| Szerző |
Téma: Must be a first.... |
46 válasz
|
|
|
|
#31 Elküldve: 2020. február 6. 18:54:46
|
Idézet
|
Too picky mate. You cutoff the important part... 'F1 management' not F1 racing.
"We aim for excellence in producing an online F1 manager game, which provides an attractive simulation of F1 management.... "
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 10:17:06
|
Idézet
|
The keyword here being F1
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 11:56:09
|
Idézet
|
Nope, the keywords are "attractive simulation", not "accurate simulation"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 18:54:47
|
Idézet
|
If anyone finds an F1 simulation that accurately models climate change I'd guess some climate scientists might be interested in that.
[A man stands behind a lectern at the UN Climate Change Conference, behind him a large screen displays a dark blue image scattered with text and a few graphics]
"Ahem"
"Thank you, ladies and gentleman. I'll get straight to the point" *casts hand in direction of the blue screen*
"The numbers speak for themselves. On current emission trends by 2100 the Monza race will be cloudy, and 29 to 34C with a 10 to 15% chance of rain in the first period. If.. IF.. the spirit and aims of the Paris Climate Agreement were universally adopted along with the package of measures my colleague described earlier the Monza race would only be 27 to 31C in the first period with 5 to 10% chance of rain, and merely Partially Cloudy!"
"The difference in Interlagos is even more stark..."
[whispering] "ehm, next slide please"
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 19:41:54
|
Idézet
|
Quote ( Roland Postle @ February 7th 2020,18:54:47 ) If anyone finds an F1 simulation that accurately models climate change I'd guess some climate scientists might be interested in that
It reminds me of when Football Manager starting simulating Brexit negotiations and Serbian EU-accession talks in their games. I guess you have to admire the attention to detail!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 19:50:59
|
Idézet
|
Quote ( Thijs Rieken @ February 7th 2020,11:56:09 ) Nope, the keywords are "attractive s(T)imulation", not "accurate simulation"
That will be surely better if done by the Grid Girls :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 22:39:13
|
Idézet
|
Quote ( Roland Postle @ February 7th 2020,18:54:47 ) If anyone finds an F1 simulation that accurately models climate change I'd guess some climate scientists might be interested in that.
No, they won't. For accurate climate models they will blindfold themselves and stick fingers in their ears...
Not saying we shouldn't care about the environment and such, but CO2 being the culprit is just laughable. I bet they had rather taken O2 but that would be even more unbelieveable.
We humans are to earth like ants are to us... But the ant doesn't think let's help that giant over there cause he's clearly wrong. The ant just carries on whatever it is doing. Humans think they can command and form the giant to their likeling...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 23:03:02
|
Idézet
|
10 races and no rain.... must now be a record?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 Elküldve: 2020. február 7. 23:18:25
|
Idézet
|
Previous 2 season also had only 70 and 79 laps of rain. S67 only had 38... S59 28...
And rain on an US Oval... well that would surely make the shit hits the fan in terms of comments ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 Elküldve: 2020. február 8. 00:16:41
|
Idézet
|
I was hoping the next race had mixed weather. Such a random race would've been funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 Elküldve: 2020. február 8. 02:59:10
|
Idézet
|
Quote ( Jay De Snoo @ February 7th 2020,22:39:13 ) Quote ( Roland Postle @ February 7th 2020,18:54:47 )
If anyone finds an F1 simulation that accurately models climate change I'd guess some climate scientists might be interested in that.
No, they won't. For accurate climate models they will blindfold themselves and stick fingers in their ears...
Not saying we shouldn't care about the environment and such, but CO2 being the culprit is just laughable. I bet they had rather taken O2 but that would be even more unbelieveable.
We humans are to earth like ants are to us... But the ant doesn't think let's help that giant over there cause he's clearly wrong. The ant just carries on whatever it is doing. Humans think they can command and form the giant to their likeling...
Sorry, but what on earth (pun not intended) are you on about? Is your point that the giant is so big our actions cannot change it? That might have made total sense to a natural philosopher circa 1780 but there are a lot of non-climate change things us ants have done to the giant as well. Or did all that plastic in the ocean, CFCs in the atmosphere and Radiocarbon come out of nowhere as well?
Why is CO2 "laughable"? Since you're purportedly better informed than the entire scientific, international and academic community who "stick fingers in their ears", would you mind showing us, like, one shred of evidence to suggest that isn't the case?
Have you ever wondered why you never see a doctor at an anti-vax rally, or an astronaut at a flat earth society meeting? Is it not worth considering for a moment that if the entire scientific community (and I mean pretty much entire community) says something, we should maybe go along with it until we get evidence to suggest otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 Elküldve: 2020. február 8. 09:00:27
|
Idézet
|
I might be wrong about this but doesnt the planet Earth need vast amounts of CO2 because all trees /plants etc need it to grow.
Wasnt it quite a few years ago that the scientists at the climate change dept at University of East Anglia said in a leaked document that climate change was a fallacy created by people who wanted to keep in work.
They back tracked on it when the documents came out ,just like David Attenborough did when he found out that he could lose his well paid BBC job as happened to David Bellamy.
People will jump on any band wagon they seem fit to such as.
We in UK have a young lady that went to live with ISIS and wants to come back to UK,the dogooders are saying she should because she was YOUNG and didnt know what she was doing.
Then we have Greta Thunberg also a very young lady and everybody thinks shes old enough to preach about climate change.
People will always have different opinions about things but often money is always in the background somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Jones @ February 8th 2020,09:00:27 ) I might be...
Ok.
1) Plants do photosynthesis and need some CO2 to do so, yes you're totally right. However, CO2 PPM was around 270 in 1700, and around 410 today. Unless we want to plant more trees (like 2x pre-industrial forest cover levels) I think we'll be fine reducing our CO2 output. Also, there's no evidence to suggest that 270 was preventing plant life from growing at the time (and a few trees from 1700 are still around if we need ring records), so there's plenty of wiggle room in how much we can reduce.
2a) Have you read the emails? They talk about difficulties comparing historical data and dislike of certain journals, which seems fairly straightforward to me. Certain phrases out of context might imply them being a bit unprofessional ("delete my emails" and "encourage people not to publish in that journal") but where's the smoking gun? Why didn't hackers find at least one email in 10 years saying "hey, so you know how warming isn't real?" For a department that universally supports a position of "warming is fake", they sure don't talk about that position much.
2b) Leaks happen all the time. Theresa May couldn't stop her Brexit deal for leaking for about four minutes, yet 194 countries and the entire scientific community manage to stop any data getting out beyond one small department in Norwich?
2c) If we believe scientists are inventing problems to get work, why aren't all the other scientific fields catching on? Why don't we have fake natural disasters and viruses and so on? In fact, wouldn't this motivate non-climate scientists to expose the conspiracy to get their funding back?
3) If you think the BBC is the highest paying climate change job, you might be surprised. Oil companies are threatened by CC research just as tobacco companies were by cancer research, and they would probably pay any amount of money to a scientist for evidence that would make it all go away. Or does UEA have a higher PR budget than Shell or BP?
4) Not quite sure what ISIS has to do with anything. In fact, isn't the UK quite split in opinion over her? Doesn't your example show how polarised public opinion can be, rather than how everyone blindly follows the same opinion?
5) Sorry if Greta is a bit young for you, but fortunately she's a charismatic teenager, not our primary source of climate change science. I'm not sure how disliking a supporter of a position discredits that position? I don't like the Westboro baptist church, therefore God doesn't exist? How does that logic work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 Elküldve: 2020. február 8. 12:44:56
|
Idézet
|
Lucas ..If you read what I was saying about the 2 young ladies..
1 is considered too young to know what she was doing but the other is considered that everything she says is true.
Regarding the small dept in Norwich ,at that time it was the doing the leading climate change study in the UK.
I didnt say BBC was highest paying climate change job ,I said a person changed his mind because his friend lost his job because of his stance on climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 Elküldve: 2020. február 8. 13:21:34
|
Idézet
|
Quote ( Michael Jones @ February 8th 2020,09:00:27 ) People will always have different opinions about things but often money is always in the background somewhere.
This is entirely right. And guess where the majority of money sits in the world's industry: in the oil & gas sector. Gosh I wonder who is the most likely to be spreading disinformation. Must be the treehuggers and their weekly 1 pound contribution to WWF.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification Michael.
Ok, I see what you mean about the ages of Shamima and Greta. But I agree with you - Greta isn't a reliable source of climate change news. She's not the source of that news (and doesn't pretend to be) - her role is spreading awareness of work already done by reputable, reliable adults (i.e. the scientific community). You raise an excellent point about the discourse of our media - why we as a society like to take our views from certain individuals - but evidence creates discourse, not the other way around.
Fair, but considering the sheer amount of people involved in climate research isn't it still a bit odd that our only source of a cover up is one leak in 2009? You have to remember that you're suggesting the entire scientific community is complicit, so it feels like more people might be interested (and able) to find such a conspiracy than a group of hackers in Tomsk and one blogger in Saudi Arabia (which is where that particular leak came from).
Maybe he did - but you also said there's "always money in the background", and I'm trying to find out where you think this money is coming from, considering the staggering amount of wealth in the industries that directly oppose it? (Edit: Thanks Jasper!)
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
