Global Warming. It would be nice if...

[N. Machiavelli]

We're getting *slightly* off-topic here....

Can both 'sides' of the OT ranting grind their axe an another forum?


*EDIT: Spelling

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by metalhead
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.

Incorrect. That event was on 9/14.
Off-topic discussion of Bush and Iraq here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60284&highlight=terrorism

[Zachriel]

"In honour I gained them, and in honour I will die with them."
- Horatio Nelson, when asked to cover the stars on his uniform. He refused to hide knowing his true value was in the display of physical courage in the face of danger, the same danger his sailors had to meet. Shortly later he was mortally wounded by an enemy sharpshooter, the day of his greatest naval victory at Trafalgar.

[Demerzel]

3 days to get to NY? Did Bush hitchhike or something? Anyone else want to deny he was cowardly hiding away?

[Switch]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
We're getting *slightly* off-topic here....

Can both 'sides' of the OT ranting grind their axe an another forum?


*EDIT: Spelling

Slightly?

But you're right. This is neither the time nor place for such arguments.

Remember, this is a discussion about the realism of Civ3's Global Warming effect.

As I've stated, no, it isn't really realistic. And the fact that a game made for realism is using a theory as a part in its mechanics is kinda funny. Might as well use evolution (please, may an argument not come from this ) or the theory of everything (which are more suitable to a sci-fi game like SMAC, which actually did have Global Warming and the theory of everything ).

[N. Machiavelli]

Is there any way to completely eliminate pollution from the game. I'm working on a scenario and pollution as it's represented really doesn't have a place in it.
What I did was:
-Remove all pollution additions from city improvements.
-Give every city a Mass Transportation (name escapes me at the moment) system, which is supposed to eliminate pollution caused from population, isn't it?

Unfortunatly, the cities still crank out 1 pollution point after reaching a certain size and still pollute tiles every so often. Is there a way to remove this totally? Am I just missing something?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO Remember, this is a discussion about the realism of Civ3's Global Warming effect.

As I've stated, no, it isn't really realistic.

Global warming is represented in the game by desertification, which is a real and scientifically undisputed modern phenomena. Just don't call it global warming. It's just pollution and overpopulation slowly making the planet uninhabitable.

[sabrewolf]

off-topic (sorry):

metalhead & Traelin: why do so many of your people believe the propaganda (yes, propaganda) spread by the current government and media?

is it because dubya speaks so slow and sais no facts in his speaches (typical sales&marketing-style)? so even the stupidest redneck can understand him?
is it, because no other western nation has developed so much nationalism some european countries in the 1930s?

if you'd have access to world news and would watch it (which probably noone would care about anyway), maybe you'd see other opinions. and maybe even consider them too...?!?

what i want to say: don't believe everything someone on TV sais, no matter if he's a president, secretary of whatever or just a journalist...


a bit on-topic:

yes, there is no statistical or mathematical proof, that the current global warming is caused by man. but somethings can't be proven until it's too late... and believe me - i don't want to live in a destroyed world, just because some frickin' short term thinking governements (not just the US... iirc australia, canada & others don't agree either) are worried about the consequences.


on-topic:
civ3-polition-effects should be changed.
ideas could be:
- flooding of coastal or river-cities.
- growth (not only random appearing) of tundra and deserts
- poluted water and rivers (-1 commerce) for e.g. 20 turns.
- poluted squares not cleaned in the first 5 turns cannot be cleaned for the next 20 turns (you can remove the oil carpet.. but if it soaks in the soil, the land is unusable

[Zachriel]

Re: Global Warming. It would be nice if...

Originally posted by Sleestax
If Firaxis is going to put in the scientifically questionable concept of human induced global warming, then they should also allow for off-setting it with the increasing of CO2 consuming forests.

I agree that forests would be a very nice balancing factor to global warming. Forests within city limits could help with local pollution too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO
Might as well use evolution (please, may an argument not come from this )

Civ is very much a game of evolution, the evolution of human civilization from simpler forms to more complex structures over long periods of time. For thousands of years the idea that society could evolve was considered heresy.

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Traelin


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?

In May 2001 the Bush Administration was giving money to the Taliban government. It wanted to insure that there was a stable governement in the area before american oil interests began laying down pipelines. What I get from this is that the Bush administration was fine with the brutal, oppressive Taliban, so long as it didn't interfere with oil. There goes the moral high ground. I think politicians don't mind dealing with wackos and despots, so long as they are stable wackos and don't interefere with business as usual. Sorry for keeping this thread off-topic.

[Traelin]

This is the last OT post I'll make on this subject (unless you all rile me up again! )

Whoa whoa, I am well aware of the hypocrasy of politicians in general (i.e., regardless of what country they represent). I am also well aware of our support to "questionable" regimes in the past. The best example is the financial/military aid we gave to Iraq so they could match the U.S.S.R.'s support of Iran. It sucks, but it's life that politicians are bottom-dwellers.

My point was that it is virtually unprecedented to see the ENTIRE Senate vote one way. Such a vote generally supercedes the affects of PACs, money, etc. in the political process for that particular vote. It speaks to the fact that Kyoto is NOT good (nor fair) to the U.S.

I also want to make it clear that I actually ally myself with the Independents, in that I agree with views from both parties. I don't ally myself with Bush, but there's no way in hell I'd ally myself with Clinton either. I generally vote for the lesser of two evils, but oh well. Either way, it is absolutely inane for anyone to assert that Bush was hiding on 9/11. Good God, we need to have our leaders safe at that time! I have an idea for those dissenting from my view...why don't you tell your leaders to be the men/women on the front lines during a time of crisis? Hrm better yet, why didn't we tell Roosevelt, Churchill, etc. to have a wrestling match with Hitler to determine the fate of WW2? Sheesh, freaking silliest thing I've ever heard to think Bush was hiding. Duh, we need our leaders ALIVE, not KIA.

OK just one more OT point. I agree that terrorism in any form and in ANY country is God-awful. God forbid anything like the IRA, 9/11, Israeli/Palestinian conflict continues unabated. But PLEASE PLEASE can we stop the country-bashing on ALL sides? I mean we all love our countries and nationalism in its current U.S. form is a good thing. Let's just agree to disagree which country is best! And if you don't like the U.S. at all, don't buy our damn games! Just kidding just kidding!



WRT Global Warming and C3, what's the chances they will amend the current functionality of the U.N.? I'd really like to see a Global "Clean Up Pollution" treaty, a "Stop Your War Against X Third Party" treaty, etc. I mean it's usually never my fault that an entire continent is desertified, it's the AI using nukes and building crappy power plants.

[Skanky Burns]

Re: Re: Global Warming. It would be nice if...

Originally posted by Zachriel
I agree that forests would be a very nice balancing factor to global warming. Forests within city limits could help with local pollution too.

Forests do help prevent global warming in a round-about way. If global warming happens to a forest square, the forest dies rather than demoting the unerlying terrain. So grassland stays grassland, rather than becoming plains.

[Demerzel]

I love the way that the US ( amongst others, us probably included too sadly ) sold weapons to the Iraqi's for years and years but only decided that Saddam was evil and should be removed once the threat of losing their oil supplies reared its ugly head.

if the USA had been really serious about removing Saddam they wouldn't have lead on the Kurds with promises of support after the Gulf War had ended. Sadly when the Kurds rose up in rebellion and were controlling nearly two-thirds of the country, the US failed to give the support they promised and Saddam crushed the rebellion.

that was real nice work there Mr Bush Snr!

sadly most politicans can easily turn a blind eye when they choose - consider the Kuwaitis & Saudi Arabians. Both are run by a small ruling family with hardly any rights for women & no real chance of democracy, torture apparently was plentiful in Kuwait after the end of the Gulf War. Yet due to the fact they can export oil to the "developed" world, they are welcomed into polite society.

Speaking of fundraising coffers, I watch the West Wing often and it often makes me laugh just how much "corruption" is inbuilt into the system. Senators seem to be so "bought" by the people that paid for them to get in, that companies ( whether oil, tobacco or media ) can seemingly buy themselves a senator in order to get the laws they want and the "democracy" they choose.

"Remember senator about that money we donated? Well there is a bill out there that will hurt us a lot whilst doing the public a little good. You'll kill that bill for us won't you Senator? Ah good man! Here's some more money to keep you going..."

Isn't that what they call a prostitute? Or am I thinking politician? I always get them confused


by the way there is a difference between keeping your leader safe and keeping him hidden from all view. I seem to recall the US President getting a fair deal of flack from the media for his non-appearance for several days after the attack. Why not appear in NY later that day? Why not the next morning? Why did it take several days for him to appear?

As I said, there is a fine line between being sensible and using caution and running away from the situation. The latter seems to be the side of the line bush sought.

oh by the way using absurd arguments to try to ridicule what i have to say is proving how weak your case is. A leader can often lead from the front but in recent times he has to be seen and hiding away isn't going to help morale is it after such a terrible tragedy?

and back on topic, i'd like to be able to tell the ai's to fecking clean up pollution. i'm sick of having to "invade" their territory with my workers to clean up their mess.

[metalhead]

Originally posted by Demerzel
by the way there is a difference between keeping your leader safe and keeping him hidden from all view. I seem to recall the US President getting a fair deal of flack from the media for his non-appearance for several days after the attack. Why not appear in NY later that day? Why not the next morning? Why did it take several days for him to appear?

This is all I will reply to in deference to those who have asked to stay on topic. Sorry for the rants people!

There were few in the liberal US media who tried to make this same argument - that Bush was being a coward by not immediately flying to Washington, and rather "zig-zagging" to be SAFE! At the time 9/11 went down, nobody knew anything. For all we knew, there were al-Qaeda on the ground in Georgia with SAM's waiting to shoot down AF1! Everyone in the US knew that the libs were WAY off base trying to label Bush as a coward for not flying directly to Washington after the attack. We all saw through it - now could you please do the same and not post about it anymore? I will gladly continue the rest of this discussion elsewhere if you wish, preferably in a more civil manner. Not that I don't like a good tussle, but.... enough is enough when you are OT.

Back on topic: Given that global warming will be a part of Civ games, I think it should be handled better. I liked how in Civ2 you could completely eliminate pollution in your cities by building the proper improvements - in Civ3, no matter what you build, to maximize productivity, you must put up with 2 triangles of pollution in each of your cities. This is a part of the game that screams to be enabled in the editor. I think they should include 5-10 future era techs - things such as gene therapy, hydrogen propulsion, etc. could be added after the modern age, instead of the thoroughly useless Future Tech.

For example - a small wonder Hydrogen Fuel (stupid name for a wonder, I know, but the concept is good!) eliminates all pollution in your cities. Tack it on to the end of the Modern Era, or into a Future Era would be cool and help eliminate some of the annoyance of pollution. After all, Algore claims the internal combustion engine to be the bane of the environment, give us a way to eliminate it and shut him up