We all have to deal with terrorism, we just don't want to be talked down to by Americans who haven't experienced half the sh*t we have.