The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/quiz-global-warming.html?source=sem_G2300c&kwid=ContentNetwork|3302942117&gclid=CLvOvejwvJoCFQENDQodwHAMaw (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/quiz-global-warming.html?source=sem_G2300c&kwid=ContentNetwork|3302942117&gclid=CLvOvejwvJoCFQENDQodwHAMaw)

Just thought I'd share this. It's a National Geographic global warming quiz. I got 42 percent, so clearly I learned something about global warming from the quiz.

Blah, I scored 50%, could got at least 3 more answers correct but the game was obviously cheating :P But IMHO global warming is crap anyway, except if used for a post-apocalyptic setting/novel or something. I think that they all are exaggerating the possible consequences and effects on our beloved "mother earth". And considering that at least one world war is bound to happen in this century (most likely nuclear), I think that we wont even get the chance to study the full effects of global warming cause we'll be to much preoccupied with studying the nuclear winter :P

Watch a video called How It All Ends on Youtube and its expansion pack.

Global Warming will not really hurt our mother Earth. It will hurt us, our way of life. Global Warming is accelerating a climate change that is bound to happen, but would otherwise happen millions (billions?) of years from now. Now it will likely happen in our lifetimes. Major changes would include a lack of food, which will likely cause the greatest war in history (WWIII), and might even destroy the human race.

Global Warming is irrelevant in a debate about upcoming supers-scale or nuclear war(s). The food/water shortage would happen even if we would use more green/clean tech and what not due to advances in medicine and uncontrolled birth rate in certain countries. The bio diesel ain't helping either: sure it's clean, but you need to convert large amounts of fertile land used for growing food to grow plants required for the "green gas". And that means less food and less water. The solar panel fields and air powered generators all require much more space than, for example, conventional thermocentral which means we'll be cutting rain forests with ever growing frequency or seize some parts of the ocean thus disturbing the local biosphere ...and the list goes on...

 Although the rise of the ocean water levels/several degrees Celsius would surely have a strong impact on our climate and ecosystems, most people forget some very important things:

1 Mineral and oil deposits underneath Arctic become exploitable if the North Pole is reduced to vapor = war over resources
2 Arctic becomes passable and much more accessibly for trade via ships/takers etc = more money
3 If Antarctica becomes temperate it means more free land and resource to exploit; definitely will lead to another war involving USA-China-India-Russia and possibly other players such as Brazil = war over unclaimed land
4 Most humans don't give a crap if they can make some money out of something and will exploit anything until it's bled dry; most of us are to blind an lazy to realize what are the real possible consequences, or simply just don't care = true

So you see, we're doomed anyway, global warming or not  ;)

Tnx for the vid.

Sadly I think you might be right: we are doomed to destroying ourselves because of our own technology. But I don't think it's healthy to think that such a doomsday scenario will happen. Let's just hope we don't destroy ourselves.

BTW, you forgot about increased amount of natural disasters, which would mean more death, more homelessness, etc.

A bit too busy to get into a proper debaet at the moment, but a few points. Lack of resources doesn't necessarily lead to a super-scale global war. It isn't impossible for the superpowers to agree to spheres of influence and use conventional/semi conventional means to get access to the energy they need. As long as most of those with nukes stake out different areas, Fallout can be avoided. It's also worth mentioning that as living standards rise, birth rate decreases. If we can hold out until/if technology (or whatever) wipes out most of poverty, the population may well start decreasing. There are quite  alot of European countries with that "problem" already. And it's only going to get worse.

Global warming on the other hand, can potentially limit the area we use drastically and unlike potential wars, we can't move away from the brink through just negotiation and good will.

Well stated. :)

Well, those are only temporary solutions until we have the real deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO). Just like hybrid/diesel cars are merely a step towards fuel cell cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity) (or perhaps electric cars combined with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_network), if "Better Place" manages to pull it off).

83%. Missed the animal impact and the human cost questions

Some of these questions are kind of trivial, some are penetrating. None controversial, so far as I can tell. The kinds of questions that informed ardents and skeptics could get right for the most part.

58% on the test...

Although global warming is pretty much indisputable with the mounting scientific evidence, some scientists say the earth is heading for another cyclic ice age of which we are well under way. Some scientists believe global warming will dramatically alter the temperature of oceanic currents and accelerate a global ice age due to melting ice in the arctic and antartic.

If the gulf stream collapses and freezes my country, I'm blaming all you guys.

Why blame us? Milutin Milankovic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87) already foresaw most of that, and gave exact mathematical equations to further predicate his theory, so you are doomed anyway  ;)