Look... I really appreciate that you seem to be a critical mind and form your own opinions, but if you believe that, you've really fallen for propaganda.

Of course ANY thing we do has an influence on our environment. And of course wind energy has its own problems too. But the ecological footprint of wind energy is fly's shit compared to for instance opencast mining of lignite, fracking or (long term) nuclear power.
It's like saying "Let's create a few hundred square miles of wasteland, so that no bird is killed by rotors".

Also only the most stupid birds would be killed by those plants, in Germany birds of prey used to often use them as lookouts no problems. The modern plants are way to high, most birds don't go up that far. Birds are able to fly through trees which are moved by the winds - you don't believe they are hindered by some comparatively slow moving huge rotors which are seen for miles, do you?
We should not expand on this any more - it's pretty off-topic. But if you really write your own compilers, maybe consider applying in Europe (if you are free enough to move). There are lot of smaller companies (without dedicated HR - meaning IT lead will talk to you) who may seek people like you. And while you won't get rich in the first year, some have a cosy, family-like atmosphere.

He's right.
Turbines are an ecological nightmare.

Stop being so ignorant and realize our best option for a clean safe future is Nuclear Power!

Obviously the only truly renewable, downside-free form of energy available to us is dogs.

We used to have dogs used for power generation, they were called Turnspit dogs. We just need to get back to selectively breeding our dogs for this purpose until they've been bred to be capable of turning large turbines and producing energy. This is obviously the future of renewable energy and no one is even scratching the surface of the required research.

The fact remains that since may the 30th this year, the EU has the new regulation package for emissions within the scope of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Namely, the reformed regulation on the sectors subjected to the emisions commerce as well as the two new regulations for the rest of the sectors (the difussed ones), namely R(EU) 2018/841 and 2018/842. And her government was instrumental, along with the rest, to support the Commision in order to achieve that. Which was the point.

Naturally, but this proposal that these new green energy sources come without cost is crazy. How often do we open up new coal mines in comparison? My state in particular is a coal mining state: Pennsylvania. We don't normally open new mines. Overall, the hope of creating a new source of energy is ideal: the "energy crisis" has always been a looming topic and is a realistic one. We need to get away from fossil fuels, or at least figure out a way to make fossil fuels renewable, otherwise we'll just run out of fuel. Nuclear energy is, more or less, just pushing that particular issue further down the line, though there seems to be projects promising "re-enrichment," but i haven't really found any evidence that that is truly renewable.

The big picture is to understand that no source of energy that we have now comes without huge environmental costs. The US in particular usually doen't even have private power providers (Pennelec for my state gets energy from multiple sources, and people pay certain providers, but it's all one big happy family in the end). Ideally you want to find a new source altogether, but for now we have some reliable sources of energy, but we can't tap into them, but people who have no problems with it have no problems taking our place. US won't drill for oil in the gulf, but is that stopping anyone else? Can't drill in Anwar? Let's frack instead, since that's allowed. Some of these regulations are only making the problem worse.

EDIT: I'm curious if we were to find a way to "make fossil fuels," and what it would ultimately cost outside of CO2. I've heard some interesting ideas regarding genetically modified bacteria soaking up carbon in air filters. I think it wouldn't have the density required, but it certainly would come at a much lower overall environmental cost, most likely.

Actually the EU had offered to increase the commintment for the year 2020 if other nations making a similar weight took the same step (that is, looking at the US, China, you see the picture). Sadly, nobody took the hint and we stayed with the 20/20/20 bindings. Now we are regulating with the Paris Agreement in mind, even if most of the goals were already in place for 2030 and 2050.

The interesting thing is, are the countries who signed the PA for 2º C going to take the recent hint from the IPCC? (that we really ought to keep it at 1.5º C).

Concerning the hands-on colonoscopy thing you mention, I really do not know. But hey, it is a free land and who are we to critizise others' hobbies? :-)

Donkey Power!

That's a really cute pic :-)

Eeyore

He's outside right now playing in the snow.

Because we cannot peek into the parallel universe where they didn't removed it, it remains riddle for the ages! But AFAIG (As Far As I Guess), the differences in sales and reception would be too small to matter.
And of course, there is Late Game Climate Simulator mod for CIV 5, so if it is possible, somebody will make it for CIV 6 too (never played it, can not tell if possible). Incidentally, I didn't play even CIV 5 for years, so I might be wrong, but global warming was missing in the vanilla too.

You are right, my bad. Correction: "Trying to avoid potential controversy..."
Also the reason I don't thing that it's OK making everything political. As I remember my childhood on the "red" side of Iron Curtain, it's not much fun really.

If another layer (or seventeen) of disclaimers would appease self-appointed moralisators to the point that they left the game inside intact, I would support it vigorously.
And Europa Barbarorum, excellent total-mod for Rome:Total War, did it. The whole EULA is only one sentence urging the user read more history (I don't remember the exact wording).

----
Edit- the whole text somehow doubled itself. Deleting duplicity.
Weird.

I hope he's not as gloomy as his namesake ;-)

Asking politics to stay out of anything is like asking the fox to stay away from the chickens. If the nature of politics is to decide the best way for someone to control someone's life, nothing is safe from politics. Here's a sample, but it's much deeper. Not even porn is safe! Nope, not even "normal" stuff. Think we can have a nice little athletic game? Not a chance. Even Taylor Swift, who avoided politics for years, was pushed into it (rumor has it she has been bullied into it, but rumors are just that). Nothing is ever really enough for certain people, either. I really don't think we need to go looking for links as examples to that.

<raises hand>

How many thousand pages is that? Can you point to the exact pages where the effects are listed in detail, rather than me trying to find the needle from the proverbial haystack?

I've mainly read the articles made by "concerned journalists" after the release of that IPCC report, but somehow they've been similarly vague about WHAT is supposed to going to happen. Here is one example:

https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000005865672.html (sorry, in Finnish)

It implies about the end of the world, but doesn't explain it more. It says there was a heavy rain in Mallorca where a couple of tourists died in the floods: that was the end of the world? Or only part of it? Yet, it admits that "ok maybe the flood was not directly a consequence of the climate change... but such things could be more common due to climate change.". Again, just some vague hand waving.

That article also has a list of "ten things climate change and global warming will mean to Finland", which are:

1. Winters will be warmer, less snow in winters. (ummm, ok, makes sense... some might consider that positive)
2. Stronger winds, more rains, summers might be drier.
3. Longer growing season for plants (wait, isn't that actually a positive thing...?)
4. More pests (ok, makes sense I guess, they survive better in warm. I guess there are no locusts in North Pole, whee).
5. Warmer summers (no shit Sherlock? Yet, some alarmists claim climate change would mean a new ice age instead?)
6. Indoor air problems, like more mold in apartments etc., due to increased humidity in warmer summers I presume. I guess one needs to keep windows open in warmer summers so that the air circulates.
7. Climate refugees invading the Europe (ok I admit, that is bad, but then I feel economy is the main reason for the "refugees").
8. More ticks (I guess they like warm, this is related to point #4 above).
9. Winters will be darker and more depressive due to lack of snow (oh come one, that starts to be nitpicking, grasping at straws).
10. Fauna will be different (umm ok, makes sense, birds who like cold will move more to north, and new kinds of animals will arrive here.)

None of that sounds like some kind of apocalypse. If the "catastrophic" effects are something else, why do these alarmist journalist articles list bullshit irrelevant things like these?

So, are we already half-way to the end of the world then? Why don't I see practically any signs of apocalypse yet compared to decades ago when I was a child? Shouldn't half of that apocalypse be here already?

Ok, and that is important... why exactly? I don't eat coral, so I think I, and my grand-grand-children, can survive without. There is no coral around here anyway, yet we are doing fine.

Why does it feel to me that out of all possible signs of incoming apocalypse, you picked probably the most irrelevant example? Who gives a shit about coral? Give something that really gives me the creeps, like that climate change will make the dinosaurs emerge and stomp all over the humankind.

Please, could you just list the top five threats from climate change? I'll list two that I remember reading somewhere:

1. There might not be enough food (crops etc.) for the growing humankind. But... isn't there the real problem the growth of the humankind, rather than the crops? Why are the climate change alarmist so indifferent about the growth of the humankind, as if it doesn't matter? Why aren't they demanding more forced birth control to areas with high population growth, like Africa, Middle-East and Asia? The more people there are on the planet, the more we consume and pollute, yes?

2. The sea levels will rise. First of all, since we are supposed to be halfway to the apocalypse already, shouldn't this be a problem already now? How much has the sea level risen, and have the big cities been flooded by sea? At least here the sea has been retracting instead, as the ground still keeps rising, recovering from the earlier ice age where two kilometers thick ice kept pressing the ground down. They e.g. say that the Baltic Sea will become a lake at some point of time due to the rising land, as the Baltic Sea will lose its contact with the Atlantic Ocean, between Denmark and Sweden.

Moreover, is it really an apocalypse if the sea keeps rising? People will need to move more towards inland over time, so what? Isn't it just good news for Mother Earth that this vermin known as humans (humen? hymen?) will have less land to pollute?

I'll have to check your later links, whether they have some concrete signs of incoming apocalypse, or whether they are just more of empty hand waving.

That's the point - ideas are not equivalent. And you can't take A from start, because it is derivative from B. Which I have written in the first comment!