Climate Challenge Game

Last August a game was trialled called "The Climate Challenge". I took part with others, and it is now being officially launched on the BBC Science & Nature website next Tuesday 16th.

It is a game where you are president of the European Nations. You must tackle climate change and stay popular enough with the voters to remain in office.

I recall I did very well; I saved the world.

Let's see if you can do as well as me and take the decisions to keep the planet safe.

You can play they game in advance of launch next Tuesday;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/

Screen shots; https://albion.red-redemption.com/press/

This is where I posted my results here in CPDN last August. Yes, that was me; Sir BeeKeeper of the Knights Who Say Ni!

These were my results;



Open challenge - please take me on if you dare. Play the game and let's see if you know enough about Climate Change to save the world, and keep everyone loving you.

---

flaming balloons

Here's a list of institutes, foundations, and entities which are denying global warming/climate change for profit.

Ohferchrissakes. More misleading Barbra Streisand.

Take for example the Reason Foundations or the CATO Institute or others on that list. They're libertarian organizations. Part of their fundamental principles is to fight against intrusive gov't meddling. Of COURSE they're against new laws, and of COURSE they accept money from corporations that have the same interests. That means nearly ALL laws, Kyoto or building codes. Corporate welfare and new weapons programs. Not to mention, many of them are not-for-profits.

It disingenuous to suggest that because an entity accepts support from corporations that they do not have principles.

One could just as easily list all of the ideologues that are pro-Kyoto, from Greenfarce, to DirtFirst! to Sierra Schlub and Move.on that accept money "for profit" to promote their ideology.

Like I said previously in this thread, this is why you look at the arguments in question, not the organizations involved.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Heh, this whole discussion is so comparing apples with peaches.
You really want to compare multi billion dollar corps with greenpeace and similar organizations?

Do they have to fear for their profit? There are tons of other issues like saving rainforrest, whales, whatever.

It's a complete different ballgame when it comes to companies who have to fear for losses in height of billions of dollars. I think everybody can imagine a comparison how much money those companies have for lobby work and how much organisations like greenpeace.

Besides that thise corps and their shareholder have for sure quite some shares of media corporations.

I am no hippie, in fact I am rather conservative. But I hate being taken for a fool. I have worked long enough in marketing to know how arrogant think tanks are - they think that YOU and ME are just plain stupid and they can influence us in every direction they want. Therefore I don't like overhyping climate change as well as I don't like the effort to manipulate people for profit. The only really important thing is the future of our children and people who sell it for money make me sick.

The people who want actions now might be wrong. The results would still be positive for us all. More jobs and less pollution. But what will the ones here, who don't want to take actions tell their children in 30 years - sorry I have been an idiot, they managed to fool me?

Heh, this whole discussion is so comparing apples with peaches.
You really want to compare multi billion dollar corps with greenpeace and similar organizations?

Do they have to fear for their profit? There are tons of other issues like saving rainforrest, whales, whatever.

It's a complete different ballgame when it comes to companies who have to fear for losses in height of billions of dollars. I think everybody can imagine a comparison how much money those companies have for lobby work and how much organisations like greenpeace.

Besides that thise corps and their shareholder have for sure quite some shares of media corporations.

I am no hippie, in fact I am rather conservative. But I hate being taken for a fool. I have worked long enough in marketing to know how arrogant think tanks are - they think that YOU and ME are just plain stupid and they can influence us in every direction they want. Therefore I don't like overhyping climate change as well as I don't like the effort to manipulate people for profit. The only really important thing is the future of our children and people who sell it for money make me sick.

The people who want actions now might be wrong. The results would still be positive for us all. More jobs and less pollution. But what will the ones here, who don't want to take actions tell their children in 30 years - sorry I have been an idiot, they managed to fool me?

You have missed one very important factor in all of this. Government. It is ultimately government that decides what is done about Climate Change, or what is not done to be more precise. Government is lobbied by industry, and fends off irritants alike Greenpeace. Who are Greenpeace or similar organizations to tell government when government knows? Oh sure, they know things and produce websites full of 'evidence', but it is mostly hyped up to try to inflate the importance of these organizations and the people that run them.

And what about industry? They have their own interests to look after and, apart from nominal donations to charities, they are out to make money and beat their competitors. Industry will try in influence government, who have the ultimate say in what happens - government dictates policy and taxes to decide how Climate Change is managed. Government is made up of the greedy and the incompetent as well as those who try but cannot make happen what should.

Send letters to your MP? Protest? Join Greenpeace? Hope industry will do the right thing? Hope the government will see sense? Will any of it change a twig?

I wrote letters to my MP, I joined Greenpeace, I wrote to industry, I grew extra trees in my garden and run a tiny 1400cc car. At least I can say that I tried.

---

flaming balloons

You have missed one very important factor in all of this. Government. It is ultimately government that decides what is done about Climate Change, or what is not done to be more precise. Government is lobbied by industry, and fends off irritants alike Greenpeace.

Jupp! The answer is very simple. Vote fore a government that chose to base their actions on science instead of the oillobby.

---

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

---

flaming balloons

You repeatedly twist correct answers to questions into wrong answers to questions that weren't even asked. There's a word for that. It begins with 'tr' and ends with 'ling'.

Would you like to re-phrase that Mr. Eric Korpela? Is it possible that you have such little understanding of climate change that you
have to resort to this crap to hide behind your ignorance? Play the Climate Change Game. I dare you. Let's see how much you know.

Here is my score. It's easy to beat. Some in CPDN did. But can you?

---

flaming balloons

I am quite sure there is a chance that we can keep cars (just different tech) and can continue eating meat while still fighting greenhouse gas. There are quite some jobs which could be created doing so - but also important will be that work pays out and people have the money to be able to afford bio-food and new cars.

The current system has it's emphasis on cutting down wages, though - which also results in less buying power of the majority of the people. Scientists have researched that the new system will result in only 20% of the population actually getting richer while the rest gets poorer or stays poor. What a waste for the economy if 80% of the people will no longer have the money to spend for example on a new car someday.

In the end the rich elite and the companies would probably earn even more if work would pay out - and that with a lower crime rate and less social tensions.

Good point about gouvernments, too. Unfortunately the political system today favours the career type who is usually either loving his pic in the newspaper or his purse and feels not too much responsibility to his country and citizens. Even if a "good guy" will make it the lobbyists will pile up so much dirt and put pressure on the news corps that he can't change anything but has to give up. That's because unfortunately a huge majority is more interested in TV then democracy today.

Toyota is becoming the n.1 auto manufacturer thanks to its hybrid cars, which burn less fuel per mile or km and pollute less, which the European auto industry has snobbed in favour of Diesel powered cars which produce small particles (PM10) and smog. Is not this a proof that less polluting technologies can give also a good ROI (Return On Investments)? I worked once for SGS, now STMicroelectronics, and its CEO, Pasquale Pistorio, insisted on the fact that in its factories by recycling water and adopting less polluting technologies he could lower the production costs of integrated circuits.
Tullio

---

US presidential race rivals join forces on climate
18:01 12 January 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10952-us-presidential-race-rivals-join-forces-on-climate.html

---

Britain 'will be tropical by 2100' - Prediction is based on BOINC crunching

ROASTINGLY hot summers, monsoon-style winter rains and flooding, plus the destruction of much of the nation’s ecosystems and wildlife will make “our green and pleasant land” almost unrecognisable by 2100, Britain’s biggest weather prediction experiment suggests.

Sir David Attenborough will present the near-apocalyptic vision of Britain’s future in a BBC documentary, Climate Change: Britain Under Threat, to be screened next Sunday on BBC1. [edit] 20:00 on BBC1

The experiment began a year ago when a documentary invited viewers to use their computers to run climate prediction models. More than 54,000 responded around the the world and together they became part of the largest climate prediction project ever undertaken.

The experiment is still running and would-be participants can join it at www.climateprediction.net.

The data generated was sent to Oxford University to be analysed and the result is the most detailed picture yet produced of Britain’s likely future climate

"One consequence, according to a scientist featured in the programme, is that the typical Victorian terrace or semi will become intolerably hot in summer."

---

flaming balloons

Toyota is becoming the n.1 auto manufacturer thanks to its hybrid cars, which burn less fuel per mile or km and pollute less, which the European auto industry has snobbed in favour of Diesel powered cars which produce small particles (PM10) and smog. Is not this a proof that less polluting technologies can give also a good ROI (Return On Investments)? I worked once for SGS, now STMicroelectronics, and its CEO, Pasquale Pistorio, insisted on the fact that in its factories by recycling water and adopting less polluting technologies he could lower the production costs of integrated circuits.
Tullio

No technology is without its unique problems.

Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness

No technology is without its unique problems.

I agree. According to EPA, cars with catalytic converters produce up to 20 times the emission of N2O (nitrogen protoxide) with respect to a car without them, and N2O is the third (or fourth, if you include water vapor) cause of greenhouse effect. In today's Corriere della Sera, the Milan newspaper, the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection states that an Euro 4 diesel car (of the most recent and advanced type) pollutes more than an Euro 1 car powered by a gasoline engine.
An old Venetian proverb says "el tacon xe pezo del buso", which means "the remedy is worse than the illness".
Tullio

---

No technology is without its unique problems.

I agree. According to EPA, cars with catalytic converters produce up to 20 times the emission of N2O (nitrogen protoxide) with respect to a car without them, and N2O is the third (or fourth, if you include water vapor) cause of greenhouse effect. In today's Corriere della Sera, the Milan newspaper, the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection states that an Euro 4 diesel car (of the most recent and advanced type) pollutes more than an Euro 1 car powered by a gasoline engine.
An old Venetian proverb says "el tacon xe pezo del buso", which means "the remedy is worse than the illness".
Tullio

Water vapor must be included as it is the greenhouse gas with the single largest effect.

No technology is without its unique problems.

I agree. According to EPA, cars with catalytic converters produce up to 20 times the emission of N2O (nitrogen protoxide) with respect to a car without them, and N2O is the third (or fourth, if you include water vapor) cause of greenhouse effect. In today's Corriere della Sera, the Milan newspaper, the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection states that an Euro 4 diesel car (of the most recent and advanced type) pollutes more than an Euro 1 car powered by a gasoline engine.
An old Venetian proverb says "el tacon xe pezo del buso", which means "the remedy is worse than the illness".
Tullio

Water vapor must be included as it is the greenhouse gas with the single largest effect.

I fear I must expose my ignorance on the subject here, but, I didn't know that water vapor was a gas or is even considered a "greenhouse gas"?

EDIT: Yup, it is, I went and looked it up. So with that said, the warmer the climate, the more evaporation that occurs and thus increasing this particular greenhouse gas?

---

---

Looks like we need to make more cement.

---

me@rescam.org

Looks like we need to make more cement.

And cut back on the use of "Total".

Looks like we need to make more cement.

And cut back on the use of "Total".

Cement is known to absorb water vapor

---

flaming balloons

Here is my score. It's easy to beat. Some in CPDN did. But can you?

I got 81, 41, 100 on my first try, without taking the tutorial first. Do you total the numbers to determine "who won"? What's it supposed to prove? It's a game about reading bar graphs and a needle gauge. I probably would have gotten the same score if it was a game with an entirely different subject. It's certainly not as complex as a typical strategy game. It doesn't teach much, if anything, about the mechanisms of global warming, politics, or economics for that matter.

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)