 |
|
|
|
Friday, January 22, 2010 - 04:36 pm  I, like many other players, have been excitedly building nuclear power corps. They look good on paper. They should be profitable once their market is established... However, I have one major problem with them: they don't seem to be a stable link in the supply chain. Instead, nuclear power is used only by countries. Why is this, when regular electric power is used by nearly every corp? I think the GMs ought to re-visit this, and perhaps consider a better way for standard electric and nuclear power to compete with each other, apart from presidents manually choosing to buy nuclear power for their countries every so often. Hardly anyone does manual ordering for their country apart from weapons/ammo anyways. Unless nuclear power is better integrated into the existing chain of supplies and products, it will always suffer from an inconsistent demand and become a fail corp when it has the potential to be one of the better ones (again, at least on paper).
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 06:22 pm I second that...great post Petra 
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 07:00 pm From what I remember, nuclear power is being added to electric power usage by countries. So when you see the quantity of electric power in stock, it should be a combination of electric power and nuclear power. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, down the road I believe that electric power will have a CO2 tax involved, where as nuclear power will not, because nuclear power is considered greener than electric power.(electric power uses oil generators, which produce pollution?)
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 07:04 pm I was actually giving this a thought myself at one point, might be groovy to have a series of options for corporations and or countries. 1. Use Oil based electric power. 2. Use Nuclear power. 3. Use whichever has highest availability. 4. Use whatever is cheapest on the market. Toggle it for corporations/countries, etc. fire and then forget. I expect some folk would switch nuclear only, while most others would go straight for cheapest. I reference highest availability seperately, since the largest available amount may not be the cheapest for whatever reason.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 07:38 pm Keto - You are correct, it is added to electric power. Wild's point however is that nuclear power corporations can not remain viable if only countries are purchasing it and not corporations as well and in addition, it can not remain viable if it is only purchased manually by a player because most players do not purchase their electric power for their countries manually. White Darkness - That's a great idea and I would hope that something exactly like that is in the works for when the CO2 tax comes along. However in the meantime the system should be set up to somehow automatically purchase nuclear power in combination with electric power in order to make these corps viable for the time being.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:33 pm May be the GM should include Nuke power station disaster to the natural disasters program? I also recon it should be only implemented in countries that build more than 1 Nuke power station per 7 million population. The savings made by not paying the environmental clean up tax (CO2 tax) will easily cover the costs of the Nuke disaster if you deploy Nuke disaster teams. If you do not deploy a nuke disaster team, the savings made from not paying the tax will be used up paying for the 1% loss of earning for 20 game years due to the long term environmental problems caused in the area of the Nuke power station disaster.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:13 pm No.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:19 pm 1. Natural Disasters suck as it is and serve very little purpose in the game. The GMs should get rid of them. 2. Anything that adds superfluous costs (costs without adding anything to the game) should be considered DOA. 3. How many nuclear disasters can you recall off hand? Carbonyl and 3-Mile Island. That's in 59 years of nuclear power and with over 436 power stations worldwide. source: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm # There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. One was contained without harm to anyone and the other involved an intense fire without provision for containment. # These are the only major accidents to have occurred in more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html In conclusion: BAD IDEA, Nix.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:27 pm Everyone has cancer in the Delaware Valley...I know it is reaching... but 3 mile island is a hot subject with a rise in Cases of Cancer in this area. As now Asbestos claims in NY,NJ are now being attributed to the Collapse of WTC and huge amounts of asbestos into the atmosphere. Mesothelioma....
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 06:22 am Myself, I'd rather not see a CO2 tax implemented. Partially because I've seen a lot of reports about how most of the "global warming" panic can be best described as a steaming pile of bollocks. Throw in the fact that there's a small minority of scientists who cannot find any conclusive evidence that humanity's "tiny" co2 emissions since the industrial revolution have had any notable impact. They're ignored since it doesn't make good press for getting elected to office. Heck, I read one report that suggests we've become too clean and need to release more sooty-goodness into the atmosphere.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 09:00 am Even if that is not the point of this thread, i was just wanna something here... It is clear that nobody knows enough on this subject, and clearly a lot of people like politicians have taken advantage of "going green". That does not however means it is all "bollocks". As for those reports, statistical error and data manipulation is just so easy that nobody has a right answer, and that is from both sides. I have looked at those reports and the ones i saw are just as bad as others on greenhouse effects. And that last report you are talking about is "bullocks"(i like that word). If we have no effect on global warming, then shooting more crap should not change a thing on "global cooling". ****************** Anyways, as for the topic here, nuclear seems to provide more units of "energy", assuming 1 unit of nuclear power = 1 unit of electric power. But 1 unit of nuke power should provide MORE than 1 electric power, but more importantly i believe nuclear power corps should end up with the same product as electric power, because unless there is another purpose, they both are used for electricity. Just a suggestion... i just dont see how nuclear power is useful for any corp types.. you need electricity..that applies to countries too. If the nuclear power is just a new product that is C02 free and that is it's only purpose compared to electric power, then you can leave the name, but i would agree that corps should be able to use them too. Another suggestion that seems more logical in my head is that corps should buy electricity from the country they are in. In turn, countries have to buy their needs AND their corps needs. All corps would automatically have a contract setup with the country they are in, and be able to setup what quality they want, and the country would order it(or produce it). Players could cancel these contracts if wanted and setup their own contracts. I don't know anybody who does not auto order these days in their countries, so i don't think it would cause much difference. It could be complicated to change all that however for the GM, but just throwing out the suggestion.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 06:17 pm I have found the new corp types added recently to be pretty much dogs. SMFs are occasionally profitable but like all of these new corps when they go bad you will be losing 20B-30B/game year. I am treating the Upgrade corps like they were strategic and just contracting the production to myself.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 07:24 pm Is there any use for for the weapon/ammo upgrades yet? Not that I have seen, no wonder the corps are doing poorly. As for the power corps: The two generating corps should be playing on a level field, obviously with different supplies, production (Kw/Hr), prices etc, but the product - electricity - gets put into the national/international grid, from where countries and corps can buy and consume it. If one form of production is considered more efficient then this would be reflected in a greater output for a set supplies cost. If the game were to introduce CO2 and haz clean up taxes then these taxes would be the responsibilty of the country hosting the generating stations. It could also be implemented that an enterprise running a generating station in a foreign country could be held responsible for a proportion of these taxes, incorporated into the 'country resources used' I would suggest. And, it would be easy to add further power generating types of corps, like wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, or just one 'alternative' energy source. Surely this is more like the real world? Crafty.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 07:42 pm +1 to what crafty said, especially the "but the product - electricity - gets put into the national/international grid, from where countries and corps can buy and consume it. If one form of production is considered more efficient then this would be reflected in a greater output for a set supplies cost. " part This is the problem: nuclear energy is only converted into regular energy after it has been purchased. It does not sell on the world market as such, and therefore it has no stable demand: it is not part of the supply chain that regular EP is in, nor is it in any supply chain since countries/corps can't even voluntarily set their default automation to buy nuke power instead of regular power.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 08:37 pm Now your cooking CC. Helloa White Darkness. Hope all is well. I hav'nt re-registered my countries on LU for a while. Anyways........CO2 is just a small part of the greater environmental destruction that man is doing to the futures Eco system. But I think, to get the public focused on the damage each of our activities are doing to the Eco system, our leaders needed some focal points. CO2 and recycling. Personally, I would say it should be our consumption that we should be focused on. For thats what doing all the damage. But unfortunately we all know that without our consumption of their pointless products, most of our leaders would have no power. So thats why it's CO2 thats the big enemy. Remember. Alot of our capitalistic leaders would love for things to go on the way they were. And some will do what they can to make sure it does. But ultimately it will be their Grandchildren they will be lying to. For when their Grandchildren ask 'what did you do Granddad to save our Eco system?' What can they say? Believe me my friend. I would also love to think CO2 and other dangerous gasses weren't worth worrying about. But who am I to risk the well being of Mother Nature? Thats why I'm turning Vegi  We are the guardians. There should be some environmental threads somewhere. Mines called Desireless and another is called Environmentalizum, debate.. If you want to chat some-more about whats going on with global warming please by all means resurrect one of them. It's been ages since we've had a good Eco debate on the forum.
| |
| Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 04:20 am While I am for good stewardship over the Earth and do not advocate wanton destruction, I would like to point out that the whole "the Earth has warmed" argument may have more to do with the 10 year period that has been picked to "norm" the graph than anything real. If I were to call one of the warmer periods in Earth's history the "norm," it would look like we were in a cool spell. This whole debate assumes that there is one, single, best, and ideal temperature for the Earth. That sounds debatable. No if we want to cooler b/c we are afraid of losing our coastal cities that is another thing. But I would like to point out if ocean levels are going to be rising as quickly as "they" say, I ought to be able to buy beach front property for a whole lot less than it is going for right now.
| |
| Tuesday, January 26, 2010 - 11:51 pm I lost 14 nuke power corps from my ceo in the SimYear on LU. This is unacceptable !! When new products are introduced, they must be profitable. I remember when the new weapons and ammo quality corps arrived, I built a bunch of them and within a week, they were gone !
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 12:03 am Why would you make the assumption that they must be profitable upon introduction? Your own following statement explains why that has rarely occurred. A new corp type is introduced. A new demand for said product is slowly introduced (ex: a few weapons needed solid missile fuel. countries could now order nuclear power). And every country in the world decides they want to build one or more of these corps as soon as possible, and surprisingly, supply outstrips demand, and they start failing. This seems quite realistic to me. I also built quite a few Solid Missile Fuel corporations when they were introduced. You want to speculate on a new product, you have to expect to get anything from an outrageous profit to a spectacular loss. On the general topic of this thread, however, given that all power, no matter the origin is stored as Electric Power, I do feel that you should be able to switch your country/CEO over to different power sources, or to set a ratio of the various power sources (i.e. i want 60% of my power from oil, and 40% from nuclear).
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 12:13 am Why Daelin? Do you have any say where the electricity you consume comes from? Do you want a multitude of cables serving your house? You could make your country and its corps entirely self-sufficient in power and build the ratio of Nuclear/fossil fuel power plants you desire. Anyway, the point of this thread is that the two corp types dont compete evenly. Read Petraarkanians "This is the problem" bit. Crafty.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 01:23 am While I'm obviously unfamiliar with other places in the world, in many places in the U.S., you do have a say in where your electricity you consume comes from. You're allowed to pick from a multitude of providers, all of whom specify their specific breakdown or power source generation. I do agree that Wild has eloquently stated the problem. Based on it, I see two solutions: 1) Have alternative power corporations all produce "Electric Power". This would co-mingle all the power before selling, causing all power to sell for the same price. This would probably be the simplest solution (and not unreasonable). 2) Allow consumers (corps, ceo's, countries) to choose which type of power they wish to consume. This would allow users to select the type of power they wish to promote. However, in the end, basic laws of economics would result is most power sources being the relative same price in the end (the majority of users, when confronted with either auto buying 50k/GWh for Oil-based Electric or 30k/GWh for Nuclear-based Electric, assuming it's easy to do, will choose to buy the cheaper product, raising it's price, and dropping demand for Oil-base Electric). Both these methods would put alternative fuels into the supply chain, which is what is necessary to make Nuclear power a viable corporation.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 07:42 am #1) A CO2 tax is an extremely silly idea to implement in the first place. In the second, if there is going to be nuke power then there should also be coal power. Of course, coal already is a product just like uranium. So why the redundancy with nuke power plants? #2) Countries should have the right to decide if they want to be part of a "cap and trade" scheme. I suspect most would opt out of such nonsense. For the hard core environmentalists, they could always trade CO2 credits among themselves. Maybe the Enviro countries could get a boost to the health of their population if they go green.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 03:54 pm Wouldn't it be keen to have Hydro-Electric plants. Perhaps with an extra-long build time, that could be interuped by war or natural disaster. Maybe even limiting it to countries with large rivers or mountains, or even non-costal countries. I don't know if it would be practical to have it be a variable, but, the plant should be A HUGE cost, of course, even by SC standards. The result, however, would be extremely cheap production costs for power. To make it worthwhile, it might be necessary to sell all power interchangeably, as others have discussed. Just like to also add; Copper is an extremely underused commodity in SC. Of course, I say this because I built a Copper mine in my newer country after seeing how ubiquitous Aluminum was as an input into many industries. Not bothering then, to check on what industries used Copper. IMHO, at the very least it should be used in Building Materials corps. One would think that every weapon corp would also use it, and not just the four listed. Computers, Home Equipment, Machine tools, Industrial Equipment. I realize it's in Elec. Comps, which many of these corps use, but..they all use wiring also. Just thought I'd throw that out there, as well.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 06:24 pm There are no mining operations (mines). There are no natural resources. what you you built is a copper factory.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 08:35 pm Reconstituted soybean paste makes a good dielectric.
| |
| Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 11:41 pm Spart. Seems you just don't like my posts. Seems to me, also, the category which lists Aluminum, Copper, Stone, etc. as corp.s,,bears the title of "Mining". Even if you insist on the pedantic of what we build, one would assume that noone would build an Alumina processing plant very far away from the Bauxite mine. Granted, everyone can build an oil Factory, or a Copper Factory as you put it. I don't think anyone reading here, however, mistook the meaning of what I had to say. Cheers.
| |
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 12:41 am @ white darkness: I agree with you on the "global warming" bullstuff. It's Chicken Little time, and the sky AIN'T falling. @ plato: Yep, the people screaming about the alleged second deluge are showing with their pocketbooks (a pretty good reality check) that when it comes right down to it, even they don't believe it themselves. @ king xenu: I agree. This is an irritating idea, as I for one don't subscribe to the whole carbon offset idea either, which is just a way to control us all and allow bleeding-hearts to feel good about themselves without doing any real good. @ Crafty: So does soylent green. @ berand: I'm for the hydro-electric idea. And yes, I am all for it in RL. Okay, so now I'm out of the closet on my views of global warming and reality in general. Some of us will need to agree to disagree on some things, but we can still do bidness without rancor. Just had to get this out.
| |
| Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 02:29 pm It should be more than obvious that Nuclear Power hasn't been fully implemented yet. Until then, wait and don't rush in to build Nuclear Power Plants left and right.
| |
| Tuesday, February 2, 2010 - 09:37 pm I'm a major buyer of Nuclear Power on GR. I'm surprised nobody seems to have noticed the obvious method of capitalizing on Nuclear Power. You'll figure it out I suppose so I'll just keep my mouth shut for now (other than what I just said). That way I make more money.
| |
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 03:52 am Plenty of people have figured it out on LU. How else do you think it was red long enough to attract people into building 300+ corps?
| |
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 04:32 am I'm back from a nice little hiatus. Which Nix, I didn't even realize your status on LU, I'd sent you a couple of messages previously on various topics. And aye, I realized the potential myself as I scheduled my first build. I wouldn't mind seeing a diversity of sources, including coal, wind, tidal, solar, and if they're feeling really ambitious, I wouldn't mind building a global satellite array with microwave transmission to a receiving station (sorry if the beam misses the receiver and hits your capital, it was an accident.) Of course that last one would have to be insanely expensive and would have a potential for a whole new level of competition since there'd only be so much "space" to effectively build an array. Heh, now I've just gotten crazily creative.
| |
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 06:24 pm Hi White Darkness. Glad to hear it was a nice little hiatus You've got me curious to know whether it had anything to do with the patter of tiny feet? Maybe I'm just being soft. But if I'm right, congrats Bro (sorry if the beam misses the receiver and hits your capital, it was an accident.) LOL. Accidental regime change. I've been a bit skint since my knee op, so I decided to put my countries into hibernation. I'll be back playing again soon though (or before, if someone declares on me).
| |
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 07:20 pm Nah, I'm the cold-blooded bachelor. The pattering of tiny feet is something I used to dream of. I thought you'd be amused by the Microwave broadcast power concept. It'd be "clean" except for the "accidents".
| |
| Wednesday, February 3, 2010 - 11:59 pm I bought very large quantities of Nuclear power at a price much lower than electric power and then sold it in one single move to all my own corporations, supplying them with cheap power. I will keep doing so as long as nuclear power is so much cheaper than electric power generated with oil. I assume they will, as they said, allow corporations to choose which electric power they want to purchase. come to think of it, you could buy nuclear power, you get it delivered as electric power and then turn around and sell it as electric power at a huge profit.
| |
| Thursday, February 4, 2010 - 05:14 am shush romeo 78^)*
| |
| Friday, February 5, 2010 - 08:50 am Why not a Steam corp? Pure clean H20, no CO2, and environmentally friendly. Plus Babbage Engines run on steam (when they are not crashing) and there is a serious shortage of Babbage Engines in SC due to the lack of Steam Power.
| |
| Monday, March 15, 2010 - 07:22 pm Why not a flower corp? Selling Flower power.
| |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 - 01:53 am Well, this thread enlightened me to the value of nuclear power. I'm now making regular purchases.
| |
| Monday, April 5, 2010 - 05:47 am also buy your expensive electric power and sell back the power so your companies save money on cost anything in the 200 quality realm you want to get rid of
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 04:13 am I visited my neighbor's gerbil farm to determine what "quality" electricity those little critters were producing. He didn't know what I was talking about but assured me it was good, clean 60 cycle power with an RMS of 240 volts on the two-phase lines he was running from the inverter. When he asked about the "quality" of my power, I told him that whatever it was, it was working just fine. I did ask about the waste disposal problem because it does take quite a few gerbils to generate a kWH, but he had that figured out too. He calims gerbil dung is a natural nutrient for plants even though its a waste product to us. Sort of like CO2 he insisted, and without it, plankton, the number one source of the oxygen we breathe, would not be well off. My whole view of gerbil dung changed in an instant. I'm going into gerbil ranching and will be energy independent by the 7th generation. Those little buggers do reproduce rather quickly.
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 03:37 pm Some of the comments I'm reading here are a curious mix of game play and politics. From the liberal environmental view, an alternate reality must be implemented in the game to comport with real life misrepresentations. The environmental nutjobs and their political allies don't want us to burn oil. They don't want us to burn coal. They don't want us to use nuclear power. They want us to use high first cost and high maintenance windmills and solar panels, provided they are not placed within view of where they live. They want us to convert our food supply to an inefficient fuel source, ethanol (drink it, don't burn it I say). Essentially, they won't be happy until 95% of us live in the stone age burning wood to keep warm so they can enjoy modern conveniences without feeling any guilt. This game seems to reflect that alternate reality when the "rules" are to be based on a political rather than economic basis.
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 04:45 pm ?
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 05:05 pm Corps always buy electricity at the market price. If one buys nuclear power and then sells electricity to the corps, the corps don't save any money.
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 06:11 pm Which is the fundamental problem with nuclear power plants in the game. Back to the top of the topic boys and girls... CraftyConsumer
| |
| Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 09:04 pm Before we do I just need to say a few words. Trahx. I do not appreciate you calling the people who are trying to deal with the environmental mess that we are leaving our children in 'Nutjobs'. In fact I consider it to be an insult. Therefore I would like you to keep that in mind the next time you talk about people who are concerned about what state we leave the planet in for our future generations. If you wish to challenge the causes of the environmental movement please feel free to do so on one of the environmental threads. That also goes for you as well Maclean. Calling global warming 'bullstuff' without an explanation together with Trahx comment are the kinds of things that makes me want to deploy The Forces of Nature onto your countries. You know what I mean? Peace&Hardcore.................Nix001 MNA
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 12:39 am How much data do the "global warming" parasites need to fake before people appreciate they have a vested interest in that fraud? How much power do you need to hand a politician before you realize that alarmism is his primary tool to get power? Behind every "mess" as you call it is a power grabbing control freak who believes he and he alone holds the key to human happiness - if only we idiots would just do what he says. The "science" of "global warming" is bogus! It's a hoax to suck in the intellectually lazy who make no effort to actually understand the difference between valid scientific studies and pop science for the masses. The appeal is understandable; anyone can become "significant" and "caring" just by parroting what the alarmists tell them. Save the planet - be a hero! Wasn't that easy? As for whether or not this should appear in an "environmental thread", it seems to me the environmentalists nutjobs tried to turn a game topic into an environmental thread. Should we have a CO2 tax? Should we have "nuclear meltdowns"? Should we kill everyone that disagrees with us? I think I labeled it right.
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 01:34 am Fine. I would have quite happily debated this issue with you. But as you insist on using insults and wild speculations I will unleash The Forces of Nature on your country/slave you'll need for level 11. Mother Natures Army will not tolerate this disrespectful attitude towards those who care about Mother Natures well being and survival. War&Hardcore.............Nix001 MNA
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 04:45 am Seriously Trahx (think this is WD) there is an EXTREMELY small number of credible scientists who do not support the theory of global warming/climate change and that it has been caused by humans. The media does a horrible job with this kind of scientific debate. They try to keep it balanced so they put up a mainstream scientist who supports the overwhelming scientific opinions about global warming and then they typically throw up a climate change denier and give them equal time. This is similar to throwing up someone who argues that the Earth is flat, there are those out there who still believe it but they shouldn't be given any time to spew their BS. Anyway, look at the most recent claims of 'data manipulation' and then look at the ultimate result of the investigation which says that no data was manipulated although they were a little over zealous in their messaging. I don't know what it is about this country but we have so much trouble accepting scientific facts...climate change, evolution, etc...it's really disappointing and what is more disappointing is that the view of 1% of the scientific community on subjects such as these are given equal weight in the media...
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 07:21 am WB, so-called mainstream scientists have been silent because they believed the data, findings and models had been peer reviewed. They were not peer reviewed because the "climate scientists" rigged the peer review process by their own admission. The data was faked and the Russians proved it with data from their stations, or records showing the station was down and the data had to be made up. But before the data was pifered, several scientists in the UK had already revealed that the data was faked and the so-called hockey stick was invented out of thin air with no scientific basis. A credible scientist presents his data for others to examine, duplicate his experiment and validate the results. The fakes in East Anglia did not because it wouldn't stand up. The investigation you reference was not done by a disnterested party but by people who have an enormous stake in promoting the man-made global warming myth. The number of scientists speaking out against the sloppiness of the methods, subversion of the peer review process and rigging of the climate models to produce a desired result rather than a theoretical prediction is growing very rapidly, and the lack of credibility of the investigation has accelerated their numbers. You and the media might call it an investigation, but most people call it a cover up. Your own statement about the media presenting a "mainstream scientist" and a "climate change denier" shows just how effective the propaganda has been to silence critics. Fear has no place in science but without it, global warming would have been revealed as a hoax long ago. We have no trouble in this country accepting "scientific facts", if they indeed meet the criteria of what constitutes science in the form of a scientific theory. Rather than be disappointed, you should be happy that American scientists are critical of unsubstantiated claims, especially those being leveraged by politicians to increase their power or by so-called scientists feeding from the public trough. Is the climate changing? It has been changing since the earth was formed. History records warm spells (MWP for example) and mini-ice ages (the last experienced by Washington at Valley Forge). And those were the mild changes. There is not a climate model in existence that can simulate those periods - not one! So the people that screamed ice-age in the 70s are now screaming global warming. The only thing that hasn't changed is the reason for the alarmism.
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 05:54 pm Trahx. Its a shame you didn't take my advice and go to one of the environmental threads. All your questions and theories would have been answered. And if not, I would have loved, as I said, to have had a good debate with you. Maybe we will after I've shown you the consequences of your attitude. Oh yea, welcome to the war engine ;) Nix001 Mother Natures Army Dam, can't resist saying one thing. You said 'The investigation you reference was not done by a disnterested party but by people who have an enormous stake in promoting the man-made global warming' Who on Gods Earth are disinterested in the survival of our environment? And again! who on Gods Earth doesn't have an enormous stake in protecting our environment for our future generations? Ok....... First I'm gonna kick your ass, then I'll show you the errors in your thinking. You want to play Russian roulette with our futures environment, I'm gonna load the gun.
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 09:00 pm nix001 (or whatever you are), There was this fellow that was very interested in the environment, so much so he wanted to curb and reverse any further industrialization. He had a vision of an environmentally neutral agrarian society of happy farmers working the fields by day and returning to their environmentally friendly homes in the evening. He was going to end starvation, pollution and the societal stress of technolgy and industrialization. His name was Pol Pot. To make sure his dream was realized, 2.2 million Cambodians were murdered because he could not tolerate dissent or anyone that did not fit into his vision. If you wore glasses, carried a ball-point pen, could read or had a university degree, you were executed immediately because he was afraid you might have enough brains to question what he was saying. If you didn't sing the praises of Pol Pot loud enough as you marched off to the fields, you were shot on the spot. In the end, he ended industrial pollution. Was he your uncle? I'm as interested in the environment as anyone else, and maybe more so because my job has a direct impact on the well being of people and industry. To suggest otherwise because I don't agree with you is exactly what I would expect from a sniveling, insignifcant worm who can't make a case. Present your theory, your data and legitimate peer reviews and you may gain some credibility. The charlatans you worship haven't done that and in fact did everything they could to conceal their data and subvert peer review. Please explain to me how you are qualified to make any such judgments based on education or experience? Show me your regression analysis, data validation methods, boundary conditions, initial conditions and soultions to the differential equations those phony "scientist" never submitted for peer review? As for Russian roulette, watch what lines you cross. I had four Russian programmers working for me once and they called my group the Russian mafia, I suppose because I'm an American of Sicilian ancesty. It's amazing what a clever programmer can do without anyone ever finding out. You can make all the threats you want. I'm not impressed. It's only the final outcome that interests me, and I know what that will be. I'm not going to cut my throat to appease a bunch of politicans who would love nothing more than to run everyone's life because a nutjob like you chooses to believe them. You have your war, and I'll have mine.
| |
| Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - 09:35 pm ?
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 02:37 am I know DG, gives it all that and then tries to give it some more. I think he just wants a fight. I've seen more of a point on a ball. 'It's amazing what a clever programmer can do without anyone ever finding out.' Hack the program Trahx, I don't care. Whats with all the insults anyway Trahx? Did your momma never teach you any manners? As I said 'shame' I would have rather battled with words than missiles. As soon as I've taken your slave I'll answer any question or statement you have. Unless of course you insult me again. Then I'll just get a mate to take over a country next to your main and nuke it 10 times a day. Last but not least. I pointed this out earlier. This kind of chat should be on the environmental threads. Ok, one more thing. What is it that you don't agree with me about?
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 03:17 pm Nix, not all of us are going to sit by and let you dec on new players just because they don't agree with you and your agenda.
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 03:35 pm What agenda are you on about BC? I will not sit here and let some one insult those who care about our futures environment. I did warn him. Read BC Read. If you had done so, you would understand what is going on. But if you wish to join in with the fun and games then be my guest. I have one target, we'll 2 if CC wishes to get his ass kicked again, OH yea CC, no lame excuse this time when I've destroyed your air defence and my troops start painting your country. To the death this time.
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 07:26 pm I always wondered about this BC kid. Looks like hes all grown up now. I don't agree with BC or his agenda. CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 08:57 pm LOL, wendy, you're the self proclaimed defender of the new player. Thats all BC and I are agreeing with, defending a newbie from nixs attacks on him for exercising his right to free speech. This isnt an anti-enviromentalist arguement, just a stance against bullying of new players.
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 09:03 pm P.S. Nix, you could have done better with a name for your second account, Mr. Gardener? come on... Oh, go on, its your neighbour, or a friend, right... No one day old player has the ability to paint a C3 like he is, its a *CONSPIRACY*!!!
| |
| Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 10:43 pm "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." Nix all over. His brief flirtatins with "scientific fact" came to an end once they countradicted his world view. Nix "believes" in man-made global warming. Ergo, it must be true - science and study be damned. He just enjoys playing the selfless martyr.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 04:24 pm I was at a party last night and a mate said a quote from an American Indian. 'Only once the last tree has been cut down and the last fish has been caught will we realise you cant eat money' This is not the same situation as last time where I went to War with Crafty and inturn with The Coalition of Capitalistic Tree Haters. That time was due to Crafty's complete denial of any risk human activity poses on our future generations environment(which he did to provoke me into a fight. The war was stopped due to him admitting that he is concerned about Mother Nature, but just didn't know what we could do about it). This is to with Trahx's insults towards those who care about our impact on Mother Nature. 'environmentalist nutjobs' he called us. I replied on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 09:04 pm (have a look at it). Then Trahx made a point of saying it again on his next post. I do not consider insults to be a right of free speech. You insult someone expect them to respond. 4 on 1 is nothing new to me, but I see you and BC have made the same mistake as The Coalition of Capitalist Tree Haters did, you've gone for my mains and left the target alone. I would have thought after what happened to you on KB Crafty you would have thought about that one. I'm guessing protection of a fellow noob is the last thing on your minds. Maybe it's revenge for KB or maybe your just on the rob like the 2 Ronnies were. Either way, like last time, it's gonna be fun. War&Hardcore...............Nix001 MNA
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 04:36 pm I defend Trahx's right to call you a nutjob. Nutjob, in this instance, being defined as an individual holding unfounded extremist views. You are a nutjob. It is not an insult; it is a statement of fact. We do not fear facts as you do.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 04:41 pm Hi Katt, I saw your navy there. I know how you think about the problem we are leaving our children with........you don't. Maybe your scared to or maybe you just don't care. I can understand you being scared as it is a very scary thought. But to not care............now thats a nutjob.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 04:55 pm I trust in science, nix, and build my opinion based upon facts presented to me by credible, thoroughly-tested, peer-reviewed material, and organised by a mind well-versed in the sciences. You, on the other hand, are an alarmist who is clearly scared of anything that moves. You are irrational and completely incapable of reason thought or dialogue. I truly pity you. I will drop my words here. They can serve no further purpose and you are beyond my ability to educate.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 04:55 pm I agree that everybody is insulting. But you are using the same bullying script as before: "Mother Natures Army will not tolerate this disrespectful attitude towards those who care about Mother Natures well being and survival." and "Ok....... First I'm gonna kick your ass, then I'll show you the errors in your thinking. You want to play Russian roulette with our futures environment, I'm gonna load the gun." The insults are petty and I SERIOUSLY doubt that anybody here is anti-environment. That's ridiculous. So, I defend Trahx for the bullying, not because I agree with either of your way of thinking. BC
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 05:59 pm Katt. Doood 'thoroughly-tested' Yea, we have thoroughly tested the effects of man on the eco-system and we have come up with the concluction we have destroyed it. What use is that? Thats like saying we will pour acid into the pond, then do some tests to see if it will kill all the fish. Then if all the fish have died we will know it was not the right thing to do. Thats fine BC. I have no problem with you jumping to the aid of someone who insits on insulting those who would rather change our lifestyles than see the Eco-system die. But you have chosen what side of the fence you are on. 'I SERIOUSLY doubt that anybody here is anti-environment' well if trahx, like Crafty, admits this then, like Crafty I have no problem. But if he does'nt admit it and stands by his words that mans destruction of the environment is nothing to be worried about then you'll see that there are people out there who are anti-environmental and need to be made to see that their influence is creating alot of problems for those who are trying to sort the Eco-system out.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 06:42 pm *Yawn* You're such a bore nix.
| |
| Friday, April 9, 2010 - 06:56 pm Thats what comes of attacking Econ slaves. #flash back to KB# But as you know Crafty from KB, I hav'nt started yet. Once I've made my point to Trahx I'll call for you. The Forces of Nature are knocking on Trahx's slaves door. I suggest you 2 get over there asap. Unless of course you 2 were just on the rob. Oh yea BC. Its not anti-environmental its Anti-environmentalist. Maybe that's where you are getting confused. I know there are a few people out there who destroy the Eco-system and would be quite happy to live in an Eco bubble if the Eco-system was to collapse, so I guess you could call them anti-environmental. But the majority, like Trahx, are just anti-environmentalist.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 12:16 am I never thought a game thread would take this direction, but it has and it demands a response, regrettably. To equate the rejection of an unproven and falsified theory as being "anti-environmental" is illogical, irrational and unscientific. A theory that requires falsified data, deliberate sabotage of the peer review process and political chicanery to survive demands exposure of the perpetrators and those who blindly support its promotion. Call them environmentalists, greeners, or whatever you will, but the leap of faith they have taken clearly identifies them as "nutjobs". My only objection when first posting in this thread was that environmental religionists not co-op the game to promote a discredited theory as reality. The game has enough problems with reality without adding more. In my profession as a fire protection engineer, I have done more to protect the environment, property and people's lives than most of the people who loudly claim to care about the environment because they recycle their beer cans (and I love beer). Pardon me if I brag about that, but the facts are what they are. What I don't want is to leave future generations in servitude to the likes of Al Gore and all the other phony elitists who justify their own excesses as "virtuous" because they are doing it for "us". They do it for themselves and, unfortunately, manage to deceive a lot of people in the process. Al Gore has done more to pollute the air, water and land than I could do in a lifetime, and only because he has fanatics like nix cheering him on. Yes Mr. nix, I am "anti-enviromentalist" if you mean those people posessed of irrational beliefs and mesmerized by politican-priests to the point they believe dissent must be eliminated by any means. I came here to play a game, not put up with the BS of people who would turn a game into a political statement. If you truly want a debate, produce evidence that can be seen, a credible theory that can be tested and the logical basis for that theory. Until you can do that, I will remain an "anti-environmentalist" and oppose every fear-monger that demands we accept their beliefs, or else. If you want to settle your dispute like a man, I'll meet you on FB and fight it out there once I learn how the war engine works. If you insist on being a worm, you can attack me on LU as you have, knowing I am a n00b and have never fought a battle. But I will say this, a battle in SC is not a verdict and whether I win or lose, you will be just as wrong after as you were before. Finally, I want to thank those people who have come forward and understand that a disagreement should be resolved with rational proof, not by who has the most resoruces in SC, and certainly not by bullying n00bs just because you can. Thank you one and all, especially BC, CC and DK. If I missed your name, my apologies, but my sincere thanks as well.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 02:42 am Trahx. Firstly I have not attacked you once. I declared with the hope that you would reconsider using insults. I told you at the beginning that calling those who understand that if humans continue to chop down mature forest's and rainforest's and continue to pollute the seas, water tables, soil and air that we are risking the collapse of the Earths Eco-systems 'nutjobs' is something that I consider to be an insult and that if you were to continue with the debate and continue using that kind of language, it would provoke a response from me. And what did you do? use the same language again in your next post. So why cry about it when I did respond? If you had read through the environmental threads as I asked you to, you would have seen 100's of my posts showing my evidence and the reasons why I feel we all need to do something about our actions now and that waiting for firm evidence that we have damaged the Eco-system beyond repair is irrational, selfish and just plain stupid. And then you had to call me 'a sniveling, insignifcant worm'. What did you expect? I'm curious to know why you couldn't debate this issue without insults? I'm also curious to know why, if you just wanted to play the game, did you involve yourself in the discussion and then knowingly provoke me into action? You said 'an unproven and falsified theory' What the hell do you want? To wake up in the morning and the news station to tell you that is its now a proven fact that human activity has officially destroyed the planets Eco-system? Whats with this falsified theory? You have not shown anything of what you ask of me. No facts, no proof, no nothing. All you have done is talk about your disenchantment with those who are saying that if we leave it to late before we act we might end up destroying Mother Nature for good. Ask anyone. I have spend hours/days/months debating this issue with many people. You are only the second person I have declared on (CC was the first). What does that say to you? To me your problem seems to be with Al Gore and others like him who say one thing and then do another. Not those who only buy what they need and not what they want, use public transport instead of a V8, recycle what they can, switch off things they are not using and try and show others that we are all guardians of our children's world, therefore we are all responsible for its well being. Or maybe you just don't like being told what to do. A bit childish if you ask me. As I've said many times before. If we wait for the proof it will then be to late. It's not as if we can move to another planet if it turns out we have F#@%ed this one up, can we? I hav'nt even started yet. As I said, it's just a shame you couldn't have a debate without the insults. The first post fair enough, thats why I warned you, but to carry on, to me, means you wanted this confrontation. And now you have it you cry bully. LU is one of my Econ worlds. My Army is on FB. If you had posted that last post without the name calling I would have only be too pleased to wait for you on FB as it makes no sense for me to put my empire on LU into debt. But as you still insist on calling me names I will continue with my mission on LU. I guess some people just cant help themselves. Ok........If you were to take the name calling and insults back I might reconsider. You have 36 hrs to respond.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 03:03 am Whats up nix, point em out. I've heard enough. I think if Trahx is willing to take it to FB and stay out of whatever else may happen on LU. I'd be willing to give him a pass for now.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 03:18 am Hi Wendy. You might not have read the last bit of my post before you posted. I was editing it as I went along. Trahx wants this fight. I've given him a way out many times but he still insists on giving it all that. And now I have given him another way out. I cant be fairer than that now surely?
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 04:08 am nix, I'm always here, just point 'em out.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 05:31 am "nix. Your naivete is truly amazing. On every issue that crosses these forums, you express the Leftist party line to the letter. Had you been born in 1920's Germany, you undoubtedly would have become a die hard NAZI under ReichsErzeihung. In Soviet Russia, a believing Leninist under Party doctrine. The Great Lies of history have always required a populace too afraid or lazy to think for themselves. Now, another great lie is being perpetrated before your very eyes, the evidence is right before you, plain to see. Yet, you prove to be a shining example of how effective propaganda can be. You prattle about common sense, use some." - Farmer Bob Seems that someone already nailed nix in that environmental thread. Nix brings up one fact with no correlation or evidence of its significance, rambles on with alarmism claiming that anyone who does not agree with him is for the destruction of the planet, and he calls that a debate. The entire thread is laced with nix's alarmist comments that have assumed a catastrophe into fact without any evidence whatsoever. "As I've said many times before. If we wait for the proof it will then be to late. It's not as if we can move to another planet if it turns out we have F#@%ed this one up, can we?" - nix001 Does that sound like reason or does it sound more like the screams of mindless panic? Is this type of rhetoric even debateable? Interestingly enough, that post and the thread were from 2009, prior to the revelation that the climate gurus were cooking the numbers, the models and the process. Thanks Farmer Bob. Nix indeed would have made a good little storm trooper and would have done whatever his masters told him to do.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 01:08 pm Mmmmmk, Trahx now you do sound like an asshat. Leftist this, Nazi that.?!? WTH, all because he cares about environment? You bring up FarmerBob like that is a new name, kinda tells me you aren't so 'new' afterall. Add me to your enemies. I'll deal with you in true Nazi fashion.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 03:26 pm Trahx, I think you're going overboard now. If you want to fight nix, then fight him. There's no reason to keep dragging this out.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 04:28 pm Thanks Wendy. The last three days on SC I have felt quite alone. I am so grateful for your support, but.........over the past 16 years, from the streets of my city to the streets of The Old City of Jerusalem I have stood alone in my mission to bring the plight of Mother Nature to those who wish not to believe that their actions might be destroying Her. I was the kid in primary school who would jump into the middle of fight to try and stop it and end up with a punch in the face. I know I'm walking a fine line between the present and the future. And because its fine line I have to accept any concequences of my actions on my own. Maybe it's just a pride thing. But all the same, thanks again mate. You have given me a well needed lift to my spirit. Trahx. FarmerBob is a conservationist (as we all should be). He understands the importance of leaving what is left to the future. I think we need to go one step further and try and replace/heal what we have taken/destroyed. I dont know but I think he would be disappointed with your lack of concern. Ok. I'll shut the door to you having the opportunity to take back your insults in the interest of peace and respectful debate. Shame really. I would have liked to have seen your facts and reasons to why you disagree with me that mans activities of deforestation and pollution over the past 100 years is effecting our environment in a negative way. I think that Trahx is one of many who until they see it they wont believe it. Fine when it comes to things like God and the lottery, but I don't consider it to be fine when it comes to my nieces and nephews future. I for one am prepared to sacrifice my future and lifestyle (and life if need be) to ensure the future and lifestyles of our children. If I'm wrong then only I have suffered. But if people like Trahx are wrong then it will be our future that will suffer.
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 08:11 pm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep3sHNGROTc&feature=related
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 08:17 pm As its Saturday I chose that one for the animal noises. But for the best version of the song you have to watch this one:
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 08:34 pm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QMiCBJ7yRM&feature=related
| |
| Saturday, April 10, 2010 - 09:29 pm Saturday night mix up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c_577EbdcQ
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 01:29 am I looked up my desirless thread 'Desireless (Kebir Blue) 364 4/22 03:24pm' and found this quote from me: 'To the SC community. I have used this game to try and get over to you that we can no longer wait for evidence. For if the evidence turns up it will mean that it is already to late. I am sorry for doing that. This is a game and I should have respected that. I do the same down the pubs, friends houses, parties ect ect.' Its made me wonder if I have done it again, and with the date of the start of the desireless thread being 1 year ago nearly to the day, I'm wondering if its a spring thing? But Trahx did start with the insults towards those who will do without to ensure the future has everything. I gave Crafty the option to say it was just a flippant comment a year ago. I give you Trahx the same option. Retract the promotion of Anti-environmentalism as an option in life and retract the insult environmentalists are Nutjobs (even though I might not be doing the cause much good with me being me) and I'll stand down. Thats all I ask. The rest we can discuss as I need to work on my angles anyway. I think I'm getting a bit rusty.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 02:16 am Just had a thought This is why green technology never gets invested in. Theres always the counter argument of 'prove it' that gets in the way. You cant prove something that has'nt happened yet, regardless of how much you want too. The point is faith. Faith in your own instincts for the survival of your future generations. Only you know what is right and what is wrong. No Other. And only you will walk down the path of your life. Only you make your choise. But is your first thought about the futures survival? or is it for your own survival? And if your gonna run a business its got to be about your own survival.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 03:22 am The problem is that you are effectively preaching something that must be accepted on faith. We are expecting to immediately accept your propositions as true in absence of evidence. In addition, most environmentalists speak from a perspective of sore misinformation. Therefore, they propose ridiculous and even detrimental (from an environmental and/or socio-economic perspective) proposals to save the environment. For example, the preservation of the rainforest: this is not the best alternative for absorbing C02 emissions because old growth forest absorbs much less CO2 than new, growing forest. The logical alternative is to have logging farms which would provide both profit and growing forest to absorb CO2. Another example, the environment is constantly changing. Somewhere around the year 1400, there was a 'mini ice-age' that froze over Greenland and caused massive famines in Europe. This was before any industrialization. I'd wager that average temperatures are still below those before this event. The environment and global temperature are decidedly not stagnant forces. A summation of pervading views on the environment of the time could be seen in some French river planning commission of some sort that was reported as turning down river projects on the basis that God didn't will for the river to be that way. As it stands, green technology is a joke. Ethanol is entirely impractical as there is not enough cropland. Wind and solar power aren't cost-effective without the government subsidizing them (don't even say green tech isn't invested in). Nuclear power, capable of cheaply producing enough power for everyone, is ignored. Hydro-electric power is protested as destroying rivers. Hydrogen power needs to burn coal to create the hydrogen in the first place. "Going green," with the goal of reducing paper consumption is a bad idea because you eliminate the possibility for aforementioned logging farms which filter out more CO2 than old growth forest AND creates profitable industry. Not to mention, all the hate for killing trees has created a society that is dependent upon far-less environmentally safe plastic products. The whole environmental movement is an amalgamation of disparate groups bent upon glorifying Mother Nature as something greater than humanity, but this is the summary of the entire group: people against CO2 aren't necessarily against clubbing seals or factory farms or paper usage or GM foods or owl habitats. Who is correct? If the group at large is uncompromising, making propositions without regard to the actual evidence, and making propositions that could never be realistically be followed through without human death on a massive scale... I'm against it. Consider: who is really hurt by world-wide environmental regulations? The third world. They cannot afford to make the technological leap required. They cannot afford to lose the cropland needed to FEED the populace. Let's impose draconian environmental regulation and watch the people drop like flies. Don't forget the whole organic movement's hate of genetically-modified foods (which decrease the need for pesticides, yield more food per acre, etc.). So... using inefficient procedures that require more cropland are better for the environment? Free-roaming, non-hormone-treated cattle may sound nice, but this takes up far more land area. Wait! that land area is being used to preserve some obscure species of fly. I believe something like is effecting the central valley in California causing tomato shortages. It's unnatural! However practical it may be, this matters little. tl;dr Humans > Everything else Environmentalism is terribly misinformed and contradictory.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 05:21 am Hi Scarlet. It's not just about the tree's. Its also about the Bio-diversity and the whole ecosystem that lives in, under and around them. Each life playing its role in the up keep of the forest. And sure, natural climate change happens. And most of the time it happens at a rate that life can keep up with (march of the trees) but add man made climate change into the mix and we might not be giving life enough time to adapt. Listen trahx. When I first started on SC 2 years ago, anyone who brought up environmental issues was insulted, threatened or belittle. I've fought hard with words and wars to ensure that pro-environmental words can be written without fear of reprisals through words or wars. And I'm not gonna let it slip now. A friend of mine says 'I see parts of his argument, since the fact that there is a massive amount of corruption in the world of the climatologist is true'. I think thats something I need to look into. The argument before was always that it would never happen. Now it seems to be whos lying about whats happening and whos not. And until we know who we can trust, we are not going to do anything about it.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 07:38 am BC, You are right but its also time for a mea culpa. I'm not here to play the game but to analyze it. The only part remaining was the war engine and it sure was easy to get a war, which should be concluded in a few days. The only comment I can pass along is that this game has a serious community problem and that hurts the success rate of any MMOG, whether RPG or S&T (ecowar). Every game has its nix and pscho-honey types, but in RPGs they end up as lepers. In S&Ts, more drastic measures are required. There are 398 players on line as I write on a Saturday night. That's pretty dismal for a MMOG with 5 worlds, no down-load required and a fairly low monthly rate. The reason and answer should be clear, and it isn't because the game is difficult; it's not. Well, I have to see what the defense looks like to finish my work and pass some things on to a few n00bs. Good luck and it truly was a pleasure to meet some of the people here. Special thanks to BC, CC, DK and Blue. And you too BA for the help you gave me getting started. (PS: There really is a nix in every game and they are easy to bait. I should know, I get paid to do it.)
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 08:51 am omy, little nazi screamer is already screaming goodbye. You and you 6 virtual machines are lepers, and you have ended up as one. Silly rabbit. Now, keep going, trash the game becuase you don't know where you should place some restraint. Let us blame everyone but ourselves for our own faults. You can have any opinion of me if you want. I really don't care. Whine do whatever, but seriously quit talking while you are ahead. You aren't the first person to walk into a war because you didn't obey CC's ten commandos, or commandments. I was actually on your side as far as getting a fight with nix, but I draw the line when you start calling someone a nazi,leftist, fascist, its all BS. What do you think this is America? THIS IS .... SPARTA!! *cough* SIMCOUNTRY *cough* *CONSPIRACY!!!*
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 09:37 am @Trahx: hmph. Hey, how come you chose LU, not FB? And,
Not clear to me, could you spell it out? @Wendy: arggh, please read his posts. @nix: Please give him a good demonstration of how the war game is played. It's one of the better features of the game, after all.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 09:51 am @ whiteboy,
I finally found something online that explains the details of the criticism of Mann's Hockey Stick graph of 1998 & 99. McIntyre is the more famous one, but his descriptions stop short of the nuts and bolts, as do all explanations I've previously seen. But McKitrick, his partner, spells out the statistical errors they found, very cogently. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf The paper that presented the hockey stick graph included lots of mistakes, in methods and in using questionable data. Worst of all, the whole hockey-stick shape of the graph was based on one egregious statistical mistake. Instead of admit the mistakes Mann obfuscated, denied, and made stuff up. The hockey stick graph was a key feature of the anthropomorphic global warming theory, supposedly showing that 20th century warming was unprecedented. But, it was completely fabricated. By itself that doesn't prove that global warming is a complete hoax, but it does take us pretty far in that direction.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 04:48 pm Hi Jojo. I'll say what I gotta say to Trahx first so the end of my post will be about what your saying. Trahx.....Thats what I said to a mate of mine last night while we where standing out side having a smoke. I said to him "I recon Trahx is doing a Crafty" Didn't make much sense though due to the way you went about it......unless you had already gone through the forum and seen how I would react? Clever little Trahx. I can see why you get paid for it. Now what the hell do you know about the community. Walk into a pub do you and make your mind up straight away do you? Maybe thats why you do what you do? What the hell do you know about the game? This is like planting a seed. Time is what its all about. You dont spend hours a day sitting next to the plant pot waiting for something to happen. You get on with your day while every now and then making sure the pots watered and safe. To understand this game and community you would have to be here for a year at-least. I bet your boss would'nt be happy if he knew how little you work for your money. If you had also spent a bit more time you would have noticed that the number of people online constantly changes. Some log on for 2 mins to water and leaves. And some will log on and chat to their mates. Its a constant flow of people. In an hour there were probably 6x the number of people that have played. Not just the 398 you talk of. You know nothing of anything or anyone. If you were to have played for real and got into trouble wendy (pscho-honey) would have been there for you. Thinking about it.......I am surprised you do get paid for this. Maybe your not a critter? Maybe your trying to promote those other games you talk of? Either way, what I'll do is just keep on declaring on you so you cant test the defence program. Looks like your gonna be hanging around a bit longer ;) Helloa Jojo. Hope all is well. I'm thinking that the reason the books have been cooked is because if we let the data become real then its too late. Like say, me telling my Bro on a windy day that he should take the extra time to put on his safety harness when climbing his ladders. He says it would take longer to put them on than it would do for him to do the job and that its not that windy. I say that if we have a strong gust of wind it might blow him off. Now if he asked me to prove it and with my research I found that today we are due 40mph gusts from a Northerly wind. Which by my calculations would, if he was holding on with one hand, blow him off. But due to the gust being from the North, the house would shelter him, reducing the impact, which in turn might not blow him of the ladder. Do I just tell him that we are due 40mph gusts and hope that that will scare him enough to put on his harness? Or do tell him all the known facts, knowing that he'll take the risk and not put on his harness? Its funny when you think about it. Time after time our bankers, business leaders etc have shown us they can't be trusted. But yet we still entrust them with our hard earned wealth and trust them to do the right thing by us, like nothing ever happened. Yet when someone who's only flaw is caring too much about us, we all cry fowl and don't trust any of them again.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 05:58 pm There's a difference between making predictions and stating a fact, Nix. It's one thing to predict that there's a 70% chance of it raining frogs tomorrow. It's another thing entirely to say that there will rain frogs. Prediction based upon facts is one thing. Prediction when those "facts" have been proven to be heavily doctored is another entirely. What you are suggesting - as you always do - is that we take action because something may happen, because you believe that it will happen, and that anybody who doesn't accept your beliefs is wrong and out to destroy the world. In turn, you threaten people with war in-game for "insulting" your beliefs. You want to declare a personal Jihad on anybody who doesn't agree with you, that is fine by me. But do not be surprised when people who have a greater appreciation for free speech, scientific debate and logical reasoning take a stand against you. The fact-base from which you have drawn your conclusions has been proven to have been doctored. At best, this makes the factual base underpinning your theory malformed and incomplete. At worst, it makes it downright wrong. Now, having analysed a wealth data, information and theory available from a variety of sources, my own conclusions are somewhat contrary to your own. I do not accept that man-made global warming is a major cause for global climate change. Data shows that naturally occurring phenomenon account - annually - for more greenhouse gas pollution than humanity is capable of generating, in terms of CO2, CH4 and H20 - arguably the "major" greenhouse gasses. The warming/cooling trends of the past twenty to thirty millennia show variation more closely correlated to volcanic output, with more minor fluctuations comparable to various known solar cycles - especially when noting global weather phenomenon, such as river-flow patterns and the like. These processes can clearly and demonstrably be seen to alter and effect climates and ecosystems on a global scale. That being said, it is fair to conclude that humanity has contributed significantly to a certain degree of pollution. The polluting of rivers, for example, and things such as the vast swathes of rubbish which flow around the Pacific ocean. On a more local level, industry can be seen contributing particulate pollutants to the atmosphere. The list does go on. Do these activities "harm" the environment? Without a shadow of a doubt - if you are human. Nobody likes breathing in smog. Nobody enjoys seeing old buildings eroded over decades by carbonic acid (rain). Nobody likes swimming in raw sewage. But what if you are not human? Well, no. There are plenty of species who benefit from human activity - from so-called "pollution". Bacterium which benefit from human refuse. Species which have prospered due to human agricultural activities - numerous species of grass, for example, with which we are all no-doubt familliar; wheat, barley, rice, etc - as well as domesticated animals - pets and foodstuffs. Common animals which you see in your garden every day - robins, stalins, magpies, pigeons, gulls, wrens, tits, finches, blackbirds, etc, and all their predators. Species of algae in the oceans which feed off detergeants - the base of many oceanic ecosystems. There are many more. Species become extinct on a regular basis - fossil records show that this has always been the case. Sure, humans have a direct hand in some cases. The dodo, for example. But some are driven to extinction by other factors too - just go search for "extinct species" and you'll see what I mean. The list is endless. What is important is not biodiversity, but biostability. The natural world is a very fluid thing, and humanity is just along for the ride. Like every species, we have evolved to fill a particular biological niche. Unlike most animals, we are adaptive enough to survive as part of others - our technology has seen to that. I would choose a future for my children in which they are free from oppressive regimes, and people telling them what to do and how to think. My legacy to them would be a world in which they are free to rise to the challenges presented to them, no matter the source. What I do not want for them is a dystopia in which they are forced to conform to ideas which are forged into a scientific taboo by the political elite and the ill-informed mass of blind "believers". Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter. The world is a changeable place. It always has been. It always will be. And, until I see evidence which suggests that humanity is the cause of this fluidity, I will continue to accept the conclusions that I have drawn from current valid evidence. From experience, I know this discussion will be cyclic and that no progress will be made. But that is the nature of belief without proof. It's all just so much speculation. I am not even convinced that you will take anything away from this and really think about the issues at hand. Your mind was made up long ago, and it is not my place to tell you how or what to think. But I can and will point out that your logic is fallacious and flawed. That's called scientific debate. It is what fuels progress. I disagree with you nix. And I think that you are an unreasonable man, moreso for warring with people who simply do not agree with you. But then, that just makes you petty. And I know that you're only doing this out of frustration. People do tend to get angry when their beliefs are dismissed or disproved. It's just human nature. I forgive you that much. I find your facts objectionable. I find you reason devoid of logic. And I find your conclusions unfounded. Will you bring your Jihad to me next? I have no need to say more.
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 06:29 pm Hi DK. You said: 'What you are suggesting - as you always do - is that we take action because something may happen, because you believe that it will happen' I say: "did the American people not go to war because they believed something may happen?" Plus you said: 'But do not be surprised when people who have a greater appreciation for free speech, scientific debate and logical reasoning take a stand against you.' Trust DK. They have been standing against me for the past 16 years. I'm used to it and wouldn't expect anything less. I have to say though, over the past 5 years there hasn't been as many as there use to be. As for everything else, I'm gonna have to go through it later and take in what your saying. Its been a busy 4 days and the sun is shinning. It would be criminal of me to waste it and not get my seeds planted for my allotment. When it goes down I'll read it more thoroughly. Peace&Hardcore..............Nix001 MNA
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 10:47 pm Ok first off I would like to remind you that it was due to Trahx still calling Environmentalists 'Nutjobs' after I told him I found it offencive that started me off. And now we know why he carried on(I thought I have been quite restrained compared to how I've been). It wasnt his point of view on the subject. Infact his point of view on the subject has made me see that there is a new reasons why people aren't so keen to believe the people who are warning us. Trust. Second............#me thinks about the rest of what your saying outside with a smoke# #'Like every species, we have evolved to fill a particular biological niche. Unlike most animals, we are adaptive enough to survive as part of others'# Did you know that when an animal in a Forest dies out or moves on, another animal will mimic the sound it made to keep the harmony of the Forest? #'That being said, it is fair to conclude that humanity has contributed significantly to a certain degree of pollution'# Considering how no-one seems to trust any-one, every one seems to trust the data the businessman are giving concerning their ways of disposing waste during this time of cost cutting. Rich Nations become cleaner, poorer nations dirtier. Why? because of the cost cutting by big business. We have no idea whats been done under the cover of darkness. So how do you know that mans significant contribution is nothing worth worrying about, when you don't know whats been/being done by man?
| |
| Sunday, April 11, 2010 - 11:50 pm But then you say 'Do these activities "harm" the environment? Without a shadow of a doubt - if you are human' Ok, I see where your going. Regardless of what man does and what dies, there will always be Mother Nature on Earth? Natural Climate Change, Natural species extinctions and Nature migration happens every second of every day. Sometimes an event makes the changes and extensions greater or smaller, but it happens regardless. I get that. Its not like anyone is saying that nothing was happening and now something is. The problem they have is that the changes are happening alot quicker than they have done before. Which could have all kinds of crazy concequences. Is it man? Maybe, there is compelling evidence that mans want and destruction has had some effect on the Environment. The full effect of man will never be known as its just part of the mix. Is it down the New celestial age? Maybe, as it is just around the corner. But we cannot rule ourselves out. You stated: 'What is important is not biodiversity, but biostability' Biodiversity looks after its self. Biostability needs something to look after it for that stability to exist. Therefore I can only see Biostability on a long term process becoming less stable than a Biodiverse area.
| |
| Monday, June 14, 2010 - 04:28 am Just to add another thought to this thread. India & China are racing into the space program to get to the moon to start farming the rich H3 which is the only known (stable) source of COLD FUSION since it is not available on earth. USA is canning shuttles in order to get ready for this space race back to moon as well (funny the press missed this one lol & G. Bush planned for it - did something right) Anyway - why not create a "Moon" out there on SIM & we can space race all the worlds to get there & farm H 3. If U dont know what it is just google it! It would be an interesting twist to the game & would be a 3rd energy source. Also competion as LU could battle FB etc. for limited space up there - probably the way we (USA/NATO) will be fighting with real world China & India/Japan in about 30 years.
|
