OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by MakeeLearn »

TOO MANY TREES!
Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate.

That's the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.

The team says the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.

This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973




NOT ENOUGH TREES!
The first American settlers cut down millions of trees to deliberately engineer climate change
https://timeline.com/american-settlers- ... 7b68bd9064

After Columbus, Europeans and their descendants also modified forests for their benefit, but with major differences. Paramount was the near-universal perspective that forests were either a threat that hid enemies, an obstacle to settlement, a resource to be converted to profit or all the above. In 1807, Irish author Isaac Weld wrote that Americans had an “unconquerable aversion to trees.” This attitude was backed up by steel axes, saws and plows that greatly increased the efficiency of converting forests to pastureland and crop fields. Selling fuel wood, bark for tanning and other wood products helped cover the cost of clearing the forest or provided extra income for established farmers. Initially, the pace of clearance was relatively slow, but the impacts accelerated with the ever-expanding population, which, by the 1800s, was doubling every 20 to 30 years. By 1850, the lowland forests of the Atlantic seaboard, New England and much of the Midwest had largely been cleared.

https://www.americanforests.org/magazin ... ge-of-man/






User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by MakeeLearn »

...

Image
Attachments
1449545907603.jpg
1449545907603.jpg (307.53 KiB) Viewed 437 times






User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9304
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

After all, the consensus viewpoint is unassailable and the consequences of not following along too great. We must suppress all contrary thought so we can move forward and solve the problem. All aboard!

Nobody is actually saying this, hence the eyerolling. However, surely you've familiar with risk vs. reward? You've shown yourself to be a remarkably risk-averse WITP player (which works fine with your implacable style of planning) and you obviously understand risk/reward in a wargaming (and historical wartime) context. Honestly, I find your risk assessment in this matter inexplicable except for the existence of fallacies and parroting of unfounded talking points (rather than actual, honest personal research). I have not stated this explicitly and instead simply asked that you post citations, out of the assumption that maybe you really had only come across actual, reputable science to support your position. Alas, you have provided zero such citations.

Furthermore, faux-polite indignation created by assuming bad intent/contempt on the part of posters who have been explicitly polite is itself dismissive and contemptuous, not to mention extremely passive-aggressive and unbecoming of an otherwise respected member of our community.

Nobody has been attacked in this thread - only stated positions - and I don't think anybody here wants to disrespect anybody else. Please do not confuse attacks or challenges of stated positions with personal attacks. They are quite obviously not. (Full disclosure: I haven't read every post in this thread in full in the interest of remaining calm and detached, and am merely responding to the direct, in some cases quoted, context of several remarks.)
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Canoerebel »

What if the skeptics are right? In that case, a generation of the brightest scientists (the ones able to buck the majority and stick to their guns) will have been picked on, suppressed, ridiculed, marginalized, and discredited while the weaker scientists were promoted. In that case, "survival of the fittest" will have been turned upside down. There is a cost to being wrong, scientifically, politically and environmentally. Why the latter? If we're spending time and money on faulty science that could be spent on other concerns, we've lost.

As for the environment in here, there have been contemptuous comments directed at the skeptics here and towards the sciencists as a whole. And if you read my posts above (the bios about five leading skeptics), you'll see that they've faced that kind of thing x1,000.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What if the skeptics are right? In that case, a generation of the brightest scientists (the ones able to buck the majority and stick to their guns) will have been picked on, suppressed, ridiculed, marginalized, and discredited while the weaker scientists were promoted. In that case, "survival of the fittest" will have been turned upside down. There is a cost to being wrong, scientifically, politically and environmentally. Why the latter? If we're spending time and money on faulty science that could be spent on other concerns, we've lost.

As for the environment in here, there have been contemptuous comments directed at the skeptics here and towards the sciencists as a whole. And if you read my posts above (the bios about five leading skeptics), you'll see that they've faced that kind of thing x1,000.
I really don't want this to become personal, on any level.

The preponderance of evidence (IMHO) indicates that the skeptics are not right.
Who is to say that the skeptical scientists are any brighter than the non-skeptical ones?

This issue too heavily politicized to be discussed amicably.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

What if the sceptics are right?

You can re-word that to say "What if 97% of climate change scientists are wrong?" and you'll have a more accurate statement.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/4/048002

Note that the figures for that are derived from analysis of multiple peer-reviewed articles on climate change. It's not an opinion poll.

It's worth taking a meta approach to this topic so as to not get needlessly bogged down in the details.

The 97% figure is pretty solid. Scientific consensus is a thing. If the issue was as close-cut as some want to think, the figure would not be remotely near the high 90's.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by danlongman »

As I mentioned above most critics of the current climate change predictions
are only repeating what they read and clearly have not done any fact checking.
Most could benefit from reading up on well known errors of logic as well.
Confirmation bias and political affiliation play a big role here. The current
majority climate change thinking has been generally accepted since the early '90's.
In most climatology discussion it has been accepted as a given for more than a
generation.
The current controversy was launched by various powerful forces in the Fossil
Fuel Industry and conservative groups on the American political "right" over
the last twenty years or so.

This disinformation campaign has been running as the various vested interests
are attempting to sow FUD in a public that has become increasingly aware of
the issues. These are the same people who fought the long rearguard action
for the tobacco industry and they are old hands at disinformation. They have
tossed virtually every conservative fear into the discussion and stirred the
pot literally. It hits home with the target population which is the conservative
Republicans in the United States. This is the only large or important group
of people on the planet who collectively deny climate change is an issue.
It is no coincidence that this group is the one which benefits the most from
the current status quo. They won't let go of anything without a fight.

The group of scientist's pictures put up is a virtual rogue's gallery of the
best known contrarians. There is absolutely nothing impartial about the way
the blurbs describe these folks. Their more questionable ideas are not
mentioned although to use them is an ad hominum argument I guess. Anybody
interested should do some research on each of them. Some are possessed of
interesting if controversial ideas. Others are more than a little wacky.
Most of these individuals have accepted funding or directly worked for conservative
"think tanks" like the Cato Institute or the Heartland Institute. It is a matter
of record. When other scientists pointed these things out the contrarians launched their silly
"George Soros" world wide campaign to suborn all the world's climate scientists.

Political opinion is not science. Here is some interesting reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by anarchyintheuk »

ORIGINAL: danlongman

They have tossed virtually every conservative fear into the discussion and stirred the
pot literally. It hits home with the target population which is the conservative
Republicans in the United States. This is the only large or important group
of people on the planet who collectively deny climate change is an issue.
It is no coincidence that this group is the one which benefits the most from
the current status quo. They won't let go of anything without a fight.

Change conservative/republican to liberal/democrat, deny to agree, and status quo to change and it reads pretty much the same. It's interesting how the phrasing of an argument can change a mind. You've managed to move a climate change believer closer to CR's viewpoint.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by MakeeLearn »

Project Steve

What if you are a scientist who is on both lists

In higher level biology classes, Sledgehammer -Prof. Sledge would let us call him that- would come in one day and give premises and conclusions that proved that evolution was beyond a doubt true. Next day he would come in and give premises and conclusions that proved that evolution was ridiculous.

His belief could be summed up in... that Evolution is the process not the cause of human life.






User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Canoerebel »

My opinions on climate change originated in the 1980s and have been mostly self-derived. By and large, they do not arise from my political views nor am I parroting what I've heard others say. For better, for worse, I'm largely responsible for my thoughts.

If you read the bios of the five skeptics I posted above, you'll note that at least one of them contends that the "adherents are in the high 90s" is a fallacy. I personally don't know, but there's at least one educated person out there who doesn't believe that statistic. But Copernicus was once in a 3% (or less) minority.

"Peer-reviewed" would be pretty suspect if the 97% (or whatever the number is) proved to be wrong. "Hey, I'm in the 97% percent and my peers of that same 97% agree with me! Surprise!"
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

My opinions on climate change originated in the 1980s and have been mostly self-derived.

Not to sound crass, but that's now nearly 40 years ago. Things have changed since then, it might be worth re-examining your opinions in light with scientific advances.
If you read the bios of the five skeptics I posted above, you'll note that at least one of them contends that the "adherents are in the high 90s" is a fallacy. I personally don't know, but there's at least one educated person out there who doesn't believe that statistic. But Copernicus was once in a 3% (or less) minority.

The scientific community has progressed quite a long way since the time of Copernicus.

Science is theory based. Shaviv rejects the notion of the 97%. From a quick Google, he hasn't actually provided a theory as to why that's the case. His Wikipedia page quotes him in an interview saying:

"A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say."

This is interesting for two reasons:
1. He previously believed in climate change.
2. He makes a point of highlighting the media as a role as opposed to science.

The second point is interesting to me, as if there was sufficent scientific evidence then I would have thought that he'd have identified that as a reason.

However, I think he knows the response for himself. His name is on this 2012 paper - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7711007411

The relevant section from the abstract: "However, we also find that the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources"

Irrespective of his personal views, he is evidently happy to attach his academic credibility to a paper making the above statement. That, to me, is something worth thinking about.

For yourself, CR, I'd strongly recommend taking just a little time to properly evaluate where you're getting your information from. You've taken that bio from a website regarding someone who alleges that the climate change consensus is a fallacy. However, that same individual is a named author of a paper suggesting the exact opposite.

Don't cut corners with where you get your info from, you're just making yourself open to those who happily exploit your gullibility.
"Peer-reviewed" would be pretty suspect if the 97% (or whatever the number is) proved to be wrong. "Hey, I'm in the 97% percent and my peers of that same 97% agree with me! Surprise!"

That's not how genuine peer-review works. The academic community isn't hugely bothered what you're trying to prove, so long as you go about it in a logical manner, and what you say is supported by the evidence.

Even if you're of the opinion that it's assisting in the so-called "groupthink" within the academic community, it is needed. There needs to be some consensus on topics within science. The medical professions are foremost, but all fields need them.


User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Canoerebel »

I said my views originated in the '80s (late '80s, so more like 30 years). I did not say they didn't develop further in the ensuing 30+ years. The most signficant period has been since 2000.

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by Canoerebel »

"....your gullibility..."

"....don't cut corners..."

"....take time to properly evaluate where you get your information from...."

Comments like those, added to those made by others today and yesterday, make my point. There is a lack of respect for those who disagree. That lack borders, at times, on contemptuousness.

I've contributed to this conversation probably more than anyone, and it really hasn't been a good one. I apologize for igniting or helping ignite a divisive topic.


"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

"....your gullibility..."

"....don't cut corners..."

"....take time to properly evaluate where you get your information from...."

Comments like those, added to those made by others today and yesterday, make my point. There is a lack of respect for those who disagree. That lack borders, at times, on contemptuousness.

I've contributed to this conversation probably more than anyone, and it really hasn't been a good one. I apologize for igniting or helping ignite a divisive topic.



Sorry, for clarification I was speaking in a general sense, not referring to you in particular. As stated beforehand, I don't go for personal attacks here. I'm an evidence guy.

Nor is there a lack of respect, and any contemptuousness that comes across is unintended, and duly apologised for.

Regarding the evidence: I will, however, say that I find it odd that you focus on the implied personal slights rather than the critique of Shaviv. You've referred to him as an example case against anthropogenic climate change. That appears to not be the case.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by danlongman »

If that is all it took to move your opinion then you did
not move in response to scientific analysis but on your
emotional reaction to my remarks on this issue.

This pretty much illustrates what I was saying. There is
only one identifiable group of people on this planet who
do not accept the current prognosis. They are about 1/4
or perhaps 1/3 of Americans. Many conservatives also accept
the science.

This is very clearly a Dunning Kruger situation heavily affected
by confirmation bias.
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
joliverlay
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:12 am

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by joliverlay »

As an editorial board member of a scientific journal, I would say that peer review is far from perfect. There have been plenty of problems in all fields of science with publication of data that could not be reproduced or was simply wrong. Peer review does not equate with proven. Its the best we have, but a better indicator of scientific truth is the ability to predict future events accurately. Observation (experiment) trumps theory (and peer review).

What I would like to see is a plot of the CO2 concentration in the air (which I'm told we have good data for from ice cores for example) and global temperature, which we think we have good data for. If a model is correct there will be a general correlation over large time frames, not just over some brief time period of interest. And if the model is any good, for temperature, sea levels, etc. it will accurately predict future events in upcoming years.

My understanding is current models do not explain warming in the first half of the century and overestimate warming in the last ten years by a good margin. If that's not correct please link the models. As soon as the models can predict future occurrences with good accuracy, and be validated, they will be more widely accepted.

I've been doing scientific research for more then 30 years. I don't believe the 97% number either. I'd say there are a lot more skeptical scientists than you think or the 3% number. Most of the folks I work with are skeptical of more things than they are sure of. The mark of a good scientist is that they are skeptical. In science nothing is ever exempt for critical discussion. We should encourage the critics, not mock them.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by danlongman »

We have many students of military history here. Let us imagine
a discussion between three gamers who each saw a movie about the
IJN attack on Pearl Harbor in the middle of WW2.

Each of them really enjoyed the movie he watched since none had
read a serious book about the events portrayed.

The movies they saw were all different.
One gamer watched "From Here To Eternity".
The second one watched "Tora! Tora! Tora!"
The third guy saw the Michael Bay masterpiece.

They would have some trouble coming to any valid consensus about
what happened in Hawaii that day. The second watcher would know
that there was no sex involved. The other two would disagree.

Cheers
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

As an editorial board member of a scientific journal...edit for brevity...I don't believe the 97% number either.


The paper where that figure originates from is linked above. Judge for yourself.


We should encourage the critics, not mock them.

Agreed, but giving the sceptic camp equal or in some cases more attention in the decision-making process is dangerous. Some criticisms are more valid than others.
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by danlongman »

ORIGINAL: joliverlay
We should encourage the critics, not mock them.

I agree - with the caveat that we encourage the adequately informed critics.
Nobody wants these events to happen and the person or team of persons who
could shoot the idea down or even make it a little less terrible would be
a hero to me and the rest of humanity. There would be no end to the acclaim.

Now joliverlay as an editor of a journal which seems to be covering a different
science you must know just how complex climate and weather are and how little
the public understands them. For many years when I wrote forecasts we used
language and phrasing aimed no higher than a sixth grade level and found less
than 10% of people had a comprehensive understanding of the TV weather broadcast
meant. [Cue hilarious remark about how weather forecasts are always wrong.]
Our forecast accuracy depending on how granular you wanted to get was about 75%.
"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

Post by MakeeLearn »

Climate change...


When I see turtles moving on the roads I know there is a high chance of rain






Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”