This is really not something that's possible with the modding options in the game.

Hi!

IMO those fusion power plants of 25'th era Humanity don't run on oil or coal.

BR, Iztok

Spyrer, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Ice core testing proves that CO2 levels correspond to rises in the Earth's temperature. This doesn't prove that rising temperature causes CO2 rises at all, it could just as easily be the other way around.

Talk to pretty much any climate physicist. CO2 causes the Earth's temperature to increase. This is just as well, because without the pre-industrial levels of CO2, the Earth would be one big ice cube. Adding more CO2 increases the effect, I don't see why people have such problems with that, apart from the fact that things would be a lot more convenient were it not the case.

Well tough luck. The universe doesn't have to conform to what we consider convenient.

Of course, most of the population might be distracted by 'hot topics' in the pop-control broadcasts, like the fact that Aliens are trying to kill them and eat them, after using Mass Drivers to take out the factories first ...

Sorry. No affence, but have you seen all the shows about global warming. Its gotta be true.

For the record I do not deny that the earth is getting warmer, but if it is part of the planets natural varience, solar activity or as the result of our activity is up for debate.

but for some of the events reported like sea level rise or all the glaciers melting that simply is not happening. And I will add to that "yet"

Things like the Kyoto Protocol where nations like Africa,India or China are not included are doomed to fail. If it does not include everyone why debate it?

Moving away from fossile fuels will happen with or without the global warming debate for no other reason then money or time. It saves us money and fossile fuels will run out.

Computer forcast models can be "tweaked" to say whatever your bias is.
Look at your typical weather forcast, how accurate is it 7 days from now?
People are making major plans that effect your world based on computer models.

and for the record I have seen most of the shows on global warming and note how many times they are carefull to say "if","can","estimated" or "models show"

Spryer, thank you for reporting your beliefs. You must be aware I assume that they conflict with those of a supermajority fo the scientific communtiy, like probably over 95%?

The warming most definitely is thought to be in large part anthropogenic, although I suppose there is room for a tiny bit of doubt about this, but not much. As for you disbelief that glaciers are melting, well now you are just sticking your head in the sand. Glaciers everywhere aroudn the world are rapidly decreasing in size. I have even seen this with my own eyes, having been hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park three times in the past 15 years. There is zero debate about that as far as I can tell (I have subscribed to Nature, Scientific American, and Discover for about 15 years, I also listen to the CBC radio broadcast Quirks & Quarks each week and the BBC radio broadcast Material World weekly).

As for China and India, being unwilling to join agreements, well there isn't much incentive for them to when the inudstrial nations cannot even agree (Becephalus looks at Australia and the US). Moreover whatever happened to cleaning up after your own mess? A child who refused to clean up his mess using the argument that in future years his baby brother would begin making a messes and thus should have to help with the current one probably wouldn't get very far with his mother.

I love how social conservatives are all about family and responsibility blah blah blah, but only in regards to other people's behavior. The typical US conservative never seems to want to have to make meaningful changes to their own lives, or live up to the consequences of their actions. 90% of their political slate seems to be, I want to stay with my wealthy comfortable life regardless of the conquences. I would love if in 10 years we just shut off the baby-boomers social security and were like, oh I thought you didn't care about that program? Your voting preferences sure showed you didn't?

If stopping global warming required us to blow some small nation up, insetad of drive smaller cars and use less energy, that shit would have been blow up back in the Clinton years, maybe even the first Bush would have gotten it. Americans are so much more willing to have wars than economic sacrifices, since the goverment is carefult o amke sure the wars don't involve economic sacrifices.

You are right that scientists tend to blow the possible negative consequences out of proportion (mainly to make their grant proposals look more important I think), and the news blows it even further out of proportion, because mainstream news in the US and many other places has zero to do with news and 100% to do with selling advertising and hence entertainment.

But the insinuation of some "controversy" about global wamring in the scienctific community is rediculous. There are only a handful of serious scientists involved in the field in dissent, out of thousands. And most of those as far as I can tell have some fairly close times with the energy industry.

Anyway, being from Minesota global warming sounds good to me , but I doubt it will be good for most people, since many live on the coasts or in dry areas that rely on glacial meltwater.

My take is this, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe global warming is happening, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. The initiatives, propelled by the theory of global warming, to lower emmissions and generally clean up the planet, is still a good thing. Aren't you tired of polluted air, water, and land? If Al Gore's movie scares us and the next generation into being more environmentally aware, I'm all for it. It's time to clean up the pig sty we've been living in.

the CO levels where almost twice as high during the age of the dinosaur as today

so tell me all of you people who are saying that man is the course of global warming because of our CO output why was it that much higher then

More volcanic action in dino ages. Combustion creates CO. The problem is not that we are damaging the climate since like you point out the dinos lived in it when it had more CO the problem is changing the climate to the point where it damages us. There is also the danger of losing mass amounts of coast line. The dinos lived on pangea(sp?) one giant continent, personally I am far enough inland I am not worried about massive floods or increase in tropic storms but the change of weather patterns and increase of global temperatures might piss off my grandkids when they all have to deal with it and I am long dead. People will survive no question about it, but in the next few hundred years the earth will probably change drastically due to global warming that we are accelerating, although any type of combustion adds to the greenhouse effect. Some CO gets into the atmosphere on its own, no big deal, but at our current rate I expect my grandkids to watch all the coastal areas I know well to drop off into the ocean. I predict more rain less coastline and hotter temps all around. 120 degrees above the equator in spring and you will never see snow south of Canada.

they have come up with a way that nuke plants no longer even have to think about blowing up

they have also come up with a way to do away with the toxic waste. and that is called recycle the waste product. (carter outlawed the recycling of nuclear waste with a presidential order and non of the presidents sense have countered that order)

you can reuse that nuke stuff for 20 years and when that 20 years is over all you have is a handful of inert dirt.

that research team only had one more goal and that was to make sure it cannot be used as weapons. (bill Clinton shut these guys down to save welfare. so we don't have those perfectly safe nuke plants or the welfare that Clinton was trying to save.

Actually, after nuclear waste is recycled or whatever, it turns into a material that can be used to make nuclear warheads, but is otherwise harmless. So thats where the political problems start.

Nuke plants use Uranium (I think), and I don't think uranium is renewable, so won't we run out eventually and have high prices with that just like gas is now?