BroCop

As you may have noticed, GTA IV's natural system for spawning police cars and officers is a little bugged. Primarily, it doesn't mix the two types (Skinny cops and Fat cops for peds, and the Vapid Cruiser and Merit Patrol for cars) it just goes all in with them. For many, this is annoying (to say the least) and kinda immersion breaking when 15 fat clones are all having heart attacks while Niko goes on a rampage. Some have tried to alleviate this problem by replacing fat cops with female officers, but the fact that you can't get a mixture has always bugged me. Here's an example: 

How do we fix this?

Well, frankly, we can't, or at least not in the sense of getting the game to choose both models equally. But what we can do is simply stop the game from picking fat, unrealistic cops when deciding what officers should be spawned. It is also worth mentioning you can pick any police model, and also replace the officers in Alderney (or have state troopers spawn anywhere.) The best part? This takes about 15 seconds and only requires notepad.


1. Officers  
Go to 
Grand Theft Auto IVCommonData and open up pedgrp.dat

Press ctrl+f and search "# POPCYCLE_GROUP_COPS" or simply keep scrolling until you see it.
It more than likely looks like this:

# POPCYCLE_GROUP_COPS (M_Y_Cop_Traffic removed. Was the one in NJ)
M_Y_Cop, M_M_Fatcop M_Y_Strooper 

M_Y_Cop = Skinny LCPD officers. Almost all mods mod this.
M_M_Fatcop = The two fat LCPD officers
M_Y_Strooper = The State Trooper Model
M_Y_Cop_Traffic = The blue shirted LCPD Traffic model

The game reads this as specific instructions. The first column is the first model that can spawn in all districts except Alderney. The second slot can also spawn there (but they will not spawn together). The final slot is the officer model that will only spawn in Alderney.

If it isn't apparent, you can simply change 'm_m_fatcop' to 'm_y_cop', and the game will always choose m_y_cop in Liberty City. You can change any of the 3 slots to any law enforcement model. I have m_y_cop spawning in all 3 districts.

BUGS:
This is a rare bug, but sometimes the game will freak out and pick all of the in game models flagged as police officers for checkpoints. The most obvious place this happens is the NOOSE/LCPD Station in northern Algonquin. This only happens to the models who stand around holding M4's, not the cops who stand around talking. 
  2. Vehicles

This is the same principal; tricking the game into only choosing one model.

Open up cargrp.dat and scroll to # POPCYCLE_GROUP_COPS. The first two models on the list are the ones that spawn in traffic. NOOSE and SWAT Vehicles are handled on their own, so sorry, but you can't change that. If you change "police, police2" to "police, police, police2" then police2 will not show up in traffic. This is useful for those who cannot use the TBOGT and TLAD vehicle mod, or simply need another slot for a non-patrol vehicle.

Kept you waiting, huh?
LSPD version will be up as soon as the handsome individual known as @BroCop makes some sexy screens :)
Also, sneak peek:
 

Oh come on yard, give the people a sexier picture!

(Sauce)
 

Oh come on yard, give the people a sexier picture!

(Sauce)
 

This is the fifth part of our LSPDFR 0.3 preview series.  For more information about the background behind 0.3, check out the previous installments here: http://www.lcpdfr.com/forums/forum/880-news-updates/
While we've already added an amazing amount of cool new features to 0.3, an update to LSPDFR, or even LCPDFR, wouldn't truly be an update without some further refinement of the pursuit system.  It is, in many ways, one of the largest and most important parts of the modification and with 0.3, we've been taking the time to make a number of small but noticeable improvements.  From more cautious cops to more daring suspects, we think you'll really enjoy pursuits in 0.3.
And in a refreshing change - I think for this update, we'll let the pictures do the talking...




Allow me to quickly note as well.  No, we don't have a release date for 0.3.  Releasing a new version of LSPDFR is actually quite the mammoth of a task - one that you can't simply put a date on.  We're putting out these previews as it is something that the majority of our fans asked for, and it gives us a great opportunity to get feedback on the modification as we develop it.  
Will your game be rocking LSPDFR 0.3 soon?  Absolutely, but we're not quite ready to define exactly when that will be.

Are you still usin g the mooses? we upgraded to the 2008 beavers.

I'm Canadian, my local pd gives out free maple syrup.

My local police department is the Los Angeles Police Department (L.A.P.D)
The L.A.P.D. have a long history of police corruption and police brutality with ownership to the 1991 Rodney King beating and plenty of other charges of police brutality and misconduct! The L.A.P.D. also used to have a history of ties with the local Los Angeles area crime mafias back in the early 1900's. :D

Okay then

Here's the issue with speaking your mind: It doesn't work so well if what you think is stupid and/or wrong. Here's the issue with blaming political correctness for everything: There actually are things that are simply a) offensive and b) completely and totally wrong. Trump says a lot of those things, and then says that because they're offensive he shouldn't be criticized for saying them. Offensive things can be false. Trump says a lot of false offensive things.
Basically, Trump is a perfect example of "better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

You're thinking of this like the Supreme Court just made gay marriage legal themselves. The Supreme Court cannot make laws; they make rulings concerning the Constitution.
This case was brought up because a couple in one state wanted their marriage recognized in another state (and that state denied their marriage existed because of their own state laws concerning the matter). Once that happened, it became a Federal case and was brought up through the appeals courts.
What the Supreme Court ruled is that the current laws regarding bans on gay marriage in the states are UNCONSTITUTIONAL due to the 14th Amendment (specifically the clause in Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.").
No state can deny the legal status of a US citizen as recognized by the Federal government (and, in some cases, the government of another state), including marriage (since marriage is a legal contract). Therefore: the bans on gay marriage are illegal. This effectively requires all states to recognize gay marriage. This is what the Supreme Court is made to do, so that we can have concrete precedents to interpret the Constitution. Without these rulings, subsequent generations of legislatures in both the states and the federal government could warp the Constitution's meaning to further their own goals, with little regard for the spirit of the law.
So, effectively, the United States Congress - in its power to pass amendments to the Constitution which both STATES and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT must abide - as well as every US state - who all ratified the amendment by 1959 - made it illegal to ban same-sex marriage in 1868 (When it was ratified by at least 3/4 of the states). The Supreme Court just made a ruling that declared that as fact (which is why the Supreme Court exists).
Hopefully this will shed some light on the subject, and you can understand it better. The United States Constitution and the Federal Branches that it set up were inherently confusing and meant to balance each other out. The Supreme Court has tons of power when a specific case is brought to it, but it can't do anything else otherwise. That, and the US Congress could, theoretically, pass an amendment that invalidates anything that the Supreme Court says (though that is very unlikely in this case, since most states would probably not ratify it). Regardless of what anyone says, the Legislative Branch (the US Congress) has WAY MORE POWER than any other branch - they just won't admit it (because they like to draw attention away from how dysfunctional they usually are). They like to blame the President and the Supreme Court for "overstepping their power" - when it is in fact their own job to limit it.
The way I see it: the more a Congressperson talks about how the President or the Supreme Court are eroding our freedoms, the more I know that they really, really suck at their job.

Ya'll might enjoy this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

I think banning US Civil War games is clearly a knee-jerk reaction. However, pretending the battle flag of the grandest act of treason ever committed against the United States, which was done specifically to maintain slavery, and was then used by white supremacists, KKK members and anti-civil rights activities for the last hundred years doesn't carry just a little bit of negative history to some Americans is stupid. The only real government based banning I've heard kicked around is the idea that states shouldn't be flying the flag on public property. 

Also, to those of you that have heard the Lost Cause narrative and truly believe that the war was about States Rights, and not a single right (the one to slavery) please check your history. I could drop some articles discussing how the south trampled on the rights of other states, both those entering the Union and those north of the 38th parallel (look no further than the fugitive slave act). Maybe instead you would like verified historians discussing the issue. However, whenever possible, we should ask people who were there what their opinions are. From this comment:

Well, it was about "states' rights". It's just that the "right" in question was the one to keep humans as property.

From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession, the first state to secede:
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

From Mississippi, the second state to secede:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ...

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England."

Alabama's 1861 Constitution has a whole section about slavery, reproduced here:
"Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.
Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.
Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.
Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.
Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave."

The way most people claim "states' rights were the cause of the civil war" is as an alternative to the "slavery was the cause of the civil war" explanation. This is entirely incorrect. However, I think that it can be accurate, so long as the "states' right" in question is the right to have a legal system that treats humans as property. After all, that is what many of the people involved said.

Yes, division and dissention within the union occurred for other reasons. The economic split -agrarian south vs. industrializing north- was a real and persistent internal division that put real centrifugal force on the union. So was the changing cultural character of various states due to non-uniform levels of immigration, and political battles over financial, legislative, and judicial priorities. Regardless, many of the seceding states themselves identified their own positions with the institution of slavery. I have yet to see a plausible reason why they would do so falsely. It wouldn't give them domestic or international popularity, and wouldn't serve to 'paper-over' an uglier reason. The most parsimonious reason why they identified their political causes with slavery is because that's what their real political cause was.

Eh, I'm not 'looking for a reason to bitch' regarding our law enforcement officers dressing like soldiers. I think camo is pretty far down the list on important things regarding militarization, but I feel like it is a little weird when the only visual difference between some police officers and http://shatteredunion1.webs.com/ACU_Soldier2.jpg is the patch on their arm or back.

Obviously tactics and how a department uses equipment are going to be the deciding factor here, regardless of what the officers are wearing.  Still, if nothing else, choosing to dress like cops (solid dark colors) instead of the national guard is a pretty easy step to take to help people not feel like their police department is pretending to be the Army. After all, most of the camo choices don't even make sense. Why would woodland MARPAT be a good choice for St. Louis? Or UCP for southern California? Especially considering both of those examples the police were very publicly responding to a then-peaceful crowd, not a gunman who they needed to hide from. What's the problem with encouraging departments to dress like cops and not soldiers?

Seems to me people are blowing this waaaay out of proportion. Obama is simply banning the practice of the federal government giving certain weapons and tools to police for free. These guys can (and will) still buy ridiculous things, and the federal government is still handing out plenty of other equipment that is a little more useful. Things that we aren't going to be federally subsidizing anymore:

"Grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or higher will no longer be provided to state and local police agencies by the federal government under Obama's order."

Things that are not on that list?
Body armor, black fatigues, helmets, NV Goggles, M4 and M16 rifles, MRAP Wheeled armored trucks, HUMVEE's, smoke grenades and any number of things that have a valid law enforcement purpose. 

Now, department will have to justify getting the city or county to buy thier bayonets, M113 armored personal carriers, .50 cal machine guns and the like. The people of those communities might find that body/dash cams are a slightly better thing to be spending all that money on. In other words, Obama pushed militarization debates to more local governments in the communities where the debates should be happening. 

Regardless of whether you personally aren't bothered by local cops putting on MARPAT and driving around in MRAP's to respond to whatever bum-county sheriff's office decides warrants the use of the cool tools, it bothers a lot of Americans. And not just whiny California liberals, but people like retired Marine Colonel Pete Martino. Obama is trying to strike a balance between officer safety and the concerns of American citizens, who are a little bugged by the fact that this is an American street, not a Russian one. That this is the equipment that can be fielded by local police departments who don't have the money to buy body or dash cams, tools that benefit cops and the people they serve. Or maybe those federal dollars could get regular bullet proof vests to patrol officers. How many Level IIIA vests is an MRAP worth? How about the yearly maintenance cost of a HUMVEE? If we traded in 10,000 bayonets, how many new cars and uniforms could we buy the Detroit police?

Again, any police department can still buy an M113. They can still get bayonets (of which the Feds have given more than 10,000 of. WTF?) They can still by Army or Marine camo and play dress-up if they want to. They just have to get the local government to pay for the up front cost of a few of the extravagant tools, instead of the Federal government covering the cost of a tiny county in Oklahoma buying a platoon's worth of former USMC gear.

I'm going to through my 2 cents in for OpenIV, just in general more user friendly and powerful.

I'm going to through my 2 cents in for OpenIV, just in general more user friendly and powerful.

To quote rational wiki, here is the Explain Like I'm Five on how climate change works. For those that doubt Climate Change, please read the quoted text below. 
 
  Anyone who doubts that list needs to present evidence refuting 97% of published papers last year saying otherwise. Prove the data wrong. Give a different reason for this. And understand you need a lot of evidence to give a better theory, given that you will be claiming the ability to disprove something that almost every single climate scientist has agreed is factual. Please, someone provide me with a theory on why greenhouse gases and the global average temperature are increasing that points that finger at something other than the 9.7 billion metric tonnes per year of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. 
 
Now, to respond to previous comments. 
 
 
No there wasn't. And the earth was known to be round since the days of the Greek Empire. 
 
 
No, that's incorrect.
 
 
Here's one of likely thousands of predictions that are spot on. You can provide a few times people got ahead of themselves and predicting things would be worse 30 years in the future. Show me internationally backed predictions that CO2 would stop increasing, or that the ocean would cool, or the the temperature would stop rising, or that ice would stop melting (guess you get that one, IPCC believed that it would take longer for the ice to melt!) or the permafrost would stop defrosting, or the ocean levels would stop rising. All of these things were predicted, and as time went on, almost perfectly. There's the predictions. Yes, there have been failed ones, but those are almost always people who over-estimate the results of something specifically to fear-monger or try to spur action. Show me hard data predictions that are or were wrong any time in the last 20 years that were support by international organizations or a large number of national ones.
 
 
*sigh* The Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it is a tabloid. They exist to print shocking headlines. E! is probably a more reliable source of unbiased information on a controversial opinion, which is really saying something.. Even if they were a real newspaper with Journalistic integrity, their story is wrong. Show us better information from scientific bodies, or at least well sourced articles in actual media organizations. 
 
They do know what they are talking about. Also, may I point out that the use of the word belief is telling of the argument. If I believe that chemo therapy is a placebo, despite the decrease in cancer deaths attributed to its invention, that makes me wrong, not the holder of a valid scientific theory. 
 
We do have a solution! Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's really that simple. Of course, that would cost a lot of people who own coal, natural gas, shale and oil businesses a lot of money, since high tech solar, wind and geothermal tends to cost more money to deploy and is being done by other companies. Draw your own conclusions on why one of the most simplistic scientific concepts is still 'debated' in the media even though everyone with an understanding of how climates work stopped 'debating' it because they were drowning under overwhelming evidence decades ago. 
 
 
Yeah, you're probably right! You're not a poor child living in a disadvantage country that will face harsh problems in the next 50 years from climate change. You'll probably be dead before the temperature increases start really impacted the lives of the wealthiest nations. You'll probably be dead before crops fail from rising temperatures. You'll probably be dead before fresh water resources begin to disappear. You'll probably be dead before El Nino/La Nina like weather is the norm. Just like most bridges probably won't fall down in your life, so we should spend the money on something else and let our children deal with that problem. "Polluting water probably won't impact us" said generations of Ohioans before the Cuyahoga River caught fire. And you know what? They were right. The people who died weren't the people who polluted the river in the first place. 

The mindset that many climate change deniers take of "It isn't our problem today" is one of the most personally frustrating statements I hear. Are we seriously going to sit around and say "If it won't kill us today, there is no reason to do anything to stop it." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children? "Haha, sucks to be you! Bet you wish someone did something 30 years ago!" That mindset is disgusting to me and is the easist way for humanity to ignore its problems until it is too late. Image if we used the same logic for other problems? Bridges will collapse in the future. Antibiotic resistant bacteria will be a problem in the future. Economic inequality will be a problem in the future. Therefor, let the future deal with it then. 
 
 

Oh gosh, FEMA Camps. God I love that theory. Right up there with chemtrails. 

Anyway, I think the most obvious answer to this is "It depends". A hypothetical 'civil war' scenario is has to be defined before we decide who's side anyone is on. If say, an armed uprising in Utah akin to the Bundy 'taxes are optional also guess what we know about the negro' cropped up with a couple thousand people this time, it's safe to say the police are going to be on the side putting that down.
 
If widespread economic downturn and social collapse (which, despite what survivalists on youtube would like you to believe, would take a little more time to happen then it took me to type that and is incredibly unlikely) then the question really comes down to how safe the cops and soldiers feel, how secure in their paycheck and the safty of their families, and just how bad these massive sweeping changes are. If this downturn made a bunch of poor people riot, but most cops and soldiers had a paycheck and didn't feel worried about their families, then they would most likely fight to maintain order.

So what scenario's are we talking about qualifying as "American people were to rise up against it's government's tyranny"? Is it a bunch of farmers in Iowa deciding they would rather die then let the damn dirty feds tell insurance companies that being raped isn't something that should disqualify someone from ever getting health insurance? Or is this a situation where America is what Alex Jones thinks it is? How widespread is the discontent? Is it 1% of Americans fighting? 10%? Are Major cities fighting? Is there organized leadership? Is it powered by a Christian theocracy movement? Is it inclusive of minorities? Does it involve major states like New York, California and the urban area's of Texas? Is the same situation all across the globe?

Oh gosh, FEMA Camps. God I love that theory. Right up there with chemtrails. 

Anyway, I think the most obvious answer to this is "It depends". A hypothetical 'civil war' scenario is has to be defined before we decide who's side anyone is on. If say, an armed uprising in Utah akin to the Bundy 'taxes are optional also guess what we know about the negro' cropped up with a couple thousand people this time, it's safe to say the police are going to be on the side putting that down.
 
If widespread economic downturn and social collapse (which, despite what survivalists on youtube would like you to believe, would take a little more time to happen then it took me to type that and is incredibly unlikely) then the question really comes down to how safe the cops and soldiers feel, how secure in their paycheck and the safty of their families, and just how bad these massive sweeping changes are. If this downturn made a bunch of poor people riot, but most cops and soldiers had a paycheck and didn't feel worried about their families, then they would most likely fight to maintain order.

So what scenario's are we talking about qualifying as "American people were to rise up against it's government's tyranny"? Is it a bunch of farmers in Iowa deciding they would rather die then let the damn dirty feds tell insurance companies that being raped isn't something that should disqualify someone from ever getting health insurance? Or is this a situation where America is what Alex Jones thinks it is? How widespread is the discontent? Is it 1% of Americans fighting? 10%? Are Major cities fighting? Is there organized leadership? Is it powered by a Christian theocracy movement? Is it inclusive of minorities? Does it involve major states like New York, California and the urban area's of Texas? Is the same situation all across the globe?

Oh gosh, FEMA Camps. God I love that theory. Right up there with chemtrails. 

Anyway, I think the most obvious answer to this is "It depends". A hypothetical 'civil war' scenario is has to be defined before we decide who's side anyone is on. If say, an armed uprising in Utah akin to the Bundy 'taxes are optional also guess what we know about the negro' cropped up with a couple thousand people this time, it's safe to say the police are going to be on the side putting that down.
 
If widespread economic downturn and social collapse (which, despite what survivalists on youtube would like you to believe, would take a little more time to happen then it took me to type that and is incredibly unlikely) then the question really comes down to how safe the cops and soldiers feel, how secure in their paycheck and the safty of their families, and just how bad these massive sweeping changes are. If this downturn made a bunch of poor people riot, but most cops and soldiers had a paycheck and didn't feel worried about their families, then they would most likely fight to maintain order.

So what scenario's are we talking about qualifying as "American people were to rise up against it's government's tyranny"? Is it a bunch of farmers in Iowa deciding they would rather die then let the damn dirty feds tell insurance companies that being raped isn't something that should disqualify someone from ever getting health insurance? Or is this a situation where America is what Alex Jones thinks it is? How widespread is the discontent? Is it 1% of Americans fighting? 10%? Are Major cities fighting? Is there organized leadership? Is it powered by a Christian theocracy movement? Is it inclusive of minorities? Does it involve major states like New York, California and the urban area's of Texas? Is the same situation all across the globe?

That's funny man, you made my day.

I love how several people have jumped on the "I'm not against immigration but it annoys me that they come over here and sponge off benefits".
So surely then you should also be annoyed by the large number of people in the UK who are claiming benefits for no reason, having too many kids that they can't control just for the government income and then those kids end up being raised very badly, turn to crime and other negative activities and eventually end up just like their parents, complaining that it was all the immigrant's fault.
 
People always bitch that they steal our jobs. If every hard working indian person quit their job now as taxi drivers, delivery truck drivers, factory workers. All the low wage paying, long hour jobs, I bet not a single benefit claiming white UK citizen would get up off the benefits and take that job. Instead they would say "I don't want that job" despite the fact they have no education to get a better paying one.
 
And lastly, a lot of our population from different ethnic backgrounds are rightful UK citizens. A lot of them born here just like you. And don't put the immigrants down either, they want to become a UK citizen they have to take a test with questions that I'm certain the majority of the UK wouldn't actually know the answers to, so who deserves to be a citizen really?
 
My point being, don't isolate those who come from a different ethnic background and perceive them to be bad people just because of what you see on the news.
 
 

To quote rational wiki, here is the Explain Like I'm Five on how climate change works. For those that doubt Climate Change, please read the quoted text below. 
 
  Anyone who doubts that list needs to present evidence refuting 97% of published papers last year saying otherwise. Prove the data wrong. Give a different reason for this. And understand you need a lot of evidence to give a better theory, given that you will be claiming the ability to disprove something that almost every single climate scientist has agreed is factual. Please, someone provide me with a theory on why greenhouse gases and the global average temperature are increasing that points that finger at something other than the 9.7 billion metric tonnes per year of carbon we pump into the atmosphere. 
 
Now, to respond to previous comments. 
 
 
No there wasn't. And the earth was known to be round since the days of the Greek Empire. 
 
 
No, that's incorrect.
 
 
Here's one of likely thousands of predictions that are spot on. You can provide a few times people got ahead of themselves and predicting things would be worse 30 years in the future. Show me internationally backed predictions that CO2 would stop increasing, or that the ocean would cool, or the the temperature would stop rising, or that ice would stop melting (guess you get that one, IPCC believed that it would take longer for the ice to melt!) or the permafrost would stop defrosting, or the ocean levels would stop rising. All of these things were predicted, and as time went on, almost perfectly. There's the predictions. Yes, there have been failed ones, but those are almost always people who over-estimate the results of something specifically to fear-monger or try to spur action. Show me hard data predictions that are or were wrong any time in the last 20 years that were support by international organizations or a large number of national ones.
 
 
*sigh* The Daily Mail is not a newspaper, it is a tabloid. They exist to print shocking headlines. E! is probably a more reliable source of unbiased information on a controversial opinion, which is really saying something.. Even if they were a real newspaper with Journalistic integrity, their story is wrong. Show us better information from scientific bodies, or at least well sourced articles in actual media organizations. 
 
They do know what they are talking about. Also, may I point out that the use of the word belief is telling of the argument. If I believe that chemo therapy is a placebo, despite the decrease in cancer deaths attributed to its invention, that makes me wrong, not the holder of a valid scientific theory. 
 
We do have a solution! Stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It's really that simple. Of course, that would cost a lot of people who own coal, natural gas, shale and oil businesses a lot of money, since high tech solar, wind and geothermal tends to cost more money to deploy and is being done by other companies. Draw your own conclusions on why one of the most simplistic scientific concepts is still 'debated' in the media even though everyone with an understanding of how climates work stopped 'debating' it because they were drowning under overwhelming evidence decades ago. 
 
 
Yeah, you're probably right! You're not a poor child living in a disadvantage country that will face harsh problems in the next 50 years from climate change. You'll probably be dead before the temperature increases start really impacted the lives of the wealthiest nations. You'll probably be dead before crops fail from rising temperatures. You'll probably be dead before fresh water resources begin to disappear. You'll probably be dead before El Nino/La Nina like weather is the norm. Just like most bridges probably won't fall down in your life, so we should spend the money on something else and let our children deal with that problem. "Polluting water probably won't impact us" said generations of Ohioans before the Cuyahoga River caught fire. And you know what? They were right. The people who died weren't the people who polluted the river in the first place. 

The mindset that many climate change deniers take of "It isn't our problem today" is one of the most personally frustrating statements I hear. Are we seriously going to sit around and say "If it won't kill us today, there is no reason to do anything to stop it." Is that the legacy we want to leave our children? "Haha, sucks to be you! Bet you wish someone did something 30 years ago!" That mindset is disgusting to me and is the easist way for humanity to ignore its problems until it is too late. Image if we used the same logic for other problems? Bridges will collapse in the future. Antibiotic resistant bacteria will be a problem in the future. Economic inequality will be a problem in the future. Therefor, let the future deal with it then. 
 
 

The article is a little vague on the meaning, which has led to some confusion. It is NOT saying that, if global warming is not reversed, coastal cities could flood by the year 2000. It is saying that if CO2 emissions are not curved enough to slow or stop the current rate of global warming by the year 2000, that it would cause enough run-away problems in the future to eventually flood many islands and coastal cities. That prediction is often misreported, particularly by those who are interested in discrediting climate change. Here is an article covering sea level rising. It is openly discussed there that the rate of rising is slow, but will be a serious problem if it doesn't stop. 
 
They have one of the largest consensuses in modern science backing it up.  Understand that Climate Change is a debate pretty much solely because the media says it is. A fine debate is what we should do to prevent further warming (which causes change, hence the name) but a fine debate is NOT if it is happening or not. That has been settled. Now unless you want to propose that you understand physics, brain surgery, rocket science or advanced computer science better than hundreds of PHD holders and every major scientific institution that has cared to comment on their respective subjects, don't try to say that you understand climates better than 97% of scientists. 

I apologize if that second paragraph's tone came off a little too hostile.

Also, to the argument that antarctica is gaining ice (used a few comments ago) I will simple quote from Skeptical Science,
tl;dr: There's two kinds of ice, fresh and salt. The salt ice melts every summertime in the southern hemisphere and refreezes every winter. The fresh ice is really important and doesn't really melt much normally. It is melting a lot. It makes it easier for seawater to freeze during the cold months in Antarctica, because less salinated water can freeze quicker than pure ocean water. Because of this, there is a greater change in what freezes and what doesn't freeze every year, and more freshwater is being added to the ocean. This is a problem.