Dandavies87

There are nowhere near enough buildings that actually make money; amusement parks, and so forth. Surely not all the buildings in the game should cost maintenance (why am I paying for the Statue of Liberty every month? surely enough people visit it to make plenty of money). There aren't enough money making ordinances, either. That said, I never seem to have a problem making money.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body..the position that anything that man has to do with the earth is like dealing with the very thin molecular layer on the surface of the earth. He always held that Palaeontologists dealt only with the "slime on the surface".quote> With all due respect, that is an antiquitated point of view. Theories of anthropogenic interaction have come a long way since 1957; plate tectonism hadn't even been readily accepted. All of this warming trend has existed since I was a little kid. I remember winters with a lot more snow, colder, and longer. The trend over my life-time seems to be accelerating.quote> Perhaps the issue here is that global warming is an ambiguous name; weather events are getting far more severe, and extreme weather is getting more frequent. Snowy winters are an acceptable manifestation of this statement. Unfortunatly, it doesn't seem to work in that colder regions will become more temperate - these regions will become more inhospitable, as will the already arid environments. We have the technology to prevent a lot of that, but do we have the political will or are we just going to sit in our mess and whine?quote> That's exactly why I'm doing a PhD in climatology.

Originally posted by: GMT but no one can tell for sure who's right (take nuclear power. people and scientists where certain that nuclear power is a safe engergy (and that the nuclear bomb just makes a huge boom) until they realised that the radiation is very very lethal) the only thing that can tell us whether humans are responsible for the velocity of global warming or not is time. only time will tell which scientific party was right and which wrong.quote> Originally posted by: N_O_Body The current Global Warming trend appears to be mostly a matter of cosmology and geology, and not the puny effects of man's occupation of the planet. You can't fool Mother Nature.quote> I'd like to know both of your sources - the IPCC has determined that the increased rate of climate change in the next 100 years is almost certainly due to anthropogenic influence. Mans effects on the planet are huge. Also, GMT, I would say it's completely acceptable to say that the immediate post ice age conditions are normal. While much of the geological record does show interglacial conditions, we evolved to our peak during an interglacial. Therefore, that is 'normal' for us. You can't define species based temperature niches to a planetary standard. In the Jurassic & Cretaceous, conditions were a lot hotter than they are now, therefore they wouldn't be normal for us, but would say, for organisms that evolved to their apex during the Mesozoic (i.e. Dinosaurs). No one is debating that we are at the end of an Ice age. But you only have to look at graphs of Quaternary climate history to see something is amiss. Yes, it's going to get warmer through natural processes due to the various systems that control climate (Milankovitch cycles, etc). However, up to 6 degrees celsius in 100 years?! Thats at a rate of 0.06 degrees a year, where we should be seeing rates (observed from ice cores and rock records) of 0.0003 degrees a year. Funnily enough, these rates have never been seen before...you guessed it, the industrial revolution. We shouldn't be seeing these temperature increases for thousands of years. Global warming is definetly a fact and it's almost certainly through anthropogenic influence.