The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists
Originally posted by Ramo
I also found it amusing that he quoted Edward Teller in a lecture about criticizing politically motivated hack science.
Woohoo, talk about delicious irony!
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
I find it funny that the fossil fuel industry calls climate change a hippie liberal conspiracy when the first western leader to say global warming was a problem was MARGRET THATCHER.
I am not one of those econuts, like conspiracy therorist Art Bell (one of his books was the inspiration for The Day After Tomorrow), who think it's the end of the world. We (well, our decendants) will have to learn to adjust to the new conditions. I don't think we can't do anything to stop it because China and India will whine and b!tch if we try.
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You have an odd definition of celebrity.
I sure do: the dictionary definition, of "famous person". What's your definition of celebrity- someone who's been on a reality TV show for a couple of weeks, or has a big pair of boobs that they show off lots?
It really doesn't even matter much if global warming is real or not. If it was real and all the evidence was there to prove it, and required a political solution to solve it, you can rest assured that such a solution would not be implemented. It would take rather intense pressure from the public to make a politician go against the corporations they're sleeping with, and the public won't pressure the government unless the problem is so obvious everyone can see it's real.
As for the consensus issue, I've heard of consensus of scientients agreeing that evolution is real. I think the term is used is more often when the general public has a very different opinion on an issue then those who research the subject in question. Of course the scientists aren't always right, but they're usually closer to the truth then the general public.
ku eshte shpata eshte feja
Where the Sword is, There lies religion
Well, Maggie had her flaws - maybe she needed some green voters at an election
At the moment we don't even have the faintest idea about what the conditions will be in the future - we neither have any idea of wether human actions has any influence on it.
It is based on computer models not including all factors and based on historical data which there certainly isn't any scientfic consensus behind.
Just take your local weather forecast. You trust it for the first 2-3 days; having confidence in the 4 and 5 day, but don't belive what they say about day 6 and 7. It's not because you don't trust the meteorologist, but because he/she says that they can't do it better.
If the prediction of weather conditions has problems looking 5 days ahead, what problems can you imagine looking 100 years ahead ?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Originally posted by BlackCat
Well, Maggie had her flaws - maybe she needed some green voters at an election
At the moment we don't even have the faintest idea about what the conditions will be in the future - we neither have any idea of wether human actions has any influence on it.
What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.
As for the consensus issue, I've heard of consensus of scientients agreeing that evolution is real. I think the term is used is more often when the general public has a very different opinion on an issue then those who research the subject in question. Of course the scientists aren't always right, but they're usually closer to the truth then the general public.
Not a quite fair comparison. Evolution theory is based on evidences upon evidences (fossiles etc) and biological experiments.
The theory that humans is to blame for global warming is based upon the assumption that since humans is doing something to the environment, then they are to blame for anything. This haven't been proved, and the primary thing for science, measurements and experiments, doesn't clearly support this theory. As i see it, the consensus on global warming isn't based on fact but on belief.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.
You are right, but noone have any idea about how much. Especially if you think about the fact that wapor are the major cause of "heat trapping" where CO2 is a minor. That means that changes in wapor has quite more impact than CO2 but nonetheless this is ususally ignored.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
The theory that humans is to blame for global warming is based upon the assumption that since humans is doing something to the environment, then they are to blame for anything. This haven't been proved, and the primary thing for science, measurements and experiments, doesn't clearly support this theory. As i see it, the consensus on global warming isn't based on fact but on belief.
While your argument cuts a few corners, I would like to say something related to it.
For many people (including me) global warming, polution etc. are not about blaming humans for everything. It's more that we are aware that we DO have an impact on our environment, and that we could do much more with it, if we were to look a bit farther beyond the length of our noses. It's called sustainability. While many 'environmentalists' are being portrayed as hippies who think we should return to the Stone age and start hunting-gathering again, this view does not hold truth.
While I certainly cannot prove Global Warming, the theories on a sustainable CO2 cyclus makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we should put a lot of effort in it to make it work. Also the notion that we should conserve energy wherever we can makes a lot of sense. I simply hate it for anything to go to waste, and there is certainly no reason to waste for the hell of it.
What do you think that CO2 is doing? CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, hence "greenhouse gas". More CO2 = more heat traped, that is a proven chemical FACT. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, that is why humid summer nights tend to be warmer than dry summer nights if I remember right.
Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. Humid climates/conditions 'feel' hotter as your body cannot get rid of it's exess heat through sweating, as the sweat cannot evaporate, and thus cannot cool you by doing so.
For the same reason a strong wind in a cold environment makes you shiver, while the same temperature in a wind-still environment might feel comfortable to you.
While your argument cuts a few corners, I would like to say something related to it.
For many people (including me) global warming, polution etc. are not about blaming humans for everything. It's more that we are aware that we DO have an impact on our environment, and that we could do much more with it, if we were to look a bit farther beyond the length of our noses. It's called sustainability. While many 'environmentalists' are being portrayed as hippies who think we should return to the Stone age and start hunting-gathering again, this view does not hold truth.
I gladly admit that i may not be that precise, but i am not an environmental researcher, i just tries to get as much info as i can. As far as i can see of this infogathering, then there are no decicive conclusion to make, but for many extreme environmentalists, the existence of humans are a thorn in their side.
Of course human actions has an impact, especially on the local environment, and i quite agree that this should be reduced as much as possible. I am in fact an environmentalist myself, but when somebody starts to talk about gaia, then i can't follow anymore.
While I certainly cannot prove Global Warming, the theories on a sustainable CO2 cyclus makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we should put a lot of effort in it to make it work. Also the notion that we should conserve energy wherever we can makes a lot of sense. I simply hate it for anything to go to waste, and there is certainly no reason to waste for the hell of it.
Again, i must agree. Any ressource must be exploited sensibly - that including energy conservation. About the Co2 cyclus, then i have one big problem. It seems that nature varies the CO2 level quite independently of what humans are doing. If you look at the link there are in one of my previous posts, then we are in the middle of a cyclic spike where CO2 rises AFTER the temperature has gone up.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. Humid climates/conditions 'feel' hotter as your body cannot get rid of it's exess heat through sweating, as the sweat cannot evaporate, and thus cannot cool you by doing so.
For the same reason a strong wind in a cold environment makes you shiver, while the same temperature in a wind-still environment might feel comfortable to you.
Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas.
Of course the notion about how it feels has nothing to do with the way it act as a such. It is the general amount of water vapor in the atmosphere that acts as a greenhouse gas.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Again, i must agree. Any ressource must be exploited sensibly - that including energy conservation. About the Co2 cyclus, then i have one big problem. It seems that nature varies the CO2 level quite independently of what humans are doing. If you look at the link there are in one of my previous posts, then we are in the middle of a cyclic spike where CO2 rises AFTER the temperature has gone up.
Confessing I haven't looked at your links:
Climate changes have been drastic during earth' life. However, human civilization has not seen much of that. I don't think we could stomach a new Ice Age so easily, nor could we stomach the opposite that well.
Humans are here only for a short time, and written history is in the blink of an eye. It could well be that whatever we do will not matter in the grand scheme of things, but that is not really what we are interested in, are we?
How is the ozone layer doing? Did the CFC's didn't matter either?
We certainly don't know, but we do know that blasting the atmosphere full of dirt is not good for US, and that is why we should research, study and act to the best of our possibilities. And we have better posibilities then saying: Duh, we don't know nothing, let's make money and party.
Unfortunately we are cutting away the biggest CO2 receptors (the rain forests) at an alarming rate.
It used to be that the "rain forests" (notice the newspeak: "jungle" cannot be used, since it contains negative connotations) were the "lungs of the globe", and if bad western corporations wouldn't stop raping the glorious paradises in Brazil, we would all run out of air and die. However, recently, when a large portion of those jungles had been already cut; and nobody were still noticing any major O2 shortages (even with a govermente-funded top-notch equipment in use); and most importantly, when these "environmentalists" realised that no goverment was anymore paying any attention to their ridiculous theory, what did they do? Simple: they just changed it.
Now it is the colourful, cute plankton which defends, safeguards us from this horrible fate of slowly choking to death. That's why we should severely limit the industry along the coasts and pour billions of dollars of taxpayers money to protect that plankton.
Tweet
Comment