Spring RTS Engine

in my mind, human beings are essentially bacteria. nothing else in our planets ecosystem tends to spread as fast, to abuse other life forms without the usual "mother natures plan" of co-existence that other creatures seem to innately understand.

that been said, (and as stated earlier in the thread) there really isn't much chance of us curtailing our effect on the environment from pollution and industrialization in the next few years in my opinion, not when there is profit to be made by large corporations, and not when there are countries that consistently and thoroughly ignore the well-being of our planet in order for their own personal gain.

what happens when WE get a bacterial infection? our bodies attempt to fight it off using whatever means necessary, such as boiling off the infection by changing temperatures and by "symptomatic" responses such as coughing and sneezing. if we do think of our planet as "mother earth" then it seems obvious to me that she's very, very sick right now.

and no. i don't mean this to be a "omg we're bad, god is punishing us with swine flu and aids" sort of post, more of an abstract approach to address the condition as a race that we find ourselves in now.

i wouldn't say i *believe* per se in cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis (google it, its pretty interesting stuff bordering on science fiction) but i do feel that we don't have enough information as to how our planets climate behaves over a very long period of time. certainly if such a thing were true, and it happened again, we would be in a world of hurt.

thinking we are masters of our planet is a fallacy; recorded history only goes back so far; we have only been able to catch a very small glimpse of what happens to our planet over time as temperature and climate analysis has only become "important" recently.

regardless of whether humanity has anything to do with global warming, we're still doing our damnedest in other ways to screw up our ecosystem and future as a species in general. i've never had much faith in science when it comes to ancient history and changes to our planet; many people have built careers on other peoples findings; it's not surprising to me that the scientists involved in this particular fiasco decided to cover up evidence that would have caused their whole lifes work to be discredited.

just look at the sphinx! im sure everyone has seen on discovery channel the whole big shebang of the american geologist examining the weather markings on the rock and deducing that some of it was caused by heavy rainfall... and yet, egyptologists still hold firm in their dating and analysis of the artifact, even in the face of what i would consider to be damning evidence to the contrary.

anyways. enough of my rambling. you're all welcome in my 2012 survival bunker.

So what are you guys' thoughts on the sauce code that was leaked regarding the "Global Warming" models?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... ate_r.html << MUCH more detailed and technical analysis of the Sauce (You coders will probably prefer to read this one, even if you don't agree with the stance), and some fairly damning statements.

****************************************************

I'm curious tho, Hypothetically, if global warming were proved without a doubt to be a giant hoax and a load of asscrap, would you still insist that humans are destroying the earth?

I would, global warming was just one of many factors, and I often treat it as an externality rather than a direct symptom.

Well don't get me wrong. Keep in mind the context used. There is plenty that humans can do to hurt the planet. Killing everything remotely green is one way (I.E. Trees).

However, regarding trees: Wouldn't you say that we use less paper now than we used to due to electronics (Computers, email, etc)?

Thing is, trees can be replanted, but when growing food or leaving trees hands in the balance, my stance is with growing food (All plants eat co2 for dinner ya know).

Not all plants, and I'm more concerned with the energy and thus carbon fuel input in the production of electronic devices than the material usage for paper... though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...

neddiedrow wrote:though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...

The Californian in you shines bright.

neddiedrow wrote:Not all plants

In case you're the least bit curious...

Dr. G wrote:1)Plants that Use Carbon Dioxide (CO2):
Autotrophic Plants
Green plants (the green color comes from the green pigments in chlorophyll molecules) are completely autotrophic. Autotrophic plants require only solar energy, carbon dioxide, water, and a few minerals to make all the organic compounds necessary to keep themselves going and growing. So all autotrophic plants use carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and minerals are all inorganic compounds. Autotrophic plants, then, can get everything they need from inorganic compounds.

Semiparasitic Plants
Some plants can't quite do it all from just water, CO2, and sunlight (and a few other nutrients like nitrogen). Semiparasitic plants have some green parts and can take carbon dioxide from the air, but they can't quite do it all by themselves, so they have to take some nutrients from an autotrophic host plant. In other words, these types of plants actually connect themselves to another plant and take some of the food they need from the host plant. Mistletoe is an example of this kind of plant.

Insectivorous Plants
Another type of plant that uses carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, but still needs a little something extra, are the insectivorous plants. Examples of these are the cool and creepy venus fly trap and pitcher plants. They catch and slowly digest insects and other unfortunate little animals that fall into their traps. Insectivorous plants can live without catching animals but they are a lot healthier if they can catch an occasional bug now and then. Like the semiparasites, they can't make all the organic compounds they need from just air, water, and soil.

2) Plants that don't Use Carbon Dioxide
Holoparasitic Plants
Holoparasitic plants are parasites like the semiparasitic plants which means they have to be directly connected to an autotrophic host plant. But these plants have no green parts and can't do any photosynthesis. They have to get all their nutrients, energy, water, and carbon from the host plant they are attached to. So holoparasitic plants don't use carbon dioxide and don't release oxygen into the air.

The Plants Formerly Known as Saprophytes
The other type of plants that don't use CO2 are the parasitic plants we use to call saprophytes. These plants are now called myco-heterophytes. They have a fascinating connection to the trees that feed them. A fungus, called a mycorrhizal fungus, connects the myco-heterophytes to the tree and transfers the nutrients from the host plant to the parasitic plant. The host plant does all the photosynthesis work to make food, then "shares" some of it, unwillingly no doubt, with the parasitic plant. The fungus feeds the parasite. I assume the fungus feeds itself also.

Also, don't forget:

So what are you guys' thoughts on the sauce code that was leaked regarding the "Global Warming" models?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/ ... ate_r.html << MUCH more detailed and technical analysis of the Sauce (You coders will probably prefer to read this one, even if you don't agree with the stance), and some fairly damning statements.

I'm still awaiting an answer here.

Peet wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...

The Californian in you shines bright.

I'm a southern Californian and I do all my paperwork on soft tortillas.

Thank you, Forb, but I was already aware. Still considering a biological graduate degree of some sort.

Peet wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...

The Californian in you shines bright.

I did the research, don't do drugs, and California may not consume the most per capita. Oregon and Colorado are both quite dependent.

Recently the NIWA and their "adjustment policy" also got some interest as people seem to smell data manipulation here too (or in other words adjustments done without a solid base backed up by facts):

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... tions.html
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images ... ng_nz2.pdf

Two things:

1. We're calling it 'Climate change' now, not global warming, get with the times guys. That way if it turns out to be bullshit we can just go 'Hey but the climate is still changing, amirite?'

2. Insectivorous Plants eat insects to boost their diet, its nothing to do with them being unable to produce organic compounds, its to do with the rubbish soil they grow in and the fact that flies are tasty meat bags with tons of delicious materials.

Kinda makes one believe that additional CO2 at least partially gets compensated by more plant growth...

Here's some food for thought.

Imagine if the 'global warming isn't human-caused' people are right. Imagine if global warming is a natural process. Heck, imagine that it'll reverse itself in 200 years.

Now, imagine a meteor was heading towards earth, or the Yellowstone volcano was erupting, or Roland Emmerich rewrote physics and the world was going to end in 3 years. Earth would recover in all of these situations. Billions of humans would also die in all of these situations. If we were about to be wiped out by a meteor, would we not try and prevent it, by nuking it into smaller pieces or something? Are we not constantly researching the earth, trying to predict and mitigate geological events? Did the people in the overly optimistic 2012 not make giant3d boat models to survive "the end of the world" with?

Good point. Trying to be cautious is not bad.

neddiedrow wrote:though I would like to see a switch over to hemp rather than pulp paper - stronger, cheaper, higher yield, faster growth, fewer resources consumed in production, fewer resources consumed in refinement...

I wrote a paper on this...

KaiserJ wrote:in my mind, human beings are essentially bacteria. nothing else in our planets ecosystem tends to spread as fast, to abuse other life forms without the usual "mother natures plan" of co-existence that other creatures seem to innately understand.

what happens when WE get a bacterial infection? our bodies attempt to fight it off using whatever means necessary, such as boiling off the infection by changing temperatures and by "symptomatic" responses such as coughing and sneezing. if we do think of our planet as "mother earth" then it seems obvious to me that she's very, very sick right now.

and no. i don't mean this to be a "omg we're bad, god is punishing us with swine flu and aids" sort of post, more of an abstract approach to address the condition as a race that we find ourselves in now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK3u2XBb ... r_embedded

Boxxy! <3

Master-Athmos wrote:
Kinda makes one believe that additional CO2 at least partially gets compensated by more plant growth...

Wow, what an impressive picture, I've been converted

lies lies lies each and every word

PS: What is topic?

A sneak peak into the CRU's source code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOsLbsxO ... r_embedded

The topic is Global Cooling.

I'm for it.