schm0

Multiple road connections. Even tried opening a new city in an undeveloped neighbor, plopping down a power plant and trying to hook it up. Nothing happened. Has anyone else had this problem?

I have plenty of money and excess power available... but no power deals available to choose. What could be the problem?

Originally posted by: hymewales Global warming and pollution are two seperate issues...and yes, pollution needs to be reduced.quote> They are directly related to one another. Are you saying that pollution has no impact on our global climate? According to the beloved graph, the Earth has been warmer in periods than before now. CO2 has also been increasing since the Roman Empire. Are we to blame the Roman Empire for starting Global Warming? All this graph shows me is that CO2 increases and temperature increases are part of a natural cycle that has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years. Is there a clear correlation? There are clear periods when the correlation is not what it seems. Like right after 125 thousand years ago when CO2 was constant, but temperatures were still decreasing. Or even later after year 0, the CO2 spikes but temperatures jump up and down and not spiking as in earlier periods with CO2. This means, there are other factors...quote> No, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, and the last 10 years are the hottest on record. The Roman Empire didn't build factories that spew millions of tons of pollutants into the air, we did. If you note, there is sharp spikes in both C02 and temperature, then a steady decrease over many thousands of years. These periods where "things aren't what they seem" don't prove that C02 and temperature aren't directly correlated, which the rest of the graph does. The graph ends at year 0, by the way. There is no recorded data into the future. Schm0 To get an accurate determination of human impact on global warming, you have to factor in other events like the Earth's orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the Earth's weakened magnetic field. <See page 13 of this thread for references>. No studies have been done to include every variable into the global warming equation. There is only limited studies on the Milankovitch cycle and the Earth's magentic field and none relating to thier effects on global warming. quote> So how do you know these things are the causes of global warming if they have yet to be confirmed by larger and more extensive research? The consensus today was formulated by decades of research and is backed by thousands of reports, peer-edited research papers and climate models. You contradict yourself by announcing that there are other factors, even though not a single one of those factors have been caused to be related to global warming at all. Unfortunately, our climate is more complicated than merely looking at the make up of the atmosphere. What's happening on Earth cannot be compared to Venus because Venus is outside the livable zone in our solar system and Mars does not have the magnetic field or gravitational effect like that of Earth.quote> I wasn't saying Earth is like Venus, merely pointing out what an example of the Greenhouse Effect and specifically the effects of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere. All atmospheric systems are complex, not just our own. Our climate is like an engine. Trying to determine what is causing an engine to overheat by looking at just the air intake is not going to help...Many factors determine our climate, not just one.quote> I agree. There are other man-made gases that need to be eliminated to scale back the effects of global warming. And your analogy is a bit simplistic: my mechanic can fix my car in a day, but we can't repair the global environment as easily or quickly. Back to what Palpatine001 said: He believes the warming is 95% natural and 5% human. You Schm0 said "Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects.". That would equate to 0.25% being the fault of humans and the rest being natural. So, a 5 degree change would equate to 0.25 degree change as human caused and 4.75 degree change as natural. I agree with palpatine001. quote> If I disagreed with Palpatine001, then you can't take my argument and his argument, mold them into one, and then say there is a common result. The impact we are having on global climate is MUCH LARGER THAN .25% Your figures take into effect the natural phenomenon of water vapor and naturally-occuring carbon dioxide which exist in equilibrium and have done so for millenia. Add the human race, pump trillions of extra tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and tell me that it won't start to mess with the fragile equilibrium that has been established. Furthermore, I stand by my original statement. On a hot day, it is 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Add 5% to that, and you get nearly 100 degrees. Do that on a global scale, and you'll see devastating effects on crops, sea levels, weather patterns and global ice sheets and glaciers. What is happening to our world is not natural, it is man-made. No changes can be quickly implemented to reduce temperatures so adaptation is what we have for now...Mother nature will eventually correct herself.quote> How about a radical idea? Shut down all industry for a week and note the changes in the atmosphere. I guarantee you'll see some astounding results. Your assumptions all include a large leap of faith: that all of what is happening is natural and could not possibly be because of rampant pollutants expelled into the atmosphere. According to the graphs you have been referring to, Mother Nature will take approximately 50,000 years to "correct" herself. I personally don't plan on sitting back and waiting. Originally posted by: Palpatine001 hymewalesThanks for your support mate, very much appreicated indeed . We must focus our attention to mitigation for the long term with Climate Change and adapt, again Earth will sort herself out over her geological time frame. It is the only way humanity will be able to survive. To everyone else, as stated earlier pollution and global warming while inter related is two separate topics in this instance so I won't drag in the pollution debate, just touch on it in reference. schm0 How can I put this nicely, you sealed your own coffin with that remark that is above hymewales and confirms what I had suspected. You are not critiquing anyone or anything, you are standing from one entrenched point and blasting anyone or anything that puts up an opinion or statements against global warming regardless if has facts!quote> Editorials are not facts. They do not cite references. They are not peer-edited. They are nothing but opinions. I am sorry if you take offense to such refutations, but in the realm of argument and logic you can't simply say you believe something because someone else says something. I back up most of my claims with scientific studies and links to those claims because I want the reader to be able to understand that my information comes from reputable sources, not editorial opinion. Those "opinion" pieces from this mornings Herald are those of opinion of those who wrote it and they are entitled under free speech to do so, Dr Bloodaxe even supported her claims in what she said being a Geologist from Auckland and Waikato Universities respectively.quote> Dr. Bloodaxe knows, as do I, that her opinions are one thing and a research paper purporting the same are entirely different. Besides, two people's opinions do not overwhelm the consensus and research performed by hundreds of other scientists, all of whom would disagree, as did I. If you have graduated from university, Academics would be ASHAMED! That you failed in your primary role of analysing material critically as you are not, what I had presented earlier would material analysised by myself and international academics from the University of Auckland, a university that is very well connected globally. Now that material I presented here at this site is what we believe in, however unlike you sir, we peer review our stuff find holes and away we go with more research and the cycle goes on.quote> I am not writing a research paper. I find sources with the tools at my disposal and refute the evidence presented based on facts, not other people's opinion. I applaud the fact that you recognize and accept the peer-review process, and understand that editorials are opinion pieces and reflect merely that. There is a fine line between belief and knowledge. What you do in not critique, but what Al Gore does and fire blanks, that you admitted that much when I critiqued the piece on NASA and that Sciences Academy. OF COURSE THAT CAN GET IT WRONG, mistakes are made as we are human, that is why we critically analyise to learn from our previous errors and produced more sound knowledge, SCIENCE ISNT PERFECT AND NOR ARE WE!quote> These are the smartest minds in the world! Why, among all the other topics that NASA and the NAS explores and discusses, is global warming the ONE THING they are wrong about? You offer no critique of their analysis, whereas the second finding by Dr. Whateverhisnameis has been shown to be critically unsound. (I am referring to the two analyses of the famous hockey-stick graph.) Also how do they get money or funding for their projects, governments and private firms do usually attach strings to funding. And before you pull that apart go and do Public Policy and Physical Geography. Also I stand what I say about the UN, its a political body and like any political body will do what it needs to do to suit its own end including scaring the masses - hey the USA did it post 9/11 and NZ Labour Party did it pre 05 election to remain in power (but that is another subject (best left alone).quote> Oh here we go again. The conspiracy arises again... you really think that educational institutions are so desperate for money they'd purport a lie to gain funds for research!? You are also referring to parties or branches of governments, not the entire government itself. I didn't vote for GWB, and what he did to scare this country into submission post 9/11 is unacceptable. However, two or three instances OUTSIDE of the U.N. doesn't prove anything about what is going on INSIDE the U.N. Your argument proves that governmental bodies can be corrupt, but cites no evidence (other than your own conspiracy theory) that the U.N. is such a body. Have you been to university and done Geography, Geology or Physics as a major? Because your sad attempt at flamming the piece of shortwave radiation and albedo (I could be spelling that wrong ooops but in means reflectivity of a given surface) has exposed a rather massive shortcoming in your piece. Sunlight is electromagnetic radiation of the short wave length, long wave is the infra red radiation Earth releases from itself. Any scientist in physics will tell you that and yes Earth reflects and sends radiation back into space, remember satellite sensors are like our organic eyes.quote> As for these topics, I was making fun of the use of your language describing such processes (which I recognize) to make satellites "think" they are seeing something else. They are machines. They see what we meant them to, and they can't be coerced into "thinking" any differently. The earth has always had these processes which you describe, so they don't explain the recent trends in temperature. Increased solar activity goes on in longer periods than the current trend of global warming, thus causing a lack of correlation in your theory. Going to CFCs, CFCs were banned for Ozone Depleteing Properties, Ozone absorbs and back scatters shortwave radiation into space, thus acts as a regulator to how much shortwave radiation of which UV is part of it enters Earth and hence the Skin Cancer saga we are facing. CFCs are a coolant but that is not why they were banned.quote> CFC's are also a greenhouse gas as well as an ozone depleter. The ozone layer provides protection from this radiation, which you already stated. And yes 85% of all climatic data stations are in urban areas and that is a fact period, it is what is causing the skewed affect as when all the stations around the world are sending their data for analysis that 85% is enough to throw off any emperical analysis.quote> Please cite a source for this information. I have found your claim to be patently false. The following link is a database search provided by the NOAA. All the little red dots on this map are weather stations. They literally cover a vast majority of the land mass in the world. NOAA weather station database Furthermore, data is collected from weather balloons, airplanes, oceanic research vessels and satellites. As for Heat Islands, any geographier doing Climate would know about Urban Heat Islands and their effect on the localised and now most likely regional environments, as for those white dots, depends on Satellite specs, if the Sat like the one above is doing a broad shot, it won't pick up the Islands, but at close range say in orbit of 500km focusing on say parts of a nation, a Sat will pick up the dots where the cities are.quote> Please see the above link. As for water vapour, lets see, 6 billion humans respiring, power plants, transport fleet, argiculture, anything that uses electric cooling, while that makes up a small % yes, it could upset the balance, we need more research to find out what.quote> Again more claims, with no research to back it up. I'm confused... didn't you say I needed to analyze the data? Without it, it's kind of hard to refute, wouldn't you say? The Pacific Warms and Cools, heard of El Nino and La Nina which my home nation feels the brunt of?quote> No, I live in a bunker and haven't read a newspaper in 20 years. Yes, I have. They are naturally occurring weather patterns. They effect these patterns across the globe. The piece on the Pacific Islands, sea rise in the Pacific is at 1.8mm a year and with the Pacific being the largest ocean, thats quite significant, as for geologically sinking and rising PI and NZ states, yes it is local but when dealing with mitigating climatic change you look global and local to get the whole story and to create an effective mitigation plan.quote> Geographical elevation (or depression) due to tectonic activity and sea elevation due to melting ice caps are different and uncorrelated. As for sources, I am scouring through the University of Auckland and all my findings from my degree at home, I will get them up ASAP and you will find my accusations are backed up as being an academic and student (always learning.)quote> I eagerly await such citations. Now this is going to get me in trouble with the staff but I will take the consquences! Why is it when I take the time to destroy someone's "evidence" for a global warming hoax or conspiracy I'm criticized for bothering to do so in the first place? This is a forum for discussion, so I discuss. If the length of my posts is a problem for you to take the time to read, then perhaps listening to what I have to say is not for you. Personally, I enjoy dropping intellectual bombs on the "purported facts" of global warming conspiracists and hoax promoters. I enjoy it. It's fun to me. I like to argue and debate issues that are important to me. Nuff said. quote> That is suggesting plain arrogance, now if you have graduated from university in natural and human sciences than SHAME ON YOU, your mind is closed and will not analyise new information as it comes to hand, your ego and entrenchment blinds you and puts a bad name on science and academia, if you have not graduated then I suggest you come to Auckland, do a BSc in Geography and a BA in Politics and you might get an small insight to where I come from.quote> I think you are coming from a biased and so far uncorroborated point of view. This is my opinion. Show me evidence and facts cited by numerous peer-edited research papers, and perhaps I'll be swayed. The fact is, all of the evidence points towards the present consensus. While there are certainly unknown factors, perhaps what you've mentioned above, research is needed into these areas to determine their correlation. I do not dismiss these ideas, but to claim that they are the cause instead of what has been established, without any research to back it up, you are stuck in the conundrum of arguing opinion versus fact. You don't discuss you bleat! You don't protect liberity, you hinder it with ultra conservatism! quote> How dare you use the "c" word! I am anything BUT conservative, my friend. My theories support a left-leaning position that recognizes that rampant pollution by unregulated industry, human population growth and corrupt governments have been lax to do anything about this for selfish and irrational reasons. Furthermore, the quotes above were from an American movie called "The Three Amigos" and were put in there for a laugh. Please don't take them seriously. In the end, I am just arguing for the sake of itself... I am not a scientist. I am someone with an opinion and the determination to research (and refute) claims contrary to the overwhelming evidence on my side. I've done my own research, read a bit on the subject, and found the data to be conclusive. Do I believe that we know everything there is to know? I would never claim such a thing. But to dismiss the thousands of brilliant minds across the globe in a conspiracy as ignorant to alternative theories, then you are simply wrong. I encourage study into anything that might be changing the Earth's climate. Just don't start claiming corruption and conspiracy when the rest of the world disagrees with you. I ask this of you: is it possible that you are wrong? I am willing to admit the same... are you? So until them I will not debate with a bleater any furtherquote> Ba-a-a! BA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A! To everyother member and staff, while I am sorry about that rant, I feel I must go into Bat to defend myself, other open minded people and the name of science in order so that in time we can find out what Earth is up to and how to mitigate for climatic change. Measures are been taken in NZ and the PI already such as land use change, protecting the coast and floodplains, our resources and other mitigation techniques and further research and analysis, thus we will be prepared for as best we can for Earth doing what ever she wants with climate, the game people is adpatation to the environment, not stand there and bleat and be a part of the problem and not the solution.quote> Oh, boo-hoo! All I ask is that you debate the facts, not unresearched and inconclusive evidence. My mind is opened to logical discussion, not conspiracy theories. Save those for another thread. Now as for pollution that is a different issue all together, anyone want to open a thread on it?quote> I'm sticking with one major topic at a time, and since they are directly related, I think that you could discuss aspects of air pollution in great detail without getting off-topic. Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wasnt only talking to you shm0 i said "people" (i should have also emphasised on palpatine) you can spend hours proving someone wrong, then they will just spend a few hours on a counter argument, nobody comes out on top its just a waste of time, the problem with the global warming debate is that nobodys facts have been proven right, your not gonna change anyones mind by restating the same arguments that we've all heard hundreds of times beforequote> So this didn't reference me at all? Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wouldnt exactly call that short and sweet^^^and people (cough cough Shm0) please stop taking apart every single post its just a waste of space and it also wastes the readers time as well as your ownquote> I think this is a weak and pessimistic argument to make. Why discuss anything at all if not to alter someone's perception or opinion?

Originally posted by: thecross21 Yeah, I try to do the suburbs and all that, but my main city ends up growing to the capacity and it's only 2.6 or 2.7 million. New York City or Chicago or LA would not be able to work in that size. I live in Minneapolis and I know driving from the north side to the south side of the city of Minneapolis alone is more than 8 miles, so I don't know how Detroit can only be 8 miles square.quote> Ever see the movie 8 Mile? The architects of the city of Detroit were really creative when it came to naming the roads, and 8 Mile Road is not-so-ironically named because it's 8 miles from the center of Detroit. The roads are in 1 mile squares (roughly) so they extend outwards in increasing numbers. I live at around 24 mile road, although that's not what it's called. Anyways, the city limits extend roughly 8 miles north. I am not sure as to their western borders, however... After that the cities are suburbs and have their own names.

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit i wouldnt exactly call that short and sweet^^^and people (cough cough Shm0) please stop taking apart every single post its just a waste of space and it also wastes the readers time as well as your ownquote> So... let me understand this correctly: Posting a long rant containing falsehoods and uncorroborated facts is perfectly fine. But taking that post and refuting the evidence is a "waste of space" and "wastes the readers time?" Why is it when I take the time to destroy someone's "evidence" for a global warming hoax or conspiracy I'm criticized for bothering to do so in the first place? This is a forum for discussion, so I discuss. If the length of my posts is a problem for you to take the time to read, then perhaps listening to what I have to say is not for you. Personally, I enjoy dropping intellectual bombs on the "purported facts" of global warming conspiracists and hoax promoters. I enjoy it. It's fun to me. I like to argue and debate issues that are important to me. Nuff said.

I am going to try to keep my posts short and sweet this time. Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Shingure: The satellite image is true but the graphs are misleading. As I keep saying the climate data collecting is narrow both spatially and temporally, meaning we have only gather most data over the last 150 years and then again that is unreliable! 85% of our climate stations are either poorly maintained or are in the smack BANG IN THE MIDDLE of an urban area. Those graphs shown there are taken from stations that suffer from urban heat island effect so OF COURSE the graph will shoot up as a city intensifies! quote> You're trying to tell me that they place 85% global climate weather stations in the center of every major city in the world? You are not only incorrect, but extremely gullible. The data was collected from stations all around the world, not just in major cities. You think the scientists who collected this data actually might miss an important "fact" like that? I can see it now: "Bob, did you get the data from Manhattan?!" "Why yes, Jim. Compared with the data collected from Los Angeles, Cairo, Hong Kong and London I'd say that we must certainly conclude that the world's climate is rising!" "But what about the data from the Rockies in Colorado, the Galapogos Islands and New Zealand?" "Pshhh, Jim... didn't you know? Those places are entirely insignificant on a global scale. Surely as a global climatologist, you know this. Don't bother me with such trifling matters. Did you make me some coffee yet?" {Grudgingly} "Yes, sir." CFC along with Carbon is an actual coolant as methane can act as one as well as they are heavy molecules!quote> Is that why the world banned chloroflourocarbons? Because it was cooling the climate? Where are you getting this!? Also YOU GUYS KEEP FORGETTING TO MENTION WATER VAPOUR! It is by far the biggest green house gas by volume - it makes up 1% of the total atmosphere compared to 0.16% for CO2 and HUGE amounts of the stuff is released by natural and human sources yet we don't study it! And like CO2, the natural environment cycles the carbon and water through the water and carbon cycles!quote> Please read the data I have posted in this forum. You are mistaken. [<--SOURCE] Water vapor makes up a vast majority of the molecules in the atmosphere, and it is the reason why you and I are living and breathing. Without the water vapor in the air, we would melt or freeze and experience no greenhouse effect at all. Please tell me what man-made influence produces water vapor on a "HUGE" scale. Water vapor is produced by the evaporation of the world's natural water sources, not humans. (The source I cited above is actually a refutation to the popular opinion of global warming... it does not mention that the slight deviation from the delicate balance of our Earth's atmosphere could effect our global climate in drastic ways.) Nature can only recycle as much carbon dioxide as there are enough plants in the world. Increased warming and deforestation reduce the amount of oxygen-producing plants in the world. schm0 You seem to be popping up everywhere! No matter as I will keep debating you until the very end!quote> Wherever there is injustice, you will find me. Wherever there is suffering, I'll be there. Wherever liberty is threatened, you will find... SCHM0! Yes the UN and the IPCC love to scare people, its how you get the masses to do your bidding, it is a simple power economic!quote> This is a place for scientific and rational discussion. If you want to spread lies and conspiracy theories, start another thread. Again: WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE WILD IDEAS!? Stop reading the National Enquirer and pick up an issue of National Geographic. Or maybe a newspaper. Anything without monkey babies, aliens, celebrity gossip and GLOBAL U.N. SCARE TACTIC CONSPIRACIES!!! Satellites only provide a very small snap shot temporally, they have not been around for over 100,000 years so what they pick up is only from a very small time frame. While they might show things are getting warmer, we are still calculating from where. Urban heat islands pump out a lot of heat in which that can spill over into the surrounding environment that can skew at satellites data collection...quote> Then the pictures shown above would have small dots over major cities. YOU ARE INCORRECT. ...the Pacific warms and cools as well as the amount of heat that our biomass can produce durring repiration. quote> Please see the above comment on these stupid HEAT ISLANDS. You are wrong. If you are not, please cite your sources. Also water vapour as a the larges green house gas can cause localised apparent heating - the Oasis effect!quote> HUH?! Please cite a source (or at least some more information!) instead of some vague theoretical concept. Also radiation and albedio has to be taken into account.quote> What does my libido have to do with it? I know I got it going on, but my girlfriend is the only recipient of any local "warming" if you know what I mean. Shortwave radiation from the sun has increased in our modern existance, increase in shortwave radiation equals more energy entering the Earth and that can induce warming. Also with intense urbanisation, more longwave radiation is being back released into the atmosphere from Earth and is then further back scattered to the ground causing Satellites to think Earth is heating up as well.quote> Right. The sun is shooting shortwave laser beams at the Earth and reflecting them back into our satellites to confuse them. Again, please cite a source proving that shortwave radiation alters satellite data. Albedio, or reflectivity, ice, deserts and urban areas are great mirrors in reflecting shortwave radiation back into space, and remember this is electro-magnetic radiation so there is heat as an off product, off products that Satellights will detect. So in essence our Satellites are just as reliable as climate stations affected by urban heat island effect! quote> If this is what you are talking about, this process has been in effect for millenia. Therefore, it does not explain the recent increase in carbon dioxide and temperature (nor their correlation.) Besides, the ice caps and glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate and would, by your definition, REDUCE the temperatures of the globe due to the lesser amount of ice reflecting such radiation back into the atmosphere. Even NASA and the National Academy of Sciences get it wrong, and will usually admit it and work out better ways in data collection and analysis, it depends if they get over their pride and conservatism which is often hard to shake - isn't it? And remember those instituions do get private funding - need I say more!quote> So NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N., the E.P.A., all the nations that signed the Kyoto treaty and the VAST majority of climatology scientists (and hundreds of other organizations) are all conspiring to trick the world into putting less pollution into the air? And their motive is money for RESEARCH!? Here is an article from the NZ Herald today : EDITORIAL DELETED quote> This is NOT an article. It is an EDITORIAL. Therefore, it is entirely fictional opinion, and not factual information. While you are there please read others pieces from others as well especially this one Dr Erich S Bloodaxe {EDITORIAL DELETED} quote> Please post facts, not EDITORIALS. And for a Pacific and New Zealand Example: Sea levels are rising 1.8mm a year FACT, the Pacific Islands are SINKING: FACT, New Zealand experiences tectonic uplift: FACT.quote> FACT: Tectonic activity in the Pacific is the result of plate tectonics and the eruption of volcanoes, that RISE out of the ocean to become islands. Hawaii was created this way. Now I know you are waiting to jump on me for that but here is the REAL FACTS The PI nations are sinking GEOLOGICALLY 2.1mm a year - their central volcanos are collasping New Zealand goes through 3.6mm tectonic uplift a year so realistically sealevel is FALLING! I stand by my arguements as a Geographier! quote>

Originally posted by: Darmok Sorry for the bump... This is for schm0 The missing parking lots are Industrial Filler Lots by Swamper77 Hoping this can help you!quote> Thank you very much!

Can't give you an accurate reply without more information, but as long as you have industrial jobs and residential zones (lots of them) you should have residents moving in and getting jobs without any education whatsoever. I would alter the tutorial slightly to provide 1x2 lots instead of the 1x1 lots that are pictured in the tutorial. 1x1 don't fill in right away, and are effective in that they provide the maximum amount of Sims for the least amount of space, but I don't know any houses that don't have a backyard. This might be why following the tutorial "to the T" might cause you some problems.

I am the official spokesperson for the "Making Money the Easy Way" tutorial on the Omnibus. It will teach you all you need to know. Check it out.

As far as conversions go, all you need is google. It's a calculator and converter all in one. "12 meters in feet" will convert 12 meters into the appropriate measure in feet. "3 feet in meters" will conversely convert feet into meters. "4 * 321" will give the result of 4 x 321 "9 / 2" will give you the result of 9 divided by 2 Google can pretty much convert any standard unit of measurement into another similar unit. As far as 2.5 miles not being scale, every city has small areas which take on local flavor. For instance, in Detroit we have Greektown, Mexican Village, all sorts of small centers of commerce even though the city limits extend 8 miles north and 8(?) miles west. New York City has buroughs that can be divided up into smaller areas , as well. This is what region play was designed to do. Design your region with your large metropolis spread out among several tiles. Surround your city center with suburbs and local growth to feed into the main city. Use region play to your advantage. As far as scale is concerned, someone needs to come up with a meters to sim-meters (sm, skm, scm?)... it seems the ratio is about 1.2, if I'm correct. So 1 meter in real life is roughly 1.2 meters in SimCity. I'm only about 50% sure on this one, though.

Have lots of uneducated people living in or nearby your cities.

Nice to see it in the right forum.

Uh, it's time for the fourth cup in 10 years for the Wings. Bring it home to Hockeytown!

Read the "Making Money the Easy Way" tutorial on the Omnibus, especially the section on building a {C}ommercial {B}usiness {D}istrict. It explains demand caps and all the things you'll need to get a population going (250k+) and create the demand for your C.B.D.

Ok, I'm throwing my hat back in this thread (after a while) Originally posted by: Palpatine001[Original post edited for brevity] I am going to say and stand by the point of GLOBAL WARMING is NOTHING but ALL HOT AIR used by the Green Lobby (with political agendas) to scare everyone silly.quote> Is that the job of the UN? To scare everyone silly? It is not a scare tactic, it is a system of global awareness. This isn't chicken little we're talking about, this is a subject that an overwhelming majority of scientists recognize as being a real and existing phenomenon. Climatic Change is REAL however 95% is natural and 5% human made!quote> Estimations as far as how much impact we have have proved to be varied and inconsistent. Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects. So let me post the REAL facts I start with an piece from www.nzherald.com that was posted on Climate Change quote> Can't find the article in which this was originally posted... could you link the article itself, not the front page of the website? Anthony FarrellTen facts about global warming: 1. Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.quote> This does not mean that temperatures around the globe are not increasing. Britain is not the thermometer of the world. 2. Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.quote> Natural warming and cooling cycles continue throughout history. These have been directly linked to the levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. (There are many sources for this information, so I won't bother posting another hockey-stick graph or source.) The levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are unprecedented. 3. Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.quote> Water vapor is not produced in large proportions by industrial and man-made sources. The vapor is a natural product of the process by which earth's oceans evaporate. Without water vapor, we would have no clouds. Water vapor in the atmosphere is what created a suitable environment for life millenia ago. We would have to expose our oceans and lakes to huge amounts of volcanic activity (heat) to pump as much water vapor into the air as we do carbon dioxide. 4. Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.quote> Nobody disputes that. It's the level of warming produced by this effect that is being discussed. 5. Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.quote> This is completely outrageuous. Please view this video: Is the Earth getting hotter? by NASA. 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels 6. The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.quote> See the above links. These temperatures are recorded GLOBALLY by satellite, not by ground-based instruments. Thus, your claims of the "only evidence" is wholly incorrect. 7. Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.quote> I've been thinking about this one forever. Do any of you play SimCity? It's this really great SIMULATION of building a city. There are tons of things you can do in the game. However, there are drawbacks that make the game somewhat unrealistic. Does this mean the game doesn't accurately give a good representation of city building? (I would answer no, even though it does have things we would all like to modify and adjust to make it better and more realistic.) Now, taking a step back, this game is probably 1/100th the size and complexity of the computer simulations used to come to these conclusions. They are programmed by SCIENTISTS who understand the field, not a bunch of game programmers. They are so huge and complex, they are processed by supercomputers capable of running laps around our everyday PCs. So, are you saying that all simulations can never accurately recreate our environment to any degree, or are you saying just simulations about our earth are patently false? 8. The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.quote> I've already addressed the second half of this statement, but as far as the cost of changing our economy, there is no price tag that can be put on sustainability and saving the Earth. How much does the balance of the global environment cost? Conversely, doing nothing and continuing this trend costs absolutely nothing in the short term, but extraordinary amounts in the future. (Please see the recent report from the IPCC on the IPCC's website.) 9. The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectivesquote> Please cite a source for these allegations. I have heard nothing of "corruption" or the "doctoring" of documents. Also, please tell me how the UN's IPCC has somehow remained in the spotlight in light of these allegations. If it was so "notorious," then the credibility of this organization would be undermined and this would be reflected in international media, which it has not. 10. The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems.quote> I believe that is what the IPCC is trying to do... Are you calling their efforts irrational? Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.quote> The Statement by Atmosphere Scientists on Greenhouse Warming: 47 signatures. The Leipzig Declaration: 105 signatures. The Oregon Petition: ??? The last one I have found all sorts of conflicting reports from 17,000 to 200. It seems the organization didn't screen the petitioners or verify their credentials. Many who have been contacted said they would not sign the document today. At any rate, these signatories represent "a small fraction of the climatological community." That can be found here http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10420297 but it becomes pay for view after the 28/1/07 Now I will back that as being in The University of Auckland studying Geography and Politics, I have access to readings, research and material to make my own independent claim and statements in this sorry saga I see someone posted a Temperture:CO2 Chart and say there is a link, congrats you have just shown the infamous Hockey Stick Model which we are told and hammered by our lecturers to IGNORE at all costs.quote> Huh? Are you telling me that professors out there are telling you that a graph that was confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences is incorrect? That model has been discredited so many times for woeful wrongness as the models had far to many variables in them to make a credible conclusion.quote> It has been discredited precisely 0 times. This is the REAL story CO2 is the 2nd biggest greenhouse gas after water vapor, her volume is in saturation point in the atmosphere so adding more CO2 will do NOTHING in rasing temperature, Solar Radition (sun) is the main cause as well as the fluxing water vapour in the atmosphere. Also I have proposed a research paper with the university looking into CO2:Water Vapour fluxes and temperature fluxes seen over the last 65 million years. I believe if anything we are doing the planet a FAVOUR pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.quote> I suggest you look at the planet Venus and tell me the effect of unabated and uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions might have on our planet. Explaining: Plants in the world are only receiving 1/2 the amount of CO2 needed for full optimum growth, green house experiments show that increased CO2 = better photosynthesis = better plant growth = better food production = better O2 output = better quality of life as more food is around.quote> I agree that we need to plant more vegetation, instead of rampantly destroying it. But increasing CO2 levels would have drastic and devastating impacts on our environment. With water vapour in the atmosphere, studys on that and her relation to green house gases are not conclusive enough and water vapour fuels STORMS etc, might want to look there.quote> Yet you claim that water vapor is the only reason we are experiencing climate change, via these "inconclusive" results. We just have no idea what the climate can do, evidence suggest Earth has been warmer than now, sea levels higher, ice caps non existant and vice versa, our models have far too many variables and politics now contaminates sound independent science.quote> I am sick of conspiracy theories. So all of the governments of the UN are in a conspiracy? Stop purporting that the wool is being pulled over the world's eyes and pull it off of your own. Tell me how a global conspiracy, necessitating the duping of millions of citizens, is possible!? Yes we have to move away from oil, but not due to this scare mongering I can go on and bring sea levels into here but I won't yet apart from the sea is rising at 0.2cm a year while most land masses rise 0.3cm a year, so you work that out! I'll post a piece on sea levels soon I'll be watching here closely quote> It is not scare mongering, it is scientific reporting. And if you care to continue to use such language, the only thing you will be doing is hoax mongering.

Originally posted by: MrFingers yes, it is land ice that is of any concern. but antartica's ice mass has been growing for the last 30 years. and it contains 90% of the world's ice.quote> The ice sheet has been growing for 11 years, not 30. Normally, there is very little snow in the region because the temperatures are too cold to produce snow. Due to climate change, and warming temperatures around the globe, there has been more snowfall due to warmer temperatures. [source: L.A. Times] Quote: As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central icecap of Antarctica has been steadily growing for 11 years, partially offsetting the rise in seas from the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday. The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet — a 2-mile-thick wasteland larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring — increased in mass every year from 1992 to 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed. "It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England. In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold for snow to form across the 2.7 million square miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly attributable to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said. "As the atmosphere warms, it should hold more moisture," said climatologist Joseph R. McConnell at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, who helped conduct the study. "In East Antarctica, that means there should be more snowfall." The additional snowfall is enough to account for 45 billion tons of water added to the ice sheet every year, just about equal to the amount of water flowing annually into the ocean from the melting Greenland icecap, the scientists reported in research published online Thursday by the journal Science. Rising sea level, which could swamp many coastal and island communities, is considered one of the most serious potential consequences of global warming, according to the most recent assessment by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Overall, sea level is estimated to be rising by 1.8 millimeters a year worldwide because of the expansion of warming water and the added outwash from melting glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, tropical highlands and some areas of Antarctica. Every millimeter of increased sea level corresponds to about 350 billion tons of water a year. The growth in the East Antarctic icecap is enough to slow sea-level rise by a fraction of that — about 0.12 millimeter a year — the researchers reported. All told, the fresh water locked up in the ice of East Antarctica is enough to raise the level of the oceans by about 196 feet, experts said. If it continues to grow as expected, the ice sheet could buffer some, but not all, of the effects of anticipated sea-level rise for much of the coming century, the researchers said. quote>

Wake up dog! You ain't 'lowed ta sleep! I was forwarded this email today: The Story of Two Houses LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. HOUSE # 1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South. HOUSE # 2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid, high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape. HOUSE #1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore. HOUSE #2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas, also known as "the Texas White House." It is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet not a story you will hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth." NO KIDDING quote> I nearly pulled out my hair at work. This attempt at smearing Good Mr. Gore's name and lifestyle might reach your desktop, so before it does, let me point out a couple things. 1) Neither man built the house. 2) Al Gore pays so much for his electric bill because he purchases renewable energy credits, which force the electric company to buy additional, non-polluting green energy. 3) The Gores are (and were) renovating their house to make it more energy effecient. 4) Al Gore's house is 2.5 times larger than GW's, thus consuming more energy due to the large space it needs to heat and cool. 5) Both Gores work out of their home. See this article, and this quote from http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp Here's the quote: Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it." A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."quote>

Originally posted by: coolotter88 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061229-arctic-ice.html it's not very large but still. sea ice breaking off has absolutely no impact on sea levels.quote> This sheet is nowhere near the size or scope of the one recorded in Antartica. I typed two words in the search engine at the top right hand on the very page of that link. Here's the first story that popped up after typing "sea level." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html On the second page of the article, a short segment caught my interest: A recent Nature study suggested that Greenland's ice sheet will begin to melt if the temperature there rises by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). That is something many scientists think is likely to happen in another hundred years. The complete melting of Greenland would raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). But even a partial melting would cause a one-meter (three-foot) rise. Such a rise would have a devastating impact on low-lying island countries, such as the Indian Ocean's Maldives, which would be entirely submerged. Densely populated areas like the Nile Delta and parts of Bangladesh would become uninhabitable, potentially driving hundreds of millions of people from their land. A one-meter sea level rise would wreak particular havoc on the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard of the United States. "No one will be free from this," said Overpeck, whose maps show that every U.S. East Coast city from Boston to Miami would be swamped. A one-meter sea rise in New Orleans, Overpeck said, would mean "no more Mardi Gras." Absolutely no impact? Personally, I don't want to wait to find out. If you like smog, acid rain, devastated ecosystems, pollution in our water, air and soil, high oil prices, and a small number of countries holding the world hostage by controlling most of the oil on the globe, then perhaps doing something good for the environment isn't your thing. Do a simple science expirement for me. You'll need three things: A household glass or cup, some water, and an ice cube. Take the glass and fill it to the top with water. Put it on your girlfriend's/mother's/boss's head. Assure her that the level in the glass won't rise. Gently place the ice cube in the glass. Theory proved. There is a very simple premise behind my reasoning to stop global warming. Creating a clean, energy-efficient solution to fossil fuels will create new technologies, more jobs and improve the economy. I believe the intial cost will be expensive, but in time will reinvigorate the stifled economies of the energy and auto industries by providing things like effecient cars to consumers (which in turns turns profits and employs people.) I would gladly pay several thousand dollars more for a car if it got 40 miles per gallon. So would most people in my area, as long as it doesn't mean any more job loss. In return, we would produce less CO2, thus reducing the impact we have on the warmth of the globe. And on a lighter note, I direct you to my myspace videos page. If you love Will Ferrell, then check him out in this hilarious clip from Earth to America.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 no , sea ice, not glaciers on land. now for a simple experiment take a cup, put some ice cubes in it fill the cup with water until it's full to the top place cup on *insert person here*'s head tell them that the water level won't rise wait until the ice melts...did the water level in the cup rise? I didn't think so. Section within quote Edited for content. Mr. C.quote> There's really no need to insult me. I was merely trying to prove a point. I apologize for the confusion. I just don't understand how someone can be so non-chalant about something like this: And besides, a huge majority of the ice in Antarctic region resides in ice caps or ice sheets. The following is from the Wikipedia article on the topic of the "ice sheet." I have highlighted the most important fact in italics for you: [begin quote] The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million km² and contains 30 million km³ of ice. Around 90% of the fresh water on the Earth's surface is held in the ice sheet, and, if melted, would cause sea levels to rise by 61.1 metres. In East Antarctica the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, but in West Antarctica the bed is in places more than 2,500 meters below sea level. It would be seabed if the ice sheet were not there. [end quote] The importance of this ice illustrates it's importance when examining the way the warming and cooling cycles of the earth's climate dictate global weather patterns, among other things. This is illustrated in a video produced by NASA entitled "A Tour of the Cryosphere." I suggest you all watch this video. (And I highly recommend downloading the higher resolution video. Although it's a bit big at 200 MB, the quality is much better.)

Originally posted by: coolotter88 but geez, it's an ice shelf, stop going bananas over it. Like I said, it's happened before (on an even larger scale) let it go.quote> Huh? When did this larger-than-Rhode-Island ice chunk depart from the ice shelf? Stop giving one liners and post with sustenance before claiming some grandiose suggestion. Some enlightenment would be appreciated on my part. JWUT: Excellent reply. I suppose I misread the tenor of your argument. My apologies for tossing your well-written post (both of them, actually) in with the likes of the lesser. (By lesser, I am merely referring to grammar. ) Your point is well-heard, but surely such logic might be used against the nay-sayers?

Originally posted by: jglei701 One of the striking things about all of the global warming "science" going on is that it is politically motivated nearly entirely across the board. And those in favor of the theory that our planet is getting warmer are making statements such as there is a "consensus among scientists" that global warming is infact caused by humans. I've spoken with numerous scientists that, at the very least, are skeptical about global warming being linked at all to human use. None of us were around 20,000 years ago. None of us were around 20 million years ago. And the science that is used to piece together snippets of the past is so young, how do the scientists know what they're doing is producing correct results? The sample size we have of scientific observation about things like weather are limited to, at the most 100 years. There are local cultures that have chronicled hurricanes or typhoons (Notably in China) but these observations (even observations over 3000-4000 years) show ebbs and flows in hurricanes and typhoons, which seem to prove that our weather changes on cycles, as well. Our world has had ice ages and warming spells, and scientists really don't know why. Our weather is one the most complex and unpredictable things about our unique planet. Hurricane "experts" predicted a year in which there were more hurricanes in 2006 than even 2005, which was the most active on record. Thankfully for those in the Gulfcoast region, their prediction was off, way off. There were only 9 named storms, and only 4 hurricanes. Only Alberto and Ernesto caused much damage, but not even damage equalling $1 million dollars. The fact of the matter is this. Human caused global warming is a theory, at best, and mankind does not know enough about our weather to be able to determine that ANY changes are caused by ourselves. One final question... if Al Gore is so concerned about the Global Warming he feels is caused by mankind, how is he changing his lifestyle to decrease his consumption and decrease his waste? And how is flying around the country in a private jet decreasing his consumption and doing anyting BUT increasing to the downfall of our civilization by our own actions, due to Global Warming...?quote> It is only natural that a scientific consensus concerning matters as serious and globally life-altering as this become a politicized issue. I think it's healthy for people and governments to debate the merits of such science. Were any of the scientists you spoke to studying global warming, perhaps? The scientists know they are producing the correct results because they can compare their results to other studies producing the same conclusions. Nobody refutes that the world is getting warmer, rather they dispute the causes. So we can't predict the weather to absolute certainty. I can't tell you what tonight's winning LOTTO numbers will be, either. Meterologists work with probablility, which is why on the evening forecast you will see a percentage, not a psychic prediction. To follow the logic that we could not possibly know enough about our planet and the things that influence it is an insult to science itself. We have put men on the moon, traveled to the bottom-most depths of the ocean, and completely colonized an entire planet. We've made nuclear weapons, medicines that cure disease, and dissected and recorded the entire human genome. But for some reason, when it comes to the environment, every scientist, article or element of research that points to a similar conclusion could not possibly be correct? As for your last point, I completely agree. I propose that Al Gore heretofore walk across the country and swim both oceans (with his laptop!) should he choose to ever give his presentation again. Originally posted by: coolotter88 record breaking temperatures doesn't mean it's global warming, it could be the urban heat island effect.quote> I doubt the reflective properties of concrete metropolises and the increased temperatures they create in the immediate vicinity could break off a piece of the Antartic ice sheet the size of Rhode Island. Originally posted by: Palpatine001I couldn't agree more with you on your statement and the point I stand by when I make my claim about Global Warming being nothing more than hot air (and again Shame on you Al Gore, you should lead by example) The point being we just don't know anything and I mean ANYTHING on climate, and what we do is like a drop in the Pacific Ocean, our best forecasters only have a 40% accuracy in predicting climate if that. All we can do until we get enough knowledge to CREATE AN INFORMED OPINION is to mitigate for climatic change That is get the population under control REALISE that building on a very dynamic coast line is ASKING for trouble especially from storms and Hurricanes Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear are going to be around for a very long time to come, alone there is 1 billion barrels of oil, 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and enough coal in New Zealand her self to last 300+ years and all that is just in our Economic Zone - so god knows what the America's have in potential The top 4 green house gases from most are: WATER VAPOUR (1%) CO2 (0.16%) Methane (a coolant most Days) (0.08%) O3 - which is Ozone (0.5% approx) The % figures are given as % of total gas volume in the Atmosphere with N2 and O2 forming 96-98% of the atmosphere REALISE that building on a flood plain is going to = damaging floods REALISE removing vegetation and urbanisation increases run off which increases errosion, gums up rivers causing them to flood more often and brings the hills into your homes REALISE this planet has been without ice caps more than once, they are relicts of the last Grand Ice Age KNOW that Sea levels gom up and down and that the Pacific and Indian Oceanic Islands are sinking because of geological reasons - their central volcanos are collapsing KNOW THAT sea levels are increasing by 1.8mm a year on average and populations flooding to the coast are asking for it KNOW that we KNOW VERY LITTLE about our planet, but we can insure ourselves against the worst of it - SO PREPARE AND MITIGATE and STOP CREATING HOT AIR from this debate and then lives and property will be saved - think about the poor people in New Orleans if all that money spent on "other issues abroad" were spent fortifying the defences from the storm EVERYONE KNEW was going to happen. That is my piece for now...quote> Yes, it has been discovered recently that all climatologists are actually chimpanzees in lab coats. For decades, they have been purporting their "science" as fact, when in reality they have been mindlessly thumping on typewriters to produce (incredibly) research and studies in the field of climatology. The truth is out: we know NOTHING about climate. The position that we could not possibly effect our environment or have a lasting impact has been the assumption of all the guilty polluters ever to exist in human history. Nobody ever thought that environmental regulations exist because, indeed, we can have an impact on our environment and we have done so in the past with detrimental results. Why make the same mistake with our own planet? Does it seem so improbable that 6 billion people could have a lasting impact on our planet's atmosphere and climate? I dare you to collect 6 billion of ANYTHING, put it in a warehouse, look at it, and tell me that the world's civilization is a drop in the bucket. We can and do have an impact on the earth. RealiZe that civilizations have been existing in coastal areas since the dawn of human civilization for a very good reason. Do you suggest they all relocate to Nebraska to avoid their dire fate? You also point out, although I contest your figures, that we have a finite limit to the amount of biofuel energy, meaning that we will run out eventually. A renewable source would not only be more effecient, but last virtually forever. This is a quote from the Wikipedia article on "Greenhouse Gases": [begin quote] The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. and: The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time. Human activity increases the greenhouse effect primarily through release of carbon dioxide, but human influences on other greenhouse gases can also be important. Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include: * burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations; * livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane; * use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes. * agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide concentrations. Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation and agriculture are very likely the main cause of recently observed global warming. [end quote] You can check the references there, if you like. RealiZe that building on a coast != you should have to build your hut 20 feet above sea level. RealiZe that said "urbanization" and the effects of rain forest depletion decrease the ecosystem's natural capacity to recycle CO2, as well as causing increased erosion. RealiZe that I just researched the topic of the lack of ice sheets at a point in history and couldn't find anything, anywhere. Most scientists theorize we have had, since the formation of the modern atmosphere and after the earth had cooled significantly, ice caps and sheets, but in a state of flux as to their size and coverage. Know that your point about the Indian Ocean doesn't say anything about ocean levels rising due to global warming, and only points out that the opposite is happening in that region due to reasons that aren't global warming, thus proving... nothing? Know that you point out that global sea levels are rising, but you don't cite a cause. You merely suggest that anyone living near the ocean is "asking for it." (I assume you live inland.) Know that we know quite a bit about our planet, and I consider the human race rather intelligent for a group of primates. If everyone knew it was going to happen, then why did nobody do anything about it? Hurricane Katrina was a disaster, not a planned event. Ok, time for bed. It's 3 am.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 WHOA people, scientific discussion going on here, global warming is caused by humans is a hypothesis, not a theory, i'm being [Edited for content. It just wasn't needed. ] Marc about this because the incorrect usage of the word theory is what screws people up. I have more breaking news for you guys, it turns out global warming really is happening and it is being caused by humans, how? from all the hot air people are emitting over this topic. wikiality is not reality the break off of a chunk of sea ice the size of rhode island is not significant, it was sea ice. in canada, a gigantic piece of sea ice broke off, not because of global warming though, so this rhode island piece of "evidence" can be defenestrated. well, we just need to live in the mountains close to the ocean and we'll wait for the water to come up to us.quote> From Webster's dictionary: hypothesis: 1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement theory: 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> synonym see HYPOTHESIS Please note the last sentence in the definition of theory. When global warming is referred to as a theory, it is not in the abstract definition found after 2 (speculation), but rather in the scientific sense of the word (either the first or fifth definitions.) Perhaps you'll dispute Webster, as well? If you have a problem with the article, please dispute the sources contained within. Look up any scientific, legal or factual topic on Wikipedia and you will find an accurate description of the topic. I resent the fact that discussing this issue in any detail is merely blowing "hot air" and would suggest you open up your ears to what the world and it's people, scientists, and governments are trying to say. This is not a waste of time; rather, dismissing this topic as trifling, is. Do you even know how big Rhode Island is? This is not normal. It is unprecedented. And global warming has caused, as would be expected, a rise in the temperature of the world's oceans. This warm water is what broke the ice's back, to borrow a metaphor. Sure. Chunks of ice nearly 3,144 km2 break off all the time. That's why it made headlines, right? "Also today, reports are coming in that it is raining somewhere on earth." Please move to the mountains immediately. The sooner, the better.

Originally posted by: JWUT I understand that theories are considered as fact until proven otherwise, but that is precisely my point. I don't seek to discredit the theory of global warming, per se. I simply believe that, because of the constantly changing nature of scientific understanding, it is unwise to take a position on a scientific issue and then work to dismiss or discredit the work of those with a different position, just because you happen to hold the more popular position. We still don't know exactly what goes on at the deepest subatomic levels, do we? Do we know for certain what actually causes gravitational forces? Do we know, for absolute certainty, that reality is limited to what human beings, being physically limited, can detect with their five senses? Ah ha! we actually do know that there is a lot we don't know yet, possibly that there is more that we don't know than we do! It's going to be a very, very long time before we do know everything, so until then, let's be objective about things, shall we? This of course goes for those who take the less popular position, as well: your opponents just may end up being correct, rather than you! I hope you'll all pardon my unrealistic idealism.quote> I don' t think it's unwise to take a scientific position after you've read some books, articles and research on the subject. As long as your opinion isn't based on uncorroborated evidence, that is. As far as the subatomic levels is concerned, our lack of knowledge is due to the fact that this subject is on the fringe of scientific discovery. We don't throw out our conceptions of the atomic level just because we don't understand the level below. Likewise, we don't dismiss gravity as fact when we don't understand the actual process of how these forces are created. Gravity and atomic physics are both quanitfiable and measurable, and backed up by decades and centuries of research. Lastly, the concept of "reality" is a metaphysical and philosophical issue, not a scientific one. (Also, on a philopsophical note, I believe that it is impossible to know everything, ever.) Originally posted by: CltcDrgn Here is an interseting thought that basically proves the Sun has far more impact on Global Warming than humans ever could. NASA recently finished analyizing data from Mars that put out a suprising result: The Polar Ice Caps on Mars are shrinking at the SAME RATE as on Earth. NASA researchers were quite stunned. It was also noted recently by a scientist that does research for NASA on climatology that all of the models used concerning Global Warming leave out one very important factor: the role of precipitation in regulating global tempatures. It basically boiled down to this simple, but often ignored by Global Warming alarmists, we have no way of predicting global precipitation. There is one cavaet pertaining to the ice caps, and that is that Antartica's ice sheet is actually expanding and getting thicker.quote> Some questions I pose to you: How many fossil fuels are being burned on Mars? Have they measured Mars' historical CO2 record, or a historical record of any gases in Mars atmosphere? Lastly, the question I pose to you: How does Mars = Earth? Mars orbits the Sun at roughly 1.5 times the distance Earth is from the Sun. You don't suggest that the sun is the sole cause of global warming on Titan or Uranus, do you? "A" scientist doesn't necessarily make a consensus, but I digress. I don't know where this information comes from, but I'd love to see some article(s) to back it up. And all the research I've seen says exactly the opposite about the ice sheets in Antartica, or any ice anywhere in the world. (And I can get sources for you, if you like.) Originally posted by: jmjselect it always amazes me how those who bring up 'god' the most are aethists(sp?) i'll just leave the dicussion on global warming with this: scientists of the past were shunned and beaten and imprisoned and sometimes killed for throwing up the ideas that deviated from the norm. today we see 'man made' global warming scientists deniers sent death threats. it's reminds me of how the world was flat, those that denied it were shunned, beatened, imprisoned, and killed for criticizing that thought. link to stories on how scientists who deny 'man made' global warming are sent death threats and other forms of threats. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+scientists+threatened&btnG=Google+Search you never hear of global warming scientists who believe it is caused by man threatened like thisquote> A few death threats from environmental extremists, whose tactics I do not condone, is not surprising. However, I haven't heard of any oil researchers murdered by the hands of extremists. You don't think a scientist in the oil industry is threatened, albeit in a different manner, to produce reports that toe the line for their products? I'm sure it was similar to the way Bush's science advisor's felt when their reports on gobal warming were edited to remove any support for such ideas. Originally posted by: coolotter88[Religious content deleted] those environmental extremists are really being annoying aren't they? they can get pretty mad at people who don't agree with them. What's there to be mad about? I mean, fine, ice caps will melt yada yada yada, and then what? what are you going to do? use a bicycle as your form of transportation to try and save the planet? that won't save the planet... then there's "oh no, we'll cause the extinction of some bug" first of all, no one likes bugs, second of all, the job of different species is to become extinct, if the animal/plant/organism can't cope with changing climates, tough luck, unfortunately, polar bears may become a victim of natural selection. like my friend said before, we should have a day to get animals off the endagered species list....going to other way.quote> Those oil executives and energy conglomerates are really annoying aren't they? They can get pretty mad at people who don't agree with them. What's there to be mad about? I mean fine, the world will have a cleaner atmosphere yada yada yada then what? What are you going to do? Drive your energy-effecient car to work and save thousands of dollars you would have previously spent on gasoline? That won't destroy the planet... Then there's "Oh no, we'll prevent the extinction of some bug." First of all, entymologists and lots of other people love bugs and appreciate their significance. Second of all, the job of different species is to support unique and sometimes fragile food chains and ecosystems. If they are destroyed by changing climates, then new technologies and cures from obscure species from all around the world may never be discovered and invasive and sometimes harmful species can move in. Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Hmmm another thread on global warming... Can't be bothered commenting this time I take my stand in the global warming is a scare tactic (Shame of you Al Gore) and that Climatic Change is 95% Natural Its amazing what we fear that we dont understand oh and its amazing the lack of common sense in this world...quote> You are completely entitled to your opinion. It is not lack of understanding that causes my "fear" of global warming, it's precisely the opposite. I understand the science, it makes sense to me, and it is backed up by a library of scientific research. How's that for common sense?

I have read most of the posts in this thread, and I thought I'd throw in my own (albeit, humble) opinion. Before I get to that, let me point out some simple observations. 1) Most of the posts on here are rants, and that goes for both sides of the debate. The idea of the users of Simtropolis discussing this issue in extreme detail and with absolute certainty is akin to a room full of construction workers discussing wormholes with the same amount of credibility. None of us, at least from reading these posts, is a paleoclimatologist, atmospheric researcher or global meterologist. Let's be honest with ourselves. 2) We can only dissect the actual data that has been recorded, and leave all theory as that: simply a theory. However, it is not vain to discuss the various data that supports those theories. (I would like to point out that none of us doubts the validity of the Theory of Gravity.) Similarly, let's not confuse a conspiracy theory with a scientific theory. 3) Religion has no place in a scientific debate. You cannot debate facts with the unprovable, supernatural, or immaterial. Let's respect each other's beliefs, and keep them separate from debating the facts. Now, on to the opinion part: Originally posted by: jammy I'ts recently been prooved that global warming is not caused by humans The sun is the cause of global temperatures not us! [Edit: I deleted a bunch of other uncorroborated "facts" from the original post.] quote> The director of this documentary is hardly credible. (Click the link if you want to know more.) Nothing has been proven, on either side of the debate. The scientific community and it's consensus support the idea that humans are contributing to, and are the main cause of, global warming, which is occuring at an alarming rate. The only way to actually prove the theory is to test it over time, which is exactly why so-called "alarmists" and "reactionaries" are trying to make an impact: to change things before it's too late. While I can't address every single post (I would have to write a doctoral thesis to do so), there's a couple posts I'd like to address: Originally posted by: jammy The thing is we can not control the sun, there has recently been an increase in sumspots which are intense heat, sometimes they kind of burst and let out something called a 'solar storm', These are not like a regular storm, they bring out heat and sometimes head towards the earth, they can last for 100's of years.quote> Solar storms are the result of solar flares that are so large, they escape the magnitude of the sun and are released into space. The earth's iron core creates a magnetic field that surrounds the earth and protects us from harmful solar radiation, which is increased during times of a solar storm. The aurora borealis are a direct product of the magnetic field "trapping" this energy at the poles, which is why this phenomena is more prevalent in proximity to the poles. (This is the short answer.) Sun spots are recordable and appear in an 11 year cycle, the more energetic ones producing the larger flares that produce solar storms. They don't last hundreds of years. If they did, we would have aurora in our nightly sky for the period of several centuries. How they even relate to the CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, I have no clue. Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Didnt we have these same arguments in the other thread? People will beilve what they want to belive. If a certian explination for GW make sense to them no matter how much you argue you not going to convice them to change thier minds. especialy since thier are conflicting veiws both with viable research to back them up in this case. Its like the Roswell Incident. you belive or you dont, thier is so much information and misinformation out their that no one can realy say its 100% certian. so untill time travel is invented and we go back and make certian its all subjective. quote> This is not Roswell. This is global warming. The amount of information on the Roswell "incident" is miniscule compared to the data collected by scientists and the papers and studies published, peer-edited and reviewed by scientists. Originally posted by: wagusmaximus [Edit: some of this message was omitted] I will not hold it against most of u posters that scream global warming on Simtropolis, after all most of u are young individuels who have fragile minds and belive everything that is tought to u like I once was. And for a final thought, most of u supporters must not belive in GOD. One of the "theories" of global "warming" is that the Ice caps will melt and the waters will rise and drown us all, oh my! I seem to remember in suday school that GOD did the same thing a long time ago: And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. Genesis 9:11 Shame on u Al fore misleading the youth of America, shame on us all for believing democratic lies.quote> My mind is neither fragile, and I will forever remain a natural skeptic of anything and everything I experience. As to the fact that I shouldn't be worried about the water levels rising, I personally would prefer to die of natural causes, and not by a global flood that destroys most of human civilization (which certain proponents of global warming theory ironically predict to be caused by human civilization itself.) Your biased and partisan views shine through in your very message. Refute an argument with facts, not Biblical quotes and Democratic Party-bashing. Shame on you, sir, for disagreeing on the basis of party politics and religious teachings. Your personal creed does reflect on the actual science of this issue. Originally posted by: Gnargenox Oh and did anyone notice when looking up in the sky nowadays there are MANY more airplane contrails than in the past? That's because the government is secretly seeding clouds (called Chemtrails) to form thereby reflecting the sun's radiation away and reversing the problem we've created. And no one would ever suspect. I wonder what the space aliens would think....... quote> [blank stare, jaw dropped]I don't know how to respond to such nonsense. In closing, I think for the most part this has been an interesting discussion. I'll continue to pay attention to it, but I plead that we all take a look at the facts of the issue, and debate that. You are entitled to purport your beliefs, but don't try to purport unproven statements as fact. Where do I stand on this issue? I trust the scientific community, the result of their discoveries and the data and research they used to arrive at those conclusions. Why? Because I've read the science. I've read the data. Pick up some Carl Sagan or do some research on your own. You may be surprised at what you learn.

Yes, prophet42 is correct: don't confuse density with wealth. Wealth is dictated by the amount of $$$'s (simoleans) after the description of the type of building. The type of zone is either low density, medium density, or high density. If you haven't visited the Omnibus, do so now. The best starter article is Making Money the Easy Way by Soldyne. Do not skim this tutorial. Read it, and practice it's techniques in a starter region. You can learn a lot from it!