Global warming - a suggestion

[Ahriman]

If it causes no difficulty and affects everyone equally then why do you not simply ignore it?

Because its not fun!

Part of the fun of the game is in building up a huge economy. Having that arbitrarily destroyed by a weak mechanic is Not Fun.

So why are you arguing with me, saying that it doesn't make it harder

Because you seem to be saying that it *always* or * usually* makes the game harder for the human player. I don't think that's true, because it affects the AI at least as badly.

I'm arguing with someone who's saying "It doesn't affect the difficulty because I don't enjoy it".

On net it has little impact on difficulty. So what?
The issue should be if its fun or not. Its not. So lets remove it. I don't see why you don't agree with this.

but it doesn't fail at randomly making the game harder and making avoidance an additional challenge.

If half the time it makes the game harder, and half the time it makes the game easier, then saying "it makes the game harder" is (on average) not true.
Which is our problem with your claims.

It doesn't add any meaningful challenge to the game, because it hits the AI at least as badly as the player.

 

[Chalks]

Because its not fun!

The argument that it can be made to be more fun is one I certainly concede. I am arguing that attempting to avoid global warming provides an additional challenge.

a weak mechanic is Not Fun.

The issue should be if its fun or not. Its not. So lets remove it.

It doesn't add any meaningful challenge to the game

As someone who does enjoy the additional challenge of attempting to avoid the affects of climate change, it would be nice to think that I am not suffering from some sort of delusion and that said challenge does indeed exist in some form and that it is in fact possible to enjoy it.

I'm fine saying that it could be significantly improved and made to be much more enjoyable.

I don't see why you don't agree with this.

Well, I don't know. Perhaps my connection to the global hive mind is broken and preventing me from syncing with the "correct opinion" on this one.

 

[Warlord Sam]

..it still affects the difficulty to know that you may be affected by this phenomena if you are not careful about pollution.

But that's the thing. If an AI civ lobs a nuke or has crazy "pollution" (i.e. unhealthiness) then it can trigger the global warming mechanic.

This happens to me, in my games, affecting my healthy and nuclear-free cities, turning their tiles to desert.

That is not fun, and the player has no control over it. Hence, it is a mechanic that needs reworked.

It isn't fun to have an enemy army capture your cities, but the player can strategically prepare for this and it can be a learning experience. It isn't "fun" but it isn't a broken game-play mechanic, either.

Do you understand our problem with the gw mechanic, now?

 

[ruskyandrei]

As long as you make it optional or easily removable like in Civ4 i don't care what you do with global warming. It's just a pile of crap anyway.

 

[Chalks]

But that's the thing. If an AI civ lobs a nuke or has crazy "pollution" (i.e. unhealthiness) then it can trigger the global warming mechanic.

This happens to me, in my games, affecting my healthy and nuclear-free cities, turning their tiles to desert.

That is not fun, and the player has no control over it. Hence, it is a mechanic that needs reworked.

It isn't fun to have an enemy army capture your cities, but the player can strategically prepare for this and it can be a learning experience. It isn't "fun" but it isn't a broken game-play mechanic, either.

Do you understand our problem with the gw mechanic, now?

I totally understand the problems with the current GW mechanic. It can be frustrating to be affected by things outside of your control and what little control you do have to deal with or prevent GW is minor and not particularly fun mechanic.

I'd love the mechanic to be reworked or redesigned to be more enjoyable and tactical. This is not what I am objecting to.

What I am objecting to is "I don't find this mechanic to be fun, therefore it is impossible for anyone to find it fun so it should be removed entirely".

Reworked, redesigned, improved: Yes.
Removed entire without any attempt to improve it: No.

 

[Warlord Sam]

I'm an either/or man, myself If it was reworked to actually be fun and meaningful, awesome. But I'm not gonna be upset one bit if they just drop it entirely.

I'm glad to know we are at least in agreement that the current gw event isn't very good.

 

[KingYosef]

I thought the fanatics were calling it 'Climate Change' now for their lack of evidence and tampering of evidence?

We should just stick to what the scientific data suggests and have the Civ game follow a pattern of what we call on Earth, "WEATHER!"

Check this out... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#more-17970

 

[Chalks]

I thought the fanatics were calling it 'Climate Change' now for their lack of evidence and tampering of evidence?

You're not even sure what you mean by that, are you?

It gets referred to as "Climate Change" because stupid people hear "Global Warming" and say "OMG but it's colder this winter than usual! SEE IT'S UNTRUE!".

But never mind. Continue to let the oil companies tell you that scientific institutions are the ones who want to twist the facts. If you believe that, you're probably not going to be terribly compatible with reasonable debate on the issue.

 

[KingYosef]

You're not even sure what you mean by that, are you?

It gets referred to as "Climate Change" because stupid people hear "Global Warming" and say "OMG but it's colder this winter than usual! SEE IT'S UNTRUE!".

But never mind. Continue to let the oil companies tell you that scientific institutions are the ones who want to twist the facts. If you believe that, you're probably not going to be terribly compatible with reasonable debate on the issue.

Did you read the link I posted. In it contains scientific data that refutes the claims of Global warming scientists and the claim that Al Gore made about the ice melting away. If you haven't noticed, this is the primary reason why there has been a huge sway in those who appose Global warming. As well as with the recent data manipulation and scams from those in support of Global warming twisted the facts.

No one likes to be wrong, that is why those scientists in support of GW have backed off the term and are now using Climate change as their term. The fact is, most scientists are not in support of a human made upward trend of global warming.

I don't like pollution as much as the next guy, but I also will not jump on the broken wagon of manipulated GW data so that some politician or scam artist can take my money and rights. You do know about the manipulated data and the scientists involved admitting so, right?

Anyway, what does all this mean? It means they should not include man made Global Warming in a game that is suppose to reflect realistic conditions. If anything, they could have a feature where the weather is not static and changes.

 

[Ahriman]

Perhaps my connection to the global hive mind is broken and preventing me from syncing with the "correct opinion" on this one.

That would explain it. Report to your nearest Uplink station for reassimilation.

What I am objecting to is "I don't find this mechanic to be fun, therefore it is impossible for anyone to find it fun so it should be removed entirely".

That's not the argument. The argument is: "for climate change to be portrayed in any kind of logical way, it has to depend on the pollution of all countries, not just you. A mechanic that relies mostly on the actions of other players (which you have no control over) is intrinsically unfun and broken. Therefore, there is no way of including climate change in the game in a way that is both fun and realistic, therefore it should be removed."

If you believe that, you're probably not going to be terribly compatible with reasonable debate on the issue

Agreed. The latest political "no-nothing" movements are pretty sad.

Did you read the link I posted.

Yes. You're attempting to debunk long-term climate change using a graph based on 6 years of data.
Yes, there is slightly more sea ice in some places than there was 6 years, because 6 years ago was some of the highest temperatures on record.

And yes, there are local variations in climate. But the overwhelming array of data show a clear warming trend across most of the wordl

Its particularly amusing that you use sea-ice to stake your claim, because there is *massively* less sea ice than there was 20 or 40 or 60 years ago.

No one likes to be wrong, that is why those scientists in support of GW have backed off the term and are now using Climate change as their term.

People prefer climate change because its more accurate; it won't always be warmer everywhere, but the major changes are driven by increases in average global temperatures. The name shift is partly to avoid the know-nothing responses of "well, it was cold today, so there can't be global warming".

The fact is, most scientists are not in support of a human made upward trend of global warming.

Ummm... no. Maybe "most scientists interviewed on Fox News".
[Unless by "in support of" you mean "in favor of promoting" rather than "believe is occurring".]

But I tend to find the so-called "skeptics" immune to rational data and analysis.

Its this cherry-picking of data that drives me nuts; for every 19 indicators that support AGW, there might be one that doesn't, and people keeping finding these and acting as if they "disprove" the theory (its as if they don't understand what 95% statistical confidence means). Yes, not every glacier in the world is in retreat... but most are.

They pick a few trees, and use those to ignore the forest of data around them.

 

[Chalks]

Did you read the link I posted.

You know what, just because something is written on the internet, it doesn't mean it's true and not intending to mislead you. I can find you a website about how the world is run by lizards from space!

Here's a challenge for you. Can you find me one reputable scientific publication that categorically denies global warming?

Like the New Scientist? What about National Geographic?

No? Not one single scientific publication? Strange that, don't you think?

Lets make it easier for you. What about a single reputable global news outlet with an article about how global warming is fake?

What about the New York Times? The BBC?

No? Can't find anything there either?

How very weird.

Tell me, in your delusional world, how do you explain this?

Let me guess, every single scientist on the planet is in a massive global conspiracy with every single reputable news agency to trick you and the rest of Fox News?

What else do you expect from a world under the control of the lizard people.

A mechanic that relies mostly on the actions of other players (which you have no control over) is intrinsically unfun and broken.

I think a far worse situation would be to either ignore the existence of green energy technology, or to attempt to balance green tech by making it more efficient or cost effective than fossil fuel power sources.

If they do take the tech tree into the near future as was mentioned earlier, then I think we could do away with it - because then you could simply have fictional high efficiency green techs to replace the old polluting techs - but without that, you have real difficulty justifying the existence of modern green energy tech.

I'd rather have the irritation of minor terrain degeneration that's out of my control, than to ignore a whole branch of modern energy tech.

Moderator Action: Do not call others delusional
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[KingYosef]

That would explain it. Report to your nearest Uplink station for reassimilation.



That's not the argument. The argument is: "for climate change to be portrayed in any kind of logical way, it has to depend on the pollution of all countries, not just you. A mechanic that relies mostly on the actions of other players (which you have no control over) is intrinsically unfun and broken. Therefore, there is no way of including climate change in the game in a way that is both fun and realistic, therefore it should be removed."


Agreed. The latest political "no-nothing" movements are pretty sad.


Yes. You're attempting to debunk long-term climate change using a graph based on 6 years of data.
Yes, there is slightly more sea ice in some places than there was 6 years, because 6 years ago was some of the highest temperatures on record.

And yes, there are local variations in climate. But the overwhelming array of data show a clear warming trend across most of the wordl


People prefer climate change because its more accurate; it won't always be warmer everywhere, but the major changes are driven by increases in average global temperatures.


Ummm... no. Maybe "most scientists interviewed on Fox News".
[Unless by "in support of" you mean "in favor of promoting" rather than "believe is occurring".]

But I tend to find the so-called "skeptics" immune to rational data and analysis.

They pick a few trees, and use those to ignore the forest of data around them.

So far I've shown data that falsifies claims made by Al Gore and proponents of Global Warming, and you have shown no data at all. The big claim that the ice sheets are disappearing is the foundation for Global Warming supporters. The graph supplied shows that the recent trend is showing an increase in the ice. Global warmists need new data because on all the data they had before cannot be trusted from the recent scams.

Let me ask you a question. How did millions of years of ice ages come and go when there were no people on the Earth to manipulate the environment? Global Warming proponents work off of the 'NOW' and therefore are blind to see the big picture.

 

[Ahriman]

What else do you expect from a world under the control of the lizard people.

That makes so much sense. The lizards enjoy the warmer climate, so they've been manipulating us for millenia to get us to the point where our industry would warm the planet to the point where it is more comfortable for them, so finally they can invade.

 

[Chalks]

made by Al Gore

What is wrong with you? Seriously. Al Gore? Because what, he's master scientist of the world?

I don't really know what Al Gore said. I don't really care. Why do you care so much what one guy said?

The entire reputable scientific community is saying something. I provided you with 4 links to reputable science publications and news outlets giving you years of scientific data and evidence. Please read them after making me read that tripe you posted earlier.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: I am quite happy to allow some Global Warming discussion in this subforum since its game related - but keep it civilized. Discuss each others' posts not each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ahriman]

So far I've shown data that falsifies claims made by Al Gore and proponents of Global Warming, and you have shown no data at all.

Oh please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040601634.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/15/science.environment

http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL Arctic Ice.pdf

http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/relatedcontent/2007/September/rc_parentID36894_thisID36936.pdf

Need I go on?

The big claim that the ice sheets are disappearing is the foundation for Global Warming supporters.

No, its one of *many* indicators.
Temperature levels, glacial retreat, coral die-off, permafrost melting, higher altitude snow lines, all kinds of different data.

Global warmists need new data because on all the data they had before cannot be trusted from the recent scams.

Uhhh... no. The results of the British scientists were confirmed by the NASA studies and all the other studies using the climage data that we have.

And even the most delusional claims against the brits had nothing to do with the underlying data.

But this is a waste of time, its not worth discussing this with the hardcore skeptics, because they're immune to evidence.

 

[Chalks]

But this is a waste of time, its not worth discussing this with the hardcore skeptics, because they're immune to evidence.

On the bright side, it certainly puts the disagreement about the game mechanic into perspective.

 

[KingYosef]

You know what, just because something is written on the internet, it doesn't mean it's true and not intending to mislead you. I can find you a website about how the world is run by lizards from space!

Here's a challenge for you. Can you find me one reputable scientific publication that categorically denies global warming?

Like the New Scientist? What about National Geographic?

No? Not one single scientific publication? Strange that, don't you think?

Lets make it easier for you. What about a single reputable global news outlet with an article about how global warming is fake?

What about the New York Times? The BBC?

No? Can't find anything there either?

How very weird.

Tell me, in your delusional world, how do you explain this?

Let me guess, every single scientist on the planet is in a massive global conspiracy with every single reputable news agency to trick you and the rest of Fox News?

What else do you expect from a world under the control of the lizard people.

Here is a article that outlines the scam and manipulated data from the man made Global Warmists...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


I listen to the majority of Scientists and peer reviewed research...

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY

New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes

Belgian weather institute’s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming

New peer-reviewed study counters global warming theory, finds carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age.

New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate

New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle

Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.

Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.

A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise.

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

I have much much more...

 

[KingYosef]

For those that want to research themselves into the overwhelming scientific research, here is a link to 500 PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers that are not in support of man made global warming...

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

 

[civ_king]

only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright

OMG! the almighty 6% majority!

also snow pack growth is from lack of sunspots