Genava55

I never said that but I don't judge science or scientific theories according to political opinions and I try to put emotions aside.

The fact that the current climate change is caused by humans is also supported by Earth Sciences. I mean, CO2 is known for a long time as an important driver of Earth's climate: (this is geologist Richard Alley invited at the National Academy of Sciences (US) for a presentation)

I don't see where is the paid propaganda and I have a Master degree in Earth Sciences (I like history but I am actually not a historian formally).

Could you elaborate a little? Did you forget the role of tides? I mean there is a station a few kilometers from Carbis Bay and it is recording a sea level rise: Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01490419.2015.1121175

We are not exactly on the worst case scenario but it is still a bad outcome if we continue like this:

Shooting the messenger is a tempting fallacy, but most of the impact from an individual comes from its daily transportation, the energy-source for heating its home and what the individual eats regularly. Not taking a flight time-to-time nor using a computer.

The IPCC will release this Monday a new report from its Working Group I (the group working on the physical science review), so I think this should be a good opportunity to open a new thread and to talk about it (and about climate change more generally). A few articles about the new report and the IPCC: 234 scientists read 14,000+ research papers to write the upcoming IPCC climate report – here’s what you need to know and why it’s a big deal https://theconversation.com/234-scientists-read-14-000-research-papers-to-write-the-upcoming-ipcc-climate-report-heres-what-you-need-to-know-and-why-its-a-big-deal-165587 Climate explained: how the IPCC reaches scientific consensus on climate change https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-the-ipcc-reaches-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-162600 Isn't there a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about global warming? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming + https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ About the IPCC itself: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations. The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. Working Groups and Task Force The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force. Working Group I deals with The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, Working Group II with Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III with Mitigation of Climate Change. The main objective of the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Alongside the Working Groups and the Task Force, other Task Groups may be established by the Panel for a set time period to consider a specific topic or question. One example is the decision at the 47th Session of the IPCC in Paris in March 2018 to establish a Task Group to improve gender balance and address gender-related issues within the IPCC. Where to find the previous reports? Here: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ If I can suggest you a good start, I recommend the first chapter of the Third Assessment Report (2007) - The Physical Science Basis (Working Group 1), it deals about the history of climate science and the discovery of the current issue (aka global warming): https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/ Direct link to the PDF of the chapter: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf ----- A good introduction on the topic:

Originally, it seems the Iberians were designed to represent all the tribes from the Iberian peninsula. This is why Viriathus is a playable hero of the Iberians. Here an interview from a pioneer of 0AD who sadly passed away: https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/

It is your own decision to flee I gave you an article about a genetic study on 90 individuals, from which 44 are pre-ptolemaic. You made the following unintelligent reply: So your assumed knowledge is simply fact-proof, blindness and bad faith. You even said you read it several times. Please leave the forum, this thread was excellent before your arrival and your BS.

You made the following bold claim: I gave you this: You replied this: and this: Simply from those replies, I know you are a fanatical and lying person. You haven't read nor tried to understand the study. You cannot handle contradiction nor listen to opposite arguments. Remove your posts and leave, we absolutely don't care. We are talking about facts, not about imaginary tales you are making up in your mind.

Full genome sequence is not the same thing than genome wide sequencing. In archeology, full genome sequencing is very rare. However, genome wide sequencing is common now. The difference is that with genome wide sequencing you take various markers at various positions of the genome. I don't see this as an issue, this is far enough for a comparison study. Abusir el-Meleq is a great choice I think. It wasn't a unconnected and remote location in Egypt. It had ties with religious and political powers. I don't think the sample is not representative of the average Egyptian, although they are maybe missing local input from foreign population like it could have been in the South or in the North-East. True, they put all the 44 Pre-Ptolemaic samples in the same group and New Kingdom is only a small part. Good point. Because you are clever and not following ideologies. Listening to the claims of some Black nationalists/supremacists, I have the feelings they believe Egypt was mostly black (aka Sub-Saharan) until very recently. Which is at least contradicted by this study. I entirely agree. This labeling is pure ideology. Ancient Egypt is an African civilization that's all. Even if they weren't as dark of skin as modern subsaharan, they weren't white. And they were dark skinned Egyptians as they were also light skinned Egyptians as well since Egypt is a culture, not a race.

You are really unconvincing. Are you sure you want to continue this shameful exhibition of your ignorance and fanaticism?

Still the article says explicitly that Post-Roman Egypt got more gene flows from Sub-Saharan populations and that New Kingdom Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt were less close to the genome of Sub-Saharan populations than Post-Roman Egypt.

Read the article.

All the best @av93

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Thx a lot!

How is it going ? Just wondering if you succeeded.

I replied there.

For any Principate or Dominate factions that could come in the future, it could be considered. Because it is grounded by historical evidences. However, if we want to portray each civ in a multi-ethnic fashion, it wouldn't be grounded by historical evidences. And this is similar to the gender neutral for the whole roster suggestion. No evidences and purely cosmetic.

That the Earth isn't flat is a fact, not an opinion. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right like you said. Another example, a gender biased society during ancient times and across multiple civilizations is a fact. Your opinion about it can be wrong or right in regards to this fact. Portraying differently the society in 0AD is a choice. Your opinion cannot be right or wrong in regards to a fact. It is easy to critizise when you are not trying to formulate a criterion yourself. You are simply saying the game has inaccuracies and you follow by asking for further inaccuracies. This is a logical loop and there is no criterion in your formulation to bound it. When I gave you nonsense examples like what if the Romans had black powder, it sounded illogical to you. But at no point you were able to formulate a criterion to explain why it sounds illogical. That's the issue with your reasoning and your whole demonstration trying to say there is no absolute rule we follow. Your reasoning and arguments are a pandora's box by itself because you can apply it to any suggestions.

People thinking they are moral zealots. You actually proved this is your motivation by implying there is a wrong and a right opinion. In Switzerland we vote regularly and about numerous things (like laws) and we are used to see the majority not following our own personal view. That's all.

White knights too. Rofl. This is so dumb I won't reply.

Accept it yes. I am Swiss, I am used to live in a real democracy. Support it no. But you can come back for this day, if you happen to be still around in a few years.