I am sure I follow the issue as much as anyone here.  I've been reading RealClimate.org for years and am an active user on treehugger.com.  I've certainly gotten my exposure to the data and arguments of the climate change crowd.

I have enough confidence in my own knowledge on the subject to make my own conclusions which is a strong sense of skepticism. 

Both sides have vested interests in their positions. Calling one side "satan's spin doctors" really just says a lot about the ideology of one side - the literal demonizing of those who don't agree.

From my vantage point, I only see one group trying to coerce money from individuals. The others make their money through voluntary choices.

 

 

 

 

 

Always consider the source of information. If science is loosing credibility it is only because people are trying to swiftboat it. The information you originally refd. is flawed, stolen, and taken out of context. Also, a surprising amount of the sites you reference seem to get their funding from (or are owned by,) republican leaning interest groups; which leads me to believe that they are, in fact, politically biased as well. Assuming that I am mistaken about that, I still see very few references in your links, making the validity of the information suspect. If anyone is showing a sign of being political at the expense of all else, it is you sivcorp. Now, I don't think that we're all going to die in 40yrs, but I am worried about what my grand kids and their grand kids will have to be dealing with.

 

Anti-social recluses don't go into marketing.  It doesn't even work on them.

 

Florida is mostly gone already.  It's why so much of it is swamp.  It will be completely under water before the next ice age hits, our existence is irrelevant to that fact.  There's quite a bit of the southeast that's composed of ocean floor.  To be composed of ocean floor, it had to be ocean floor.  We weren't around the last time, we didn't do it then.  Italy is the same way, Venice has been slowly sinking into the ocean since long before Venice was inhabited by humans.  It's not a possibility, it's an eventuality.  If we happen to speed up the process we're just going to reach that green paradise sooner.  If we really can warm the planet a significant amount, we can even skip that next ice age.  No one is going to drown because of it, the change will happen over centuries.

 

One of the biggest things you guys are missing when they talk about global warming is that no one is trying to make the claim that the place wouldn't be warming without us.  It's known fact, the ocean will cover a lot of currently dry ground in the next few thousand years regardless of our actions.

both sides are under political thumbs. stop trying to pretend your side of the debate is more innocent then the other. I dont trust either side of the arguement. Both shows signs of corporate and political backing.

 

As Brad said, only one side is looking to coerce money out of your pocket, by way of both taxes & higher energy bills.  I don't care what the 'consensus' of politicians is, the science is not settled.

the science isn't settled because you say it isn't. Never mind what the majority of the actual scientists say.

Lemming.  Knock yourself out.

You mean like how those that are skeptical about AGW treat those that are not?

OK I get it. It's your site. It's your rules. I'm a guest here at your pleasure. I acknowledge that my access here is a gift and I do indeed appreciate that gift. 

But even though they are most assuredly your rules it would be nice to know what the limits are before I inadvertently step over them as opposed to after the fact. The fact that the rules may apply differently to folks with different opinions is immaterial. This is not a democracy and as a guest I have no inherent right to any freedom of speech.

If I have to choose between feeling like I can express my opinion or feeling like I need to shut up in order to preserve my ability to post future games to the MV then my preference is to shut up. However is that really the choice you want me to make?

As far as my analogy to the tobacco industry it was specifically directed at three particular anti-AGW organizations that have demonstrable ties to the tobacco industry. I don't believe I likened any individual AGW skeptic to the tobacco industry and I certainly had no intention of applying the analogy to the site owner who up to that point had made no appearance in the thread.

I admit that I have denigrated AGW skeptics but assert that I and other AGW proponents have been equally denigrated by AGW skeptics and arguably even more so.

 

Wow, Mumblefratz, where did the second part of your last reply come from.

That was a response from Daiwa. And this is not Daiwa's site, as far as I know, nor was it even a reply to one of your posts.

 

I do have a question for you, however.

 

I do not doubt that the earth has been in a warming period for a couple decades, at least until this decade at any rate.

I do not doubt that we have contributed to it, at least in a small way. (I personally think in a very small way)

But the earth has gone through very many warming and cooling periods in the past, with no significant human intervention.

Heck, a thousand years ago the Vikings lived in Greenland's southwestern coastal area - which was not covered in ice at that time. This graph shows a variance of several degrees (C) in Greenland over the past 1500 years - which we had nothing to do with (in fact, 1990 - the year the graph ends - is not even the warmest):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grtemp.png

Greenland has experienced several temp changes spanning 3C, with no human interaction. I don't see how 1-2C in this, our current time period, is so different from what has happened in the past.

 

My question to you is...

What makes you think that this latest warming trend is directly caused by us?

And further, what makes you think that anything we do can alter it in any truly significant way?

 

 

 

 

 

The way I see it is, the scientists simply take the current trend and project forward.

Heck, you and I are nearly the same age. If you were paying attention in our earlier years, you should have seen it by now.

In the mid-70s they were saying that if the trend continued we would be going into another ice age. Now they are saying that, based on the current trend, we will be burning and flooding!

The 'current trend' has seemed to have back-ended, because the temps are coming back down again, and these 'hacked' e-mails tend to confirm that. Whether it is a small group of scientists, or a large, that are trying to 'conform' the data to what they think it should reflect to reinforce the idea of 'global warming' doesn't matter. The fact is, it has happened and, to whatever degree, the scientific community at large is put into doubt because of it.

 

The climate changes on a continual basis. It never stays the same for more than a few decades or centuries. And it does not matter if humans are in a pre-industrial or industrial state - it still happens!

Greenland is obviously a plot by the tobacco industry to...  Um...

 

I forget, why is the tobacco industry against global warming?

You might try paying attention.

The first quote was from Brad. I took the nearest quote which happened to be Daiwa's as an example that it's not just AGW proponents that treat AGW skeptics poorly but that AGW skeptics also treat AGW proponents as "ignorant or brain washed."

Overall my reply was a response to Brad's reply #218. I would have thought the site owner reference would have been enough to clue you in.

I know you're smarter than that and so must conclude that you're being intentionally obtuse.

The point I made was that *some* of the "conservative think tanks" that are prominent as AGW skeptics also *happen* to be the very same think tanks that defended the tobacco industry.

The point being not that the tobacco industry gives a rats ass about global warming but that the Oil industry is using some of the very same organizations, along with some of the very same people and therefore are in many cases using the very same techniques as were used by the tobacco industry to fight anti smoking legislation.

It was this analogy that Brad found "particularly obnoxious."

When the site owner makes an appearance in a thread and singles out one of your replies to highlight as both "more than a bit obnoxious" and "particularly obnoxious" you would be stupid to ignore the implied warning.

I am not stupid and since my primary desire to be able to access these sites is so that I can post GalCiv2 games to the MV if expressing my opinion puts that access in jeopardy then I have no problem keeping my opinion to myself.

I think in the end this would make for boring threads but that is not my concern, as I said my primary concern is to be able to post MV games.

ok ... it is sad that there is real politics, this is true.

What about political systems in-place in the game? I mean do adopt one simple system, perhaps to work alongside "civics" ... where a nation adopts either a Creed, Motto, Monolythic Government, Guild, something whatever its called. This Creed will give acess to special units as well as special abilities.

 

Like the necromancer creed will have better summons and a weaker economy, or a Nature creed will have less expensive and more varied terraforming abilities, as well as require less food/make extra food, ect.

And the Shadow creed enables sneak attacks more readily, and provides Mercenary Assasin heroes more readily, and allows you to recruit an Assasin hero permanently. Downside is it does not provide major economic effects that the other religions do.

Gold creed could increase mining production and commerce.

Fire creed could have increased city morale/prestige, although prestige bonus begins to turn into a penalty if as many as 2 extra creeds are present within city ... so in order to have maximum Monetary/Law bonuses, as well as Prestige bonuses, you need to remove other creeds from your cities in some way.

There could be bonuses for the Headquarters of a Creed, whoever adopted the creed first could have first opportunity to build the Headquarters of the Creed ( a 20 turn block on later adopters to start building the headquarters ... arbitrary, but better than only allowing initial adopter to build headquarters).

Water Creed could allow for much cheaper, and much more effective, healing priestesses, which only require a minor ice-kit in order to be created (special ice kit called priestess kit, 75% cost of normal ice-kit, and double as effective, only for healing though, all damage spells by water priestesses are decreased in damage/attack 50%)

The options are endless, as you can soon see, but either way, whether you call it Government, Creed, Guild, or whatever ... the gaming effects will be seen. I would advise no more than 7 major creeds, although due to the size of the Elemental game maybe as many as 12 major creeds as possible, as well as perhaps several minor guilds which synergize with certain creeds, or are unlocked in special ways.

The Majority of scientists have always been sheep. The way Scientists learn anything groundbreaking is by an individual going against the machine. They're usually called quacks and have no standing in the Scientific community because they dont subscribe to the majority. Science has become a religion. The majority that dont truely understand it follow blindly because they trust those with the education know whats best. (understandable to a point...If your not willing to think for yourself and look for evidence outside of just what the majority agree on, your sheep) While the Scientists themselves do the same thing as far as following those they look up to. Because someone gets a nod from another more respected Scientist their ideas (remember most of this is guess work) are widely accepted and go unchallenged by the fold. The Science Community have been overturned time and time again because they are as subceptable to their own arrogance just like everyone else. Now a days as Science has taken the lead over Religion in society the everyday individuals who believe Science is closer to the truth have done exactly what their ancestors did with christianity. They refuse to question it, and even defend it blindly. Notice how religion had a doomsday prediction and now Science as well has a doomsday prediction. Im not saying there isnt a real life threat from global warming, we really have no clue what can happen in the future. The Earth has been around for 4.6 Billion years, thats a long time. And it wouldnt shock me if at some point in the future the Earth did a turn around and instead of being a shelter for life it becomes desolate like Mars. Its inevitable that the ability to sustain life on Earth will eventually cease to exist. I just dont believe Mankind has yet accomplished that ability to effect the Earths lifegiving force. Its already accepted that even long after the Earth was carpet bombed with Nukes the Earth would still be home to life. And after the radiation subsided life would flurish once again. I believe weve done our share of damage to the Earth. I dont believe weve locked in our fate. We are destroying resources that we cant replace and alot of it isnt being used to further Mankind. But only to damage the world around us. But until Climatologists can develop more sophisticated ways to predict their claims Ill take their opinions on the issue with a grain of salt.

Mumble, have you no sense of humor whatsoever?

Never mind, I know the answer.  You are so the pot calling the kettle black.

Link

Link

You mean when you denigrate others because of their opinions it's all in good fun but when I do it it's obnoxious?

Yes I'm quite familiar with the fact that on JU I'm a second class citizen that has to abide by a more restrictive set of rules than you do merely because my opinions don't agree with the site norm.

This very conversation represents a risk to me but none to you. It's very easy for you to be brave when you hide behind your mama's skirts.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean...

But you're being overly sensitive, given your disdain for JU, don't you think?

Fear not.  Brad doesn't toss people for simply being obnoxious.  So you're safe.

You're one of those people!

 

My grandmother died because she smoked a pack and a half a day.  I definitely hold the companies responsible for their lies regarding the addictive qualities and safety issues, but she still chose to keep smoking knowing it wasn't healthy.  That is no longer an issue, the record is corrected, overly so.  Smoking is a choice, restricting liberties to keep people from choosing to shorten their own lives is still a restriction of liberty.  Anyone in denial of the drawbacks at this point has chosen to be there and has the right to do so.  You're the liberal here, don't you freakishly left wing nuts claim to be the last bastion of lifestyle choice against the evil social conservative?

Is it just me, or does the internet make most people stupid? Or maybe the avg. IQ really has hit rock bottom...

Not sure which people you mean.

I'm sorry to hear that. I have a soft spot for grandmothers, even those whose grandsons might not be my favorite person on the planet. I can honestly sympathize with you having lost far more loved ones in my life in addition to my grandmother.

Agreed on both points.

Agreed as stated but with a caveat.

I agree that as long as a person’s choice shortens only their own life then that is not something we should try to regulate. However I don’t believe that anyone has a right to make a choice that shortens the life of someone else so I’m OK with restricting people’s liberties to poison others with second hand smoke.

Not totally sure what the “freakishly left wing nut” party line is these days. I must have forgotten to take notes at the last meeting, I can only tell you how I personally feel about it.

I suspect that the liberal view is to be totally against those dirty nasty smokers. I mean they’re so easy to hate and such an easy target for any additional state revenue that’s needed. It’s like an infinite supply, just raise taxes on smokers. I think that they’re paying close to ten dollars a pack in Massachusetts these days.

I mean I’m OK with “sin” taxes as a general idea but when the tax on the sin becomes 5 or more times the value of the item then I have to say that’s a bit excessive.

I’m a former smoker myself having quit 8 years ago after my heart attack. I found that it was very easy to quit once they shoved those angioplasty rods up holes I didn’t realize that I had. However to this very day I still enjoy the smell of cigarettes even though when I smell cigarette smoke it feels like there’s a hand clamped around my heart squeezing hard.

However being a former smoker I don’t believe that we should effectively criminalize people just because they smoke. I mean if we really want to treat smokers as criminals then make smoking a crime. But until it’s actually a crime then don’t treat people that smoke as if it is a crime. Sure you need to protect others from being exposed to second hand smoke, I don’t think there’s anyone that disagrees with that, but smokers are not criminals and should not be treated as such, but that’s just my opinion.

However *none* of this has anything whatsoever to do with the analogy that I made between tobacco lobbies and certain AGW skeptic organizations. The only point I was making was about the techniques which use assertion with no proof which is intended only to generate a certain amount of noise so as to claim that the science is unsettled and therefore nothing should be done.

So given the above, please tell me what kind of people that makes me, because I really would like to know.

It makes you a person who thinks too much to fit into todays world. Roll over beethoven, kill some bairn sells, and macke sume gramaticel erores.

 

*You can't make others smarter, but you can dumb yourself down. It also helps with the depression.

The longer this goes without the Wrath of Khan descending down upon me the greater my tendency to believe you. However I have personally witnessed a banning that was the result of a single poorly chosen word in a single reply and *boom* that was the end of that. So forgive me if I feel that I need to take a certain amount of care that you do not need to take.

[edit] For those that wonder that single word was "racist" and like I said it did not end well although it did end quickly. [/edit]

I can't but take that as a compliment. Thank you.

Mumble, for reasonably valid reasons we won't get into here, has a history of banning people from his own threads when they become obnoxious; not for simply disagreeing but for being intentionally disruptive. It's not paranoid for him to consider that Brad may maintain a similar policy with the site as a whole. There is ample history to support that concern, too. I do think it more likely that any offending thread would simply be moved to JU, but his concern is reasonably valid.

"Liberals" as we know them in the US tend to be for more lifestyle choice (to a point) but also for using legislation to steer those choices to what they consider "better".

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/09/progressives-democracy-health