Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 Next
Comments 55401 to 55450:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:18 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Just what is wrong with Cliff Mass's method of attribution can be seen by comparing it with a similar but statistically justified method as used in Otto et al, 2012. They calculate a mean increase in Moscow temperatures 1.9 times the GISTEMP 1200 km smoothed increase, or about 0.9 C for July. Using Cliff Mass's method of attribution, we would therefore attribute just 0.9 C of the 5 C anomaly in the Moscow 2010 heatwave to global warming. In fact, however, Otto 2012 shows an approximately 1.5 C increase relative to events of equivalent return interval in the 1960s as the Moscow heat wave had in the 2000s (as determined by models). That is, Mass's guesstimate would have been out by 40% for Moscow 2010. That does not mean it will be out by similar amounts for other heat waves. It may be out by smaller or larger amounts. Because of the crude nature of his method, we have know way of knowing in advance of a decent analysis just how much. -
Chris G at 07:54 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
I think Tamino has it. I think you can get the results that Hansen has if the cooler areas warm more than the warmer areas. Not that Hansen's results are inaccurate; I think you just have to understand them within the correct context. From a global context, the distribution has gotten hotter and flatter, which is what Hansen shows, but that does not imply that the change has to be spatially uniform. IDK, have to read his paper again, but it may be that is what he meant the whole time. Esop, I'm thinking 'yes', but there is more to it than that. The jetstream(s) pattern is determined by where the major convective patterns, Hadley, intertropical, and polar, meet at a downwelling. The latitude of the downwelling is affected by how long it takes to radiate off the energy gained at low altitude, and that is a function of GHG content, as well as how much energy is gained low altitude, which is affected by surface albedo. Someone please tell me if there is something wrong with my understanding. In any case, I can't see why anyone would doubt that an increase in energy content would manifest itself in the form of hotter temperatures, and you can't get hotter temperatures without shifting the distribution. -
shoyemore at 07:20 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
dana1981, Lionel A & DB, The URL worked out and I saw the animation. Very impressive. Thanks. -
Esop at 06:58 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Isn't it correct that the Russian heat wave of 2010, the US heatwaves of 2011 and 2012 as well as the miserable 2011 and 2012 summers for Northern Europe seem to have been mainly caused by the rather major changes in the jetstream, which is linked to the rapidly diminishing Arctic sea ice, whose disappearing act is very, very likely mainly due to AGW. Thus, I would think that the causal link between AGW and said heatwaves should be fairly solid? -
r.pauli at 06:26 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
re: "photographs" to accompany message Lady Gaga can sing and flaunt and make music videos. She can fill a small stadium. Madonna in concert mentioned the trials of the Pussy Riot hoolicanistas.. and in a few seconds greatly influence their fate. When the world, when all media voices decides to face up to global warming, we will. For now we are on the edges, the mainstream media is in a plundering carbon mode -- practicing various forms of denial - and I suspect fully aware of the bubble. -
Chris G at 05:34 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Tony #3, Not very scientific, but in the sense that any short curve can be approximated by a line, and projecting BAU, the eye-chronometer tells me that we will hit 20% land surface area covered by 3-sigma events (or greater) in about 25 years. Not much time all things considered. -
Andy Skuce at 05:25 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
BWTrainer@14 I fully agree that using photographs or other images can be very effective in communication, even the "decorative" ones used in the study you referred to. The point about the forest fire photo was that it apparently (er) backfired on the writer of the comment that I quoted. I saw the same photo and it had no conscious effect on me (it was included, coincidentally, in the previous SkS post to this one), but it obviously caused a negative response in at least one person. Incidentally, this discussion led me to check the wildfire statistics for the USA and it appears that this year-to-date is bad but not exceptional, despite the record heat and drought. Thus, this photograph not only raises hackles but also provides a segue for an otherwise irrelevant "skeptic" talking point. My concern is simply that rhetoric, because it appeals to the emotions, can have unpredictable effects on those who do not share your worldview. We have to be careful to measure our success not just on how we rouse the people who already get it on climate change but on the unintended reactions of the those who don't. -
Lionel A at 05:19 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
shoyemore On FF 14.0.1 here Figure 1 when right-clicked on indicates a Quicktime plug-in is required. -
SEAN O at 04:46 AM on 15 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Sorry Try this -
r.pauli at 04:38 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Ah... how great this moment is.... we fully accept the science of global warming. Now, we arrive at a point of studying human reactions and the psychology of communicating needs to change. We are fully confident that the physics of climate change will unfold as they must - and that humans will meet and respond as we can. The science is now shifted from climate science to studying our species. -
dana1981 at 03:55 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
tony - I think you would probably have to answer the question regarding how much of the distribution is due to shifting means and how much due to increasing variance etc. in order to accurately extrapolate to the future (as well as knowing how much warming to expect). shoyemore - you may need some sort of plug-in to see the video, but it's essentially just an animation of the four bell curves below in Figure 1. -
Lazarus at 03:35 AM on 15 August 2012New research from last week 32/2012
Does the study about air pollution masking climate signals in tree rings infer anything about the divergence problem found in some tree rings? -
shoyemore at 03:27 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Figure 1 is totally a blank to me ... though I can see four bell-curves at the bottom. The main rectangle is apparently empty.Moderator Response: [DB] As Dana says below, possibly a plugin/browser issue (looks fine in FF 14). The URL for the animation is http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003900/a003975/bell_final_comp.m4v. -
vrooomie at 03:23 AM on 15 August 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Albatross@4: As is my norm, I'm drilling into each and every post here, at SkS, reading all the referenced links and data sources and in the spirit of open mindedness, I went and read up at WCR: Pray tell, is there any eye bleach you'd recommend, or where would I find an "unsee" button? And I thought WUWT was painful. Onwards and upwards! -
tony at 03:18 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Looking at Figure 1 I was wondering if it is feasible and statistically valid to extrapolate from these data a projection of the further shifting of summer temperature anomalies into the future ? -
dana1981 at 02:49 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Bernard @1 - yes it will be a combination of effects, which is why I worded it 'whether the increase is due more to...'. We (specifically Kevin C) will be addressing that question in an upcoming post. -
Bernard J. at 01:46 AM on 15 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
However, it does not impact the main result of Hansen et al., that global warming has caused extreme heat events to occur more frequently and to be more intense on average. The question is more of a technical issue - whether the increase in extreme heat events is due more to an increased temperature variability, to the warmer shift in average temperatures, or to increased skewness in the temperature distribution.
Or to a combination of some or all of the aforementioned... In any case, human-caused global warming is responsible. -
BWTrainer at 00:53 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Andy S: Quite the contrary, according to recent research Researchers looking at Stephen Colbert's 'truthiness' demonstrated that "People are more likely to believe something is true if a photograph appears alongside the story". -
John Brookes at 00:34 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
I read an essay by George Orwell, and remember a few things, but the one that stuck was to invent new metaphors. Never use tired old metaphors, or cliches. -
Chris Crawford at 00:13 AM on 15 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
Dale, I have contacted more than 150 different organizations, ranging from green to "peak oil", climate change, environmental, energy, education, conservation... it's amazing how, by following blog rolls, you can find an ever-larger circle of possibilities. I balked at government organizations because they're too slow to respond to the short time window of a Kickstarter project. I didn't try the Koch brothers, but I did consider blackmailing them: "Gimme a million bucks or I'll publish this thing!" -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:08 AM on 15 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Look forward to reading the book. It's not easy to step outside your comfort zone and speak to an unfamiliar audience, especially a 'mass' audience. It's easy to talk to colleagues and peers - everyone speaks the same language. Move beyond that to a specific audience and it's not that hard for most of us, provided we have a reasonable idea of how much they know about the subject. Go beyond that to a mixed audience comprised of people who have some understanding through to people who have no understanding and are openly fearful of the subject, even to the extent of being hostile - and it is a whole other challenge. Politicians and community leaders have to face this when speaking in public. They don't always succeed in communicating complex issues. Most scientists don't ever have to speak about their work to anyone but other scientists. Some have to communicate with policy makers, investors or other lay persons. Climate scientists are increasingly being asked to speak to all sorts - from the eminently uninformed to decision-makers (not that they are mutually exclusive). Talking about science shouldn't be left up to researchers and it's not. Thankfully there are people like John Cook and his crew and Joe Romm et al who are trained in science but work as science communicators. -
Paul D at 23:32 PM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
I don't think war is going to go away just because everyone becomes green. Civ reflects what we know about ourselves and of course people like playing competitive games that involve winning a fight. There is no reason at all why Civ can not include the use of green developments and seeing how they do against fossil fuels. Really it requires the setting of a different goal for winning. That will then determine how a game is played and what technology is used. -
John Brookes at 23:21 PM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Ahh, what a lovely post. Thank you for providing such a good summary. -
vrooomie at 23:18 PM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
SEAN O, I get nothing when I click on your link. -
vrooomie at 23:14 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Might I also suggest another book which is highly relevant, even 50+ years after its first publishing: "Language In Thought And Action," by S.I. Hayakawa. Highly recommended! Language In Thought And Action http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-Fifth-Edition/dp/0156482401 -
vrooomie at 23:09 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Andy@5: --Not only are there local ordinances that proscribe me EVER 'donning a bikini' in public, there is also... --NO WAY any person, perhaps especially male persons, can resist clicking your link. I had never seen Gaga in the aforementioned carne-suit, but...*now* I have. Time to go eat lunch....! Back to the regularly-scheduled science discussion....;) -
vrooomie at 23:05 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
I will also read the book and then comment further. In the meantime, as regards the use of metaphors to convey complex scientific concepts, I think one critical key is to have mastery of the subject at hand, and being able to relate it to layfolk in terms of a common everyday occurance/object/action/thing with which they are familiar. Before becoming a geologist in the late 90s, I spent close to 30 years as a professional auto mechanic. I "retired" from that field in the early 90s to pursue my long-postponed secondary education. Fast forward to 1997: I applied to Columbia University Biosphere II's NASA-funed internship and when writing up my resume, I chose to leave out all my car-related experience, thinking it utterly irrelevant to doing work in the earth sciences. My then-girlfriend, who was and is much more astute than I about such matters, cautioned me against that, stating those experiences and expertise might be of interest to someone reading my app. So, in went the references to my experience repairing Jaguars and Rolls-Royces....>-/ I was doubbtful anyone in an earth science field would care.... Lo and behold, when I was accepted to the program, the head of the BSII project at the time, Bill Harris (also head of NSF, at the time) contacted me and did a final interview with me, on the phone. From memory, this is essentially what Harris told me, as to why he chose me. "I have a Corvette, and I wonder, when you get down here (Oracle, AZ) would you be willing to help with some issues on the car?" The short of it is: Over the years, my 'mastery,' such as it is, of things automotive has been *invaluable* in being able to convey complex scientific issues to those not so trained. It is true, as someone mentioned, that metaphor can only go so far, but if by using that technique, you can get a person's brain to 'click into' the key concept you're trying to convey, then it usually is easier to trend towards more esoteric and scholastic means to discuss the issues at hand. I look forward to reading Romm's insights. -
Camus at 22:42 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Good review. The scientific community has great difficulty in communicating with the general public, via a media that relies far too much on false equivalency and a "he said, she said" mode of exposition. Contrairians assert that "it's all a hoax," and the response is what one might expect from a journal abstract: full of qualifications and caveats. The advice to keep it simple and repeat needs to be taken more to heart. Use simple, declarative sentences, without qualification, as much as that may pain most scientists. For example: "The best science shows that the human species is in peril." James Hansen, at least, has figured this out. But too many scientists think even speaking to the public directly somehow sullies their reputation. -
Camus at 22:26 PM on 14 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
@ Albatross on #17: "It is really troubling that "skeptics" and contrarians like Christy are permitted to grossly and repeatedly mislead Congress without any consequence whatsoever. Policy makers need the best science to make informed decisions..." Don't make the mistake of assuming that the purpose of congressional hearings is to air the best science. It's just a dog and pony show. With a few exceptions, these people already understand the science, but they are serving a completely different agenda. The scientific community, however much scientists may generally disdain politics, needs to become far more politically savvy. Because this is what you are up against: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Statement&Statement_ID=4f92dad8-2308-4c1e-aba3-b39d33486519 -
Camus at 22:09 PM on 14 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
@Moderator response to #11: I think there is considerable evidence that funding matters. This blog rightly focuses on the substance of the science, and discouraging ad hom attacks is entirely appropriate. However, for what it's worth, I don't believe that making funding sources transparent constitutes an ad hom. While not currently popular among researchers, many professional societies have attempted to implement ethical guidelines for funding transparency, given the strong correlation between funding and findings. IMHO, I think revealing the funding of research should be standard practice. -
michael sweet at 21:24 PM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Lloyd, It would be a good idea to read the paper before criticizing it. They have checked for normality and find that the distribution has shifted. Tamino does not agree with that conclusion on his blog. Hansen's work is peer reviewed. Please provide data to support your analysis. You assume that Hansen did not review the paper with a statistician. I doubt your assumption is correct. After all it was on the web for months for comments like yours. -
les at 19:09 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Nicely review. I particularly liked the use of repetition on paragraph 4. I wonder if we'll see, in future blog posts, more use of the techniques you illustrate in the fourth paragraph, i.e. repetition... -
Kevin C at 19:04 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
I haven't read the book (of course). Nonetheless, in true internet form, I'll comment authoritatively on the review. Firstly, all this is well known to anyone with any background in public speaking outside science. The value in Joe's work is therefore in bringing it to a specific audience and presumably in introducing some field specific examples. Beyond that, it gets messy. The problem with communicating in metaphor is that metaphors can only be pushed so far. If you give your audience a partial understanding of a system based on a metaphor, you also give them the tools to reach wrong conclusions on the basis of that incomplete understanding. That's a tough problem. I'm not saying don't use metaphor (indeed arguably all of science is an exercise in metaphor), but that doing requires care - it can backfire. This is a symptom of a deeper problem (which can probably be expressed more precisely using a sociological terminology of which I am unaware). Our natural mode of reasoning is something I call 'social reasoning'. In this mode, arguments which are simple and link in to things we already know are the most persuasive. However, this mode of reasoning is not well adapted to scientific exploration - this is presumably a contributing factor to the scientific hiatus between ancient Greece and the Enlightenment. Effective scientific reasoning is logically consistent and deeply evidence based, both of which compromise simple expression. Thus scientific arguments are frequently less 'fit' in social discourse than social reasoning. Again, that's a tough problem. I've got ideas here; Romm may have more, so I'll certainly try and make time to read the book. -
Dale at 15:36 PM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
Chris: Here's a crazy thought. Have you contacted the people/orgs directly in the climate/energy business? This includes research facilities such as GISS, Suzuki Foundation, WWF, energy companies, Govt Climate Commissions, and dare I say it, the Koch's? There's also "people movements" such as GetUp here in Australia (which can move a LOT of small people in a very short time). Specifically people/orgs with a direct interest in climate communication and getting knowledge out to the public. -
Andy Skuce at 14:54 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
chriskoz@3: I think it's because of the way Lady Gaga uses repetition and extended metaphor. Also, her videos get a staggering number of hits, so she must be doing something right. There are limits though, I'm sure that Joe is not advising John Cook or any of the rest of us to don a raw-meat bikini, effective attention-getter though that would be. Chris Mooney has an extended interview with Joe Romm. -
Uncle Pete at 14:53 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Rhetoric aside, the laws of physics even apply in the parallel universe inhabited by Sen. Inhofe, the Heartland institute , Plimer et al. :) -
chriskoz at 14:18 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
John, or whoever has read the book, Lady Gaga's listing among the esteemed persona as mentioned above is intriguing yet left unexplained. Does anyone have the explanation (best if supported by relevant citation) of such listing?Response: [JC] He cites examples of Lady Gaga using rhetorical techniques like repetition and metaphors in her songs. You'll have to read the book for more details :-) -
Andy Skuce at 13:41 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
I'man assiduousa keen reader of Joe's blog and I go there often to find out what's happening in both science and policy. He's an excellent writer, too, and I'm so sure that I can learn lots from him that I immediately bought a Kindle copy of his new book. But (there's always a "but") I wonder how effective his style is in getting inside the heads of the doubtful and disengaged and actually changing their minds? There was a good comment on Planet3.0 , one I didn't entirely agree with, but which did express very well why some people often recoil from forceful rhetoric. Dan Thompson wrote:Now, I will say, for me, the recent Hansen paper makes sense. I like its sober approach. But when that paper is rolled up and I’m beaten with it, figuratively of course, what choice to I have other than to take the opposite stance and fight back? I saw an informal summary of Hansens’ paper published by Columbia.edu leads with a photo of a huge forest fire. It’s like they need that bit of drama to bring readers in. But drama quickly puts us on edge, feeling that we’re being knowingly manipulated, with the result being that you don’t quite trust what you’re reading.
I'm relying here on my familiarity with Joe's blogging style, not with his book, which I haven't yet read. I will be interested to read how he deals with the psychology of persuasion. Maybe his straight-ahead style is the only one that works in today's polarized world of American politics, but I can't help thinking that he could use a little more honey with his vinegar. -
Chris Crawford at 13:14 PM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
Wow, you've got a good memory! Yes, the original game had a factor for people falling off their roofs while cleaning their solar units. This really is a significant consideration -- a LOT of people die each year falling off their roofs. I've forgotten the numbers, but the overall number per gigawatt-year was in the same league with most other energy sources. I didn't include it in this edition because nowadays we're talking about more centralized solar installations, or installations on large buildings that would be serviced by pros, so the death rate goes way down. But yes, I had to dig through numbers to come to that decision. -
Bernard J. at 13:01 PM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Have they actually checked for normality or is the distribution a heavier or lighter tailed one? Have they checked for change in variance with time? Have autocorrelations in time and space been allowed for?
I think that the statistical understanding of the researchers is rather more sophisticated than the low level that would be required to ignore such basic processing. And even though such tests are useful, there's the simple fact that many analyses are robust to departures from standard assumptions, especially where such departures are slight. Further, there's the simple fact of the consilience of different datasets with each other, and with the underlying physics. If there is a Type I error occurring, then there is a huge problem not just with some statistical analyses, but with the fundamental scientific understanding of basic physical processes. Ockham's parsimony razor is unkind to such discrepant protruberances. -
calyptorhynchus at 12:13 PM on 14 August 2012Book review: Language Intelligence by Joe Romm
Good luck! The reason that communicating global warming and other upcoming environmental catastrophes is that a huge change in mindset is required. Up to now our society has operated under the assumption that we can do anything, we are in control, our desire for economic development cannot be modified in any way. All this has to change. -
Bert from Eltham at 11:52 AM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Yes we need at least five sigma signal to incontrovertibly prove our premise. This will be very robust and far too late! The statistics of extreme events do not prove the case but taken with all the other indicators that are all skewed toward a warming Earth are a very compelling argument. Bert -
SEAN O at 11:29 AM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Tamino has a look at the paper. -
SomeDude89 at 10:55 AM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
I like Ollie's suggestion of randomized (and maybe hidden) biases. Combining that with multiple turns (3 still sounds a bit low) should make for good replay value. Let the player review and respond to the results each turn. That's what made the DOS game engaging, before getting familiar with all the effects. No mass fall deaths in this version? That was kind of funny... -
adelady at 10:50 AM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
Perhaps we should wait for the analysis tomorrow on the paper itself before going too far down this road. -
Lloyd Flack at 09:51 AM on 14 August 2012The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
It's good that people are now looking at theglobal pattern of extreme events rather than at individual ones. Any signal will be detectable in the ensemble rather than in individual observations. But they really do need a statistician in on this rather than relying on their own knowledge of statistics. There are things that they have not done in this study that need to be done to make the conclusions more robust. Have they actually checked for normality or is the distribution a heavier or lighter tailed one? Have they checked for change in variance with time? Have autocorrelations in time and space been allowed for? I don't see any sign of these having been considered and as a statistician I would want them to have been looked at. This looks like a case of non statisticians doing their own statistics when they should not. I think the conclusions are probably correct but are not robust enough. -
Chris Crawford at 07:35 AM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
I'll chime in with Dale by noting that Civ is fundamentally a war game. That's its point and purpose. It wasn't designed to teach history, economics, military science, or environmentalism. It was designed to be fun -- and it does that very, very well. I love that game. Balance of the Planet can't hold a candle to Civ in terms of fun. That's because it was NOT designed to be fun -- it was designed to be educational, and in that, it greatly outpaces Civ. -
scaddenp at 07:11 AM on 14 August 20122nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The point of redirection to SoD is to help you understand the physics - that AGW does not in fact involve a mechanism that violates 2nd Law nor that it proposes a novel definition of 2nd law. Keep reading - try to understand what is actually happening. -
Dale at 06:54 AM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
Paul @15 The problem is, Civ is a war-game, not a planet simulator like Chris is creating. That's why environmentalism doesn't really get a lookin in Civ. ;) Try Alpha Centauri if you're looking for a more environmental focus. -
Paul D at 05:46 AM on 14 August 2012A game designer's contribution to the climate solution
I have played Civ II to V and haven't been impressed by any of them when it comes to environmental issues. In Civ IV they lost the plot and linked it to nuclear war. The problem they have is that they do not show how to develop alternative political strategies to achieve a result. You are stuck with war, trade and no differentiation between low carbon strategies etc. There isn't a built in analysis of carbon footprints based on certain trade stategies. eg. I doubt if there is a difference between importing a product rather than producing it locally. Hence you can't experiment to see what happens if all nations make do with what they have locally etc. What if your nation went vegetarian? And what about developing low carbon tech? There is tremendous potential in Civ to create a genuine low carb product that challenges players to try something different.
Prev 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 Next
