New Videogame Encourages Players to Fight Climate Change
- Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:52pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
"Fate of the World"
Climate-change apologists have a new tool in their arsenal to recruit warriors: video games.
A new video game called “Fate of the World” presents an apocalyptic glimpse of the future, encouraging those who play to fight global climate change. It’s the second such game by developer Red Redemption.
How does it work? “The player must manage a balancing act of protecting the Earth’s resources and climate versus the needs of an ever-growing world population, who are demanding ever more food, power, and living space,” the games website says.
“Decide how the world will respond to rising temperatures, heaving populations, dwindling resources, crumbling ecosystems and brave opportunities.”
The reviews echo the marketing, like one in Edge magazine: “The player toys with a complex ecological simulation of the earth over the better part of two centuries — and, depending on their chosen objectives, can choose to rescue it from the brink of destruction or ensure that humanity’s annihilation is all but absolute.”
In August’s edition of Nature, Aleks Trotoski cites “Fate of the World” as an example of a multimedia platform that allows for “learning about science through play.“ He reminds his audience that ”evidence has grown that computer-based play can support learning in schools” — the implication being that playing games about catastrophic climate change can teach children to become advocates for stopping it — and goes on to say that “game play could help us to make better decisions about our future.”
“If this is what it takes to wake up complacent youth about scenarios we could face if we aren’t pro-active, then I am supportive,” writes Matthew Kahn of the Christian Science Monitor.
That awakening occurs when players chose one of five “master plans” for the globe. The euphemistic names are almost self-explanatory. For example, the Dr. Apocalypse plan puts you on track to “raise the planet’s temperature a lethal degree.“ Star Ark has as its plan to ”save only yourself while abandoning everyone else to whatever catastrophes await them.” And finally, the Utopia plan means “you can try to build a perfect society while battling population growth.”
“Fate of the World” is the second climate-change game from developer Red Redemption. It’s first, the award-winning “Climate Change” made for the BBC, was played by over 970,000 gamers.
What will you choose?
The company has even created a Hollywood-style trailer to market the game, complete with dramatic music and doomed language. After the phrase “2010: Climate change negotiations fail” floats across the screen, we are given a glimpse of the future: “2020: The world wakes up to the first big impacts.” A new world agency is created (G.E.O) and we have the reigns — reminded toward the end that we must “live with the consequences.”
According to an interview with one of the game’s designers, Gobion Rowlands, the developers worked closely with Dr. Myles Allen to ensure the science behind the game was as accurate as possible. Allen is currently a lecturer at Oxford, but used to work for the United Nations Environment Programme in Kenya. His bio claims he has “provided some of the core evidence that most of the warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
Another designer, Ian Roberts, summed the game up in simple terms: “When it comes to climate change, you can avoid it, reverse it or sit and take it.”
A version for PCs will be released in October, while a Mac version will be released the following quarter.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 562 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 311 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (123)
JournalistStuntDouble
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:50pmFrankly, I‘m surprised the progressives aren’t trying to convince the Pentagon we should be at DEFCON 1 thanks to the war on carbon. Or are they…
The Carbon War Room (founded by Richard Branson & George Soros) – http://www.carbonwarroom.com/
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:27pmLOL…. Whoa! Look at that website.
Report Post »sensiblemom
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:46pmAssumptions, assumptions. Thirty years ago there were those who were certain that the world would run out of food and therefore it was a sin to have children because it would overpopulate the world. Just because someone puts all their faithless fears into a game does not mean it promotes truth and peace. This game sounds downright dangerous, especially to children and youth.
Report Post »megansmom
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:56pmi remember that one as well as global cooling in the 70′s. They used the exact same arguments and even tried to shove it down our throats at school. Another ice age was coming
Report Post »I’m still waiting on that ice age.
washington dclxvi
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:43pmthe game developer is “Red Redemption”…RED being the operative word!!
Report Post »Tatum
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:30pmI would lose because the airs on high and the windows are open. I’m going for a ride in the Hummer right now so I can fill the tank tonight. Gas is down to $2.40 so I want to buy as much as I can. What a fun game.
Report Post »Use 2 B Moderate
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:28pmSo do you get “extra carbon credits” for playing the game? As you level up you get to steal others credits? Or maybe some unauthorized person will come in my house while vacuuming and leave me the game?
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:27pmTHE GREAT “GLOBAL WARMING HOAX”
The proposals to combat “GLOBAL WARMING” have more potential to destroy our freedom and prosperity than any issue since WORLD WAR II. The cost of energy is increased by all these proposals. Energy is contained in all the products used to sustain our lives.
These proposals will be devastating to the poor, where the cost of survival consumes all their income.
Do you realize that these proposals are to combat an issue that has not even been proven to exist?
AND YOU LAUGH AT DON QUIXOTE?
THESE PROPOSALS WILL ONLY ENHANCE THE POWER OF THE “PEERS.” “CAP AND TRADE WILL DESTROY YOUR WEALTH AND FREEDOM!!
BRACE YOURSELF, THOMAS PAINE, REJOICE YOU “PEERS” THE POWER OF
KING GEORGE III IS BEING RESTORED BUT UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT!
http://commonsense21c.com/CLIMATE.html
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:26pmThe libs are appaplectic over a remotely possible 1 degree warming in the next 100 years but couldn’t care less about what would happen by any number of very real disasterous threats that would likely mature in the next 5 years such as Iran and financial collapse.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:20pm“According to an interview with one of the game’s designers, Gobion Rowlands, the developers worked closely with Dr. Myles Allen to ensure the science behind the game was as accurate as possible. Allen is currently a lecturer at Oxford, but used to work for the United Nations Environment Programme.”
That’s good. It means that it definitely will not:
* assert sunspots as the major cause
* reference warming on Mars
* claim that the rate of warming has been seen before
* argue that there is no consensus
* blame faulty climate models
* remind us of mythical scientific warnings from the 70′s of an ice age
* allege that there is no scientific consensus
* claim that scientists are inherently biased but the utility and oil & gas industries are not
* further the delusion that overall ice packs are expanding
* call the whole global warming thing a vast conspiracy and hoax.
It would be great if players have to actually explode these myths during the game. Either way, I hope players learn the real science, and winners get a well-functioning cap-and-trade system that saves our planet at the end of the day. Losers should have to go to witch doctors and shaman for their medical needs, just to keep the fruits of science equitibly distributed between those that care about it and those who don’t. Can’t wait to play! Should be fun.
Report Post »Jsor2112
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:31pmI AM SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED MARS IS WARMING!! in fact the entire solar system is warming up
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:31pmYou wish….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:45pmHeh heh heh! ******** reduced to taunts. So amusing.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:53pm“remind us of mythical scientific warnings from the 70′s of an ice age”
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age
“Newsweek Magazine, April 28, 1975″
“The Cooling World
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production … The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it … A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972 … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
“Time Magazine, June 24, 1974″
“Science: Another Ice Age?
“when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing … Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F … When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since … Warns Hare: “I don‘t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.”"
Some of us were actually *alive* in the 70′s, Troll, unlike you.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:55pmJSOR2112, and you have confidence in this because of the large number of temperature sensors we’ve put on Neptune and Uranus…
But seriously, before making a fool out of yourself, please read this:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
It contains verified scientific facts. It also has a trail of comments from experts qualified to debate the issue. Go see where the informed debate is before making uninformed comments.
Report Post »Jsor2112
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:56pmTo repond to my previous comment about the entire solar system warming, google “Photon Belt”
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:59pmProspero, those aren’t taunts. That is a list of bogus arguments that conservatives use to justify their inaction on global warming. You can find a much bigger littany at skepticalscience.com, which keeps up-to-the-minute on all of the latest research on climate science, not to mention the latest bogus arguments of the global warming denier crowd.
I will grant you, however, that the idea of making global deniers go to witch doctors rather than scientifically trained physicians is indeed a taunt, and a secret fantasy of mine. I think it’d cause people to stop lying about global warming pretty quick.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:03pmJSTOR2112, there is no such thing, except in science fiction and new age fantasy. If you believe in this rather than qualified climate scientists from CalTech or MIT, then you should also be forced to visit a Haitian witch doctor rather than a Harvard or Yale trained physician when you get really, really sick. It is sad that people get to pick and choose when they rely on real experts and when they get to ignore them. The scientifically illiterate are a parasite upon modern society…they do none of the work and understand none of the work, they harm the process whenever they can, but then they take its benefits when they are in need. So sad.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:04pmSeminar Troll writes: “That is a list of bogus arguments”
*yawn*
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age
Newsweek April 28, 1975 – “The Cooling World”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Time Magazine June 24, 1974 – “Science: Another Ice Age?”
Yep, bogus claims….
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:08pmABC writes: “The scientifically illiterate are a parasite upon modern society”
Well, I wouldn’t exactly call you a parasite. But you are a useful tool for those who employ “science” to advance anti-capitalist political agendas.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:10pmABC writes: “you have confidence in this because of the large number of temperature sensors we’ve put on Neptune and Uranus”
Bwahahahahaha! Demonstrating…yet again…the “scientific literacy” of the typical *******.
So, you’re contention is that sensors must be delivered in order to determine the temperature of a celestial body? lol!
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:12pmProspero, a single Newsweek article in the 70′s claiming global warming is not a scientific consensus. It is a single article written by a layperson that has no bearing on the current, informed debate. Business Week ran a story in 1981 entitled the Death of Equities, but that didn’t render the entire financial journalistic establishment obsolete–the conservatives that deny global warming happily tune into Larry Kudlow even though he is far less scientific and totally missed the ‘07-’09 financial crash.
The reality is that the majority of scientists even in the 1970s were worried about global warming and, more importantly, the state of the science is far better today with better computing power. The models systematically understate the warming observed. And the percentage of scientists today who are concerned about global warming constitute more than 85% of all the experts who have published on the subject, according to two separate scientific literature studies done in recent years.
If you would rather listen to a single non-scientist piece written 40 years ago, then you clearly would listen to voices in your head (or on AM radio) before listening to thousands of trained experts. As I said before, please do not clog up the health care system by visiting trained physicians either. When you need heart surgery, please go to a shaman or a plumber. You do not deserve better science than that.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:18pmProspero, there is nothing anti-capitalist about the global warming science. It is the science. Period. Whether you are Marxist or Republican, you still adhere to the laws of physics. Moreover, the solutions proposed to global warming are not anti-capitalist either. In fact, the most conservative economists (from von Hayak to Laffer) will tell you that you must add a tax to transactions involving a negative externality, so adding a tax to account for pollution that causes acid rain or global warming is very sound economic theory and policy. Further, the solution of using a cap-and-trade system to implement that tax is pro-capitalist. It is far more efficient to use the power of the market via tradeable permits to set pollution levels and tax levels than to ask Congress or the courts to do it. So your argument makes no sense. While Europe has had some problems with their implementation of cap-and-trade because of corporate bribery and government corruption, not to mention the challenge of implementing on a regional level a solution to a global problem, this doesn’t make cap-and-trade a failure. The US successfully implemented such a system to combat acid rain in the 70‘s and 80’s, so it is sound policy when done correctly.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:18pm@Jsor2112
Report Post »Yes I think we should just trying to solve the climate change in the solar system. And maybe We can start redistributing water to the martians.
Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:18pmTroll writes: “Prospero, a single Newsweek article in the 70′s claiming global warming is not a scientific consensus.”
That might have some bearing on our conversation, if I was arguing that there was a scientific consensus.
I provided you two articles spanning a period of two years. Thus, the predictions of a coming ice age in the 70′s was not myth. The articles may have been written by…well, writers…but they cited the work of NOAA and MIT and all the other scientists of the day.
You are an amusing propagandist, and a truly devout disciple of “Green” no doubt, however you remain a rube and a tool.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:21pmAnd Prospero, as for sensors on Saturn, I am saying that it is very difficult to obtain accurate warming data on other planets without sensors for a variety of complications that are beyond the scope of this blog. But the great irony here is that warming deniers are the first to question the data collected by the thousands upon thousands of sensors and other physical observations here on earth (since they say what that crowd doesn’t want to hear), but they are willing to believe fake claims about warming on other planets without any sensors at all. As I said, you guys would irgnore Einstein and listen to Santa Clause about questions of physics if it suited your ideological purposes. Just be honest and say that you will never believe the science unless it concludes what you already allegedly “know” and want to hear.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:27pmTroll writes: “there is nothing anti-capitalist about the global warming science.”
But of course there is, Troll. That’s why every suggested remedy involves the penalization of American industry, and onerous taxations on all forms of energy. To destroy capitalist economies.
The entire purpose of all “Green” is the destruction of Western free-market capitalism. As Obama himself said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”
Global warming, the entire “Green” religion, is just the new home of Marxism. The idea is to pilfer the riches of the developed nations, and redistribute it to the third world dictatorships, under the rubrik of “saving the planet”.
Anyone with a functioning brain has to realize that when you declare *carbon*, the building block of all known life, as a pollutant you’re running a scam. Because you have declared *life* to be a pollutant.
Doesn’t take an advanced degree at MIT to figure that one out….
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:27pmProspero, the most definitive studies on the state of scientific consensus done over the last decade all show overwhelming majorities of qualified scientists concluding that global warming is man-made and a worrying problem. The two most recent studies (Doran 2009, Anderegg 2010) show 95% of scientists concluding that it is a problem. If 95% is not scientific consensus, then I do not know what is. You can read more, if you dare, here:
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
You cite two articles that are non-scientific from the 70′s. I supply systematic scientific literature studies (and there are many others, like Oreskies, et. al.). Based on the evidence, I’d say you are out of your league and have no idea what you are talking about.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:30pmFinally, Prospero, calling me names (propandist, troll, tool, and rube) doesn’t change the science one bit. It just signals to the neutral third-party observer that you have lost the argument.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:33pmABC blathers: “I am saying that it is very difficult to obtain accurate warming data on other planets without sensors for a variety of complications that are beyond the scope of this blog.”
Oh please. If that’s what you meant, then that’s what you would have said.
What is the most amusing about rubes such as yourself, is your willingness to accept the natural course of events as an “emergency”. Then one thing we know for a fact is that the climate always changes, its not static, never has been.
“Groundhog Day” would be alarming, things changing is not alarming. To you freaks, carbon is poison, and the natural course of events is proof. Absurd.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:35pmABC blathers comically: “It just signals to the neutral third-party observer that you have lost the argument.”
Heh heh heh! Really. Why don’t you take a quick poll and find out what the “consensus” on that score is roflmao! Silly green freak troll.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:38pmProspero writes: “That’s why every suggested remedy involves the penalization of American industry, and onerous taxations on all forms of energy. To destroy capitalist economies.”
The logical fallacy is obvious. If difficult measures are required, it must mean the person proposing them has mallevolent intent. Why this is a logical non-sequitur can be shown by analogy. Suppose a doctor has to cut off your leg to save your body, then one could argue that the doctor is anti-patient, anti-medicine, etc. But that is an assumption masquerading as a necessary conclusion. Similarly, if onerous taxes are necessary to account for the externalized costs of global warming, then the lesson of Economics 101, as would be taught by the most conservative of economists, would say that you include the tax. If you don’t understand this, then you do not understand economics, capitalism or anything else. And one should waste time arguing with you. The fact is, that industry is denying global warming effects, because they know that if they are admitted to, then taxes to internalize the negative externality will be uncontroversial and viewed as such by every qualified economist on the planet. Making the anti-capitalism arguments inherently show that you don’t understand the issue at its deepest level. Stick to attacking the science, where you’ll find 5% of the experts agreeing with you. The economics is beyond reproach, with 0% of economists agreeing with you.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:39pmABC writes: “You cite two articles that are non-scientific from the 70′s”
Your refusal to actually read the very scientific articles constitutes no shortcoming in my citations lol! I actually lived in the 70′s, Troll. I was there. You can cite your silly website all you like, as far as the global ice-age is concerned, that was the last stupid armegeddon trip you freaks tried to run on everybody. Been there, saw that, got the t-shirt.
Pretty stupid to try to persuade me otherwise, since…you know…I was there…and a subscriber to Time and Newsweek lol!
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:43pmProspero, taking a poll amongst non-experts is like asking my pet dogs and cats at home. So let’s just skip that one. Second, you assert that scientists are turning natural events into an emergency, but that is an insult to scientists (and underscores how little you know about how little you know). The rates of change are unprecedented, and the levels of animal and plant extinctions are on par with anything recorded in earlier periods of rapid climate change. Scientists understand better than you that the State of Arizona has successively been tundra, plains, jungle, desert, undersea and desert again, but they also understand far better than you the timescales and rates of change involved. You do not, so your argument is really rather silly. The problem is that voting on climate change is like putting a patient undergoing brain surgery before the judges of American Idol rather than in the hands of qualified experts. You are not qualified to comment on the subject, but are allowed to do so. That you don’t know how unqualified you are makes the situation go from tragedy to farce.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:44pmTime and Newsweek are not scientific, peer-reviewed publications. There is no more need to read them then there would be to consult the Bible or the latest Superman comic strip to learn about the current state-of-the-art on climate science. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:46pm@abc
Report Post »I don’t deny climate change. It gets hot and cold all these different times of the year and some years are hotter then others. I deny that any of it is man made and know that man has no control over it. 4 billion years old and the earth need the latest monkey to infest it to help it out(what happened to that hole in the Ozone?). I am sure you also believe that the oil spill would ruin the gulf environment for years and oil would never leak into the ocean with out the help the evil industrial man. The earth couldn’t possibly take care of this spill with out the help the mighty environmentalist right? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_excl/ynews_excl_sc3270
Get over your environmental god complex, admit that you are powerless over the environment and get the big book.
Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:49pmTroll wrote: “calling me names … just signals to the neutral third-party observer that you have lost the argument.”
Mmmm hmmmm….
Troll responds: “taking a poll amongst non-experts is like asking my pet dogs and cats at home”
Really, so you’re now saying that the opinion of neutral third-parties on whether I have lost the argument is not measurable with a poll? I mean, isn’t that what I asked you to poll?
Reading is fundamental, you know.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:52pmTeapartyblog.info writes: “I deny that any of it is man made and know that man has no control over it.”
Bingo. Even if mankind turned his collective will to altering the climate of the Earth, it would be impossible. Due largely to the immense regulating effect of the massive amounts of water, both in the seas and the vapor in the atmosphere.
Water vapor exerts the absolute strongest influence, vastly greater than CO2, yet the green freaks totally exclude it from *all* of their models. For obvious reasons….
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:00pmProspero, let me get at it this way: 5,000 years ago, when everyone on the planet believed the earth was flat, was it? To hell with your poll and your assessment over who is winning this argument. None of it changes the scientific facts, which are the most important thing. The secondary thing, in a democracy where even scientifically illiterate people get an equal vote, is to educate you. But I suppose it really is true that facts and logic are powerless to disabuse misinformed folks of positions taken without facts and logic. And for the record, I didn’t equate anyone to dogs and cats, just consulting non-experts (animal or human) about specialized knowledge.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:03pm“I deny that any of it is man made and know that man has no control over it.”
And you know this based upon what science? Funny how the conservative hawks in the DoD have known for years that launching all of the nuclear warhead on the planet can cause a nuclear winter. Interesting how that bit of manmade climate change is possible. Also, you’ll have to explain what self-regulating mechanisms you’re thinking about, and please don’t cite water vapor, since that is clearly one that exacerbates the greenhouse effect. I find it appalling that you and TeaPartyBlogger “know” so much and yet are so lacking in evidence from scientific experts. I guess you divine this knowledge in unscientific ways. Do you talk to Jesus? Or does God just put the knowledge directly into your head without an intermediary. Just wondering…
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:05pmABC digs the hole deeper: “To hell with your poll and your assessment over who is winning this argument.”
I see…
ABC assessed: “It just signals to the neutral third-party observer that you have lost the argument.”
You’re the only one making assessments over who is winning, ****** lol!
Focus, troll, focus. All this psychological projection from you ******** gets embarassing to witness.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:11pmProspero, try having this debate on salon.com and then we’ll take that poll. But the fact remains: 1) your name calling is a dead giveaway (as if one is needed) that you have nothing in terms of argument; and 2) you know so little about the topic that you’ve embarrassed yourself. And I’m still waiting for a shred of scientific proof to establish anything that you have alleged. I won’t hold my breath.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:11pm@abc
Report Post »“But I suppose it really is true that facts and logic are powerless to disabuse misinformed folks of positions taken without facts and logic” I agree or for that matter people that have been brain washed with pseudo science. People believed the earth was flat because they didn’t bother to question what they were told. Nobody questioned it until they thought they had something gain from it being round.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html
“to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data. “
tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:17pm@abc
Report Post »Do you deny that there is big money to be made in the man made global warming scare?
DanSt
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:27pmOur planet is damaged more by the mining of Rare Earth Metals required to produce many “green products” than it is by CO2…but hey, who cares right? It’s only China…Until this conversation is allowed to see the light of day, then it’s obvious that the only green involved in “Going Green” is $$$$$$$.
Report Post »In the meantime, I’ve got a hockey stick for real cheap…it seems that it‘s outgrown it’s usefulness…
abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:54pmTeaPartyBlogger, the article you cite resides on a dead link, but I think I know what it and many others have claimed: that scientists are making up stuff and ignoring minority-view scientists. The key test of this was the multiple investigations at East Anglia, that Malkin and Fox News profiled on their shows when the controversies erupted. Too bad they never followed up. No misconduct was found and nothing was discovered to undermine any of the science (e.g., The Gaggle (Newsweek). June 25, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/25/newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done.html.), while the Columbia Journalism Review criticized major media outlets for undercovering the review results after providing wide coverage of the controversy (http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/wanted_climate_frontpager.php).
So perhaps it is not your fault for not knowing, but the claims in the WSJ have been fully rebutted.
And to answer your question directly about “big money in the man made global warming scare,” I would say that the entire annual budget of US federal climate research is $2B, while the quarterly profits of just Exxon in the mrq was $5B. So I guess it depends on what you call big money. But one thing is certain, there is far more money (at least 25 times as much) to be made by promoting warming denial than to be made by exaggerating the impacts.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:16pmDanst, the impacts from copper mining are far worse than the mining for such rare elements (which go into the motor and batteries of the Prius and other hybrids, by the way) as neodymium, terbium, dysprosium and lanthanum. The sources of these are found in a variety of locations, including the US, Canada, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Africa and Australia; however, China has a disproportionate share, so the mining is often controlled by gangs or other elements that escape proper environmental regulation. But this has nothing to do with the inherent challenges of mining it. It has to do with who is doing it and where. And it is clear that the mining of copper by the Chinese, which has scarred far larger portions of the landscape and put far larger amounts of toxins into the water in China and elsewhere, is nonetheless the bigger source of pollution. You ought to study the volume of earth and leaching chemicals that goes into a copper mine before attempting to claim that terbium mining is dirtier. No expert would claim this. Also, given that autos and light trucks account for roughly one-third of CO2 emissions, it is hard to argue that the impacts from their use in climate change is less deleterious than the impact from terbium mining, especially when the latter is done responsibly. But if you’re going to sneer at miners of terbium, then you ought to sneer at miners generally. And the far dirtier copper miners would be a good place to start. Just ask parents of sickened children in Peru.
Also, the hockey stick isn’t broken and remains highly useful: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:32pmDanst, the supposed debunking of the hockey stick is attributed to McShane and Wyner (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php
28.doug_bostrom at 13:37 PM on 17 August, 2010) But this is yet another fraud that was undermined by a lack of expertise. The supposedly nugget at the center of the paper, for skeptics, was:
“In other words, our model performs better when using highly autocorrelated noise rather than proxies to predict temperature. The real proxies are less predictive than our “fake” data.”
Unfortunately, it appears that M&W compared the performance of proxies sensitive to regional changes against the global NH temperature record. Naturally, the thermometer on your porch (to analogize) will turn out to be a poor proxy for global temperature if you’re trying to tease out changes on the order of a couple of degrees.
Once again, the deniers are playing fast and loose with the data…
Even I should have been able to see that. Rats.
Report Post »megansmom
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:48pmAnd when you point out all these facts in a high school science class you get called a holocaust denier.
Report Post »Truncheon
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 10:46pmABC blathers moronically: “Prospero, try having this debate on salon.com and then we’ll take that poll.”
It doesn’t matter where we have a poll, Troll. Only you claimed to have “won” the argument lol! Yet you asserted it was I making that claim.
ABC blathers: “your name calling is a dead giveaway (as if one is needed) that you have nothing in terms of argument”
A man calls you every name in the book, then declares that the sky is blue. Is he wrong? roflmao!!
ABC blathers: “Funny how the conservative hawks in the DoD have known for years that launching all of the nuclear warhead on the planet can cause a nuclear winter.”
How could anyone possibly know that lol!
ABC blathers: “and please don’t cite water vapor”
No, of course not. Let’s not cite the molecule with a specific heat of “1”, against which all other molecules are compared for their ability to absorb heat. Precious few things can hold more heat than water, of course, but that’s not a factor. No, that wouldn’t be prudent in a discussion of climate change, no…not at all. ROFLMAO!
ABC blathers: “I find it appalling that you … “know” so much and yet are so lacking in evidence from scientific experts. … Do you talk to Jesus? Or does God just put the knowledge directly into your head without an intermediary.”
Heh heh heh! Some brainless wonder with no capacity for independent thought, who places her entire faith in “scientific experts”…as if they were other than just regular human beings with all the failings of every other regular human being…impugns others for failing to think on their own.
As I said. The psychological projection exhibited by liberals grows embarassing.
Report Post »DanSt
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:36amABC , your willingness to minimize the immediate negative impact on our earth caused by the mining of such Rare Earth Metals, that you’ve already admitted are used to produce “green products”, leads this reasonable man to conclude that you are probably heavily invested in “Green Technology” and have very little regard for “saving the planet” and only in getting some quick “green $$$$$”…
Report Post »Your suggestion that the hockey stick deception is still valid only reaffirms my conclusion…The good news is the earth’s climate is changing as it always has…the bad news for the investors hoping to make billions, if not trillions, is that normal adults understand this earth’s climate has been changing long since before man ever walked on this planet…But it’s only until just recently that mankind has become arrogant enough to think it can control the whims of Mother Nature…Let me know when you harness the oceans…then maybe we can talk some more…
DanSt
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:40amAs would thermometers placed near heat sources or removed from rural areas and then relocated in urban settings…but I‘m sure you’ll disagree…
ABC SUGGESTED:
Report Post »Naturally, the thermometer on your porch (to analogize) will turn out to be a poor proxy for global temperature if you’re trying to tease out changes on the order of a couple of degrees.
abc
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 10:59amTruncheon, thanks for proving my point. Water has a high specific heat, which means it holds heat for longer than most other molecules. Hence, it serves as a magnifier of the additional heat absorbed by carbon dioxide. It is a positive feedback loop that amplifies the global warming effect. Thank you for proving my point.
You clearly don’t understand science, putting the word “faith” and “science” in the same sentence. All scientific knowledge is contingent, and we go on probabilities. Conservatives, trained on faith-based everything, know everything with certainty, including the millions of things they think they know that just ain’t so. So I am not placing faith in scientists, but observing an overwhelming majority of them saying the same thing and concluding that they are likely right. You, who have provided ZERO COUNTER-EVIDENCE because you are not capable of it, are not in a position to critique my position. And, in most areas, you likely would do the same thing. When the vast majority of doctors say that smoking causes lung cancer, the majority of conservatives avoid smoking. Funny, the very same scientists and modellers using the very same models to develop nuclear weapons and the Reagan Star Wars anti-missle technology make conclusions, no conservatives protest; however, those same models are being used in the exact same way to model climate and, suddenly, the conclusions are wrong, the models flawed, the scientists biased, etc. There is no logical consistency to how conservatives use science other than if the results align with ideology they like those scientists and when it doesn’t they vilify them. Be consistent. Say global warming is a hoax and scientists are corrupt, but then don’t rely on our nuclear defense, go smoke ten packs a day and don’t avail yourself of any other benefit of modern science. At least then you’d avoid being a hypocrite.
Report Post »abc
Posted on September 23, 2010 at 11:06amDanst, you DO understand that your last post contradicts itself on its face. You simultaneously claim it arrogant (on the part of liberals) to believe that they can make lasting damage to the planet, while claiming it wrong (on the part of liberals) to ignore the severe damage caused by mining rare earth metals. I guess it must be great to go through life not having to make any logical sense.
For the record, I never said I wasn’t concerned about the damage caused by mining terbium. It’s just that you assume that this damage is greater than global warming impacts, which is not the case. Heck, even copper mining is much more inherently dirty, but no one (even liberals) are caling for banning the use of copper pipes.
As for the comment that the earth’s climate continues to change as it always has. This is an incredibly ignorant statement on your part, based either on ignorance of the facts or a bald-faced lie. The data shows overwhelmingly that the earth is warming faster than it has at any point in the history of human civilization and, very likely, in much of prehistory as well. If you cannot even motivate yourself to learn how your claim that the hockey stick is actually correct, drawn from thousands of corraborating data sources and methods, then you obviously have your head in the sand. That is your right. But please don’t criticize me for not doing the same. You can smoke your 20 packs of Marlboros per day and say the cancer data is still inconclusive, but I’ll try to keep my lungs clean and tell others what 95% of scientists believe. You can believe the lies, but please do not spread them unless you are able to debate the science with more than name-calling.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:19pmHitman 2: Silent Assassin (one of my all-time favorites) sold 3.7 million copies to a pretty exclusive niche of the market. Many eschewed the entire line as being too difficult.
This is a game where you play an enhanced clone who just kills the crud out of people for money. They made a movie based on it, starring Timothy Olyphant as Agent 47.
World of Warcraft, a game you pay a monthly fee to play, involving killing people for loot and gear, has 11.5 million subscriptions.
I have to laugh at anyone who thinks they can make a buck off a game that pushes a political ideology.
If you aren’t killing, getting loot, and getting gear, you don’t have a game…
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:19pmbut global warming inititiatives will kill and starve more people that any thing other than a dictator. no game could ever hope to match the carnage that Obama has planed for us! Those who expect to profit from the global warming initiatives will be getting a large piece of a very small pie.
http://commonsense21c.com/CLIMATE.html
Report Post »Sefton
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:13pmNo doubt Sunstein and Holdren were technical advisors.
Report Post »Exterminate the Undesirables is probably one of the options, along with de-develop western culture and financial systems through business killing regulation and cap and tax.
sensiblemom
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:54pmYes, if we see it often enough, it will seem normal. Right?
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:13pmAdd your comments
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:20pmHitman 2: Silent Assassin (one of my all-time favorites) sold 3.7 million copies to a pretty exclusive niche of the market. Many eschewed the entire line as being too difficult.
This is a game where you play an enhanced clone who just kills the crud out of people for money. They made a movie based on it, starring Timothy Olyphant as Agent 47.
World of Warcraft, a game you pay a monthly fee to play, involving killing people for loot and gear, has 11.5 million subscriptions.
I have to laugh at anyone who thinks they can make a buck off a game that pushes a political ideology.
If you aren’t killing, getting loot, and getting gear, you don’t have a game…..
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:26pmAhh but there are options in this game to kill entire populations and create viruses to “cull” large segments. Truly and evil game if ever there was one….
Report Post »JB-Illinois
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:11pmI am sure this will be required for school as a project.
It will probably be worth 70% of their grade.
Can get a good grade only if you believe or if you “save the world” and print up your score.
I wish the video gaming people would worry as much about this message as all the other wholesome ones (this is a joke for all the LIBS.) they offer.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:55pmI feel so sorry for all those hippie kids named globe. Their parents finally allow them to increase their carbon foot print and they get this game.
Report Post »Greeny
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:08pm“It’s first, the award-winning “Climate Change” made for the BBC, was played by over 970,000 gamers.”
Hahahaha! Too funny. Anyone that knows about video games knows that this is equivalent to MSNBC ratings!
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:11pmZzzzzzinnngg!
Report Post »RobR
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:05pmFantasy Island 2.0 would be a much more fitting title.
I hear they’re also developing a new game where Al Gore chases and eats triple Whoppers. It is loosely based on a combination of Mrs. Pac-Man and the old Popeye character Wimpy.
Report Post »BlazingInSC
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:04pmI think the scariest part of this game is that it sponsors concepts like human population control, uninformed anti-nuclear power sentiment, government overthrows — And this is what’s passing for “education through gaming”?!? No thanks. I’ll stick to my Modern Warfare and NCAA Football!
Report Post »Endstatism
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:04pmActually I have a good idea for a Facebook game….. Obamaville
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:47pmOr instead of “Mafia Wars” you could make “Marx Wars” with all your favorite little Marxist characters running around stealing from capitalist & redistributing their wealth to illegal alien aunties.
Report Post »Spokavriel
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:03pmI’ve already played games that involved world climate and similar. Anyone remember Sim Earth? Oh sure its a wider time frame and it has less focus on whiny needy people and involved the pasterns of evolution. But it did still cover climate change and resource requirements.
I wonder if this one will sell as well.
Report Post »Greeny
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:03pmSo in other words it is a game where the player is God. I thought liberals hate religion.
Report Post »Buckaroo
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:37pmnot only that, said game developers may have forgotten that when given god-like powers in a game, kids will often deliberately blow crap up — just to see what happens!
Report Post »:-)
RightWrite
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:03pmIf everyone turns on their air conditioners 24 hours a day and opens the doors and windows, we might be able to stem global warming. Just think, Obama might implement a subsidy to pay for it and also call it stimulus. Is that my Left brain working hard again?
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:01pmYeah, use fantasy to propagate realty. Another clear form of propaganda. Anything to pass cap and trade.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:00pmSure…. And Al Gore has a shell company involved in this venture I bet. Not to mention it is just another indoctrination tool aimed at our children. BOYCOTT this game!
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:59pmHow do you stop Hope and Climate Change???
Report Post »Global Warming or Global cooling?
Maryann or Ginger?
DanSt
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:58pmLet me guess…they lock Mother Nature up and tell her she can‘t do what she’s been doing since the earth was created…
Report Post »Hammerun
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:58pmYea I can see this one being a #1 seller at gamestop!!
Report Post »msnbciscomedy
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:33pmIll buy the game when you can play as Al Gore. Kinda like Grand Theft Auto but your objective is to crash all the evil S-U…Veeeees.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:57pmThere’s also video games where you can steal cars and kill cops.
Report Post »Jsor2112
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:06pmand don’t forget you can hire hookers too LOL
RightWrite
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:08pmCan we “de-develop” the video games to save the environment? Call it “pong”.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:19pmClick on the lower picture for a closer glance…. It gives you options to enforce euthanasia and man-made viruses to “cull” population centers. Not to mention “regime overthrow.” How nice of them to advance the militant nutjobs and give them credibility. Someone will try this and claim that the game made them do it….
Report Post »rocktruth
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:21pmIt’s like Liberal Hollywood, anything to make a buck. Forget morals and truth, lets make some money!
I wonder how video games like these effect students in our PUBIC schools? oops i mean public.
Report Post »Jsor2112
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:22pmI LOVED PONG!! I agree the new games are totally out of control with all the killing, drugs and sex, but on the other side the new racing and sports games graphics blow the doors off of pong!
Report Post »Sheepdog911
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:42pmWow, talk about BORING !!! This one’s fun meter will right up there with cleaning your pig stigh.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:10pmCaptain Planet just wasn’t doing it for the kids anymore. Too many of them wanted grow up and be the oil tycoon.
With all the witchcraft/druidism(summoning earth fire and wind) and the anti capitalist sentiment I can‘t believe it isn’t still popular. Read it back words from bottom to top and The first great Rebel will pop up behind you with a great deal. How long until manbearpig dresses up as captain planet?
“EARTH!”
“FIRE!”
“WIND!”
“WATER!”
“HEART!”
“Go Planet!”
“By your powers combined, I am Captain Planet!”(I guess that is a reference to the UN)
Captain Planet, he’s our hero (just the best refrain ever)
Gonna take pollution down to zero(Ditto)
He’s our powers magnified
And he‘s fighting on the planet’s side(4 billion years old and it cant fight for itself those last few ice ages weren’t anything compared to what CP can do.)
Captain Planet, he’s our hero
Gonna take pollution down to zero
Gonna help him put asunder(this is here because it rhymes with plunder)
Bad guys who like to loot and plunder
‘Or any one else that want to reproduce
‘You Cant live in cities free of disease and refuse
‘ its Earth abuse
“You’ll pay for this Captain Planet!”(I guess this is the bad guy?)
We’re the Planeteers
You can be one too
Cause saving our planet is the thing to do!
Looting and polluting is not the way
Hear what Captain Planet has to say!
“The Power is Yours!” (nag your parents to recycle despite the fact that recycling does more damage to the environment (we have a monopoly on recycling so we don’t care))
Report Post »Firefight
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:26pmThe name of the developer is “Red Redemption” I think that says it all.
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:48pmsomething from a Kenyan promoting green communism SHOCKING
Report Post »tepartyblog.info
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:51pmI must be easy to beat this game you just get everybody to stop doing anything productive.
Report Post »fangbanger
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:25pmthis game looks soooooo lame. like magic the gathering mixxed with al gore. id not want to be the person who plays thi. ill be playing reach
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:44pm@Jsor2112
Don’t forget to kill them afterward and get your money back.
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:56pmtepartyblog.info… I would like to know just what bubble brain came up with the idea for recycling.. like we don’t have ENOUGH to do now we are expected to sort our laundry, food, and GARBAGE.. they can kiss my not recycled rear..LOL..
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 11:07pmWell this may sound bad but my kids get indoctrinated at skrewl. We did’nt even need to purchase a game console or the game itself.
Report Post »REVEL
Posted on September 22, 2010 at 11:15pmAnother attempt to indoctrinate all…We don’t want to leave out the ever so impressionable gamers or comic store card players. They made the cards look just like Yu-gi-oh cards. LOL
Report Post »